Here is some good news re: ACC Network

[Alsacs]

Tranghese also apparently met with Corrigan/Swofford in 1998 in Atlanta and offered Miami, Boston College, Syracuse to the ACC if they left basketball alone. You can google the articles.

 

[nzm136]

Texas can bring in any 2 schools they want. I'm thinking they grab Baylor and either TCU or Tech.

Maybe.

They could also probably join as a partial member, which would probably be better for both them and the ACC.

 

[nzm136]

Tranghese, who quit and saddled the Big East with Marinatto because he knew the BE was going to blow up? That Mike Tranghese?


www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2011-10-06/mike-tranghese-retired-rather-than-deal-with-fragile-big-east

The Mike Tranghese who oversaw a basketball schedule that saw us not play UConn in one season and St. Jphn's in another? Or the Mike Tranghese who admitted in retrospect he should have worked harder to get us a bowl game in 1994 after a 7-4 season? The guy who did nothing to address Miami's longstanding issues with the conference? Or the Mike Tranghese that called the ACC trying to pawn off his football conference?

Which one of the versions of Mike Tranghese is the competent one?

I forgot about a lot of that. Not putting UCONN, Georgetown, and St. John's on Syracuse's schedule EVERY year is absolutely inexcusable for many reasons. It hurts the schools' bottom lines and it hurts the conference's TV package.

 

[CuseOnly]

Other than the B1G recognizing how undervalued the market was in the mid-2000's and acting accordingly (i.e. jumping on the network train *right* before a hot market), it isn't clear to me why everyone is so enamored with conference networks. All it does is shift the risk/reward equation. Once the market cools down, they're going to be hit hard. As I see it, networks are only profitable (relative to the alternative of contracts with established channels) in rising markets. What, specifically, is the value add?

The value of sports networks is HUGE, ESPN in particluar. There is value in watching live sports which is pretty much the only thing nowadays that people will watch live. Everything else I can get on demand, digital download, HULU, Netflix or you can DVR.

The value of ESPN as a company went from $30 Billion in 2012 to $50 Billion at the end of this year. Why do you think that is?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2014/04/29/the-value-of-espn-surpasses-50-billion/

EPSN is the crown jewel of the Disney empire and their biggest cash cow.

 

[nzm136]

The value of sports networks is HUGE, ESPN in particluar. There is value in watching live sports which is pretty much the only thing nowadays that people will watch live. Everything else I can get on demand, digital download, HULU, Netflix or you can DVR.

The value of ESPN as a company went from $30 Billion in 2012 to $50 Billion at the end of this year. Why do you think that is?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2014/04/29/the-value-of-espn-surpasses-50-billion/

EPSN is the crown jewel of the Disney empire and their biggest cash cow.

Right, but that wasn't what I asked. Why is (insert conference here) better at managing a network than ESPN, which, as you pointed out, is very good at what it does.

 

[Madbiker]

Did you just call Tranghese an incompetent? A commissioner that got 20 years out of land mines and spears chucked at it during his whole reign. Is there a " I hate this post" button somewhere?

Tranghese totally mismanaged Big East football. Never realized football was important for future growth. He even went to the ACC at one point to see if they were interested in having Big East football play in their conference while retaining them for basketball. I've always thought that is what gave Swofford the idea to just poach the big East teams. If Tranghese had anything on the ball he would have brought Penn St into the Big East before their romance with the B1G and with PSU and Miami anchoring football the conference would have been solid. MT may have known basketball but he was a complete failure in understanding where college athletics and football was heading.

 

[Antiprodigy]

The whisper is going to be a roar soon...stay tuned on the "Stealth Side"

It's Good to be 'Cuse!! The Order of the 'Cuse Orange..

Yay!!! Arb is back! It has been too long. Keep it coming!

 

[CuseOnly]

Right, but that wasn't what I asked. Why is (insert conference here) better at managing a network than ESPN, which, as you pointed out, is very good at what it does.

The conferences don't manage the networks that is why the conferences partner with the networks. You haven't heard anything about the conferences doing anything on their own...have you?

Longhorn network - ESPN
Big 10 Network - FOX
ACC - Will be ESPN
SEC- ESPN

The B1G owns 49% of the Big 10 Network, FOX owns 51% and manages it.

I am sure there are/will be similar arrangements for the others. But the managing of he network is not done by the conference, it is left up to the experts.

 

[nzm136]

The conferences don't manage the networks that is why the conferences partner with the networks. You haven't heard anything about the conferences doing anything on their own...have you?

Longhorn network - ESPN
Big 10 Network - FOX
ACC - Will be ESPN
SEC- ESPN

The B1G owns 49% of the Big 10 Network, FOX owns 51% and manages it.

I am sure there are/will be similar arrangements for the others. But the managing of he network is not done by the conference, it is left up to the experts.

