Really good article on how they are losing thousands of subscribers daily, and how their business model is setup to fail in the not to distant future.
One of the reasons I was an advocate for ACC having its own stand alone digital channel.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
I'd be interested to see ESPN's subscriber loss rate vs. the rate of cord cutting. I doubt that it's as simple as people just cutting ESPN.
Yeah I was going to say this. I'd imagine people that some are cord cutting and don't care about ESPN, while others are cord cutting and finding others ways to watch ESPN. I don't follow it much because cord cutting isn't an option for me (my ISP takes me to the woodshed every month and caps my data at 300gb), but I feel like their loss rate isn't just because people don't want to watch ESPN.
Also they do a horrendous job of covering any team not named Alabama, USC, Michigan, and Ohio State. You can get a much better picture of, and insight into, other teams with sites like the key play or 24/7 which don't paint with such broad strokes. Most people don't follow 50 teams.
Well, you can't just cut ESPN... it's bundled with all of Disney/ABC. That being said, the reason this matters so much more for ESPN is because they chose to pay exorbitant amounts of money for the rights to live sports and rely heavily on subscriber revenue.
They charge too much to the cable companies. Recently, they've become too political too. I wanna watch sports...
They talked about this in the article. Basically Chanel's like FS1 are losing 1 million when people leave since they only cost 1 to the consumer mean while ESPN is losing hundreds of thousands when people leave because they are losing more subscribers AND they cost $8 a subscriber.
I remember the good ole days when I was in elementary and middle school (not too, too long ago) when they would play nothing but game highlights on Sportscenter for a solid hour. I loved it. Now I turn on Sportscenter and it's stupid talking heads with 1 or 2 highlights thrown in every 20 minutes. I can't stand to watch it and haven't turned on ESPN to watch anything but a live game in well over a year.
This. Summers in Middle School started with Sportscenter. I would know what happened in every baseball game the night before because they showed highlights. That was great. Now you're lucky to get two plays from a game. The incessant need to break down everything that happens on and off the field is useless. If I could just sit and watch an anchor with a good personality deliver solid highlights for an hour that would be great.
YES. I had all the highlights from all the major college and pro sports and I LOVED it. Like seriously that was my favorite show back in the day.
I give LOLUVA making a bowl game before that ever happens. So basically it's not happening.
I remember those days, except back then they called it Jr. High and we didn't have cable (or even color TV in elementary school). My kids find that pretty amazing (a 13" black and white TV? Really!?!). MTV was good in high school - they only played videos back then.
I graduated VT engineering school with only one computer class (although I was young enough to miss the punch card phase of computing) The year after I started at Tech all incoming freshmen engineers were required to have their own computer. These were the size of a briefcase with about a 6" screen on one end that only showed text in an orange color.
Fast forward 30 years and my daughter is at Tech with a laptop the size of a pad of paper.
Wow, did I go OT, anyway, I agree that ESPN is only for watching live sports - the other stuff is not entertaining. Well, it might be entertaining, but it isn't interesting.
Stop with the talk show BS on SportsCenter and show highlights. I don't need to hear retired athletes thoughts on the best in the game right now and what makes them good.
The big thing that ESPN needs to do is offer their coverage through streaming devices WITHOUT subscription through a provider. A monthly subscription of $20 (or whatever the cost) would be extremely successful. HBO is doing that now.
The problem with ESPN is that the fees they charge to the cable companies, who in turn charge it down to us, are absurdly high. Even if they went to a subscription rate, they would still have to lower their prices to bring in customers
From what I gather from the article, ESPN's contracts with the cable providers specifically prevent them from doing the non-subscription streaming. It basically 'justifies' their high cost to the cable provider.
They already do this with Sling TV. $20/month for streaming access to like 30 channels, ESPN included. add $5/month for the Sports Extra package for SECN and the like. Can add Fox and NBC too. I've had friends do so with pretty good results on the regular package + the Sports Extra package (most friends are in SEC country).
It's still bundled. They specifically can't be offered as a stand alone subscription service.
...but it's still $20/month, as mentioned in the comment above lol.
If you're willing to pay $20/month for ESPN, why not just buy the bundle for $20/month?
ESPN's contract cannot unbundle itself because it violates the current contracts that they have signed that validates the extreme cost to provide the channel.
