Great article by David Teel on cost and needed infrastructure for Tech to be ready for launch of ACC network. Hint it ain't cheap.
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-acc-network-vt-u...
"We're going to get new toys to play with and get better at our jobs," Walls said.
Babcock, the Hokies' athletic director, ballparks the infrastructure cost at $5 million-$7 million. His colleagues at the University of Virginia concur.
THE CENSUS BUREAU says the average new American home is 2,687 square feet. Brian Walls, a director for Virginia Tech's HokieVision, estimates his team will need more than 5,000 square feet to accommodate the ACC Network.
The expansion will include two linear control rooms, an audio booth within each control room, a server room to house CPUs (central processing units), equipment storage areas and offices for new staffers.
Lots of new staff and equipment needs in here.
Comments
There may be some short-term pain, but I presume revenues will be increasing.
I do like the plan. It's almost not bad that they haven't moved on this before, as they should be able to get the latest (and compatible) equipment, along with some knowledgeable staff.
Edit: This Forbes article is also worth a read... It discusses the viability of the ACC network in comparison to the other P5 networks.
That Forbes article is good but I think it discounts men's basketball a little too much. I think the strength of ACC men's basketball is really going to help the network compared to some of the other conferences.
You say that but you'd also think the same would be true for the SEC with regard to football. But the way it usually plays out is that ESPN(1, 2 or U) or CBS get the premier games and the SEC network is left with Kentucky v. Vanderbilt.
I'm not completely familiar with the details, but if Raycom is still around either them or ESPN(1, 2, or U) will keep the bigger games and leave the ACC Network with a BC v. Clemson type of contest while Duke and UNC are getting the national attention. I'm not sure how that's much better than that game being shown on ESPN3.
Not that having access to all ACC games on a cable channel isn't a good thing...it just may not be as big a deal as it seems at the front end. Especially to fans of non-ACC teams.
I agree with you for the most part. Raycom's involvement with the ACC moving forward is the biggest question mark that hasn't really be definitively answered from what I can tell, so that's certainly important to monitor.
The part where I disagree slightly is that not every Duke or UNC opponent is likely to warrant a spot on ESPN, ESPN2 or ESPNU. That's where the value of the ACC Network comes in. Depending on how a given week may look, you could have a handful of mid-tier teams matched up that might produce a closer contest and then UNC or Duke matched up against the likes of BC, Pitt or Clemson. In those instances, you get the drawing power of those name on the ACCN channel.
Perhaps that won't end up being the case and the allure of the blue-blood is too hard to pass up a slot on the ESPN networks, but I could see it happening (especially in Year 1 or 2 as they're pushing for carriage).
Any game I don't have to try to muddle through on my computer screen with slow wifi and pixilated players I can't even identify is going to be an improvement. ESPN 3 sucks at my house.
Agreed.
It will certainly be an improvement over resorting to firstrowsports for games, and playing whack-a-mole with some risky (or risque) looking pop-up screens.
FTFY.
I would love it if that's how it was handled. I guess I'm just assuming that ESPN will see a Duke v. BC game as more appealing to a national audience than VT v. Miami, even if the VT game had bubble implications.
We need an entire new thread on that Forbes article specifically that chart that list teams by popularity based on tv viewership.
Just looking at it briefly, I don't think it's entirely accurate. It's based on national viewership numbers.
So of course the big name teams are at the top, justifiably so. The issue is that they boost up their competition as well. For example...
Five of the top seven teams on the ACC list are Atlantic Division teams, including NC State and Syracuse. They're getting a boost from when they play Clemson and FSU, even more so for NC State because I'm sure everyone the entire nation was tuning in when they had Clemson on the ropes. Since the Coastal doesn't have a year-to-year playoff contender, we don't get that boost unless we also play a Clemson or FSU.
This also doesn't account for when games are played. If we have a noon or 3:30 kickoff with lots of competition on other channels, we're not as likely to get watched. But if we had a night game, we'd get more national attention just because there was less on.
We also didn't have a national storyline on our team. Louisville likely gets a boost because Lamar Jackson was such must see TV.
It just doesn't pass the eye test to me. You can't tell me NC State and Syracuse are more popular that VT and Miami.
TL;DR: It's an interesting chart but there are flaws.
Excellent analysis.
FWIW, the numbers that Forbes publishes for various sports-related properties (such as team valuations) seem to consistently garner skepticism from savvy sports business journalists. With that in mind, I always tend to take their numbers with a grain of salt.
I think you bring up a good point. Assuming the data is accurate, it's still only valuable in a relative and limited way. From an ACC network perspective, they're looking for total eyes looking at the games on a TV network.
