The Atlantic Coast Conference announced on Thursday the ACC and ESPN will launch the ACC Network. The network partnership will extend the ACC's existing rights agreement with ESPN to 2036.
"On behalf of the ACC Council of Presidents, Faculty Athletics Representatives and our ACC Television Committee, we are tremendously pleased to further enhance our long-term partnership with ESPN that includes the creation of the ACC Network and ACC Network Extra, and positions the conference for the long-term future," said ACC Commissioner John Swofford in a release. "This partnership continues to be a win-win for ESPN and the ACC. ESPN is the premier provider in sports content and this agreement will deliver unprecedented coverage to our fans, while highlighting our quality student-athletes, coaches and institutions."
BIG DAY for @hokiesports and the @theACC . @espn #gamechanger— Whit Babcock (@WhitBabcock) July 21, 2016
ACCs new grant of rights means if Notre Dame joins football conference before 2036, it has to be ACC— Brett McMurphy (@McMurphyESPN) July 19, 2016
#Hokies AD Whit Babcock says adding production infrastructure could cost #VT $2M-$6M. #ACCKickoff ACCNetwork— David Teel (@DavidTeelatDP) July 21, 2016
The ACC Network Extra, a digital live events channel, will be available in August 2016 on ESPN3 via WatchESPN and the ESPN app. More than 600 exclusive live events are scheduled for the digital launch. The number of ACC events distributed across the platforms will climb to more than 1,300 in 2019 when the linear network debuts.
The linear network will feature 450 exclusive live events. That includes: 40 regular season football games, more than 150 men's and women's basketball games, more than 200 other regular-season contests and tournament games from across the ACC's 27-sponsored sports.
As part of the #ACCNetwork agreement, #ACCMBB will move to 20 league games in 2019, coinciding with the launch of the linear channel.— ACC Men's Basketball (@accmbb) July 21, 2016
Swofford: ACC syndication deal with Raycom continues until ACC Network deal begins in 2019.— Eric Crawford (@ericcrawford) July 21, 2016
ACC clearly all about creating as much high-end inventory as possible with its new network. A logical next step? 9-game league FB schedule.— Patrick Stevens (@D1scourse) July 21, 2016
The ACC Network's broadcast offering will be bolstered by a complement of news and information shows and original programming. ESPN has been televising ACC content since 1979 and has exclusive rights to every conference-controlled football and men's basketball game, women's basketball and conference sports matchups, as well as all ACC championship events.
"We look forward to working with our longtime partners at the ACC to create a network that reflects the depth and quality of its athletes and teams, and serves the fans who passionately support them," ESPN President said John Skipper said in a release. "We are proud and excited to add the ACC Network to our industry-leading college content offerings."
The ACC Network, it's happening.
Comments
9 game confence schedule sounds great. Hopefully increased league payout sounds great. 3-6 million dollar payout from VT to build on campus studio etc is going to be interesting to see with our low donor numbers and amounts.
Whit this morning:
This announcement is brought to you by
Ok ACC, here's the deal:
I don't want to have a half-assed implementation of this, so you'll need to give me three things:
1) Digital access to all ACC football games. This has gotta happen. 9 game conference schedule will help, but I'm just talking about access for cord cutters. Gimmie.
2) ACC schools need to have the highest quality cameras that are available. I don't want to be watching blurry replays ever again. Also, figure out how to stream a 3D version of the game so it can be projected into other stadiums substantially live.
3) One large trough full of oats and carrots.
These are not negotiable.
seconded on point 1. We of the international variety need online streaming capabilities. I realize this is GOACC and ESPN but for phuck sake, give people access to it anywhere they want to be.
I second your second. Does anyone know if this will be available to purchase threw the acc and not espn? I was very excited at the news of an online streaming channel until I saw it was ESPN. It is such a pain in the ass to watch ESPN programming here because they only allow people based in the U.S. (and maybe a few other select countries) to access it, and I am praying for something simple.
Point 1 must also imply that there are no 'blackouts'.
Right now, any time a game is on the ACC Network AND ESPN, I can't watch it on ESPN3, b/c of stupid blackouts.