With Sling or PlayStation Vue you either are buying a package with it already tied in or paying more a month to add it to the bundle. You cannot just buy ESPN separately.
ESPN cannot go solo, because the major sports leagues could do it themselves. NFL, NBA, etc. would just be spending money to do something they could perform themselves.
It's all clearly written out in the article.
Your point is contractual. You would prefer to see ESPN separate themselves out from the Cable contracts so they can offer individual coverage.
His is economics. He is saying you still get what you want for the price you proposed plus you get the other items as well.
I prefer the ACC to have its own self-owned streaming network (Not the ACC Digital Network that exists currently separate of the ESPN deal), because all profits would go back to the ACC (See WWE Network as proof of concept). This would allow the ACC to get ahead of the curve like the BIG did over a decade ago by creating their network, and hopefully help the conference bring in more money then the SEC, BIG, Texas, since they would not be paying a middleman in ESPN.
I could careless about ESPN. My point of the post above is that ESPN cannot go solo, and even if it did most sports leagues could just cut them out as middlemen and deliver the content themselves.
Yes and his point is that it costs the same $20 in the bundle with sling
The problem with Sling is that, at least here in the NRV, the service is no bueno. We tried it out but the buffering every 30 seconds or so was driving us crazy. Was better when played through the Xbox rather than the Chromecast, but still not great. Could be our internet, but paying another $30-40 a month to upgrade our internet to the next tier kind of defeats the purpose of trying to cut costs.
Don't use the SlingTV app to watch ESPN, then, just download the ESPN app and watch through that. Your SlingTV login information can be used to log into the ESPN app, and you'll get regular quality watchESPN. I had the same problem, so I stopped using SlingTV. I'm not sure if it was SlingTV being bad or Comcast throttling my connection. I'm always suspicious of Comcast.
How is everyone's experience with Sling? Is it similar to other WatchESPN apps in that they are delayed by 30 seconds or so and lose connection every so often but overall pretty good?
yes
I like Sling, especially for the money. I only have two concerns:
You have to watch on your mobile devices unless you can cast it to your TV. In my case, I have Chromecast and when I cast to my Vizio it is spotty at times. Flawless on mobile devices though.
For some reason when I turn on WatchESPN with my Vizio and the game comes back from a commercial break, my TV volume starts to die down slowly until muted. I have to recast to get the volume back. Very annoying. That is unless the commentators are idiots and I just keep it muted.
Roku can be your friend!
What do you mean you have to watch on mobile devices? You can't stream to a PC?
PC, mobile devices, and streaming boxes like Roku are all delivery methods for SlingTV
Your problem is your streaming over wifi which is fucking up your picture and audio. If you can hardline a roku to your TV your issue will be resolved.
Worst case scenario is you get a roku stick. Chromecast has you streaming into your device (phone computer whatever) and then sends the stream out to your tv. You essentially are streaming it twice killing your band with and picture. The stick would only eat up half the bandwidth.
I have all 3 and chromecast is by far the worst method.
You might be able to hook your laptop directly to your TV. I can hook mine up via HDMI or VGA cable. If I use the VGA cable then I have to either use the laptop's built in speakers or another set of speakers hooked up to the laptop, so I usually go with the HDMI cord. HDMI cords aren't too expensive online (I got a two pack for about $5) and cheap ones won't have poorer quality like you may experience with coaxial cables.
I was planning to cord cut and go to sling when we moved about a month ago, but our only internet options are Comcast or Century Link's DSL. We had Century Link a couple years ago and weren't satisfied with the connection speed/quality and it would end up being more expensive to drop to just Internet and add Sling through Comcast than keeping the basic package that we switched to (and I think we would have to go to slower Internet as well). If I want to watch something that isn't in our package, it only takes about 30 seconds to walk to my parents house.
The scary part of their numbers dropping right now is that it's during football season. I would imagine they could face a bigger drop come January/February.
Maybe they should realize they don't need 6 hours a day dedicated to the NLF, combined with the majority of SC coverage being about the NFL.
My thought exactly. I know quite a few people that pick up cable/sat subscriptions (most have moved over sling now) just for football season. Once the season is over they cancel and then subscribe just before labor day weekend again. Sling has made that really easy as you don't need to schedule installs etc anymore.
All the Hockey fans in the back of the theater be like...
lol yuuuuuuuuuuup
ESPN is the TMZ of sports
Doesnt TMZ have a whole TMZ Sports section?
