Arbs--Can we get an ACC Network Update?

[CuseOnly]

My guess reading what the ninja says during these interviews is that they are looking for a web based channel with monthly subscription fees and keeping the content currently available on ESPN, RayCom, Fox.

Which I would gladly pay for to get every game available for both basketball, football and Lax.

 

[MadNY3]

The ACC and Big 12 should team up on a network. Would be best of both worlds. Keep our conferences intact and make enough money to compete with the B1G and SEC.

And split revenue between 25+ schools?

No thanks.

 

[omniorange]

Let us wait for the last fiscal year tax return b4 reaching any conclusions. I was in Tallahasse going to FSU when we went 0-11, 1-10, and 3-8 in consecutive years (and the last 2 years of bowl game losses don't look so good to me either) so I truly take a longitudinal view. The IRS rules for non-profits are different - I read they have up to 11 months to file. Going on the Internet, I see non-profit organizations though tax exempt still have to file an information return on form 990, and for a fiscal year ending June 30 [2015], there is a "second extended date" of May 15 [2016]:

https://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Return-Due-Dates-for-Exempt-Organizations-Annual-Return

The ACC tax returns from 2011, 2012, and 2013 are already online:

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/560599082

The year 2015 was the 1st year of the CFB 4 team playoff and will show a significant increase in $$$ beyond what has been mentioned here.

The only cautionary note I would cite to the above appeal for the use of patience is that at one point in time the ACC announced conference distributions well before the actual tax returns were filed. They used to be announced around June and July of the very fiscal year they were for. Of course, at one point in time the ACC gave out the highest per institution conference distributions.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Lou_C]

Let us wait for the last fiscal year tax return b4 reaching any conclusions. I was in Tallahasse going to FSU when we went 0-11, 1-10, and 3-8 in consecutive years (and the last 2 years of bowl game losses don't look so good to me either) so I truly take a longitudinal view. The IRS rules for non-profits are different - I read they have up to 11 months to file. Going on the Internet, I see non-profit organizations though tax exempt still have to file an information return on form 990, and for a fiscal year ending June 30 [2015], there is a "second extended date" of May 15 [2016]:

https://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Return-Due-Dates-for-Exempt-Organizations-Annual-Return

The ACC tax returns from 2011, 2012, and 2013 are already online:

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/560599082

The year 2015 was the 1st year of the CFB 4 team playoff and will show a significant increase in $$$ beyond what has been mentioned here.

Yes, because the ACC doesn't release numbers, many people make the mistake of comparing year old numbers to SEC and Big 12 releases. I expect that the 2014-2015 ACC numbers will be negligibly different from the Big 12 and PAC in any direction.

However, unless there is an unreported revenue source, which is unlikely but not impossible given the secrecy that the ACC shrouds itself in, the gap with the SEC and B1G is going to grow significantly.

That being said, one note that is worth a bit of a silver lining that nobody but me ever talks about. As part of the new SECN deal, the SEC extended their contracts another decade, to 2035. They are now the longest rights deal in ALL OF SPORTS. As much as a boost as they've gotten, a significant portion of that boost is in that extension. Longer rights deals today ALWAYS serve the network, and they'll pay for extensions. They already paid several million to extend the ACC's deal by three years.

In the WORST case scenario, even if an ACC network doesn't materialize, the ACC could walk up to ESPN, offer up it's rights another ten years, and get a significant raise.

Now, I don't know that I want that to happen. I'm not sure that the best long-long term chance for the ACC to catch up much more to the B1G and SEC isn't to bite the bullet for a decade and get on the open market. Can all the schools survive and hold tight in the face of a decade of those shortfalls? I don't know, but continuing to extend a really bad 2010 deal is just never going to get you ahead. You've got to get to the open market again to catch up, in my opinion. I think eventually the ACC is going to have to decide if it's willing to be at something like 60% of B1G/SEC money for a decade for a chance to be at 90% after that, or it would rather be at 75% for perpetuity. If they go for the latter, we'll see a new deal, including an ACCN or not, in the next 2-3 years.

