ACC TV Contract & Raycom

Amazed at how the ACC actually thinks they can sell the Raycom justification, but make no mistake, the Raycom giveaway is part of the reason the ACC Network startup is slow AND why the network is not as likely to make much money.

It is good ole boy politics (to enrich Swoffords son and Tobacco Road) using modern day PR to excuse it.


ACC network at least "several years" away, says Swofford 

Lou_C 5/15/2014

"Lou_C Wrote:  

(Today 02:36 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Raycom, an employee-owned company, is one of the nation's largest broadcasters and owns and/or provides services for 53 television stations in 37 markets and 18 states. Raycom stations cover 13.1% of U.S. television households (approx 15 million).

Totally a red herring. The ACC's deal is with Raycom Sports.

If the ACC didn't cut that deal, ESPN would have produced the content directly to those Raycom stations, or competing local OTA. ESPN cut out Raycom/JP years ago...but guess what, SEC games still showed up at 12:30 on local channels.

ESPN has a division that does EXACTLY what Raycom does. All those stations would have had ACC football on them, they just would have been paying ESPN instead of Raycom Sports. ESPN would have made more, because obviously Raycom Sports has to mark up the deal to make money. ESPN left money on the table by going through a middle man, and it was passed on to the ACC. Only how much it cost the ACC is in dispute.

There is no exposure benefit to the Raycom deal. The ACC could have just as easily mandated that ESPN commit to broadcasting on local channels in the footprint if it was about exposure. Again, the SEC continued to get that local timeslot long after dumping Raycom.

It was nothing but a giveaway. Some can justify it on loyalty grounds, or "old pals" grounds, but there is ZERO business justification for it.
As far as an ACC network? I'd have to be convinced that the money increase would be SUBSTANTIAL for the ACC to marry ESPN in perpetuity, especially in what would still, despite last year's football success, amount to selling low.

Much better than they give it a few years and see how the PAC's privately owned network goes, as well as if ACC football/basketball becomes way more in demand. Why sell low for a couple million more a year?

The closer it gets to the end of the contract, the more television changes to an IPTV setup which GREATLY reduces the cost of startup and eliminates the carriage fights, and fully owned ACC contract becomes more realistic. Then, the ACC's leverage becomes much much greater.

I don't know what the real story is, but I hope this represents the ACC is playing hardball with ESPN.

The SEC was a different story...their value is never going to be higher than it was when they struck the deal, and they needed to do it as the only way to monetize the Texas AM and Mizzou adds.

The ACC is far from peak value, quite the opposite. They need to play this out for MORE money, not for the status of it, and the longer it waits, and the closer the ACC gets to the end of the deal, and the better the ACC performs in revenue sports, and the closer creating a viable IPTV based network gets to being a reality, the more money the ACC will be able to command from ESPN.

DO NOT SELL LOW. If there is anything the ACC needs to have learned from snafus of previous years, it's this. I damn well hope this delay is on our side, not ESPN's."