No idea. I watched enough to get cancer then had to turn it off
Yeah, its called ESPN First Take
Not too surprising, they got too big for their own britches. Bubble had to burst eventually
The problem can be traced back to not running sportscenter for 6 hours in the morning. Those were the good old days. Now I need to filter through all the stations to watch ass-clowns like Skip Bayless give a hot-take on if Odell Beckem Jr is a distraction for pushing a practice net over.
This is the TMZ effect on media. Just give me the sports and the highlights. Save all the gossip.
Their problem is 2 fold...
1 - the moved their best content online, and replaced it with crap on tv like First Take, PTI, and Around the Horn. These argument for the sake of argument shows have turned vast swaths of viewers away from ESPN. Combine that with the fact they sold their souls to promote the NFL, NBA, and SEC about a decade ago, and the average viewer found other places to go.
2 - Their best information went behind a paywall, but was still accessible elsewhere online for free. Ok, great, you have rumors about free agent signings and trade rumors in various leagues. There are entire websites dedicated to that with huge communities where you can still get that information for free (mlbtraderumors for baseball, hfboards and hockeybuzz for hockey, too many places to count for the NFL and NBA) eliminating the demand for the supply they thought they had a stranglehold upon.
At this point, I'm just glad the ACC already got their signed contract from ESPN and locked the network into paying, because that bubble is about to pop, and pop hard. Once it does, and assuming the ACC Network is fully streamable online, don't be surprised if someone like Amazon comes around and buys up the rights once ESPN can't afford to pay anymore.
I agree- It's the same thing happening at ESPN that happened to MTV when they started shying away from all music all the time.
Save all the gossip - and the politics/social commentary.
And I'm sure I'm going to stir up a hornet's nest here with some, but stop trying to equate women's sports with men's sports and trying to convince me I should be watching them. Men predominantly don't care about women's athletics - and frankly neither do women.
If ESPN really thinks so much of women's sports and believes the audience wants it, it should start an ESPNW channel and see what the ratings and ad rates are when unbundled from men's sports.
but...but....this commercial.....
also interesting to note that from this commercial apparently there aren't any unattractive women athletes.....so the NCAA has that going for them.
Well at least you dont have to worry about Skip Bayless anymore since he moved over to FS1 for an ungodly sum of money. (rumored to be $5.5 Mil per year)
I think it's just immoral that Skip would even get paid half of that.
I think they jumped the shark when they started 24/7 Tebow coverage.
"He's a gamer. And a baller. And a shot-caller." Can still hear that horrible song in my head, ugh.
Every time there's a 'why is ESPN losing viewers' discussion, this comes up. It's not true, and it's kind of become a pet peeve of mine. ESPN spends a shit ton of money on market research. They have proof that more Americans would rather watch Skip & Stephan A. argue than watch a replay of last weekend's best game.
Social Media/Youtube is one of the major reasons ESPN doesn't show highlights and replays nonstop anymore. I remember 10 years ago (probably less) I would watch Sportscenter every morning not knowing how the game ended. There was literally a suspense to it - I remember getting annoyed if the score came up on the bottom line before I saw the highlight. Now you get notifications pushed to your phone throughout the day. If you want to see highlights, you can go on youtube at any time of the day. There's just better ways to make money than running reruns 6-12 hours per day.
That may be true....but it made them worse.
Sadly......^this.
There's a reason ESPN shows the content they do. There's a reason TV channels are increasingly going to "reality" shows. Despite alllllll of the people that complain about them, even more people watch them. Does it suck? For me, yup. I hate that History Channel shows nothing but American Pawn Aliens or whatever but there's a reason they do it, it sells. I hate that I can't watch ESPN without hearing the same two guys argue over the same point for six hours at a time. But there's a reason they do it, it sells.
If there were better ways to making money, they wouldn't be in the same predicament. By showing the talking heads and TMZ bs, they're sacrificing long term goals (or at least slower bleeding) for short term gains.
I would put on SC for hours before but now refuse to watch espn other than live sports. Thats a common sentiment among sports fans and their losses are mounting because of it
I've been seeing these articles and my general impression is that the subscriber losses are a bit overblown (the numbers are probably accurate, but the impact of losing those subscribers looks a lot like the sky is falling but ESPN isn't sweating it).