For starters, 1. The Pac and 2. the MTN (I think) went it alone (or at least largely alone), but that's besides the point. You still aren't answering my question. I get that sports programming is insanely profitable. My question is why is a conference network model better than the current model of selling content to ESPN. If the content is very profitable (which I think that we agree that it is), then the difference between ESPN owning the rights to it and not owning the rights to it is high. Since that content dramatically affects ESPN's revenues, I don't see why ESPN wouldn't be willing to pay significant amounts of money for it (i.e. theoretically until their marginal gain is zero, an amount that would equal their total increase in revenue).

So, why/how does making a conference-specific network create value? Why can't ESPN just show the content as is (either scattered throughout their existing infrastructure or consolidated on one of their secondary channels - like ESPNU)? 1. No new content would be made by the network that can't already be made. It's not like having a network will let us have a longer season. 2. There isn't a shortage of existing outlets. And, assuming that there is excess content, I would imagine that the marginal cost of launching a network is minimal for pretty much any giant media company (this can be seen by the fact that there are literally thousands of channels in existence). Keep in mind that all these massive networks already have the equipment, expertise, and connections, and they're already negotiating with cable companies, advertisers, and so on. So, why, other than a willingness to take on more risk, would we suddenly get more money if we were to launch a network? Where specifically is the value creation.

How does ACC ownership increase revenues or decrease costs? I fully believe ESPN is insanely profitable, but why is TV broadcasting an area where the ACC thinks that it has a core competency? Why not let ESPN do its thing and sell ACC content as is? Why is that a worse model? Why is the ACC in a better position to manage the network than ESPN?*

*This is the question that I asked in the last post, but I think that this post gives more background thought/context.

 

[nzm136]

Tranghese totally mismanaged Big East football. Never realized football was important for future growth. He even went to the ACC at one point to see if they were interested in having Big East football play in their conference while retaining them for basketball. I've always thought that is what gave Swofford the idea to just poach the big East teams. If Tranghese had anything on the ball he would have brought Penn St into the Big East before their romance with the B1G and with PSU and Miami anchoring football the conference would have been solid. MT may have known basketball but he was a complete failure in understanding where college athletics and football was heading.

ACC/late 90's BIG EAST football + BIG EAST everything else would have been awesome. That would have made both conferences super powers. Late 90's Miami and FSU were something beyond elite, and VT and Syracuse were really, really good. With name programs like GT, Pitt, WVU, and Clemson in the mix, we would have had the best football conference in the land. And, BIG EAST basketball and ACC basketball would have likely spent the next decade fighting over who was #1 and who was #2.

We might have even been able to pull PSU into the mix. It kills me how close the East has been to getting a true Eastern conference, and yet it never really came together.

 

[CuseOnly]

For starters, 1. The Pac and 2. the MTN (I think) went it alone (or at least largely alone), but that's besides the point. You still aren't answering my question. I get that sports programming is insanely profitable. My question is why is a conference network model better than the current model of selling content to ESPN. If the content is very profitable (which I think that we agree that it is), then the difference between ESPN owning the rights to it and not owning the rights to it is high. Since that content dramatically affects ESPN's revenues, I don't see why ESPN wouldn't be willing to pay significant amounts of money for it (i.e. theoretically until their marginal gain is zero, an amount that would equal their total increase in revenue).

So, why/how does making a conference-specific network create value? Why can't ESPN just show the content as is (either scattered throughout their existing infrastructure or consolidated on one of their secondary channels - like ESPNU)? 1. No new content would be made by the network that can't already be made. It's not like having a network will let us have a longer season. 2. There isn't a shortage of existing outlets. And, assuming that there is excess content, I would imagine that the marginal cost of launching a network is minimal for pretty much any giant media company (this can be seen by the fact that there are literally thousands of channels in existence). Keep in mind that all these massive networks already have the equipment, expertise, and connections, and they're already negotiating with cable companies, advertisers, and so on. So, why, other than a willingness to take on more risk, would we suddenly get more money if we were to launch a network? Where specifically is the value creation.

How does ACC ownership increase revenues or decrease costs? I fully believe ESPN is insanely profitable, but why is TV broadcasting an area where the ACC thinks that it has a core competency? Why not let ESPN do its thing and sell ACC content as is? Why is that a worse model? Why is the ACC in a better position to manage the network than ESPN?*

*This is the question that I asked in the last post, but I think that this post gives more background thought/context.

You are looking for specifics with regard to why. Most can only tell you what they see as we are not TV execs. What I do know is that content is king and live content is even more valuable.

If you are making paper for example. Is it cheaper to buy the pulp here in the US to make it as opposed to making your own pulp in China? No, the closer you can get to the tree, the cheaper the cost of your product will be meaning you will have higher profit margins.

Why be limited by what a net work is willing to pay you for your content when you can create your own network and make all the cash. ESPN is involved I am sure because 51% of something now is better than being locked out of all that live content completely in the future if the conferences go it alone. The ACC is ESPN's #1 content provider.

The MountainWest network is gone.
The Pac12 did go it alone and have had to struggle to get carriage to make money. They will but it will be nothing compared to the instant cache, carriage and dollars that being partnered with ESPN will bring. That along with start-up costs, production, etc.

