Cord cutters growing is why I think we won't see an ACC network

[Alsacs]

http://awfulannouncing.com/2015/as-cord-cutters-grow-espn-reaches-a-crossroads-on-costs.html

Let me preface this by saying I hope I am wrong. However, with TV rights expanding to really high costs this is going to effect these type of channels from being profitable. ESPN is a cashcow for Disney but higher costs means less profits. These college networks were all the rage a couple of years ago but with more people cutting cable it does hurt their viable. They are tied to more popular channels.

The Big Ten Network will make money in the states that Big Ten teams reside in but it won't grow nationally. it will be a good regional network that Fox/News Corp will bundle to keep it going.

The SEC Network is all ESPN and its muscle. This network isn't exactly profitable, but ESPN is so invested they will continue this marriage and it will make money, but ESPN will have to earn it.

That leads to my point the ACC needs ESPN to be able to have its own network. The Pac-12 network isn't working they aren't on DirecTV and its expenses which are being paid for by the Pac-12 are hurting the schools in the short term so that eventually in the long term they will bring riches.

I don't see in this current climate ESPN wanting to do all the work for an ACC Network like they are having to do with the SEC Network. The ACC is going to have to probably do what the Pac-12 is doing and bear the brunt of the expenses and hope the demand is there for ESPN to want to do anything.

I hope I am wrong with the ACC Network, but I just think like the internet bubble these college networks are going to pop until sports TV rights costs come down.

 

[Full_Rebar]

Couldn't this issue (outside of revenue) be resolved with a more robust ACCDN? I've heard that SU will broadcast soccer/field hockey online through ESPN this year, so might this be the actual direction it's heading?

 

[TexanMark]

What hurts the ACC is only NC is totally an ACC state...and the ACC has 4 schools in NC. You might argue VA is too...but the TV for NoVA is broadcast from DC (a ACC/BE/B1G battleground)

 

[SUFan44]

http://awfulannouncing.com/2015/as-cord-cutters-grow-espn-reaches-a-crossroads-on-costs.html

Let me preface this by saying I hope I am wrong. However, with TV rights expanding to really high costs this is going to effect these type of channels from being profitable. ESPN is a cashcow for Disney but higher costs means less profits. These college networks were all the rage a couple of years ago but with more people cutting cable it does hurt their viable. They are tied to more popular channels.

The Big Ten Network will make money in the states that Big Ten teams reside in but it won't grow nationally. it will be a good regional network that Fox/News Corp will bundle to keep it going.

The SEC Network is all ESPN and its muscle. This network isn't exactly profitable, but ESPN is so invested they will continue this marriage and it will make money, but ESPN will have to earn it.

That leads to my point the ACC needs ESPN to be able to have its own network. The Pac-12 network isn't working they aren't on DirecTV and its expenses which are being paid for by the Pac-12 are hurting the schools in the short term so that eventually in the long term they will bring riches.

I don't see in this current climate ESPN wanting to do all the work for an ACC Network like they are having to do with the SEC Network. The ACC is going to have to probably do what the Pac-12 is doing and bear the brunt of the expenses and hope the demand is there for ESPN to want to do anything.

I hope I am wrong with the ACC Network, but I just think like the internet bubble these college networks are going to pop until sports TV rights costs come down.

I would say a digital network tying in all of the ACC's olympic sports, plus its non-rights out of conference games for football and men's basketball might be the only viable long-term way to make a profit (and it won't be much of one, at least right away).

It is on a much smaller scale, but the Ivy League and other mid-major conferences have their own digital networks that have a much higher likelihood of having long-term success. Hulu, Apple TV, etc., have made it such that you don't need cable to watch what you want on your TV. If the ACC can loop in with one of those bigger digital platforms, which includes ESPN3, it might provide an opportunity that will be sustainable in the long run.

As you say, I don't think it is fiscally responsible to spend 10's of millions of dollars to get a cable network up and running when people are running from cable left and right.

 

[Alsacs]

Couldn't this issue (outside of revenue) be resolved with a more robust ACCDN? I've heard that SU will broadcast soccer/field hockey online through ESPN this year, so might this be the actual direction it's heading?