 

[Alsacs]

Yes, because the ACC doesn't release numbers, many people make the mistake of comparing year old numbers to SEC and Big 12 releases. I expect that the 2014-2015 ACC numbers will be negligibly different from the Big 12 and PAC in any direction.

However, unless there is an unreported revenue source, which is unlikely but not impossible given the secrecy that the ACC shrouds itself in, the gap with the SEC and B1G is going to grow significantly.

That being said, one note that is worth a bit of a silver lining that nobody but me ever talks about. As part of the new SECN deal, the SEC extended their contracts another decade, to 2035. They are now the longest rights deal in ALL OF SPORTS. As much as a boost as they've gotten, a significant portion of that boost is in that extension. Longer rights deals today ALWAYS serve the network, and they'll pay for extensions. They already paid several million to extend the ACC's deal by three years.

In the WORST case scenario, even if an ACC network doesn't materialize, the ACC could walk up to ESPN, offer up it's rights another ten years, and get a significant raise.

Now, I don't know that I want that to happen. I'm not sure that the best long-long term chance for the ACC to catch up much more to the B1G and SEC isn't to bite the bullet for a decade and get on the open market. Can all the schools survive and hold tight in the face of a decade of those shortfalls? I don't know, but continuing to extend a really bad 2010 deal is just never going to get you ahead. You've got to get to the open market again to catch up, in my opinion. I think eventually the ACC is going to have to decide if it's willing to be at something like 60% of B1G/SEC money for a decade for a chance to be at 90% after that, or it would rather be at 75% for perpetuity. If they go for the latter, we'll see a new deal, including an ACCN or not, in the next 2-3 years.

I am hearing the Big Ten contract isn't going to be as big as they thought years ago. ESPN will give them a max of 40 million per school. I think that contract will be split with FOX and be for a healthy amount but not the insane figures they thought after the cutbacks at ESPN and the awful MLB contract ESPN signed are going to hurt their bottom line with the Big Ten.

 

[Btstimpy]

I am hearing the Big Ten contract isn't going to be as big as they thought years ago. ESPN will give them a max of 40 million per school. I think that contract will be split with FOX and be for a healthy amount but not the insane figures they thought after the cutbacks at ESPN and the awful MLB contract ESPN signed are going to hurt their bottom line with the Big Ten.

I wouldn't think that the Big Ten contract would be too much different from the SEC. The neilson numbers don't support it being much different than the SEC.

 

[nzm136]

just another thing to keep in mind when Conference Payouts, not all revenue sharing plans are the same.

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/04/20/big-ten-ticket-revenue/

Today, the Big Ten shares gate receipts from both football and men’s basketball. For football, schools contribute 35% of the gate receipts for all home games against conference opponents. The minimum contribution per game is $300,000 and the maximum is $1 million, making the maximum for the season $4 million. The pool is divided equally between all schools.

Here’s what each team in the Big Ten contributed for the 2009 football season:

Penn State Univ. $4,000,000.00
Univ. of Michigan $4,000,000.00
Ohio State Univ. $4,000,000.00
Univ. of Iowa $3,700,000.00
Univ. of Wisconsin $3,600,000.00
Michigan State Univ. $3,600,000.00
Univ. of Illinois $2,400,000.00
Purdue Univ. $2,200,000.00
Univ. of Minnesota $2,100,000.00
Indiana Univ. $1,600,000.00
Northwestern Univ. $1,200,000.00

These figures are from 2009!

The Big Ten is not quite the money maker it appears. Rutgers will be a net taker, for sure. However, they must "pay in" to the fund, too.

Thank you for digging up the numbers. I've been saying this for years. The Big Ten has the best PR machine on the planet. Sure it's a very, very good conference, but the distance between the Big Ten and #3 isn't as big as they pretend. Depending on how they calculate conference revenue (i.e. if this is included) then they massively overstate it. They could very well have effectively passed ~$3 million dollars from their right hand to their left hand back to their right hand and counted it as revenue in 2009. Assume a conservative 3% yearly growth rate in the numbers (i.e. inflation and population growth) and, if this factors in as "conference revenue" (which I think it does), the B1G inflates distributions by $3.5 million dollars.

Keep in mind that the B1G has a 6 year buy-in (i.e. only receiving partial distributions). Assuming that they start with a 50% payout and walk up to a 100% payout (i.e. average a 75% payout over those 6 years) and that the average total payout is $30 million (conservative going forward), then ignoring the time value of money (to be conservative) new additions will have invested $45 million in the conference by the time they are full members. If the opportunity cost was an 8% return on investment (i.e. roughly average for most endowments - SU has been just over 6% over the last 10 years, which included the Great Recession), then anything under a $3.6 million bump is a net loss (ignoring the impact of increased volatility from the network - to be conservative).

Combined that means that the B1G is overstating revenues by between an estimated $3.6 million and $7.1 million per school. Given there's a $9-10 million nominal gap between the ACC and the B1G, the real gap is between $1.9 million and $6.4 million (my guess is closer to $1.9 million).

Yes, it's better and it would be great if SU could have the extra couple of million, but it isn't close to what the B1G likes to pretend is going on. The B1G enjoys a better reputation (although FSU and Clemson are doing a good job narrowing the gap) and the ACC enjoys better recruiting territories.

**Type "Syracuse Endowment Investment Performance" into google to see the endowment numbers over the last decade.
EDIT:
*The gap is bigger for the smaller schools (Northwestern, Rutgers, Purdue, etc.) than the bigger schools because the bigger schools are net losers when it comes to redistributing gate revenue.
*It's also worth noting that conference membership extends beyond conference payouts. Many B1G teams travel well, and that is a huge monetary advantage that I'm not taking into account. Still, my basic point is that the conferences are closer than they appear.
*Finally, it's worth noting that the above calculations don't apply as much to the SEC. They don't share gate and they spent way less buying back content (apparently they don't actually own the SECN - so I hear). As such, they are a legitimate #1 with a ~$7-8 million edge (back-of-the-envelope calc.), but they're locked into a really, really long term contract, so they are exposed to slightly different risks.

 

[nzm136]

I wouldn't think that the Big Ten contract would be too much different from the SEC. The neilson numbers don't support it being much different than the SEC.

If they are markedly different, it will be because they sign a long back-loaded contract.

 

[HtownOrange]

Thank you for digging up the numbers. I've been saying this for years. The Big Ten has the best PR machine on the planet. Sure it's a very, very good conference, but the distance between the Big Ten and #3 isn't as big as they pretend. Depending on how they calculate conference revenue (i.e. if this is included) then they massively overstate it. They could very well have effectively passed ~$3 million dollars from their right hand to their left hand back to their right hand and counted it as revenue in 2009. Assume a conservative 3% yearly growth rate in the numbers (i.e. inflation and population growth) and, if this factors in as "conference revenue" (which I think it does), the B1G inflates distributions by $3.5 million dollars.

Keep in mind that the B1G has a 6 year buy-in (i.e. only receiving partial distributions). Assuming that they start with a 50% payout and walk up to a 100% payout (i.e. average a 75% payout over those 6 years) and that the average total payout is $30 million (conservative going forward), then ignoring the time value of money (to be conservative) new additions will have invested $45 million in the conference by the time they are full members. If the opportunity cost was an 8% return on investment (i.e. roughly average for most endowments - SU has been just over 6% over the last 10 years, which included the Great Recession), then anything under a $3.6 million bump is a net loss (ignoring the impact of increased volatility from the network - to be conservative).

Combined that means that the B1G is overstating revenues by between an estimated $3.6 million and $7.1 million per school. Given there's a $9-10 million nominal gap between the ACC and the B1G, the real gap is between $1.9 million and $6.4 million (my guess is closer to $1.9 million).

Yes, it's better and it would be great if SU could have the extra couple of million, but it isn't close to what the B1G likes to pretend is going on. The B1G enjoys a better reputation (although FSU and Clemson are doing a good job narrowing the gap) and the ACC enjoys better recruiting territories.

**Type "Syracuse Endowment Investment Performance" into google to see the endowment numbers over the last decade.
EDIT:
*The gap is bigger for the smaller schools (Northwestern, Rutgers, Purdue, etc.) than the bigger schools because the bigger schools are net losers when it comes to redistributing gate revenue.
*It's also worth noting that conference membership extends beyond conference payouts. Many B1G teams travel well, and that is a huge monetary advantage that I'm not taking into account. Still, my basic point is that the conferences are closer than they appear.
*Finally, it's worth noting that the above calculations don't apply as much to the SEC. They don't share gate and they spent way less buying back content (apparently they don't actually own the SECN - so I hear). As such, they are a legitimate #1 with a ~$7-8 million edge (back-of-the-envelope calc.), but they're locked into a really, really long term contract, so they are exposed to slightly different risks.

Thanks for the information. This is probably why ESPN and the ACC are not as rushed to get a network up and running, especially when one considers that the ACC gets a payout whether there is a network and ESPN is in the middle of cutbacks, timing simply is NOT right at this point. Though I would like to see at least better coverage and would be willing to pay as I go (either per game or season) until the network issue is resolved.

The amazing thing is that while people are worried over $1-2 MM/year difference in payouts, this is still a small percentage of the revenue generated by teams. Even a $10MM gap between the SEC and others seems like a lot, for the good teams, is between <10% -15%. Syracuse admitted to having approximately $90 MM in revenue (if I recall correctly), thus a $10 MM gap is only an 11% difference while a $2 MM gap amounts to about 2.1% difference in the overall budget. The idea that Syracuse cannot compete simply because Syracuse does not receive an SEC or B1G payout is simply wrong. Naturally, the difference is much larger for teams like Rutgers and Northwester that do not generate much revenue, but Syracuse is far from hurting. And, yes, to those who claim it is the hoops that brings Syracuse in line with others (recall Syracuse generates more revenue than Clemson and most other ACC schools!), hoops helps Syracuse a lot. Regardless, if Syracuse puts a winning team on the field, Syracuse will generate more revenue.

And one other point on Syracuse, the University has a way of showing the AD as income neutral. Regardless of the revenue, the University manages to show the AD is generally a break even proposition. I believe Syracuse sports are truly an income generator* for the University and they merely use the excess to fund other things at the University. As a non-profit, they can take excess revenue and apply it towards other areas (research, non-athletic scholarships, buildings, professorships, etc.). If I am correct, Syracuse U. is using the sports to fulfill its true mission: to educate! We can't ask for more than that. Regardless, even if I am off base, the Syracuse AD is at least break even and not the leech that most AD's are to their host schools.

* I read somewhere that the Dome as owned by the University charges "rent" to the AD. I have no issue with this and it is a easy way to show the AD is supporting the school mission.

 

[sutomcat]

Anything at all to report? Is it DOA or is there some hope that it can be established in the near future? Thanks for any information you can provide.

Maybe I am missing something but as more and more people opt out of the cable TV subscription model and cable TV is forced to go more ala carte to retain the customers they have left, aren't the assumptions that drove the creation of these conference networks being rapidly eroded?

Over the course of the next 10 years, how can the B1G network retain the subscribers they currently have, where most of they have no interest in B1G sports and will not pay for it unless they are forced to do so?

Shouldn't conferences be focusing their efforts on creating content that can be accessed from the Internet, on-line, moving away from cable TV ASAP? Why limit your audience by clinging to cable? Why give a significant amount of your profits to cable companies when this is really not required?

I don't see how the B1G or even the SEC networks can ever make the kind of money the conferences are projecting. Not from conference TV networks anyway...

 

[TheCusian]

Maybe I am missing something but as more and more people opt out of the cable TV subscription model and cable TV is forced to go more ala carte to retain the customers they have left, aren't the assumptions that drove the creation of these conference networks being rapidly eroded? Over the course of the next 10 years, how can the B1G network retain the subscribers they currently have, where most of they have no interest in B1G sports and will not pay for it unless they are forced to do so? Shouldn't conferences be focusing their efforts on creating content that can be accessed from the Internet, on-line, moving away from cable TV ASAP? Why limit your audience by clinging to cable? Why give a significant amount of your profits to cable companies when this is really not required? I don't see how the B1G or even the SEC networks can ever make the kind of money the conferences are projecting. Not from conference TV networks anyway...

There's no doubt it's headed in that direction. How fast it goes there is a different question.

If I'm ESPN, I'm looking hard at HBO NOW and Sling and really trying to see in light of eroding subscribers - just how much a Syracuse or FSU or Pitt fan would pay per month to see every game. I'd be shocked if the "getting tons of money from people who don't want the channel" model lasts more than 5-10 years.

 

[OrangePA]

Maybe I am missing something but as more and more people opt out of the cable TV subscription model and cable TV is forced to go more ala carte to retain the customers they have left, aren't the assumptions that drove the creation of these conference networks being rapidly eroded?

Over the course of the next 10 years, how can the B1G network retain the subscribers they currently have, where most of they have no interest in B1G sports and will not pay for it unless they are forced to do so?

Shouldn't conferences be focusing their efforts on creating content that can be accessed from the Internet, on-line, moving away from cable TV ASAP? Why limit your audience by clinging to cable? Why give a significant amount of your profits to cable companies when this is really not required?

I don't see how the B1G or even the SEC networks can ever make the kind of money the conferences are projecting. Not from conference TV networks anyway...

And, isn't the ACC well-positioned to transition to internet-based distribution of its content?

 

[HtownOrange]

Maybe I am missing something but as more and more people opt out of the cable TV subscription model and cable TV is forced to go more ala carte to retain the customers they have left, aren't the assumptions that drove the creation of these conference networks being rapidly eroded?

Over the course of the next 10 years, how can the B1G network retain the subscribers they currently have, where most of they have no interest in B1G sports and will not pay for it unless they are forced to do so?

Shouldn't conferences be focusing their efforts on creating content that can be accessed from the Internet, on-line, moving away from cable TV ASAP? Why limit your audience by clinging to cable? Why give a significant amount of your profits to cable companies when this is really not required?

I don't see how the B1G or even the SEC networks can ever make the kind of money the conferences are projecting. Not from conference TV networks anyway...

This may be where the PAC 12 is ahead of the curve, especially since they are developing a following in Asia (many PAC 12 students are recruited from Asia). Online content available on demand, either pay as you go or a monthly access fee seems like the way of the future.

 

[JimBoston]

Maybe I am missing something but as more and more people opt out of the cable TV subscription model and cable TV is forced to go more ala carte to retain the customers they have left, aren't the assumptions that drove the creation of these conference networks being rapidly eroded?

Over the course of the next 10 years, how can the B1G network retain the subscribers they currently have, where most of they have no interest in B1G sports and will not pay for it unless they are forced to do so?

Shouldn't conferences be focusing their efforts on creating content that can be accessed from the Internet, on-line, moving away from cable TV ASAP? Why limit your audience by clinging to cable? Why give a significant amount of your profits to cable companies when this is really not required?

I don't see how the B1G or even the SEC networks can ever make the kind of money the conferences are projecting. Not from conference TV networks anyway...

I agree that the model of charging every subscriber in a DMA for a conference network is not sustainable over the long term, but having a conference network today is valuable as it is the content platform for their fans and it could move to over the top in the future. The ACCN today is essentially a combination of Raycom and ESPN. In the future, if conference networks go over the top, perhaps Raycom can be developed into becoming the ACCN.

How networks are monetized in the future is up for debate, but fans of a school would pay much more than $1/month to watch their favorite school and conference. Would you pay $10/month to see all Syracuse athletic content as well as all of the other ACC content? Sure. Would fans of Big 10 and SEC schools pay up for content? Sure.

In a financial model where fans of each school would have to pay up to subscribe for their team's content, the value of each of those schools is considerably different, especially in the ACC. Who would bring more subscribers, FSU or Wake Forest? Should the pot be split evenly if FSU brings 1 million subs and Wake Forest brings 50k?