I also see that the Big 10 is the leader in conference revenue because they have the Big 10 Network the way tit is structured with FOX and all other leagues lag behind them.

 

[javadoc]

...
I also see that the Big 10 is the leader in conference revenue because they have the Big 10 Network the way tit is structured with FOX and all other leagues lag behind them.

 

[CuseOnly]

I like the way she is structured.

 

[nzm136]

You are looking for specifics with regard to why. Most can only tell you what they see as we are not TV execs. What I do know is that content is king and live content is even more valuable.

If you are making paper for example. Is it cheaper to buy the pulp here in the US to make it as opposed to making your own pulp in China? No, the closer you can get to the tree, the cheaper the cost of your product will be meaning you will have higher profit margins.

Why be limited by what a net work is willing to pay you for your content when you can create your own network and make all the cash. ESPN is involved I am sure because 51% of something now is better than being locked out of all that live content completely in the future if the conferences go it alone. The ACC is ESPN's #1 content provider.

The MountainWest network is gone.
The Pac12 did go it alone and have had to struggle to get carriage to make money. They will but it will be nothing compared to the instant cache, carriage and dollars that being partnered with ESPN will bring. That along with start-up costs, production, etc.

I also see that the Big 10 is the leader in conference revenue because they have the Big 10 Network the way tit is structured with FOX and all other leagues lag behind them.

Fair enough about the not being TV execs. I might be asking too much from an internet board, but I am still curious about the unwavering faith in a conference network amongst the posters on the site.

In response to your tree/pulp question:
The cheapest way to make paper for a very large paper company to use Chinese trees and float the paper on a boat across the Pacific to LA in bulk, and then load it on a train to move it east. Unfortunately, that's one of the reason why the American paper industry isn't doing especially well.

In response to the Network's willingness to pay:
Your reasoning for vertical integration is flawed. If ESPN knows that the ACC is sitting on a gold mine and can credibly create its own network, thereby cutting ESPN out of the loop, why wouldn't ESPN up the payout to the smaller of the ACC's marginal gains from creating a network and the amount of value that ESPN derives from having access to the content?

In response to "go it alone" v. partner:
I would definitely partner with ESPN. We agree on that. However, I think that both the Pac-12's underwhelming results and the MTN's underwhelming results show the weakness of the model as a whole. If the model was inherently better, then I think that they would have seen more success.

The B1G is the leader in conference revenue because, aside from the SEC, they have the most fans per school (by a long shot), and, until recently, the conference sold more rights than the SEC. Historically, the SEC returned a lot of rights back to the individual school (that way schools like Alabama would not be weighed down by schools like Vanderbilt), whereas the B1G was equitable. Therefore, one would expect the B1G to generate more revenue than the SEC, even if it had a slightly inferior model (I'm not saying that it necessarily does - I'm saying even if it did). In order to make things equal, one would have to compare total per school media revenue of all the schools in the B1G v. SEC (conference revenue and otherwise). I'm not sure who is more dominant in that regard, but I do know that the SEC would look a lot better.

 

[nzm136]

Soooooooo... I might have to start watching FS1.

 

[shantydaze]

So, why/how does making a conference-specific network create value? Why can't ESPN just show the content as is (either scattered throughout their existing infrastructure or consolidated on one of their secondary channels - like ESPNU)? 1. No new content would be made by the network that can't already be made. It's not like having a network will let us have a longer season. 2. There isn't a shortage of existing outlets. And, assuming that there is excess content, I would imagine that the marginal cost of launching a network is minimal for pretty much any giant media company (this can be seen by the fact that there are literally thousands of channels in existence). Keep in mind that all these massive networks already have the equipment, expertise, and connections, and they're already negotiating with cable companies, advertisers, and so on. So, why, other than a willingness to take on more risk, would we suddenly get more money if we were to launch a network? Where specifically is the value creation.

Having a conference network, if done correctly, provides the ACC with control (which not $$$, has value) and additional exposure. I can see every B1G and SEC football game on DirecTV, but had to buy Apple TV to see all of the ACC games. If the ACC had a network and partnered with ESPN, I should be able to see every ACC game. This additional exposure should help with recruiting and the cache of the conference. As ACC football becomes more competitive due to better recruiting, the ACC becomes more valuable.

 

[nzm136]

Having a conference network, if done correctly, provides the ACC with control (which not $$$, has value) and additional exposure. I can see every B1G and SEC football game on DirecTV, but had to buy Apple TV to see all of the ACC games. If the ACC had a network and partnered with ESPN, I should be able to see every ACC game. This additional exposure should help with recruiting and the cache of the conference. As ACC football becomes more competitive due to better recruiting, the ACC becomes more valuable.

So the essence of your theory is that having a network makes it easier (i.e. cheaper) for the conference to position the network as it sees fit. For instance, the conference can use the network as an advertising vehicle. Any joint owners (i.e. ESPN) would have to be compensated accordingly, but I can see how that might lower transaction costs.

 

[SU2NASA]

Butterface

 

[TexanMark]

Butterface

Hmmm was there a face?