Bingo. I may be traveling for work somewhere where it is not a featured game, but it is a featured game at my house, so it is blacked out at home, and hence on my watch ESPN3 app, even though I trying to watch in a hotel room in Nashville. Frustrating - and needs to go.
Try getting the Hola extension for chrome or just using https://www.reddit.com/r/CFBStreams/ which always has a great list of streams. I know what you are saying, but there are always ways around things.
I don't know why they bother to put the ACC Network game on ESPN3, because they black it out wherever you can get it over the air, which is the majority of the country, if you look at the syndication affiliate list.
But, the ACC app streams the games.
4. Bill Roth announcing at least 1 game in Lane per season.
I agree, they NEED to provide digital access. More and more people are ditching cable every year. My son will never get to experience cable as it currently exists so the likelihood of him purchasing it in the future is even less. I'm not saying digital streaming is the definite future, I just know the current cable model will not last. The network needs to try and keep up with the times. I feel like VT and the ACC are always a step behind the others. This needs to be done right.
I have been debating cutting the cord for a while. Now that I have moved and have no desire to get involved with Time Warner cable, I think we are going to pass on a cable subscription. Does anyone have recommendations for watching sports without cable? So far, I am planning to buy an xbox live subscription which used to include access to watchESPN. I am also worried about blacked out games, but I guess I should get those on the local channels that I won't have to pay for. Any advice is greatly appreciated.
Get an HD OTA antenna first. That will give you your local channels. Also, Xbox Live no longer includes WatchESPN access. You need a cable subscription login. So you either need to get a friend's or have cable. Consider getting something like a Chromecast, Roku, or Amazon Fire TV product. You can install apps for your networks to watch their online shows when they are available while also using Netflix and Hulu. Many of those things you can do on Xbox too, but I don't believe Xbox has access to the network apps. Not certain on that though.
Yup. I tried this for a bit with HD OTA antenna and Amazon Fire TV and it's ok. You'll still have to pay for a Hulu subscription (cheap tho) to watch most of your shows unless you still do that live, but some channels aren't supported on there. As for the WatchESPN app on Amazon Fire TV (and all others for that matter), it works pretty well but it's only a supplement. I meant that because you have to already pay for a cable/satellite subscription that includes ESPN in your package. The you have to log in to WatchESPN with this information. So it really is only meant to be an additional thing and not a replacement. The only way around that is to use someone else's cable info to log in if you don't want to pay for cable but still use this app, which has obvious reasons against it.
SlingTV. Buy the box, get basic subscription ($15 a month) add sports package ($30 a month) and if you've got to GoT, add HBO ($15 a month). Or, since you already have the xbox, I bet there's a subscription available for espn by now, HBO def is. As for local channels? Get a digital antenna for less than $60 at walmart.
Curious- have you tried SlingTV? I tried it for sevearl months and was really underwhelmed. It was disappointing because I really wanted to like it, but I just couldn't deal with it after awhile. It was fine for watching regular TV shows, but the quality was very subpar for live sports. For whatever reason it would throttle the quality even thought I had bandwidth set to "Best Quality - No limit". I consistently get 75-80 MPBS down when running speed tests but Sling would run at 2-3 MPBS (I live alone so it's definitely not competing for bandwidth on my network). For $20/mo I could kind of deal with that, but then on top of that there were the constant connection and buffering issues. It was rare to watch an entire sporting event without it buffering or completely dropping at least once. The final straw for me was the USA-Argentina Copa America game where it was buffering approximately every 30 seconds, making it completely unwatchable. Going on Twitter, I saw hundreds of tweets rolling in with the same issue (and the typical support response from SlingTV - asking people to check their internet speed). That's when I finally gave up and begrudgingly went back to cable. I hope to be back at some point-- the idea is great, but their infrastructure just doesn't seem to be ready at this point.
Nope ahven't tried it. Plan for when they cease support for the xbox360, which I currently use to stream netflix and HBO. As for sports, FirstRow on the computer.
