ACC Network Has Expanded National Reach (TheACC) | Syracusefan.com

ACC Network Has Expanded National Reach (TheACC)

OrangeXtreme

The Mayor of Dewitt
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
214,701
Like
373,838
The ACC neglected to include an updated affiliates list in their press release. :oops:

They cover 80% of the US, but only 10% of Connecticut.
 
So when do they announce tv coverage schedules? I need to figure out how many Saturdays I'll be stuck at a bar instead of kicking back in my own home.
 
So when do they announce tv coverage schedules? I need to figure out how many Saturdays I'll be stuck at a bar instead of kicking back in my own home.


besides what has been announced for the first 3 weeks of the season(and Friday night) its 12 days with a few 6 days picks
 
The ACC neglected to include an updated affiliates list in their press release. :oops:

They cover 80% of the US, but only 10% of Connecticut.
what part of Ct. ?
 
besides what has been announced for the first 3 weeks of the season(and Friday night) its 12 days with a few 6 days picks

I'm not even going to pretend I know what the heck that means.
 
The article mentions OTA, what about on cable? Does it mean that on affiliate stations there will be more ACC content shown? If they are partnered with ESPN, why do they mention ESPN and ESPN2 as if they are competition?

I am confused...
 
I'm not even going to pretend I know what the heck that means.
It means that TV for most games aren't determined until 12 days (or in a few cases 6 days) before the game.
 
The article mentions OTA, what about on cable? Does it mean that on affiliate stations there will be more ACC content shown? If they are partnered with ESPN, why do they mention ESPN and ESPN2 as if they are competition?

I am confused...

I am going to guess that they have picked up a few more affiliate channels, cable/satellite, and a few more OTA channels to broadcast the games. So it will be the same type of "mish-mosh" as last season carrying the games... ESPN, cable/satellite and OTA as determined by ACC scheduling.. hither, thither and yon broadcasting.
 
I am going to guess that they have picked up a few more affiliate channels, cable/satellite, and a few more OTA channels to broadcast the games. So it will be the same type of "mish-mosh" as last season carrying the games... ESPN, cable/satellite and OTA as determined by ACC scheduling.. hither, thither and yon broadcasting.

Thanks CL!

So in other words I have to search all 4,576 channels for every game on FIOS. Perfect.
 
There is an app called bleacher buddy that I use to tell me if I have the game.
 
Last edited:
  1. Ethan Moore‏@_EthanMoore 1h
  2. @JeffFischel is there an updated timeline for a potential ACC Network?
Jeff Fischel‏@JeffFischel 1h
.@_EthanMoore just discussed it w/ a top conference official. Answer: "we have no idea." Press release yesterday: http://theacc.co/ACCNetwork071914…
For what it's worth, s/w an acquaintance here in Charlotte who works for Raycom.
Asked him point blank: "Is there going to be an ACC Network"?
His response: "Definitely. They're having meetings every month & it's going to happen eventually". Seemed certain and he's in a position to know.
 
Swofford probably wants to see what mistakes the B1G has made and design the ACC contracts in light of that data.
 
over at the 'girls board they are saying they got 20 cents per subscriber for NYC. It will kill them if we got a buck 20 as NYS has an in state conference member.
 
As for the current "ACC Network", this is actually kind of interesting. That's a pretty impressive bump. I'm pretty critical of the Raycom relationship, and perpetuating it at the cost of revenue. They are an extra middleman that is totally unnecessary and takes cash out of the deal. That said, this is a pretty impressive jump in exposure. IF, and it's a big IF there is significant value to exposure, at this point we're probably being syndicated in significantly more markets that we would be if ESPN was just syndicating us directly like they have the SEC.

That said, I'm a Florida State fan. I want the money...we don't need the exposure. And I have my doubts about the real value of having BC-NC State on OTA channels in Memphis and Minneapolis and Phoenix. Maybe that exposure is very valuable...I just really don't know. But if you're trading exposure for cash, this new distribution is definitely more impressive than it had been.

One more interesting, long forgotten note. When the most recent contract was signed including Raycom, it was reported that terms for the Raycom distribution deal could begin to throw off profit sharing revenue back to the ACC should certain benchmarks be reached. Of course, nobody knows anything about it, because the ACC keeps everything, good or bad, locked up like a state secret. But I wonder if this news means that will come into play at some point. Of course, I have no idea if we're anywhere close to that, or if we're talking about anything that would add up to real money, but it's the first thing I thought of when I heard this.

