In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 78
Online now 67 Record: 1921 (4/30/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
There really is no explanation as to "why" the ACC is not vulnerable. Its certainly not $$$ b/c $40MM compared to $20MM is a laughable defense. The only other thing the article eludes to is the B1G having to deal with integrating RU and MD. Seems like a suspect reason to not further monopolize college sports but hey - if Swarbick believes it - cool.
I happen to agree with him but not b/c the B1G is busy integrating RU and MD. I just dont believe the Tobacco Road schools want to leave the ACC and FSU's true dream destination is the SEC...so the ACC won't see any defections or raids for a little while.
If the ACC can stay within $500K of the B12, lets say, than definitely nobody is bolting to the B12. But I keep hearing about this "ACC Network" or now this Digital "ACC Network" and seems like a lot of talk for now.
But to jump from $17MM to $20MM is only $3MM more per yr per school - or $42MM/yr more total...i assume that's the projected revenue from the ACC "Digital Network"...also seems far-fetched to me.
I don't believe the jump to 20 mil has anything to do with the Digital Network. I believe they are renegotiating with Notre Dame being part of the deal. And honestly i see Lville as a much more attractive TV component than Maryland.
The ACC network would be icing on the cake.
Is this not the case?
You might be correct, I'm wondering myself. But is ND for 5 football games a year & Louisville really worth $42MM/yr more to ESPN??? Seems arbitrary to me.
I think its rather a case of ESPN bellying up to the table a little to keep the ACC close to the B12 in TV revenues so no one bolts to the B12/FOX. ESPN is finally conceding that it needs to protect its football inventory and ND is valuable inventory even for 5 games a year. I dont think Louisville matters much in the grand scheme of things - TV revenue-wise (again I need to remind people - this is about football TV $$$$ - not hoops). Louisville just makes it easier to create ACC schedules by having 14 teams as opposed to 13 teams if I were to guess.
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.
This post was edited by CrazyPaco 16 months ago
I understood that point about not reaching B1G levels of TV revenue, but how does that explain why the ACC is still not vulnerable to the B1G? It is. The article just doesnt explain why it isnt. Even if your projections of $27MM were true...that's still not enough.
My reason is simple: the Tobacco Road schools (or UVA for that matter) simply don't want to move to the B1G...plain and simple. Yes, the money would be greater but there's really no love for playing the likes of Mich and the tOSU cheaters.
But if forced, I'm sure they'd be open to it. And by forced, I mean the ACC implodes (which aint happening in my view).
That doesnt mean the ACC isnt still vulnerable...it is. The article makes a weak point about on-boarding RU and MD as some sort of expansion obstacle...which lets face it...aint a big deal.
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.
This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by CrazyPaco 16 months ago
at some point the Pac12 will expand and will pick up Big 12 teams. Right now the top choices are Texas, TT, Oklahoma and OK St. Once that happens then the BiG will cherry pick what is left and the Big 12 goes poof. Also, if the ACC wants to be proactive, and I think they do, they will continue to talk to Texas. Remember, the Longhorn network and the ACC are both partners with ESPN. TLN is having problems with getting access to cable nets. ESPN could set up an ACC network and they could cross program with the TLN to help both.
I believe talks have happened, but I do not have any idea whether they will succeed.
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.
Louisville, KY is a more lucrative TV market than DC/Baltimore?
Hail to Pitt.
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 possible realignment of college football conferences raises a host of interesting questions about fan loyalty.
Look at the number of TV sets.
DC #9 television market in US.
By the way, in case you were wondering, Pittsburgh is #23.
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?
I know this, but the number of fans is relevant for TV contracts. Granted, there is growth possibilities for Balt/DC. The reason Rutgers was not added to the ACC is because they did not provide good TV value for the ACC. ND, Cuse, UVa, UNC, PITT collectively add much more value than Rutgers and then factor in the B1G alumni who live in NYC that watch college football that add value.
The only reason the B1G went for Rutgers and MD was to get into the basic tier cable and get $1 per household in these markets. If those markets balk at the B1G being added to tier 1 and the B1G Net becomes tier 2 then they get 1/5 of the revenue per subscriber and many less subscribers.
My hope is that the NY & Balt/DC markets dig in and blow this B1G sham the eff up.
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 clearly matters to the Big Ten. Hence why they are strong arming the B1G network into NYC homes by making it a take it or leave it deal with YES (Yankees network, also partially owned/managed by FOX...). It doesn't matter if anyone watches. If they can get onto a basic tier package, they stand to make a couple bucks per subscriber, which will include just about everyone in the NYC market.
As it stands now, the B1G network doesn't generate any real revenue in the NYC market because they're on 2nd or 3rd tier packages where you have to buy up specifically to get these kinds of channels. The B1G network doesn't do well under that model.
Take away people's Yankees in NYC, however, and you've got an entirely different ballgame (no pun intended).
It amazes me how little people understand about how this works.
Of course nobody in NYC cares about Rutgers. However, the B1G uses their presense in the market, along with strategic business partnerships, to leverage lucrative TV deals.
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.
I'm laughing at the irony of Financepro getting a lesson in economics.
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.
You cannot get $1.00 per subscriber. You have to make a case for your network and it's price to the cable company and the city itself in order to be added to the lineup. When BTN charges $.25/sub. then the cable price goes up the same for each subscriber to the tier that the network is on. The cable company isn't going to carry that charge.
It will be tough for BTN to get into NYC because it took 2 years for the NFL channel to be placed on Time Warner Cable in NYC. They do not just add networks willy nilly.
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.
This post was edited by curtismartinfan 16 months ago
The Big Ten already offers a hybrid internet/TV network with the BTN. The internet equivalent is the BTN2GO.
Watch the Big Ten Network wherever and whenever you want! BTN2Go is a 24/7 online video stream of the Big Ten Network, including live games and on-demand programs featuring Big Ten sporting events and original BTN shows. BTN2Go video features the 12 Big Ten conference member schools of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue and Wisconsin.
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.
I tried using BTN2GO last year and it's a complete piece of crap.
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.
What incentive do you think cable companies have to offer a la carte to customers? Where do they benefit as a whole?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports