ACC Conference Future Revenue Numbers

[CuseOnly]

Right - since he meant $3M that would be enough for chips and soda - for all the fans at 7 home games!

No kidding really?

Thanks for clarifying for me, that is a difference of 2,999,997 dollars, huge.

 

[atom58]

No kidding really?

Thanks for clarifying for me, that is a difference of 2,999,997 dollars, huge.

Right - in the short term - the run up to the 2019 TV channel, I have understood that this is the "bump" from the "channel clause" - at least $45 million per year for every year the TV channel does not exist, which is $3M per school. It was very smart that the ACC put that clause into the contract back in 2012 or so - has to be one factor for ESPN (to avoid paying "money for nothing") but I think the main factor is keeping the ACC together and "even with Steven" in the conference arms race. The Pac 12 as that link indicated is likely to be with the Big 12 in the bottom 2 and behind the ACC per this quote:

Another player will enter the competition in a couple of years. The Atlantic Coast Conference, in conjunction with ESPN, will launch its network in 2019. One industry insider thinks that deal “will blow the Pac-12 away.”

 

[atom58]

Right - since he meant $3M that would be enough for chips and soda - for all the fans at 7 home games!

Carrying this a little further, if you have 7 FB sellouts in the 49,262 seat Carrier Dome, $3M would give and every fan $8.70 to spend. With average attendance numbers, unlimited refreshments!

 

[NJCuse97]

Carrying this a little further, if you have 7 FB sellouts in the 49,262 seat Carrier Dome, $3M would give and every fan $8.70 to spend. With average attendance numbers, unlimited refreshments!

Now don't be fresh. He was being sarcastic at your expense, and in response to your comment. Don't take us all down in your response my FSU friend.

 

[orange79]

Dude's making a joke. Chill, everyone.

 

[nzm136]

Right - in the short term - the run up to the 2019 TV channel, I have understood that this is the "bump" from the "channel clause" - at least $45 million per year for every year the TV channel does not exist, which is $3M per school. It was very smart that the ACC put that clause into the contract back in 2012 or so - has to be one factor for ESPN (to avoid paying "money for nothing") but I think the main factor is keeping the ACC together and "even with Steven" in the conference arms race. The Pac 12 as that link indicated is likely to be with the Big 12 in the bottom 2 and behind the ACC per this quote:

Another player will enter the competition in a couple of years. The Atlantic Coast Conference, in conjunction with ESPN, will launch its network in 2019. One industry insider thinks that deal “will blow the Pac-12 away.”

It would be extremely hard to not blow the Pac away. I'm pretty sure we make what they make now (or very close to it). And that's based on a contract that was signed before we dumped a bunch of value into ESPN (rights extension, etc.). The ACC will rightfully be a top 3 conference. And, we will get another bump when the Sugar and Orange are renegotiated. We will be even w/ the other conference's at the very least, and that's worth about $1,000,000 per school in today's money.

We are in a very, very strong conference - weather our friends in Connecticut, New Jersey, or flyover country want to admit it or not.

 

[CuseOnly]

Dude's making a joke. Chill, everyone.

Can't believe that joke flew so far over everyone's heads...or they actually thought I was serious and didn't know.

Not sure which is worse...

 

[atom58]

Talking about $$$, "Hokie Mark" puts up some interesting forecasts:

Projecting $40M per Year

Somewhere else even before the ESPN network deal was announced, Mark wrote that the contract payouts gradually appreciate every year so near the end of the contract period the per team payouts would be quite significantly more than the $26 million per year of 2015 - I guess you could say these contracts are "backloaded".

I am actually not worried about the loss of subscribers in cable TV - you have to pay somewhere for ESPN and two years from now there will still be about 80 million people in cable TV. The BTN and SEC networks would take the hit too in case of a downturn.

 

[Cheriehoop]

Can't believe that joke flew so far over everyone's heads...or they actually thought I was serious and didn't know.

Not sure which is worse...

Learned that those crazy emojis help.

 

[nzm136]

Talking about $$$, "Hokie Mark" puts up some interesting forecasts:

Projecting $40M per Year

Somewhere else even before the ESPN network deal was announced, Mark wrote that the contract payouts gradually appreciate every year so near the end of the contract period the per team payouts would be quite significantly more than the $26 million per year of 2015 - I guess you could say these contracts are "backloaded".

I am actually not worried about the loss of subscribers in cable TV - you have to pay somewhere for ESPN and two years from now there will still be about 80 million people in cable TV. The BTN and SEC networks would take the hit too in case of a downturn.

Those that worry about the decline of cable generally overlook the reality of subscription-based web access.

The same goes for bundling. There's no reason why bundling can't happen on the internet. In fact, it often does, and it has for quite some time.

 

[NJCuse97]

Can't believe that joke flew so far over everyone's heads...or they actually thought I was serious and didn't know.

Not sure which is worse...