Digital Network is a good thing and could lead to ACC signing up for an ACCDN and people watching the games on their Roku, Apple TV etc. I just don't see an ACCN like BTN or SECN being the future for the ACC. Whatever can generate more revenue should be explored. The problem with this though is an ACCDN would only attract fans interested paying for it while these cable channels get money from all subscribers of cable no matter if they watch that channel or not.

 

[SUFan44]

Digital Network is a good thing and could lead to ACC signing up for an ACCDN and watch the games on their Roku, Apple TV etc. I just don't see an ACCN like BTN or SECN being the future for the ACC. Whatever can generate more revenue should be explored. The problem with this though an ACCDN would be only fans interested paying for it while these cable channels get money from all subscribers of cable no matter if they watch that channel or not.

That's the $100 million problem.

 

[PhatOrange]

Digital Network is a good thing and could lead to ACC signing up for an ACCDN and people watching the games on their Roku, Apple TV etc. I just don't see an ACCN like BTN or SECN being the future for the ACC. Whatever can generate more revenue should be explored. The problem with this though is an ACCDN would only attract fans interested paying for it while these cable channels get money from all subscribers of cable no matter if they watch that channel or not.

are you sure about that? I ask because these are premium channels on Time Warner.

 

[Alsacs]

are you sure about that? I ask because these are premium channels on Time Warner.

Anybody who has DirecTV(which I do), or lives in a state with a Big Ten team and has basic cable is paying for BTN. That is the same for the SEC Network. That is how those networks are profitable. In states without those teams in them the cost is either minimal like a dime a month or they are on premium channels.

 

[anomander]

Anybody who has DirecTV(which I do), or lives in a state with a Big Ten team and has basic cable is paying for BTN. That is the same for the SEC Network. That is how those networks are profitable. In states without those teams in them the cost is either minimal like a dime a month or they are on premium channels.

I have DTV and admit that it's that time of year where I am craving some Football so I am one of the few who have been watching B1G Network and SEC Network

 

[donniesyracuse]

We've decided to "cut the chord." I do enjoy sports on the radio, so I am prepared to listen to Syracuse football road games (I will see home games in-person) and Yankee games. I'll miss Meredith Marokovits and the NFL Redzone Channel, but being able to say "F*%K You!" to cable is so worth it. Unfortunately, I will still have to pay them for Internet.

 

[TheCusian]

I think ESPN will offer its own "HBO now" service and will package all of their channels/properties together for one price.

 

[qdawgg]

I guess I'm an outlier. I pay for TW and DirecTV because I want to make sure I get all the SU BB and FB games but I have to have Sunday Ticket too.

 

[donniesyracuse]

I think ESPN will offer its own "HBO now" service and will package all of their channels/properties together for one price.

Based on the article above, it sounds like that service would have to be very expensive, which would defeat some of the purpose of quitting cable.

 

[Orangepace]

I guess I'm an outlier. I pay for TW and DirecTV because I want to make sure I get all the SU BB and FB games but I have to have Sunday Ticket too.

I believe Sunday Ticket has an app that you can stream through PS4's now (maybe others like AppleTV, but haven't looked into it). So you don't need to carry DirecTV to have Sunday Ticket anymore. Redundant cable is expensive, so just trying to help.

 

[Moontan]

SlingTV @ $20/month includes ESPN and ESPN2. For an extra $5 per month you get SEC Network, ESPNU, ESPNEWS, ESPN Buzzer Beater, ESPN Goal Line, ESPN Bases Loaded, Univision Deportes, Universal Sports and beIN Sports.

 

[donniesyracuse]

SlingTV @ $20/month includes ESPN and ESPN2. For an extra $5 per month you get SEC Network, ESPNU, ESPNEWS, ESPN Buzzer Beater, ESPN Goal Line, ESPN Bases Loaded, Univision Deportes, Universal Sports and beIN Sports.

Yes, I will definitely get Sling TV if it ends up on Apple TV.

