ACC Network

[Lemon Thrower]

in the context of the ACC network announcement, I was suprised the ACC didn't require ND to become full members of the ACC.

As I understand it, ND has to play 5 ACC games a year, but keeps all of the TV revenues from ND's deal with NBC. I have 3 questions.

1. Is ND getting only $15 million a year from NBC?
2. Does ND get football TV revenue from another source?
3. I find it hard to believe that ND is only making $15 million in football TV revenues, but if that is true, then you are making less from NBC than from sharing revenue with the ACC, why doesn't ND become a full member?

 

[twalsh]

in the context of the ACC network announcement, I was suprised the ACC didn't require ND to become full members of the ACC.

As I understand it, ND has to play 5 ACC games a year, but keeps all of the TV revenues from ND's deal with NBC. I have 3 questions.

1. Is ND getting only $15 million a year from NBC?
2. Does ND get football TV revenue from another source?
3. I find it hard to believe that ND is only making $15 million in football TV revenues, but if that is true, then you are making less from NBC than from sharing revenue with the ACC, why doesn't ND become a full member?

Because, contrary to popular ND mythology, it's not about the money.

 

[northvanole]

The existing ACC revenue contract with ESPN includes football and basketball, and ND gets a prorated piece of that in addition to the NBC contract. ND is already part of the existing free ACC network that is accessible on you tube and AppleTV. ND is a member of the ACC so it will be part of the new network, but how that works should be explained at today's ACC meetings. The President of ESPN will be part of the presentation.

 

[Lemon Thrower]

Because, contrary to popular ND mythology, it's not about the money.

fair point, but i'm trying to understand the deal ND has with the ACC since its different from the other members.

You guys have a very valuable program so even though it may not be about the money, I would expect that you are making more outside the ACC than in the ACC. Do you know the details?

 

[topdecktiger]

in the context of the ACC network announcement, I was suprised the ACC didn't require ND to become full members of the ACC.

As I understand it, ND has to play 5 ACC games a year, but keeps all of the TV revenues from ND's deal with NBC. I have 3 questions.

1. Is ND getting only $15 million a year from NBC?
2. Does ND get football TV revenue from another source?
3. I find it hard to believe that ND is only making $15 million in football TV revenues, but if that is true, then you are making less from NBC than from sharing revenue with the ACC, why doesn't ND become a full member?

As far as the available figure show, Notre Dame is making $15 million a year from NBC. Maybe that has changed and not been publicized, but those are the figure available right now.

No, they don't get TV revenue from another source. You can only get revenue from the games you own. Notre Dame only owns their 7-8 home games, and all of those are sold to NBC. They simply don't have any other football games to sell.

They just want to remain independent that much.

fair point, but i'm trying to understand the deal ND has with the ACC since its different from the other members.

You guys have a very valuable program so even though it may not be about the money, I would expect that you are making more outside the ACC than in the ACC. Do you know the details?

Notre Dame get ~$6 million a year from the ACC. This is from revenue for basketball and other sports. They get nothing for football.

Simply put, no, they aren't making more money outside the conference. Now, if you are asking if Notre Dame makes more money compared to other ACC teams, then probably yes. They get huge donations from alumni, big radio contract, etc. However, if they joined a conference, that wouldn't change. They would still get the donations, still keep the radio contract, etc. The difference is that they would get more money in a conference because the TV money would be bigger. That just goes back to the point. They simply want to be independent that much.

 

[northvanole]

The linear ACC network begins in 2019. That is because when the current ESPN contract was signed (I think 2011), ESPN sub-licensed the tier 3 content to Raycom. Tier 3 content (the lesser watched games) are shown on a variety of regional channels and ESPN3 and Raycom handles that. And Racyom runs the current digital ACC digital network. But in order for there to be an ACC cable network, ESPN had to get that content back from Raycom. I guess they negotiated to allow Raycom to keep it until the end of the 2018 season.

Money and ND was not discussed at the morning session.

 

[topdecktiger]

The linear ACC network begins in 2019. That is because when the current ESPN contract was signed (I think 2011), ESPN sub-licensed the tier 3 content to Raycom. Tier 3 content (the lesser watched games) are shown on a variety of regional channels and ESPN3 and Raycom handles that. And Racyom runs the current digital ACC digital network. But in order for there to be an ACC cable network, ESPN had to get that content back from Raycom. I guess they negotiated to allow Raycom to keep it until the end of the 2018 season.

Money and ND was not discussed at the morning session.

Actually not true. The reason the network doesn't begin until 2019 has nothing to do with Raycom. It's because ESPN doesn't want to launch the network until the renegotiate their contracts with cable and satellite providers, to make sure the network gets adequate carriage. The contract with Raycom ran until 2026, and now it is ending in 2019. Raycom is already cutting the contract short, so it could have been cut by an additional one or two years if ESPN really wanted to.

 

[northvanole]

Actually not true. The reason the network doesn't begin until 2019 has nothing to do with Raycom. It's because ESPN doesn't want to launch the network until the renegotiate their contracts with cable and satellite providers, to make sure the network gets adequate carriage. The contract with Raycom ran until 2026, and now it is ending in 2019. Raycom is already cutting the contract short, so it could have been cut by an additional one or two years if ESPN really wanted to.