Only atom58's head.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

It depends on what's replaced. It probably costs Syracuse money. We can schedule who we want in basketball, so, theoretically, the extra ACC game would only net out even (at best). Otherwise, the school would have just scheduled a H&H w/ a comparable team.

It helps schools like BC.

But we pay the non-conf. opponents, so it should be more revenue positive.

 

[nzm136]

But we pay the non-conf. opponents, so it should be more revenue positive.

Huh? We'd be losing s non-conf. opponent. It's revenue neutral at best - and it's probably revenue negative.

It's revenue positive for schools like Clemson and BC who can't schedule who they want, where they want.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Huh? We'd be losing s non-conf. opponent. It's revenue neutral at best - and it's probably revenue negative.

It's revenue positive for schools like Clemson and BC who can't schedule who they want, where they want.

But we pay NC opponents to come here. Attendance would go up, costs would go down.

 

[CuseLegacy]

I thought this was an interesting breakdown of revenue and expenses for all sports at LSU. Be interesting to see a similar breakdown for Syracuse.

 

[CuseOnly]

I thought this was an interesting breakdown of revenue and expenses for all sports at LSU. Be interesting to see a similar breakdown for Syracuse.

Weren't there widespread rumors and talk that their Athletic Department was losing money and unsustainable? I recall they couldn't fire Les Miles for that reason...must be "fake news" or "alternate facts" but it got reported anyway.

Media can be such hogwash sometimes.

 

[nzm136]

But we pay NC opponents to come here. Attendance would go up, costs would go down.

We pay NC opponents to come here because that's cheaper than losing half a home game every year.

...otherwise we would just schedule H&H's as is.

Actually, these games will probably replace existing H&H games (UConn, Villanova, Georgetown, etc.).

SU bb attendance would go down and costs would probably stay the same because we would be trading an interesting, cherry picked game for a random ACC game of comparable difficulty. That's a loss any way that you want to try to spin it.

The only schools that gain are schools that can't schedule interesting games on good terms (BC, Clemson, etc.)

 

[WickedOrange]

ESPN Has Seen the Future of TV and They’re Not Really Into It

 

[Lou_C]

ESPN Has Seen the Future of TV and They’re Not Really Into It

Thanks for the link...here's the money quote:

Although the audience for traditional satellite and cable is declining, there’s a raft of new services—including Google’s YouTube TV, Dish Network’s Sling TV, Sony’s PlayStation Vue, and a soon-to-be-launched one from Hulu—that are offering channel packages that look suspiciously like cable bundles, and that uniformly include ESPN. Aimed at millennials, these online services are designed for smartphones and devices such as Roku and AppleTV and cost from $20 to $50 a month. Even though these plans are cheaper than a traditional cable subscription, ESPN gets paid its usual $7 per subscriber by Google and the other newcomers, according to people with knowledge of the agreements.

That's something I've been wondering, how much of a haircut ESPN was taking from these over the top services. If they're really getting their full fee, and the fact that none of these services have dared to launch without ESPN in the lineup, that tells me ESPN is going to be OK. The margins may never quite be what they were, but they aren't DYING.

 

[Fly Rodder]

... that tells me ESPN is going to be OK. The margins may never quite be what they were, but they aren't DYING.

I switched to appletv with sling just around a year and a half ago. The ESPN/Disney package is an extra$15/month (for basically ESPN, minus the U, and Disney). I subscribed for basketball season and then canceled. I don't watch a ton of ESPN otherwise. The YES network is included in my basic package. What this will ultimately do is really toy with ESPN revenues as people subscribe and unsubscribe as needed. It's going to come down to cash flow. ESPN has a lot of contracts where they're sending out checks with a lot of zeros on them. It'll just take a few bad quarters to tip things into the red. IMO, Wildhack didn't leave ESPN because it was going to have a banner future.

 

[rocklloyd]

Thanks for the link...here's the money quote:

Although the audience for traditional satellite and cable is declining, there’s a raft of new services—including Google’s YouTube TV, Dish Network’s Sling TV, Sony’s PlayStation Vue, and a soon-to-be-launched one from Hulu—that are offering channel packages that look suspiciously like cable bundles, and that uniformly include ESPN. Aimed at millennials, these online services are designed for smartphones and devices such as Roku and AppleTV and cost from $20 to $50 a month. Even though these plans are cheaper than a traditional cable subscription, ESPN gets paid its usual $7 per subscriber by Google and the other newcomers, according to people with knowledge of the agreements.

That's something I've been wondering, how much of a haircut ESPN was taking from these over the top services. If they're really getting their full fee, and the fact that none of these services have dared to launch without ESPN in the lineup, that tells me ESPN is going to be OK. The margins may never quite be what they were, but they aren't DYING.

100% agree. And sports is about the only segment of cable that'll be somewhat immune to dying. I watch nearly everything on DVR or delayed in some fashion with exception of sports. I need to watch live.

 

[CuseLegacy]

 

[Fly Rodder]

Amateurs.