As for a real ACC Network...I hope it's the ACC slow-playing this, not ESPN. The ACC needs to be driving the best deal possible, not landing the deal the most quickly they can. The league is stabilized, nobody is going anywhere in the next couple years. ACC football is just now starting to emerge from a decade+ long funk. ACC basketball has been ho-hum by ACC standards, was rather disappointing last year, and Louisville hasn't even started play. In essence, the ACC's value is still, if not at an all time low, only a year or two removed from an all time low. The SEC had to cash in now, even being locked up with ESPN and having limited leverage, because the SEC was never going to be worth more than it has been the past few years. They had to strike at the peak of their value, when carriage would be the easiest to attain.

Considering the leverage is all with ESPN right now, the ACC should be in no undue rush to marry ESPN in perpetuity. Each year that we get closer to the end of the contracts, each year that football improves, each year that the footprint grows in population, and each year that basketball comes closer to fulfilling it's apparent destiny, is a year the ACC grows considerably in value.

If I'm ESPN, I'm pushing the ACC to take a low-ball offer now, based on recent history, and trying to capitalize on lingering inferiority issues. That's the scariest thing to me...that Swofford and the ACC are so obsessed with having a network to trophy that they make a lousy deal.

There is simply no urgency on this issue at all. The ACC needs to make sure they get a great deal, or be willing to forgo a network completely until the demand drives great terms.
 
If I'm ESPN, I'm pushing the ACC to take a low-ball offer now, based on recent history, and trying to capitalize on lingering inferiority issues. That's the scariest thing to me...that Swofford and the ACC are so obsessed with having a network to trophy that they make a lousy deal.

There is simply no urgency on this issue at all. The ACC needs to make sure they get a great deal, or be willing to forgo a network completely until the demand drives great terms
.

Yes.
 
As for the current "ACC Network", this is actually kind of interesting. That's a pretty impressive bump. I'm pretty critical of the Raycom relationship, and perpetuating it at the cost of revenue. They are an extra middleman that is totally unnecessary and takes cash out of the deal. That said, this is a pretty impressive jump in exposure. IF, and it's a big IF there is significant value to exposure, at this point we're probably being syndicated in significantly more markets that we would be if ESPN was just syndicating us directly like they have the SEC.

That said, I'm a Florida State fan. I want the money...we don't need the exposure. And I have my doubts about the real value of having BC-NC State on OTA channels in Memphis and Minneapolis and Phoenix. Maybe that exposure is very valuable...I just really don't know. But if you're trading exposure for cash, this new distribution is definitely more impressive than it had been.

One more interesting, long forgotten note. When the most recent contract was signed including Raycom, it was reported that terms for the Raycom distribution deal could begin to throw off profit sharing revenue back to the ACC should certain benchmarks be reached. Of course, nobody knows anything about it, because the ACC keeps everything, good or bad, locked up like a state secret. But I wonder if this news means that will come into play at some point. Of course, I have no idea if we're anywhere close to that, or if we're talking about anything that would add up to real money, but it's the first thing I thought of when I heard this.

As for a real ACC Network...I hope it's the ACC slow-playing this, not ESPN. The ACC needs to be driving the best deal possible, not landing the deal the most quickly they can. The league is stabilized, nobody is going anywhere in the next couple years. ACC football is just now starting to emerge from a decade+ long funk. ACC basketball has been ho-hum by ACC standards, was rather disappointing last year, and Louisville hasn't even started play. In essence, the ACC's value is still, if not at an all time low, only a year or two removed from an all time low. The SEC had to cash in now, even being locked up with ESPN and having limited leverage, because the SEC was never going to be worth more than it has been the past few years. They had to strike at the peak of their value, when carriage would be the easiest to attain.

Considering the leverage is all with ESPN right now, the ACC should be in no undue rush to marry ESPN in perpetuity. Each year that we get closer to the end of the contracts, each year that football improves, each year that the footprint grows in population, and each year that basketball comes closer to fulfilling it's apparent destiny, is a year the ACC grows considerably in value.

If I'm ESPN, I'm pushing the ACC to take a low-ball offer now, based on recent history, and trying to capitalize on lingering inferiority issues. That's the scariest thing to me...that Swofford and the ACC are so obsessed with having a network to trophy that they make a lousy deal.

There is simply no urgency on this issue at all. The ACC needs to make sure they get a great deal, or be willing to forgo a network completely until the demand drives great terms.
To follow up the convo w/ my Raycom acquaintance- his biggest "issue" was w/ what he called Swofford's "deliberate" style, that he took too long to make decisions. From everything he said, Swofford is seen by the Raycom folks at least, as being too reactive and not proactive enough. He knows he's in a position of strength w/ Raycom and is taking his time, though I'm not sure this applies to ESPN as well.
Likely, he'll be "deliberate" on getting the ACC Network off the ground which might be a good thing as you suggest. However, I'd be concerned if that money gap between the B1G, SEC, and PAC gets too wide and some schools start flashing their eyes at these other conferences. IMO, Swofford didn't really move to act on the money-gap, until forced to do so by the threat of defections.
Its one thing to be "deliberate", quite another to be a day late & a dollar short.
 