We can disagree on which point dominated the discussion, but both are true. ESPN needed to get the content back from Raycom and they needed to negotiate with cable and satellite, etc. 2019 is a strange year as the ACC will also go to 20 basketball games (from the current 18).

Swofford did state that ND is no closer to joining the ACC for football, but the option to join remains open.

 

[topdecktiger]

We can disagree on which point dominated the discussion, but both are true. ESPN needed to get the content back from Raycom and they needed to negotiate with cable and satellite, etc. 2019 is a strange year as the ACC will also go to 20 basketball games (from the current 18).

Swofford did state that ND is no closer to joining the ACC for football, but the option to join remains open.

No, it's not a strange year. ESPN renegotiates it contracts in 2017-2018. That's why they are waiting. It's got nothing to do with Raycom. There is no reason to pick 2019 specifically for Raycom. There is a specific reason to pick 2019 for ESPN.

 

[8th Man]

in the context of the ACC network announcement, I was suprised the ACC didn't require ND to become full members of the ACC.

As I understand it, ND has to play 5 ACC games a year, but keeps all of the TV revenues from ND's deal with NBC. I have 3 questions.

1. Is ND getting only $15 million a year from NBC?
2. Does ND get football TV revenue from another source?
3. I find it hard to believe that ND is only making $15 million in football TV revenues, but if that is true, then you are making less from NBC than from sharing revenue with the ACC, why doesn't ND become a full member?

IMO because ND doesn't need TV money. ND won't rock the boat for an extra $20 million per year.

 

[Nocalirish]

Nobody outside of the acc wants to see ND play the garbage teams from the bottom of a mediocre conference that have zero impact on recruiting or national rankings.

 

[SchmidtyNole]

Nobody outside of the acc wants to see ND play the garbage teams from the bottom of a mediocre conference that have zero impact on recruiting or national rankings.

It's no different with the SEC. Nobody outside the SEC wants to see LSU play Alabama A&M.

 

[Nocalirish]

It's no different with the SEC. Nobody outside the SEC wants to see LSU play Alabama A&M.

Alabama A&M is not in the SEC. LSU chooses to play them.
If ND joined the ACC for football they would be forced to play regionalized garbage teams every year.

 

[twalsh]

Alabama A&M is not in the SEC. LSU chooses to play them.
If ND joined the ACC for football they would be forced to play regionalized garbage teams every year.

Like Army and Nevada?

 

[mirer03]

Alabama A&M is not in the SEC. LSU chooses to play them.
If ND joined the ACC for football they would be forced to play regionalized garbage teams every year.

Totally uninformed post. Exposure in NC, Massachusetts, New York, Georgia, and Virginia is huge for ND to expand its recruiting into the south and those games have been paying dividends already. ND has large fan bases in New York and Massachusetts and even though Syracuse and BC aren't great teams there is ALWAYS interest in those games.

 

[Nocalirish]

Like Army and Nevada?

ND doesnt play Army and Nevada EVERY year.

 

[Nocalirish]

Totally uninformed post. Exposure in NC, Massachusetts, New York, Georgia, and Virginia is huge for ND to expand its recruiting into the south and those games have been paying dividends already. ND has large fan bases in New York and Massachusetts and even though Syracuse and BC aren't great teams there is ALWAYS interest in those games.

Talk about uninformed. ND vs Syr and BC have to be the lowest rated TV games all year.

 

[twalsh]

ND doesnt play Army and Nevada EVERY year.

No, but we play teams of that ilk every year. You can take the worst two teams in the ACC every season past, and you will find we played a team or two just as bad in that same season.

 

[South Bender]

Alabama A&M is not in the SEC. LSU chooses to play them.
If ND joined the ACC for football they would be forced to play regionalized garbage teams every year.

They are already forced (obligated) to play bottom of the barrel ACC teams every year.
Wake Forest, Duke, NC State and Syracuse this year alone.

 

[twalsh]

They are already forced (obligated) to play bottom of the barrel ACC teams every year.
Wake Forest, Duke, NC State and Syracuse this year alone.

We don't play Wake. We play Duke, NC State, Miami and VA Tech, who are all pretty good competitive teams. Syracuse is weak. We can't play FSU and Clemson every season, that's not how the deal works.

 

[South Bender]

We don't play Wake. We play Duke, NC State, Miami and VA Tech, who are all pretty good competitive teams. Syracuse is weak. We can't play FSU and Clemson every season, that's not how the deal works.

Ok, no Wake this year, but we played them last year. And have played Boston College.

My point is - playing bottom of the barrel ACC teams isn't exclusive of joining the conference
completely. We are already obligated to play those crappy teams with our current agreement.

Which, I'm sure you already know. Just making a point.

 

[Nocalirish]

Ok, no Wake this year, but we played them last year. And have played Boston College.

My point is - playing bottom of the barrel ACC teams isn't exclusive of joining the conference
completely. We are already obligated to play those crappy teams with our current agreement.

Which, I'm sure you already know. Just making a point.

Your point is wrong because ND would have to play the same garbage teams from their division every year if they joined a conference.