ACC Network

[kingottoiii]

So I am reading about Raycom and find this link. If you look you will see all ACCN games are streamed live on the ACC site. So if I am understanding this correctly, no one will have to worry about not having ESPN3 again? You can just watch the games here? I get ESPN3 but I know some here have not in the past.

Also found this link about football and this is great for exposure. Sorry FSU but this has to be better than having one crappy game to sell to a local affiliate (Tier 3 that the B12 bloggers are screaming about). As you can see here, FSU can already be seen in Texas too. And the ACC is in Philly which means should the ACC expand, then a school like Temple is worthless.

It seems that anything that ESPN doesn't take for Tier 1 or 2 goes to Raycom and ESPN has no control over who Raycom partners with. Which is why FSN has partnered with Raycom in half the country and Comcast has in the Mid-Atlantic. I am not sure how long those affiliations are tied together, but thinking outside of the box here, why doesn't Raycom partner with NBC Sports Network (Versus). NBC is looking for content. Why overbid on the Big East when you can get a decent amount of ACC games through Raycom? And for less money?

 

[44PRIDE]

I've come to the conclusion that I don't know jack stuff about what constitutes a good television contract.

 

[TexanMark]

I've come to the conclusion that I don't know jack stuff about what constitutes a good television contract.

Add in the entire T-shirt fan bases of FSU and Clemson and you have some good company. I do know that exposure on ESPN is good and playing rivals where many of your fans and future students live is even better. The B12 should be a nonstarter for FSU and CU but their egos allow this to keep breathing.

KingOtto...also if you have a smartphone with lots of bandwidth you can watch games on your phone.

 

[Faegan]

Add in the entire T-shirt fan bases of FSU and Clemson and you have some good company. I do know that exposure on ESPN is good and playing rivals where many of your fans and future students live is even better.

That is why I think what FSU really wants is the SEC, same for Clemson. The challenge is for the ACC to have a couple of seasons of great football and knock at the prestige of the SEC. And that is quite a challenge at this point in time.

 

[kingottoiii]

Add in the entire T-shirt fan bases of FSU and Clemson and you have some good company. I do know that exposure on ESPN is good and playing rivals where many of your fans and future students live is even better. The B12 should be a nonstarter for FSU and CU but their egos allow this to keep breathing.

KingOtto...also if you have a smartphone with lots of bandwidth you can watch games on your phone.

Also if I am reading this all right, EVERY ACC game is available on TV. So SU fans in LA will be able to watch every SU FB and BBall conference game on either ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, or FOX Sports West. That is also will help to recruit California and Texas (FS Houston and FS SW) for FB.

For NYC I believe MSG has the ACC Raycom BBall games. I wonder if they will pick up the FB too with SU now in the ACC. If not I hope that YES picks up both FB and BBall.

 

[TexanMark]

Also if I am reading this all right, EVERY ACC game is available on TV. So SU fans in LA will be able to watch every SU FB and BBall conference game on either ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, or FOX Sports West. That is also will help to recruit California and Texas (FS Houston and FS SW) for FB.

For NYC I believe MSG has the ACC Raycom BBall games. I wonder if they will pick up the FB too with SU now in the ACC. If not I hope that YES picks up both FB and BBall.

I think you are correct i.e...getting all games
That is what TGD was referring too about exposure

Also, I gotta think SU is working with YES and/or MSG for getting Cuse games down there. The sticking point could be TWC...they had a much cleaner relationship with SNY. Maybe some TV guys can jump in here.

 

[cusenole9]

Interesting read KingOtto. There's no question that the exposure is superb in the ACC. I think the only question is, did we give it away for too cheap by insisting that Raycom be involved and therefore no bidding is involve? I've been getting higher and higher on the acc by the day it seems; however, devils advocate, wouldn't exposure for any conference be great if they gave content away under market value?

 

[rrlbees]

Interesting read KingOtto. There's no question that the exposure is superb in the ACC. I think the only question is, did we give it away for too cheap by insisting that Raycom be involved and therefore no bidding is involve? I've been getting higher and higher on the acc by the day it seems; however, devils advocate, wouldn't exposure for any conference be great if they gave content away under market value?

Some are very unhappy with the Raycom deal. They had to be part of the deal and at $50m. Swoffords kid is an exec there. Raises some eyebrows. .

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[cusenole9]

Some are very unhappy with the Raycom deal. They had to be part of the deal and at $50m. Swoffords kid is an exec there. Raises some eyebrows. .

