Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Lou_C, post: 1379920, member: 3201"] I believe it's coming. Too many people in important positions have indicated as such. The anti-ACC folks like to promote the idea that it's a pipe dream perpetuated by Swofford to prop up ACC membership a while longer before the ACC falls apart, but that disregards the fact that nobody has been more cautious when talking about it than Swofford, even trying to dampen the enthusiasm. I have no inside sources, but my guess is that it's not about getting a network...it's about negotiating the terms. The network isn't the important thing...the revenue generated by it is the important thing. With the BTN and SECN generating $7-$10M+ a year, an ACC network that generates an additional say $2M in revenue is going to go over like a lead balloon, inside and outside the conference. To say nothing of the PR nightmare that comes with carriage fights. They are not going to make the announcement until, like the SECN, carriage is not an issue. When I hear Swofford talk about an ACCN, I hear a guy that is trying to negotiate from a place of "We would like this, but we certainly don't need it. Maybe we'll just wait until the end of our contract and explore all the additional opportunities that come with free agency." And meanwhile, everyone behind him is jumping up and down saying "we want it! we'll take it! we need it!" and promising it to their constituents. I don't know if that's what's happening, but that's me reading between the lines. Let's face it, the ACC is not in a good negotiating position on this. We're locked up. ESPN is happy enough with the current arrangement. How hard a bargain can the ACC actually drive here? I just don't see the rush. The way I see it, every year we get closer to the end of the contract, the ACC's leverage gets that much better. Every year that football continues to improve, and that basketball starts living up to it's "best conference ever" hype, the ACC's leverage gets better. Does anyone doubt that an ACCN deal would be better today, than if it had been signed two years ago today? Before FSU surged back and basketball stopped underachieving? I feel strongly that time is on the ACC's side here, if people would stop muddying the waters with desperation (looking at FSU's BOT here, among many). Getting a deal that creates $6M per year in 2016 or 2017 is better than making a deal for $2-3M in 2014. It's also possible that the ACC is trying to blaze a new path here. Right now, the three major conference networks are entirely different models. BTN is a joint venture with Fox. PAC Nets are wholly owned by the conference. SECN is wholly owned by ESPN, who pays SEC to license the content (as is the LHN). The first two are out of bounds for the ACC until the end of the contract. The SECN could be the model...or could something else be the model? The big question is the digital point. By all accounts the ACC is pretty ahead of the curve on the digital, and like the Raycom relationship or not, they are an asset in that space. But what to do with it? Fact is, those type of services aren't making money. People love the idea but we're nowhere near the point where that's a money maker...see WWE Network referenced above. But how can you leverage it? Maybe by offering it to internet providers as a standalone service they can offer over the internet? Before HBO Go went straight to consumer, it was turning up as an offer from internet providers with internet-only plans. Maybe ESPN has some ideas in that space...as in, no, you can't unbundle our products, but we will offer some programming that you can offer over the top with your internet plans. I don't know, but I've heard some speculation that the ACC Network won't be simply a duplication of what we've already seen. [/QUOTE]

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