I've heard the same data that others are quoting here, that ESPN is the most expensive piece of a television package, and even though I've heard a variety of numbers ($5-$9), I think the importance of that is a little overblown as well.
My probably isn't with the cost of ESPN, but the cost of the total package, 99% of which I actively do not want. With Comcast in State College, a full blown cable package is like $60 more than just internet, which is all I have now. If I had to pay $20 for a 'Disney' package, including ESPN/2/3/ABC/Disney, I'd do that in a heartbeat. Families all over the country would LOVE to have a major broadcast network, access to live sports, and Disney for the kids.
I feel like it's a no-brainer decision to go cable-less for ESPN, but they locked themselves into contracts and don't appear to be moving in a favorable direction for me.
This was mentioned above but SlingTV provides almost exactly what you're describing.
Yup, I got the sports package for myself, and the kids package for my girls. I pay $30 a month whereas before I was paying $100 a month for tv through Comcast. Now that Sling has the ACC extra stream and NBA TV, I'm good.
It's really that cheap?? Can you still record through a 3rd party DVR or something? We don't watch anything live anymore really (except sports obviously).
I honestly don't know, I don't have a DVR. And yes it's really that cheap.
I've had SlingTV before, but it still loads me up on channels I don't want. If I could get ESPN/2/3 and Comedy Central for $20/mo on any service I'd probably do it.
Um you can do that with Sling. All of those are in the base package for $20 a month.
Oh sh!t nice call I hadn't seen they added Comedy Central since the last time I subscribed to it.
I've looked into Sling and thought it could be good since I pay $150/month for cable and internet, but my biggest issues with it are that i'd still need to pay Comcast for internet which (I think) is still something absurd like $80/month, and Sling doesn't offer three channels that I watch a lot - HBO, CSN, and NHL Network. I can pay separately for NHL TV, but that is still something like $200/year, and I would need to run through a proxy to watch Caps games since they have regional blackouts. HBO Now is $15/month, and then i'd have to factor in the $25 or whatever for Sling+sports package.
All in all I think it would really only save me like $30/month or something, and at that point, I might as well keep what I have for all the On Demand content and DVR.
It has NHL Network now.
You're right, I didnt see that!
Still don't think it'd be worth it for me. I'd want the 'All Channels' package + Sports package. So, $55/month for Sling, $15/month for HBO Now, and $80/month for internet is $150/month for everything minus DVR, and I'm already paying $150/month for all that plus DVR.
I can definitely see how it would be great for other people though. Just so happens that the channels I watch the most would require some extra costs rather than just the $20/month basic package.
Check out PlayStation Vue. It has CSN, CSN Plus, and CSN Mid Atlantic. So far I think I've been able to watch every Caps game. (I'm in northern VA - it might be different elsewhere.) The Core Slim package is $35/month. I signed up for football/hockey season, then I'm dropping it. It has some on demand/DVR functionality built in, but I don't use it since I'm only interested in live sports.
I have an Xbox. I did some research though and you can stream them through the CSN App if you are a CSN subscriber - similar to WatchESPN. I'll have to check that out.
They got rid of some serious Chanel's just recently I want to say AMC was one of them
Cable companies dropping AMC as well, I wonder what's goin on there. BIL can't get Walking Dead anymore. My 'rents going from cable to Dish to DirectTV (or the other way around) was strongly influenced by Tiers and where AMC was/wasn't (for the classic movies).
I'll echo what many have already said. ESPN was at its best when showing non-stop highlights from 6 am until 3 pm. If they did stop to talk with an "expert analyst" on a game or story, you knew it was a big deal.
Now it's just non-stop talking heads spewing takes to get attention.
As long as ESPN keeps being the leader in broadcasting actual events, they'll be fine. But they've certainly fallen behind the curve as far as sports news goes.
Speaking of which, were can you get full highlights of VT games. I hate it when I can't find the highlights on the ESPN app or even on the ACC digital network. Drives me nuts if they just show a basic 2 second highlight.
https://www.youtube.com/user/vthokiesports
They vary on how quickly they have them up but this has been my go to for a while now.
I am familiar, but I'm looking for highlights with comentary for like the whole game. I love the ones they put up, but sometimes, they don't show the hole game, and because of life, I sometimes miss a game (I moved during the Cuse game and still don't have a full concept of how the game went)
something like this:
wtf, we can do this, this sucks, wtf, ugh, wait we have a shot, this is bad, and we lost.
honestly there is no reason to want to see what happened in that game.....
