Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="nzm136, post: 1204021, member: 2531"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?