 

[Moontan]

Yes, I will definitely get Sling TV if it ends up on Apple TV.

If you prepay for 3 months you can get a free Roku stick or 50% off a Roku.

 

[TheCusian]

SlingTV @ $20/month includes ESPN and ESPN2. For an extra $5 per month you get SEC Network, ESPNU, ESPNEWS, ESPN Buzzer Beater, ESPN Goal Line, ESPN Bases Loaded, Univision Deportes, Universal Sports and beIN Sports.

I have this. Pretty solid.

 

[TexanMark]

We've decided to "cut the chord." I do enjoy sports on the radio, so I am prepared to listen to Syracuse football road games (I will see home games in-person) and Yankee games. I'll miss Meredith Marokovits and the NFL Redzone Channel, but being able to say "F*%K You!" to cable is so worth it. Unfortunately, I will still have to pay them for Internet.

Roku3 and Sling TV

 

[TexanMark]

Yes, I will definitely get Sling TV if it ends up on Apple TV.

I really recommend you just get the Roku stick for like $39.

 

[IthacaMatt]

http://awfulannouncing.com/2015/as-cord-cutters-grow-espn-reaches-a-crossroads-on-costs.html

Let me preface this by saying I hope I am wrong. However, with TV rights expanding to really high costs this is going to effect these type of channels from being profitable. ESPN is a cashcow for Disney but higher costs means less profits. These college networks were all the rage a couple of years ago but with more people cutting cable it does hurt their viable. They are tied to more popular channels.

The Big Ten Network will make money in the states that Big Ten teams reside in but it won't grow nationally. it will be a good regional network that Fox/News Corp will bundle to keep it going.

The SEC Network is all ESPN and its muscle. This network isn't exactly profitable, but ESPN is so invested they will continue this marriage and it will make money, but ESPN will have to earn it.

That leads to my point the ACC needs ESPN to be able to have its own network. The Pac-12 network isn't working they aren't on DirecTV and its expenses which are being paid for by the Pac-12 are hurting the schools in the short term so that eventually in the long term they will bring riches.

I don't see in this current climate ESPN wanting to do all the work for an ACC Network like they are having to do with the SEC Network. The ACC is going to have to probably do what the Pac-12 is doing and bear the brunt of the expenses and hope the demand is there for ESPN to want to do anything.

I hope I am wrong with the ACC Network, but I just think like the internet bubble these college networks are going to pop until sports TV rights costs come down.

I think you're missing the point that if people cut the cable cord, these "networks" are going to turn into subscription apps. That trend is already underway. I saw an article recently that said that ESPN is currently being paid about $6.30/subscriber, the most of any network or family of networks, but their subscribership is down by about 4% because more cable operators are moving them to a pay tier. I also read that if ESPN were to move to an app, it would have to charge $30/month to recapture what they are currently earning from their cable deals - which I take to mean that they would expect about 20% of overall cable subscribers to buy them ala carte, if cable programming was unbundled.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I think ESPN will offer its own "HBO now" service and will package all of their channels/properties together for one price.

Probably for the same $15-20/subscriber they charge now. The economics are different for ESPN, which has been underwritten by basic cable subscribers since it first began.

 

[qdawgg]

I believe Sunday Ticket has an app that you can stream through PS4's now (maybe others like AppleTV, but haven't looked into it). So you don't need to carry DirecTV to have Sunday Ticket anymore. Redundant cable is expensive, so just trying to help.

Thanks I'll have to look into it again. A few years ago or so they had it for one year with the PS3, I had it but then the following year they changed something and I wasn't able to get the cheap version. The streaming was a little rough but I would imagine worlds better now. I actually put DT in vacation mode and then call and have the service turned back on for the NFL months. Still expensive...

 

[Ringostar57]

ACC online...ala Netflix Amazon...the "utes" of America are online nowadays not on cable as much. This from an 80 year old! I'm online scaling back time warner.

 

[Moontan]

I really recommend you just get the Roku stick for like $39.

Or free if you prepay for 3 months... while you wait for SlingTV's appearance on AppleTV, which may never come.