Panther247 Board

I don't believe the jump to 20 mil has anything to do with the Digital Network. I believe they are renegotiating with Notre Dame being part of the deal. And honestly i see Lville as a much more attractive TV component than Maryland.

The ACC network would be icing on the cake.

Is this not the case?

I think you aren't grasping the point of the article. This article doesn't suggest the ACC is going to reach the 2016 projections that the B10 is peddling, it is saying that right now, the ACC is within 1/2 million of everyone else and is coming out ahead of the B12.

If you go back to May to what the ADs of Clemson and Syracuse were saying, it was very similar. They were indicating that the per team payout would be somewhere between $21 to 27 million per team...and this was before ND. All the kooks in kookville blew that off because it didn't fit the narrative, but the premise of those quotes back in May were that speculative comparisons by kooky fans or even media weren't comparing apples to apples.

The main point here is that two more more reliable sources, Swarbrick and an unnamed Dodd source, indicate that the ACC is actually coming out ahead of the B12 financially, despite the kooky financial projections by certain groups of fans. Just more reliable sources pointing to the fact that the B12 kooks are FOS.

But as you said, UNC, UVA, and FSU aren't going anywhere (unless the SEC changes its desire to duplicate footprint). That means, no one is going anywhere. Unless the B10 decides to take BC (and who cares, really) the Southern teams of the ACC are not leaving to join Maryland in the midwest. So, for the next couple of years the ACC is safe while it works on new revenue streams like a network, etc.

No, the reason the article pointed out that they weren't vulnerable now was that the B10 had no interest in further expansion now. It had nothing to do with money.

That is separate than the other point of the article that the ACC is going to make more money than people think, and that, right now, they are close or ahead of other conferences. That is a completely separate idea than saying that schools are in danger of being wooed by future revenue projections like Maryland was.

Two separate things: 1) Dodd's is saying the B10 isn't going to expand for its own reason, and 2) right now, there is no incentive, financially, today, for ACC schools to leave, especially to conferences other than the B10 who don't have such large future projections (ie B12).

And I agree with you. The core of the ACC has no interest in the B10, and that is the biggest deterrent.

Keep in mind that the cash cow for the B1G could be a hologram because of internet and potential a la carte TV options in the future. Notice that Swarbick mentions a "Digital ACC Network". This smells of an internet/TV hybrid that can change what the B1G has been offering and make some of that fat revenue disappear.

If you look at this article, MD has 474,059 fans. UL has 300,443 but UK also ads 907,666 for the Louisville market. Lexington is 1hr 20 min away.

So there is a 3x higher concentration of college football interest in Louisville than than Balt/DC. Basically nobody cares about U MD.

Frankly, I am surprised at how low UL's number of fans is. I think they should be higher.

The number of tv sets is completely irrelevant. If it mattered then they would charge as much for the Oxygen channel as they do for HBO, because they each have access to the same number of tv sets in a given market.

Nobody in NYC gives a rat's patootie about watching Minnesota play Iowa. And even the 15 fans that follow Rutgers wouldn't watch them play Purdue if there were a Knicks game on another channel. Phoenix is the #13 tv market. Pittsburgh is #23. Which one do you think draws more viewers (by a stunningly large margin) when the local NHL team plays?

Okay, I'll play along. If not for the potential number of additional TV sets the Big Ten can charge for their network, why did they add Rutgers? After all, The State University of New Jersey only has 15 fans.

I'll hang up to listen. My guess is that this will be a good one.

It is relevant because the BTN charges per cable subscriber, not the amount of viewers for any game. If they can get into NYC then they have the potential of several million subscribers.

You're missing financepro's point I believe.

For example, if the B1G get's 10 cents a subscriber in NY for 2,000,000 subscribers, that's $200k per month. If you get $1 on 200k subscribers somewhere else, it's the same money.

Ive been saying this all along about this area (the NYC TV Market). Even a measely .25 lift in cost for a sports station nobody wants is a tough tough sell here.

Bundling the BTN with the YES Network might work cause if there's one team (of all teams in this market) the VAST majority of people will extra for - its the NY Yankees. They are the #1 team....and nobody is even a close second in this market....not even the 4-time and defending Super Bowl Champs (NY Giants).

But its going to be a fight- tooth and nail to get it done.

And by the way - to the person that asked why add Rutgers then? ....well, that's the only reason if the truth be told. Its a money grab from cable tv. No other major reason to add RU.

I know its sounds crazy but thats the reality of college expansion. As Paco said many times before, put the Cathedral of Learning in the NYC area...Pitt would have been in the B1G years ago.

Rutgers, on the other hand, they reluctantly added..but ONLY for cable tv revenue. Sad, but true.

Actually, it will be rather easy for the BTN to get $1.00 from NYC and it has nothing to do with Rutgers or even the Big Ten. It's all about Fox. They own YES and will require that it be bundled with the BTN on the standard tier. It's the Yankees that will ultimately secure the $1.00 per subscriber fee for the BTN.

Of course they do. When the cable companies go to more internet based, a la carte programming then the fat tier 1 B1G cable payments should cease in the weak interest markets.