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

It certainly made me question things. And this was the deal a couple years ago that made it so the ACC didn't have a leg to stand on in the latest round of negotiations with ESPN.

 

[omniorange]

Some are very unhappy with the Raycom deal. They had to be part of the deal and at $50m. Swoffords kid is an exec there. Raises some eyebrows. .

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Without Raycom's involvement, wouldn't the deal be worth less? I think posters are forgetting that, at the time that contract was negotiated, it was considered a great deal.

It subsequently became a "bad deal" in light of future negotiations, particularly with NBC/Comcast now involved in raising the ante.

Now, if someone wants to say that Swofford is hired to predict these market trends and therefore should lose his job over this, I can understand that point of view. But this Raycom issue is a non-starter in my books. Just as Raycom helped the ACC meet their targeted figure back when they first expanded in 2004, so too Raycom helped sweeten this deal enough to make it at the time a good deal taking into account the economic climate and the lack of a real bidding war.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[cusenole9]

Without Raycom's involvement, wouldn't the deal be worth less? I think posters are forgetting that, at the time that contract was negotiated, it was considered a great deal.

It subsequently became a "bad deal" in light of future negotiations, particularly with NBC/Comcast now involved in raising the ante.

Now, if someone wants to say that Swofford is hired to predict these market trends and therefore should lose his job over this, I can understand that point of view. But this Raycom issue is a non-starter in my books. Just as Raycom helped the ACC meet their targeted figure back when they first expanded in 2004, so too Raycom helped sweeten this deal enough to make it at the time a good deal taking into account the economic climate and the lack of a real bidding war.

Cheers,
Neil

Great response and great points. I simply don't remember the climate strong enough to know how strong your argument is. Maybe NBC wasn't upping the Ante yet, but wasn't fox a potential bidder? And didn't Swoffard want anyone but Raycom off the table? If there were no other bidders, why would this have even been an issue?

 

[omniorange]

Great response and great points. I simply don't remember the climate strong enough to know how strong your argument is. Maybe NBC wasn't upping the Ante yet, but wasn't fox a potential bidder? And didn't Swoffard want anyone but Raycom off the table? If there were no other bidders, why would this have even been an issue?

As I recall, both ESPN and FOX were bidding but FOX dropped out with ESPN's last bid.

Why NBC/Comcast became important was the fact that to try and prevent another major network from getting into college athletics during the PAC tv discussions, a suggestion was made that ESPN and FOX should pool their bids like they had with the Big 12 to exceed the NBC/Comcast since neither ESPN nor FOX alone was going to match the offer by NBC/Comcast.

In the cases of both the current Big 12 media rights and the now negotiated Pac 12, ESPN wasn't interested in all of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 content combined, they were only interested in a portion of it. This allowed for ESPN and FOX to work together. Whereas with the ACC, ESPN was interested in getting all of the content which made any other bidder (in this case FOX only) a competitor. Combine this with the absence of NBC/Comcast and the tv media consultants thought the ACC was going to be lucky to get between $105-110 million annually. Even Swofford thought they would top out at $125 million annually. They finished with $155 million.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[cusenole9]

As I recall, both ESPN and FOX were bidding but FOX dropped out with ESPN's last bid.

Why NBC/Comcast became important was the fact that to try and prevent another major network from getting into college athletics during the PAC tv discussions, a suggestion was made that ESPN and FOX should pool their bids like they had with the Big 12 to exceed the NBC/Comcast since neither ESPN nor FOX alone was going to match the offer by NBC/Comcast.

In the cases of both the current Big 12 media rights and the now negotiated Pac 12, ESPN wasn't interested in all of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 content combined, they were only interested in a portion of it. This allowed for ESPN and FOX to work together. Whereas with the ACC, ESPN was interested in getting all of the content which made any other bidder (in this case FOX only) a competitor. Combine this with the absence of NBC/Comcast and the tv media consultants thought the ACC was going to be lucky to get between $105-110 million annually. Even Swofford thought they would top out at $125 million annually. They finished with $155 million.

Cheers,
Neil

You clearly know more about how this deal went down than I do. The role of Raycom in this still seems fishy to me though.

 

[texascpa]

Also if I am reading this all right, EVERY ACC game is available on TV. So SU fans in LA will be able to watch every SU FB and BBall conference game on either ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, or FOX Sports West. That is also will help to recruit California and Texas (FS Houston and FS SW) for FB.