 

[sutomcat]

I agree that the model of charging every subscriber in a DMA for a conference network is not sustainable over the long term, but having a conference network today is valuable as it is the content platform for their fans and it could move to over the top in the future. The ACCN today is essentially a combination of Raycom and ESPN. In the future, if conference networks go over the top, perhaps Raycom can be developed into becoming the ACCN.

How networks are monetized in the future is up for debate, but fans of a school would pay much more than $1/month to watch their favorite school and conference. Would you pay $10/month to see all Syracuse athletic content as well as all of the other ACC content? Sure. Would fans of Big 10 and SEC schools pay up for content? Sure.

In a financial model where fans of each school would have to pay up to subscribe for their team's content, the value of each of those schools is considerably different, especially in the ACC. Who would bring more subscribers, FSU or Wake Forest? Should the pot be split evenly if FSU brings 1 million subs and Wake Forest brings 50k?

Good discussion. I agree with you that fans of teams will pay to get access to live broadcasts of their teams. Live sports was been the backbone cable tv was built around. This was because that content is really valuable.

I think Raycom's future role will be to help provide announcers, directors, cameras, etc. on site at various ACC venues to help provide content when ESPN is unwilling because the national audience is too small to make an ESPN production worthwhile. Their role in the distribution of the content will, I think, become dramatically less important as the 'third tier' level content moves from cable to the Internet. Heck, a bunch of it is already found on cable on ESPN3.

I hope and expect that media rights continue to be sold at the conference level, not with individual schools. I think in the long run, that model makes more money for the schools and it certainly makes it easier for the customers to sort out what they need to watch their team(s) play.

 

[reedny]

I agree with TC that media rights need to be sold at the conference level. This is the same model conferences have used for bowl revenue and other rights, and sharing spreads the risks, costs and benefits in a balanced way.

However, I wouldn't trust Raycom to sort my laundry. This outfit could care less about upstate NY fans or sports. They have proven to me that they are untrustworthy by routinely peddling the rights to SU games to media outlets that can't or won't air the games in the prime viewing area. If Raycom pulled the same nonsense with F-State as they do with SU, seminole fans would burn down their building in Charlotte or Montgomery, or wherever they are. Terrible.

The ACC can and must do better than Raycom. And while I'm on a roll, I think cable TV, not the internet, is the future of 2d/3d tier programming. There are so many problems with internet broadcasts I can't count them ... signal quality, issues with ads, dropped or interrupted coverage. Folks ... we all have beautiful TV's, with reliable HD cable signals. Leave the computer stuff to the millennials -- they can "catch" the games on their I-phones. No thank you.

 

[gbo]

I agree with TC that media rights need to be sold at the conference level. This is the same model conferences have used for bowl revenue and other rights, and sharing spreads the risks, costs and benefits in a balanced way.

However, I wouldn't trust Raycom to sort my laundry. This outfit could care less about upstate NY fans or sports. They have proven to me that they are untrustworthy by routinely peddling the rights to SU games to media outlets that can't or won't air the games in the prime viewing area. If Raycom pulled the same nonsense with F-State as they do with SU, seminole fans would burn down their building in Charlotte or Montgomery, or wherever they are. Terrible.

The ACC can and must do better than Raycom. And while I'm on a roll, I think cable TV, not the internet, is the future of 3rd tier programming. There are so many problems with internet broadcasts I can't count them ... signal quality, issues with ads, dropped or interrupted coverage. Folks ... we all have beautiful TV's, with reliable HD cable signals. Leave the computer stuff to the millennials -- they can "catch" the games on their I-phones. No thank you.

It could do better than Raycom but it won't...Swofford's son works for them.

 

[reedny]

It could do better than Raycom but it won't...Swofford's son works for them.

They're a tobacco road joke -- might as well call themselves, "Carolina Broadcasting Co.".

 

[gbo]

They're a tobacco road joke -- might as well call themselves, "Carolina Broadcasting Co.".

Exactly and it's never going to get better. What we need is a new commissioner...one that isn't affiliated with any of the member schools. No other major conference does that.