I have had SlingTV, which I barely ever turned on. I just used the SlingTV login to log into the ESPN app, where I got the usual ESPN app experience. I also experienced incredibly bad lag in the SlingTV app and they only seemed to ever show Ice Road Truckers and Big Bang Theory reruns. The only reason to get SlingTV, in my opinion, is to pay 20$ a month to get ESPN and ESPN2 and watch it via the ESPN app. I might do the sports package this year for an extra ten bucks. I find a total cost of $20-$30 a month to be quite a bit better than paying for the cable packages, which in my area are significantly more (~$70).
Especially when you can add and drop it whenever you want. Pick it up from September to January if all you care about is College Football.
Yup. For about 100$, you can get all ESPN and ESPN2 games all season long as well as some games that are only on ESPN3. ESPNU, Longhorn, SEC, and BigTen are all on the expanded sports package, I think.
Ha, yes, I was using the same workaround, using my SlingTV credentials to login to WatchESPN. I found a 12 month promo for cable/internet that was the same as my internet + SlingTV, but after those 12 months, it will jump so I'll either do battle with their customer service reps about pricing or give SlingTV another spin.
You didn't miss anything.....
PS Vue has ESPN as an option and has access to watchESPN FWIW.
Haven't used it yet, but I'm thinking of signing up come football season.
Buy Roku, download PS Vue (or use a PS 3 or 4)
$30/month, no contract
There are a lot of great channels with very little fluff.
*I think there might be a cloud type DVR service as well*
Also, FYI, CBSsports.com streams their SEC game for free without any sign up every Saturday, which is usually the best SEC game of the weekend, and you can watch any college football game that is broadcast on ABC without signing into a cable provider in the WatchESPN app. In my area, NBC (Notre Dame) is free over the air with an antenna, and in larger metro areas you'll likely get NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox over the air (I don't get the other ones with my antenna).
#hoovesarenotopposable
I agree 100%!!!
What ever happened to free, where the advertiser and sponsors paid the bill for THEIR marketing? The ABC and CBS option surest seems like a good deal for the viewers! ESPN thinks very highly of themselves to require a subscription for their 'service'.
I'm pretty dang certain we're gonna get #GoACC with point one, we'll only get to watch the games not carried on espn, and I expect blackouts to continue. They're too damn stupid to realize that cable is over.
I've never heard of something that 74 percent of US households have as "over".
While it's changing I wouldn't write it off yet.
Why do they have it? Government supported infrastructure and subsidy's to artificially depress price. Streaming is beating it in quality, availability, and price without that help. Private industry always wins in economic battles.
Because when I get throttled, then things cannot run online without lagging and stopping to buffer and dropping video quality.
I wish I could get fiber to the house but, I cannot.
Thus, I must remain on cable TV until such time as infrastructure improves.
It's trending down quickly. While the majority still use it, they are getting fewer new customers, and the younger customer base is moving away from it.
Trending down is great that's why you should be happy the ACC is going to have both a digital platform and cable platform. But any venture that went strictly digitial for live sporting events is a miss. Millielnials watch less sports than other groups, so while there should be a dedicated way for cord cutters to watch the vast vast majority of live sporting events watchers, product buyers and fans will still pay for cable.
I had cable last year because Comcast made it cheaper for me to have cable AND internet when compared to just having internet (of comparable speed). I didn't necessarily want it and the channel selection SUCKED (only got around 50 channels) but I did it to save a couple bucks per month. If you can give me a viable reason having 2 products is cheaper than having 1 OTHER than to suck people into having cable so they can pad their bottom line (read: so they can say 74% of US households have it therefore it's totally not dying) I'll eat my hat.
Its called Behavioral Economics my friends. Its the same thing all the of the dying print publications are doing too. Not that long ago The Economist was running a deal for subscriptions. I am convinced they literally ran it as an experiment to write about in a future edition.
Offer 1:
A) Web subscription: $145 annual
B) Print subscription: $50 annual
In this instance, option A was the runaway favorite
Offer 2:
A) Online subscription: $145
B) Print subscription: $50
C) Online + Print: $150
Option C was the runaway choice.
People literally were willing to pay $5 for an additional feature they had pretty much no interest in. That's just how people make decisions. And as you said, it looks better on the bottom line when trying to lure/set advertising rates.
I hate blackouts!