So yeah, a team on that chart gets more viewers if they play a better team, or at a better time, or with broader accessibility. The teams on the Atlantic side get the benefit of playing Clemson, Florida State, and maybe Notre Dame, along with any other high profile games they play. Note that the data includes two years averaged, and was only for nationally televised games. I think the labeling of it as "Most popular" is a misleading title that works only for the general purpose of the article. It's absolutely misleading in a general sense.
[As a side note, I do wonder about the underlying data. I don't know where they got their information, but VT played in the Battle at Bristol and the ACC championship game vs Clemson last year, while UVa went 2-10. I wouldn't have thought those numbers would have come out even close to the same. The year before was Beamer and London's last year coaching. Still, I'd think VT would have had higher viewership. It would be more accurate if you included more years, as two years are a pretty small sample size that didn't even include the championship game or the post-season.]
All of that aside, I thought it was an interesting take on the viability of the ACC network, as the conclusion is that it's a good bet.
Let's look at what games Syracuse and UVA played on "national television" in 2015 and 2016.
Syracuse
2015
vs. LSU (ESPN)
@ USF (CBSSN)
vs. Pitt (ESPNU)
@ FSU (ABC)
vs. Clemson (ABC)
2016
vs. Louisville (ESPN 2)
@ UCONN (CBSSN)
vs. Notre Dame (ESPN)
vs. VT (ESPNU)
@ Clemson (ABC/ESPN2)
UVA
2015
@ UCLA (Fox)
vs. Notre Dame (ABC)
vs. Boise State (ESPN)
vs. Virginia Tech (ESPNU)
2016
@ Oregon (ESPN)
vs. Louisville (ABC/ESPN2)
@ Virginia Tech (ESPN2)
So UVA and Syracuse only really show up on National TV when playing other nationally prominent programs. Meanwhile, VT, less nationaly prominent than many of the teams listed abobr, is on national TV nearly every week playing teams from ECU and Duke to Ohio State and Alabama.
So you're saying it boosts your regular season numbers if you play FSU, Clemson, or Louisville among your ACC crossovers that year, and don't have your smaller games nationally televised. Makes sense.
For the purpose of their ACC network calculation, it all comes out in the wash. For the purpose of "program popularity", it's a bit misleading if you don't somehow adjust for the opponents numbers.
It also stands to reason that some of the viewership reflected in the Pac 12, Big 10 and SEC numbers are a result of their dedicated networks.
I agree with you. I'm mostly trying to prove that the data in that Forbes article is somewhat misleading.
But the point you're trying to make, i.e. the ACCN cares about overall conference viewership and not necessarily individual teams is very valid.
That really was a great piece.
It looks like these additions will also improve the broadcasts across the board. It seems like come 2019, we won't be seeing the parking lot full of satellite trucks in front of Lane, since we'll have the direct hook up to the mothership.
Gotta spend money to make money.
I mean we would pretty quickly recoup that up front investment from the yearly payout, right? 1-2 years max?
agreed. seems like a recovered cost. I can't imagine this is completely sunk and we would do it just because.
We should get money back but if capital costs, coaches salaries and especially scholarships costs keep going up and donor money doesn't meet those needs the incresead TV payout will have to cover that gap instead.
ACC also got an interim bump in the TV contract
You wanna compete with the big boys you need big boy toys. I am sure they will be fine, hopefully we recover our costs before the mickey sports bubble burst and they sell off eSECpn for pennies on the dollar...
I would have to think our contract has language in it that we get paid regardless of what happens. That's why it was so important to get it signed when we did.
ACCN will be same as SECN...a 50/50 profit share
I would hope so but we have all seen espn hemoraging "talent" and contracts lately and since our network is not even up and running yet...
[Couldn't find the gif or meme]
Got you fam...
I had some thoughts about networks and games being televised that I wanted to share. I didn't believe it warranted a separate post, but I would appreciate some feedback. I was just spitballing some things to myself the other day and I had an idea.
We already have a broadcast team with IMG in Laaser, Burnop and Alegretta (sp?). Could schools create a subscription service and broadcast their own games online and just cut out the middle man? Think about it. If each school funds their own broadcast capabilities and broadcasts their own games via a subscription service online everyone could catch games all over as long as they had a good internet connection, and the money could go directly to the schools.
I have no idea if this is a good idea because I don't know enough about how the logistics would play out to know if it is even viable. It seems like a neat idea in my head though, but that could just be the whiskey talking. Gimme some feedback TKPers.
One of the hurdles would of course be that I believe the conferences own transmission rights (which they then sell to ESPN, etc.).
Isn't IMG already a middle man?