To follow up the convo w/ my Raycom acquaintance- his biggest "issue" was w/ what he called Swofford's "deliberate" style, that he took too long to make decisions. From everything he said, Swofford is seen by the Raycom folks at least, as being too reactive and not proactive enough. He knows he's in a position of strength w/ Raycom and is taking his time, though I'm not sure this applies to ESPN as well.
Likely, he'll be "deliberate" on getting the ACC Network off the ground which might be a good thing as you suggest. However, I'd be concerned if that money gap between the B1G, SEC, and PAC gets too wide and some schools start flashing their eyes at these other conferences. IMO, Swofford didn't really move to act on the money-gap, until forced to do so by the threat of defections.
Its one thing to be "deliberate", quite another to be a day late & a dollar short.

I can't disagree with any of that...if the money is there, you sign on the line that is dotted. Thanks for the info...keep it coming.

My concern is that in the past, I don't really think the ACC has been all that savvy in negotiations, especially as compared to others. I think they've sold cheap. My fear is that Swofford gets so enamored with the idea of a trophy network, something to "prove", that the sharks at ESPN fleece the ACC again.

In this case, time is on the ACC's side. There's no pressure. It's not like ESPN is deciding between an ACC network and an SEC or Big East network, and if Swofford plays hardball, ESPN will go someplace else.

I certainly hope that Swofford understands that it's not enough just to have a network...it's got to spit serious money. Nobody's going to clap the ACC on the back for landing a network if it generates an extra million or two a year. It may not be B1G or SEC money, because there are certain structural issues about those conferences and their fanbases and schools, but it's got to generate real cash. Otherwise its not worth giving up future options.

I hope that's the way they are looking at it. I just don't see an upside for the ACC in a rush to judgment.
 
I can't disagree with any of that...if the money is there, you sign on the line that is dotted. Thanks for the info...keep it coming.

My concern is that in the past, I don't really think the ACC has been all that savvy in negotiations, especially as compared to others. I think they've sold cheap. My fear is that Swofford gets so enamored with the idea of a trophy network, something to "prove", that the sharks at ESPN fleece the ACC again.

In this case, time is on the ACC's side. There's no pressure. It's not like ESPN is deciding between an ACC network and an SEC or Big East network, and if Swofford plays hardball, ESPN will go someplace else.

I certainly hope that Swofford understands that it's not enough just to have a network...it's got to spit serious money. Nobody's going to clap the ACC on the back for landing a network if it generates an extra million or two a year. It may not be B1G or SEC money, because there are certain structural issues about those conferences and their fanbases and schools, but it's got to generate real cash. Otherwise its not worth giving up future options.

I hope that's the way they are looking at it. I just don't see an upside for the ACC in a rush to judgment.

You say that there's no pressure, but it was only two years ago that one of your school's board or directors went to the media to complain about money. While you want the best deal possible, at some point you've got to get on board or that ship is going to sail.
 
Selfishly, the ACCN coverage down my way in CT absolutely blows. The only broadcast station they're on is channel 55 out of Long Island, which my TV provider (AT&T U-Verse) does not carry. I'd vastly prefer syndication via regional cable networks (e.g. SNY, YES).
 
You say that there's no pressure, but it was only two years ago that one of your school's board or directors went to the media to complain about money. While you want the best deal possible, at some point you've got to get on board or that ship is going to sail.

Sure, I'm not talking about waiting 10-15 years. But if it takes until 2016 to get a better deal than they can get in 2014, then they should.

FSU (and others) signing the GOR was supposed exactly nullify what you describe, the ACC negotiating with a gun to it's head. Where is any ship going to sail to?

That said, Swofford seemed to do better in that scenario than he ever did before, so maybe there's something to that.

All I'm saying is that I'm fine with dragging our feet if it's for the right reasons. If there is a great deal on the table and we're just on analysis paralysis, then I agree that's a different story.
 

Similar threads

    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Friday for Football
Replies
5
Views
610
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Monday for Football
Replies
7
Views
815
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Thursday for Football
Replies
7
Views
580

Forum statistics

Threads
167,569
Messages
4,712,439
Members
5,909
Latest member
jc824

Online statistics

Members online
334
Guests online
2,429
Total visitors
2,763


Top Bottom