If its not marketed as part of a routine cable/satellite package that you automatically get when you buy the basic package, then it will fail

I, for one, am just glad they are ahead of the curve on this. Sigh.

I can't think of anyway any cable company who would even risk that. And if they did from a profit standpoint it is a zero profit situation.

---------------------------------------------
--- bimmerheel wrote:

If its not marketed as part of a routine cable/satellite package that you automatically get when you buy the basic package, then it will fail

---------------------------------------------

Three telling parts in here..

ESPN would represent a major voice in any channel launch and it is believed to be lukewarm on forming one, according to sources close to the discussions. ESPN currently has a contract to pay the ACC $3.6 billion over 15 years — averaging $240 million a year — for the conference’s media rights. It then sublicenses a syndication package to Raycom Sports, which, in turn, sublicenses some rights to Fox Sports Net.

----------------------------

Another reason for ESPN’s reluctance to move forward is that it is preparing to launch an SEC channel in August 2014, sources said, which would make it difficult to launch an ACC channel in many of those same markets, like Florida, Georgia and South Carolina where the SEC and ACC footprints overlap.

----------------------------

Any obstacle is distribution, as distributors almost certainly would resist paying for an ACC channel. DirecTV, Comcast and Time Warner Cable are the biggest distributors in the ACC’s territory. Each operator has complained about the cost of sports rights and has had public battles with networks to keep those costs down.

There is no clear consensus inside the ACC on whether it has either the game inventory or the brand strength to make a channel work. But the conference clearly is following the lead of its peers among the big five conferences.


My guess is that this is really a nonstarter due to overlap, lack of content and no real direction.

I read an article a couple of months back that suggested the ACC had already considered this and the economy was not right for it. Is this breaking news or a re-hash of old news?

---------------------------------------------
--- ProfessorSmith wrote:

I, for one, am just glad they are ahead of the curve on this. Sigh.

---------------------------------------------

Lol, no kidding. Shoulda done this a few years back. But this is why I was FURIOUS at John Swofford for signing the league media rights over to ESPN until 2027. Nobody here really cared enough to debate it at the time, but to me it was an absolutely ridiculous move to do something like that. ESPN has rights to media technologies for the ACC that haven't even been invented yet.

But regardless of the potential dollars the channel needs to happen. Even if it doesn't make much money (as long as it isn't a financial drag) the ACC has got to have it for the exposure alone. The league has no choice at this point, even if its just one live fb game, and a few bball games per week. Replays, coaches' shows, Olympic sports, historical stuff, conference news and highlights, etc., --there's more than enough content out there especially with the new additions.

I did not do a good job with stating my point. What I meant was that unless it is part of package where you pay an extra buck or two to subscribe to, it will fail. There just are not enough interested eyeballs in ACC sports to pay big bucks for it. Look at how Texas and the PAC are struggling with their networks and you'll understand.

I have Time Warner Cable in the Charlotte area. I have both the Big Ten and PAC 12 Networks, yet we are not in either of their media footprints. If Time Warner Cable is interested enough to add those two college sports networks to the Charlotte market, I would assume there would be enough interest to add one for the ACC, which has more schools people in this area actually follow.

I think an ACC package would work for all the fans that can and aren't willing to make it out to the games.

I'm glad this thread reappeared, the title makes me laugh. They're starting to study this now?

In other news...

"ACC panel to study whether fans use the Internet"
"ACC panel members to consider buying their first cell phones"
"ACC panel study concludes: smoking hazardous to health of student athletes"

---------------------------------------------
--- UnionCountyObserver wrote:

I have Time Warner Cable in the Charlotte area. I have both the Big Ten and PAC 12 Networks, yet we are not in either of their media footprints. If Time Warner Cable is interested enough to add those two college sports networks to the Charlotte market, I would assume there would be enough interest to add one for the ACC, which has more schools people in this area actually follow.

---------------------------------------------

The PAC network is struggling. Its not a matter of where it will be available, as it will be available nationally. The issue will be how it will be packaged. People are not going to pay much for an ACC network, and it will take a region of the country to keep it afloat not just the charlotte area

---------------------------------------------
--- bimmerheel wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- UnionCountyObserver wrote:

I have Time Warner Cable in the Charlotte area. I have both the Big Ten and PAC 12 Networks, yet we are not in either of their media footprints. If Time Warner Cable is interested enough to add those two college sports networks to the Charlotte market, I would assume there would be enough interest to add one for the ACC, which has more schools people in this area actually follow.

---------------------------------------------

The PAC network is struggling. Its not a matter of where it will be available, as it will be available nationally. The issue will be how it will be packaged. People are not going to pay much for an ACC network, and it will take a region of the country to keep it afloat not just the charlotte area

---------------------------------------------

People make a lot of assumptions regarding this issue and I'm not sure they are well founded. I have the Big 10 Network in Virginia. I have no idea why and I have absolutely no interest in it (in fact I'd prefer to not have it just because I've always hated Big 10 athletics and don't care to support them), but I'm sure I'm paying for it. Are you suggesting that viewers in Virginia would be more inclined to pay for the Big 10 network? There is absolutely a market for this, it is only a question of how substantial that market is. I would be shocked if you couldn't get the network on pretty much every tier in VA, NC, SC and FL at a minimum because they are in the footprints and the schools in those states will demand and support such a network (that is where most of the money is, under the Big 10 network plan anyways). If the ACC network were able to get anything approximating the treatment of the Big 10 network, it would be available in a lot of homes (MA, PA, KY, NY, GA and this is just the footprint [in the case of the BIG they get more money in those states regardless of viewership, see Rutgers and MD])

I can see the arguments against this being appealing to people outside the footprint, but anything else is gravy anyways.

Would you not raise hell if your cable/satellite provider didn't offer it?

Why not cut a deal and piggy back on the PAC-12 network? Totally different markets, three hour prime time and weekend difference, more than double the content.

Give the PAC-12 some initial advantage on fees since they have done most of the heavy lifting to get established. Then include some future options to extend the agreement if all goes well.

Sure you have to divide the money more ways, but you also have inroads for every major market up and down both coasts. That covers a huge number of households.