What's the hold-up? re; ACC Network?

[DoctorBombay]

After reading that Clay Travis article and the kind of money that's in play, it becomes increasingly clear that we've ended up pretty much where we came from; "The future is not what it used to be".
So, aside from the depression it gave me, you have to start asking WHY the ACC hasn't launched or played up a BTN/SEC-like conference network?
Frankly, that might be the only thing that keeps our new league remotely in the neighborhood of staying relevant, especially in football.
The SEC Network $$ will be ridiculous and with the BTN already in place, those 2 leagues are set to rule the roost in perpetuity.
Where is the ACC Network, or is it simply called ESPN? And, if thats the case, why does it feel like the WWL isn't working too hard to "save" their investment?
Anyone? :bang:

 

[44PRIDE]

We sold our rights to the almighty OCHO...

 

[TDTOrange]

The demand for the ACC network wouldn't be half of what it is for BTN or the proposed SEC network. It would be a lot harder to get carriage for it and the fees for it would be much less than BTN or SEC.

Maybe the underpants gnomes could help with phase 2:
1) Start Network
2) ?
3) Profit

 

[Toga]

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2010/10/04/daily3.html?page=all

I have no idea if this is relevant (Swofford fils)

 

[CU44SE]

I know Basketball doesn't run conference expansion, but for an ACC network people would have to get the network for basketball as well as football. It would help make up for the lack of interest in the football side of the ACC.

 

[PhatOrange]

The demand for the ACC network wouldn't be half of what it is for BTN or the proposed SEC network. It would be a lot harder to get carriage for it and the fees for it would be much less than BTN or SEC.

Maybe the underpants gnomes could help with phase 2:
1) Start Network
2) ?
3) Profit

No way. There would be as much 'demand' as there are fans of a particular conference. If you're a fan of a team in that conference then you would demand it. From Miami to Boston people would want the ACC network in their lineup.

 

[MaxwellCuse]

I know Basketball doesn't run conference expansion, but for an ACC network people would have to get the network for basketball as well as football. It would help make up for the lack of interest in the football side of the ACC.

These networks generally are comprised of so-called tier 3 rights aren't they? We're talking a couple of the least interesting OOC football match-ups each year (think FSU-Savannah State, SU-Stony Brook, Clemson-Furman), plus several OOC men's basketball games, plus the other men's and women's Olympic sports. Plus the coaches shows and whatever. These conference networks don't generally carry the good stuff (as it is popularly understood) except maybe in re-runs.

 

[Alsacs]

I explained this last night and wish I could just use those statements instead of having to type it again. The reason BTN is successful is that News Corp owns 49% of the network and was able to get it put on basic cable tier when it launched on DirecTv. This helped cause News Corp leveraged BTN with Fox News Channel. FX, and all channels its own. This allowed the BTN get every user who has basic cable to have to pay the network a monthly fee and brings in capital. In BTN markets they get every more capital per cable user. The reason an ACC network isn't going to happen is that Disney would have to do the dirty work to get an ACC Network up and running and I bet right now the SEC network is a higher priority for ESPN/Disney than the ACC. Thus, the ACC needs Notre Dame to sign its Football TV rights with ESPN or talk to the SEC about a joint SEC/ACC network to have a chance to get the network up and running I will post later on this if people care, but its a lot of work to a get a network on basic cable unless the parent company plays hardball its almost impossible. That is why I will take News Corp over Disney every day of the week K. Rupert Murdoch > Bob Iger.