I like the maroon and orange design logo.
Have we seen numbers yet? How much is VT currently getting and how much will they get under the new deal?
No numbers discussed yet
Well one thing about payouts was discussed and I don't like it. ND will get equal payout from channel profits.
So they get equal payout + their contract with NBC? WTF
Exactly.
A couple good points were made below about ND boosting the overall payout for everyone, so its a win for the everyone to have them. But I'm still jealous they get money from both, and I find it hard to believe they will ever join the ACC in football if it means giving up the NBC contract. Maybe they'd pull something like the longhorn network where they are in a conference but have the ability to negotiate their own TV contract.
While I agree their other sports boost the overall brand they are getting double payments for football, NBC AND ESPN.
They get less per ACC football game than every other member and every other member makes more because of their presence. While the exposure advantages of the NBC contract are significant, the monetary advantages for ND on NBC are negligible. Factor in their increased travel expenses over everyone else (they have to fly everywhere for everything) and it drops further. And their decision to remain independent...basically the flexibility to play 1 or 2 different opponents...effectively limits their access to the CFP.
They get less in the current layout they will get full split share of profits from future TV/ digitial channel.
They get a full share of the ACC Network revenue, but they don't get the same amount of total money from the deal that full ACC members get. David Teel lays it out pretty well.
"Also during that one-on-one, Swofford said that Notre Dame, an ACC member for sports other than football, will receive a full share of ACC Network revenue. The Fighting Irish receive one-fifth of a full share of the conference's guaranteed rights fees from ESPN.
And while the full-share arrangement may frustrate some who want Notre Dame all in, understand that without the Irish's national brand and overall sports excellence, there might well not be an ACC Network. Further, Notre Dame will produce more than its share of ACC Network content."
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-acc-announces-ne...
Correct. That's what I said and I disagree a team that plays at TWO ACC stadiums this year should get a full share of TV revenue.
Wrong way to look at it.
yeah they are making out big time, and we will have to suffer through the inevitable scenario that will be this:
ALL of us: Ok, honey. Goodnight. Yeah, just going to catch a little TV. Night.
(turns on tv, selecting ACC network)
ALL of us: Another fucking Notre Dame show?!
But I'll take it. Why? because with ND in we get TV MONEY!!!!! Without ND in we get NO tv money #allofthesads
Exactly. As usual, fernley gets it. This is why I included the last part of that Teel quote. This deal just isn't nearly as lucrative without Notre Dame. It's not like networks are frothing at the mouth to get that sweet Wake Forest content. You give ND a decent share because they make significantly more money available to all of the schools. ND being involved nets more money for VT. I don't see how that is viewed as a bad thing.
And like Teel pointed out, ND gets a full share of network revenue, but they don't get a full share of all of the money that ACC schools get out of the deal.
.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, they don't.
Currently there is one source of income for the ACC....the media rights deal. ND gets a 1/5 share. So if VT gets 15 million, ND gets $3 million. ND also gets their TV revenue from NBC.
in 2019 there will be two sources of income for the ACC, the media rights deal and the ACCN.
if VT gets 20 million from the TV rights deal, ND gets 4 million...1/5th. If VT gets 5 million from the ACCN, ND also gets 5 million...a full share of that revenue stream. ND still also gets its NBC money.
As long as ND's NBC contract is at least 80% of the base ACC deal, ND will make more money than the other members. But their contract with NBC averages $15 million/year, so it's getting close. Their bump to the rights deal also brought in at least $20 million for everyone else to share.
And they make the network economically viable for ESPN...they are bringing in at least 150% of the carriage $ as all 4 NC schools combined.
There is no scenario where ND gets the same as everyone else in total. But given that most of the ACCN content is NOT football, ND will be providing at least its share of the ACCN content and WAY more than its share of the viewership/income.
Step 1 Steal underpants
Step 2 ...
Step 3 Profit!
via GIPHY
I'm excited for the chance to watch more than a handful of Hokie Wrestling matches online.
"Performs moderately" is probably about the most fitting #goacc description ever.
can we please adopt that as the official ACC slogan?
SEC: It just means more.
B1G: Honoring Legends. Building Leaders.