 

[HOFCeluck]

I think cable TV, not the internet, is the future of 3rd tier programming.

Leave the computer stuff to the millennials -- they can "catch" the games on their I-phones. No thank you.

These statements seem contradictory.

I have chromecast...so internet streaming doesn't render my HD TV useless.

 

[reedny]

Exactly and it's never going to get better. What we need is a new commissioner...one that isn't affiliated with any of the member schools. No other major conference does that.

The funny thing is .. the ACC doesn't have to contract with Raycom. There are other 2d tier providers. I don't care about Swofford ... the conference AD's have to agree on what goes in the ESPN contract (for example, the ESPN "game pass" is a complete fraud) and who gets the 2d tier rights. Raycom's been a disaster for SU.

There's also a little blood on Time Warner's hands. They've touted themselves to subscribers as the "home of SU sports", but they frequently come up short on bidding/obtaining SU games from Raycom/UNC broadcasting.

The conference needs to start fresh with a new 2d tier provider, and our new AD needs to get involved in this issue. Raycom's eating our lunch.

 

[reedny]

These statements seem contradictory.

I have chromecast...so internet streaming doesn't render my HD TV useless.

Yes, I have the same. And true, you can send a computer signal to your TV. But most people have cable. As you know, there are many problems streaming internet signals to television ... at least in my neighborhood the internet is a crap-shoot.

I couldn't watch the Georgia Tech - SU game so I went on ESPN3 to stream it ... ooops, they missed the entire first half. I start swearing whenever i get stuck with an internet "broadcast". To start out with, I can't use google chrome to log in .. have to use foxfire (sp). The log-in freezes when I try to input my cable subscriber. If, after 5-6 tries, I'm lucky enough to log in and I try to skip forward to see the actual game, the video cursor goes crazy and goes to the end or back to the beginning. It's just problem after problem after problem.

Sorry but I'll take my cable signal. You can use your Iphone or stream whatever you like.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Yes, I have the same. And true, you can send a computer signal to your TV. But most people have cable. As you know, there are many problems with internet signals ... at least in my neighborhood the internet is a crap-shoot.

I couldn't watch the Georgia Tech - SU game so I went on ESPN3 to stream it ... ooops, they missed the entire first half. I start swearing whenever i get stuck with an internet "broadcast". To start out with, I can't use google chrome to log in .. have to use foxfire (sp). The log-in freezes when I try to input my cable subscriber. If I try to skip an ad, the video cursor goes crazy and goes to the end or back to the beginning.

Sorry but I'll take my cable signal. You can use your Iphone or stream whatever you like.

That would assume that the technology is static over time.

 

[reedny]

That would assume that the technology is static over time.

yah, well, I've had a 4k TV for a year and so far, there's been a whole lot of static "technology" and no 4k content.

If you can't tell, I don't much like experimenting with my SU games. Just give me an HD cable signal and air the damn game.

 

[HtownOrange]

I agree that the model of charging every subscriber in a DMA for a conference network is not sustainable over the long term, but having a conference network today is valuable as it is the content platform for their fans and it could move to over the top in the future. The ACCN today is essentially a combination of Raycom and ESPN. In the future, if conference networks go over the top, perhaps Raycom can be developed into becoming the ACCN.

How networks are monetized in the future is up for debate, but fans of a school would pay much more than $1/month to watch their favorite school and conference. Would you pay $10/month to see all Syracuse athletic content as well as all of the other ACC content? Sure. Would fans of Big 10 and SEC schools pay up for content? Sure.

In a financial model where fans of each school would have to pay up to subscribe for their team's content, the value of each of those schools is considerably different, especially in the ACC. Who would bring more subscribers, FSU or Wake Forest? Should the pot be split evenly if FSU brings 1 million subs and Wake Forest brings 50k?

There must exist some level of sharing as no team is worth anything without each other. I agree, the sharing should be weighted to favor the larger fan base. Maybe a 50/50 s split, half evenly split among every team and half split based on number of subscribing fans.