For NYC I believe MSG has the ACC Raycom BBall games. I wonder if they will pick up the FB too with SU now in the ACC. If not I hope that YES picks up both FB and BBall.

Which is why I will probably be cancelling ESPN Gameplan this year. No need for it when SU will be on somewhere else every week.

 

[TexanMark]

Which is why I will probably be cancelling ESPN Gameplan this year. No need for it when SU will be on somewhere else every week.

I cancelled it like 6-8 years ago---even with Time Warner now I was able to watch a few games on ESPN3...I think I only went to a sports bar once last year for a FB game.

 

[omniorange]

You clearly know more about how this deal went down than I do. The role of Raycom in this still seems fishy to me though.

Have you read this piece yet? It might help clear things up.

http://www.accsports.com/blogs/jim-young/2012060712918/the-raycom-red-herring.php

Cheers,
Neil

 

[CaliCuse]

So I am reading about Raycom and find this link. If you look you will see all ACCN games are streamed live on the ACC site. So if I am understanding this correctly, no one will have to worry about not having ESPN3 again? You can just watch the games here? I get ESPN3 but I know some here have not in the past.

Also found this link about football and this is great for exposure. Sorry FSU but this has to be better than having one crappy game to sell to a local affiliate (Tier 3 that the B12 bloggers are screaming about). As you can see here, FSU can already be seen in Texas too. And the ACC is in Philly which means should the ACC expand, then a school like Temple is worthless.

It seems that anything that ESPN doesn't take for Tier 1 or 2 goes to Raycom and ESPN has no control over who Raycom partners with. Which is why FSN has partnered with Raycom in half the country and Comcast has in the Mid-Atlantic. I am not sure how long those affiliations are tied together, but thinking outside of the box here, why doesn't Raycom partner with NBC Sports Network (Versus). NBC is looking for content. Why overbid on the Big East when you can get a decent amount of ACC games through Raycom? And for less money?

I would think that with the popularity of wi-fi video incresing exponentially that getting the ACC games on a device like ROKU would be appealing and available at least soon.:noidea: I have ROKU and its great for wtching the Yankees when they are playing.When the ACC begins making their games available with this technology then its joining the 21st century.couchburn

 

[rrlbees]

Have you read this piece yet? It might help clear things up.

http://www.accsports.com/blogs/jim-young/2012060712918/the-raycom-red-herring.php

Cheers,
Neil

What makes that bloggers article any more significant than the Forbes article?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[HtownOrange]

Some are very unhappy with the Raycom deal. They had to be part of the deal and at $50m. Swoffords kid is an exec there. Raises some eyebrows. .

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Bees, you are dead on, this has raised the eyebrows of many fans and schools. However, the ACC has had a history of dealing with Raycom. I'm not a Swofford fan and I don't like the potential conflict of interest so it will be interesting to see what happens in the future.

 

[Toga]

What makes that bloggers article any more significant than the Forbes article?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

I didn't read the Forbes' piece but this other article / post was just a bunch of soft gobblydegook.

 

[omniorange]

What makes that bloggers article any more significant than the Forbes article?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Perhaps because it references other news articles and is not the fluff piece that Chris Smith did and has been called into question?

Or didn't you bother to follow the links to actual news stories from 2010?

Cheers,
Neil

 

[omniorange]

Bees, you are dead on, this has raised the eyebrows of many fans and schools. However, the ACC has had a history of dealing with Raycom. I'm not a Swofford fan and I don't like the potential conflict of interest so it will be interesting to see what happens in the future.

Again, read the piece I linked above and the associated pieces it links to.

If Raycom didn't put up the sub-licensing of $50 million to get to the annual $155 million figure, then the ACC was going to either have to settle for less or get those sub-licensing fees from someone other than Fox. But at that time, who else do you think was going to step in?

Cheers,
Neil

 

[rrlbees]

Perhaps because it references other news articles and is not the fluff piece that Chris Smith did and has been called into question?

Or didn't you bother to follow the links to actual news stories from 2010?

Cheers,
Neil

Yep, I read the linked articles. The 2010 Business Journal article supports my post.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[SouthCampusHero]

I havent been following closely...what is the expected pay-out per team with the new BE contract?

 

[TexanMark]

I havent been following closely...what is the expected pay-out per team with the new BE contract?

BE is expected to play off NBC against ESPN...quotes anywhere for full members from $8-13M average over the life of the contract. The ACC will be about double.