PAC12: Conference of Champions
ACC: Performs Moderately
AHAHAHAH this is incredible, thank you
Don't forget Big12: One true champion
#JustACCeptable.
haha, laughed so hard I got stares in my cubicle
Does the ACC even have a slogan??
ACC: We love our noon kickoffs
So ESPN president John Skipper basically told reporters ESPN and ACC will try and keep financial information as vague and hard to get as possible. Seems like a weird way to do this.
The fact they won't release makes it EXTREMELY skeptical of the deal. It feels like a "we didn't get as much money as other conferences but we don't want that public"
This is awesome. Can't wait to watch "Bucky Rogers in the 25th Century".
I'm a huge SciFi fan.
Today is a great example of why I keep cable. Went to watch Fuente interview on ESPN3 and get "unable to play video, check back later" error message. No it's a live event I want to watch it now.
Terms will be key. How many non-Saturday games has the acc agreed to? What are the blackout rules? What are the penalty clauses to ensure 2019?
ACC Network Extra....did they even try to pitch a 2nd name?
ACNE. They literally made us a zit on ESPNs ass.
So I just manage to turn on the ACC media days and the interview with Coach Fu and the feed goes dead. WTF??
BUT DIGITIAL IS THE FUTURE !!!
They need to scrap the "Bring Your A Game" campaign.
ACC Network Extra - You Better Bring Your Bandwidth
Yep, I experienced the same. Frustrating.
#ACCeptNothingButTheLeast
I'd caution anyone hoping for an a la carte model for television. May very well end up paying more for less. We may see more carriers go the way of Sling and offer condensed streaming packages, which I would expect would be great quality, but still won't be a "choose your six pack" type of thing. I expect DirectTV or Dish or whoever to offer similiar packages as they do now, but just over an internet connection instead of hardwire. Once the technology is up to speed, I don't see the model really changing. The medium might change, but the model itself won't.
Just a related note for cord-cutters.... I recently switched to the Playstation Vue mid-tier package in conjunction with Roku and man... it's proving to be wayyyyyy better than Sling (tried and cancelled). Even E$PN (not through the WatchE$PN app, although the login from PSVue works) as live TV comes across pretty sweet. Been with them about 30 days and plan on keeping it for now. I'm on DSL (only internet available) and it streams pretty darn well at under 3 mb/s.
I hope it's spelled out in the contract that there will be equitable coverage for all schools and events. Would hate to tune in to see the same schools getting all the coverage or seeing Notre Dame or UNC getting all football and basketball coverage while others only get limited coverage of non-revenue events.
I thought nbc has exclusive notre dame football rights until the 2089 season?
You have the numbers backwards there.
9802?... Sounds about right.
Who gives a rip about watching ND, anyway?
For games played in South Bend, yes, NBC has the contract on lock down.
For games containing Notre Dame but being played elsewhere, the home team's TV deal gets the game
Which is why I find it beyond understanding why ND gets a full cut from this ACC channel deal. Other ACC teams don't get a cut from NBC in years they go to ND.
Can't say for sure, but I'd think ND will produce plenty of revenue for the ACC regardless. Just speculation, but they'll probably carry their weight.
Wake Forest is the team I don't think will generate enough to deserve a full cut.
My issue is they get full cut even though they have a whole other deal for home games. When Tech goes to South Bend this year they won't get any revenue for it.
The sounds right, but we'll get our cut of an ACC TV deal when ND goes to NCSt and Syracuse this year. Having a few ND games per year on the ACC TV contract does pay dividends, no? I'd rather have them boost our TV deal a little instead of not at all.
ND has far and away the largest fan base that will be watching the network and access to ND sports will drive up carriage deals for the linear channel everywhere. And because of ND, the Chicago market (and all of Indiana) is in the ACC "footprint"...so approaching 5 million households
Meanwhile 14 ACC programs get bump in the basic network deal because of ND and ND gets only a 5th of a share.
I understand people being upset with the aloof attitude of their fanbase, but financially, there is no downside to the arrangement.
The potential downside is that this could turn into a recruiting juggernaut for those schools getting the lion share of the coverage.