Pretty much every football and basketball game for the past couple years along with some other sports and a lot of older games is on Hokietapes' YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/hokietapes
Outside of College Gameday, College Football Games, College Basketball Games, and Monday Night Football, I do not watch ESPN as much as I did 2,3,4, or 5 years ago. Sportscenter barely gets turned on in our house. I will usually catch up on College Football Sunday on ESPNU, but mainly to see other game highlights.
I actually avoid SportsCenter in the mornings now. The personalities are terrible. Sarena Morales makes me cringe every single time I watch her. It's not how I want to start my day anymore because the anchors are so difficult to watch.
(coughcough elika sadghi coughcough)
Yea, I avoid it too- it used to be a staple show for me in the morning. Now, I listen to NBC4 (DC) while I get ready for work for local news.
It's obvious ESPN has significant challenges to address, but they are still printing money.
Also, consider the source here - Clay Travis works for Fox Sports, which is a direct competitor to ESPN. It's in their best interests to make a big deal out of ESPN's struggles.
FS1 and FS2 still aren't as in many homes as ESPN's stable of channels. Also, Fox Sports has had big layoffs in the past year and spent big on rights deals & given huge money deals to carnival barkers. It's not like they're thriving in comparison.
I say all this not to dispute the ESPN subscriber loss numbers, but the narrative points fingers at ESPN when this is an industry-wide issue. Even the traditional networks like ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX have seen an erosion in viewers.
a)clay travis is the worst
b) you are correct in that FS1 (and the industry at large) isn't exactly killing it. their shows hover around 50k-60k viewers (maybe some have bumped towards 70k). but the fact is that espn may be losing viewers/subscribers but fs1 never really got them
I'll add that I don't appreciate them hiding the 30 for 30's. They seem to have a few air here and there, but they aren't available on-demand. And want to go back to some from the past? They only have a handful that you can watch, and those are the ones that they show all of the time.
I do find it interesting that they are showing them on Viceland now...
I'm just gonna sit around and wait for SBNation to start their online programming, their CFB coverage is top notch. And who cares if ESPN fails. I'm not as against them as most, but their just a conduit. It's not like football will no longer be aired without them.
What this article doesn't mention - and it doesn't explain why and/or how - is that ESPNU and the SECN are either not losing subscribers or losing them at a much lower pace.
Much as I hate ESPN and love to see it take it on the chin, since these channels are generally bundled, how can that be? Something doesn't quite seem right with the numbers.
ESPNU and SECN are generally in an add on package. I think ESPN is losing the basic cable subscriber (who may not even be watching them to begin with), not the guy that watches a ton sports and has added the sports package.
So you're saying that ESPN's numbers are really reflective of a general disenfranchisement for cable, not its audience cutting it loose? Which really makes this, to some degree, much ado about nothing, no?
Probably not nothing. But it's looking like the problem is coming from ESPN being unable to get the non-sports fans that don't watch their channel(s) to subsidize the cost for the others.
Not sure its much ado about nothing. ESPN is locked into some pretty long term deals for a lot of its live sports programming. Their fixed costs are much higher than a non sports cable channel and they have less ability to control them. What they do have control over is their own shows, so its possible this could push them back to what they were like in the 90s, with same episode of Sportscenter repeating multiple times each morning.
The real question is: Are ESPN's ratings down? I don't know the answer to that, but the discussion of subscribers seems to me, to some degree, to be much ado about nothing.
ESPN/ESPN2 are bundled into most 'basic' cable packages that include Disney/ABC. SECN and ESPNU are typically included in a 'sports package'. The people who cancel cable all together (thus canceling ESPN/ESPN2) probably only have basic cable. The people who already have the sports package probably went out of their way to purchase it, and won't be deleting it anytime soon.
EEXXXXCCEELLLENT
ESPN may be losing members, but TKP is gaining them!! After lurking daily for a couple of years, I've finally decided to make an account. This community is the best.
just a friendly reminder to join the TKPC -because as soon as we hit 1,000 members we're buying the broadcast rights and making our own channel...
that was a lie. but yeah, join.
Welcome JackHokie!
