The subscriber numbers are interesting, particularly when considering the PAC 12 had at least a 5 year head start and still significantly trails ACCN. The next piece of the puzzle are the actual carriage rates(in footprint and out of footprint) and what that translates to as a blended rate. Those two data points provide a pretty good snapshot of the relative network values that can only be partially estimated using only one of the variables.

share more partner. We should get 80% what the SEC gets ** Edited by LocalExperts at 8/11/2022, 5:11:31 PM

So total revenue might not be so proportional as subscribers. SECN subscribers might be willing to pay twice as much as ACCN subscribers. So that 80% subscriber ratio might be more like 40% revenue ratio.

and if they want a competitive product to replace the Big 10 and provide content to go with the SEC. They got some work to do ** Edited by LocalExperts at 8/11/2022, 6:56:25 PM

If buyers would pay $2.00 a month for the ACCN ESPN would certainly take their money.

if you know how bundles work, most people don't knw the details. It is all neogotation between big companies

The PAC 10 to the ACC network moves the subscription needle?

The issue is instate subscriber rate vs out of state subscriber rate. The instate rate is about 50 Cents per subscriber per month more for the ACCN. ESPN gets half, so the ACC would get 25 Cents per month. In California, if they have 35 million subscribers, it would men $8.75 million per month to the ACC. But I doubt we take 1 team from California, it would be 2. The other states are lower, but it would mean money for the ACC to add them to the network. And you can see why the Big Ten wanted to be in California for their network. They also targeted big LA Brands to attract Broadcast television.

local station in the LA market. Fox owns their own local affiliate in LA, Chicago, Washington, and New York. The Big 10 expansion is designed to own local programming ratings on Saturdays thanks to the Big 10. They also want the higher dollar subs for BTN for sure from California.

Do you know if Disney/ABC own any local affiliates that the ACC could take advantage of? or combination of ACC/SEC?

** Edited by 33laszlo99 at 8/11/2022, 7:18:12 PM

$1.56 million per month to the ACC to have 1 California member.

I consider that insanity!

First off this is a partnership for TV viewers, not convincing the conferences. Now, The ACC owns 50% of the ACCN. It’s already been proven by several posters on the board that the ACCN will generate $0.50 more per TV viewer per month in every state the ACC adds to its conference. .25 belongs to the ACC and .25 belongs to ESPN. Let’s say the ACC and PAC come to an agreement to allow the PAC 12 to share 33% of the ACC’s profit by adding the ACCN to its membership and gain the advantage of an established college network in its member states. Helps the PAC 12 because they need the money and benefits the ACC because they own half the network. Now what do the dollars look like? The ACCN currently has 42M subscribers and could add subscriber bases in CA, WA, AZ, CO, OR and UT. The population of thee states is 67M which is 20% of the US population. Now, why does that matter? Because the number of TVs in the US is about 125M. What is 20% of that? 25M subscribers. So the ACCN could add 25M subscribers (and at 67M subscribers be one of the largest channels on TV). Now what is the $$ generated by 25M subscribers? Remember, ESPN and the ACC are 50/50 partners so, of the $0.50 per TV, the ACC gets $0.25 of that. And per the partnership with the PAC 10, the PAC 12 will take 33% of that revenue. What’s the number? $0.25* 25M TV’s = $6.25M a month. 6.25M * 12 months = $75M a year The ACC gets $50M a year and the PAC 10 gets $25M. For a partnership. 50M/14.33 = ~$3.5M extra per year for each ACC school 25M/10 = $2.5M extra per year for each Pac 10 school.. This is just added ACCN revenue separate from media right fees that could be paid by ESPN. If ESPN sees value in the partnership , then each conference could see itself $5-$10M better off than they were. Is it great? Not compared to the SEC and B1G. But… It would keep the Pac 10 schools from joining the Big XII and give the ACC schools a $ boost while waiting until 2036. None of us would turn down $5-$10M extra per year.

...so...

If Jim Phillips isn't waving that network cash at some solid programs in some populated states, I just don't get it.

nearing the end of their media contract? PAC, Big XII, anyone? Do you assume any school will jump at a chance to join The ACC GoR? The ACC media situation is suffocating. It will not be attractive to other schools. I think UConn would join... can't think of anyone else.

I do know the PAC 12 is making way less than the ACC. I also know no ACC schools are leaving to join the PAC 12 to make it any better for them because of the same GOR. Nice subtle dig on the UConn nonsense. And Hoo86 will tell you the benefits of adding Cincinnati and WVU. I agree with him. And I do think they’d listen.

California, Texas, Ohio, Washington, Arizona and Colorado are the top six states in play, all in the top 25 states by population. So, we should add Stanford, Baylor, Cincinnati, Washington, Arizona State and Colorado. And if both of our Florida schools leave, queue up UCF cause Florida is #3 now. I'm joking but actually I would not mind this.