Hope you enjoy being a part of the TKP community!
I just want to see the games. I couldn't care less about the commentary.
Also, I mostly want to see the ACC games. So I'd be good with an ACC network, if it had all the VT and important ACC games.
In other news, water is wet.
Somewhat OT, but related to ESPN:
Anyone know what that dope song is that ESPN is playing to hype up the primetime match up between the Bulls and the Cavs?
If I could only stream the Hokies and the orioles I would be set.
FTFY. Obviously kidding, but if I had the Hokies and mlb, I'd be set. Living out of network, mlb.tv works for 50% of that equation for me.
If I could only stream the Hokies and the
oriolesnatsORIOLES I would be set.via GIPHY
Can I just say that the breakdown between Freddy and Frank is one of the most bizarre and unnecessary parts of the show. I mean I get it, it's a house of cards and eventually *everything* is going to tumble down but this just felt....I don't know, forced for some reason
yes, it was very forced. It's like they had to inject something in to make his situation more desperate so they contrived bringing freddy back and then manufactured a schism out of left field. Poorly done.
Are you one of those people who yell "O" during the national anthem? Gotta say every game at Lane I hear that from the students and just shake my head.
Nooooope! I'll do it at Camden Yards (if I ever actually manage to catch a game there) but I judge the hell out of people that do it in Lane.
I only do when watching the O's play (Camden or other field)
Yea, if I moved out of the MASN range then MLB.TV would work. How I wish MASN would stream.
How I wish the owner of MASN would burn.
Didn't think it could get worse on ESPN but tonight Scott Van Pelt has a house band as if he were Stephen Colbert.
That's unfortunate because he's the best they've got anymore.
I agree which is why I had it on. Normally he is pretty compelling to watch because he is as close to old school as they have anymore
Yep, loved his radio show, I was always able to catch the last half hour on my way home from the office.
While I agree with many of the comments about ESPN content, that has very little impact on the #s in the article. Content will impact viewer numbers, but this is about subscribers. ESPN is included in the basic cable package for every cable company I'm aware of, so someone "unsubscribing from ESPN" is virtually the same thing as saying someone is cancelling their cable package. For a long time, live sports (mainly ESPN, since they own the majority of the rights) was the only thing keeping people from cancelling their cable. It's always been a problem because unlikes normal TV where you can catch it later on Hulu, Netflix, or the channel's website, most people aren't going to want to watch a sporting event after the fact, and the only way to watch was to have cable. SlingTV has changed that though by including ESPN in their base package. I would imagine ESPN collects roughly the same monthly fee from SlingTV as they do from cable companies, so folks moving from cable to SlingTV isn't catastrophic, although it does hurt since it's much easier to cancel/restart if you only care about certain sports that don't span the whole year. Beyond that, I know more and more people "cutting the cord", but it's not because they don't like ESPN's content... the overwhelming majority are doing it because they decide the cost of cable isn't worth it in their monthly budget. ESPN is a large part of the problem here since they charge more than other channels (as the article points out) and that cost is getting passed along directly to the consumer. I say "cutting the cord" with quotes since most people I know who have claimed to cut the cord are really just cancelling their own cable and then borrowing a login from their parents/friend/former roommate/anyone willing to give it to them. So, they're able to effectively eliminate their bill but still get all their channels. As more and more people do that, I expect we'll see cable companies start doing things to severely curtail login sharing (e.g. charging more for logins in multiple locations).
After I cancelled Cox cable in northern VA but kept Cox for Internet, I realized that my Internet package included WatchESPN access. Presumably that means some of my monthly bill is still going to ESPN. I don't know how common that is with other cable companies.
Is that including all of the streams of the actual ESPN channels, or is that just your access to ESPN3? Because, you should still be able to watch ESPN3 (and the ACC Network Extra) with just an internet login.
If you're still getting the full range of ESPN streams, then it's likely just an oversight when they terminated your cable package.
You know there's a problem when in 2015 they were talking about if the Panthers celebrate or should Cam Newton dab instead of just showing me actual highlights from the games...
Anyone think that ESPN might try to cut costs by replacing ESPNU with the ACC Network?
Many people. Adam Gold and Joe Ovies on 99.9 in Raleigh are convinced this is what will happen
With shows hosted by Paul Finebaum, Mike Golic, and Desmond Howard, They sure are making GREAT strides!