find a place that's high and dry.

cable subscription numbers, we'll hear more about ratings/fans/etc. versus "they bring the X market". It seems the old model was that the X (for example) BC fans gave a lot of leverage to get $Z month from all Y basic cable subscribers, making BC worth Y*Z. But if Y plummets, then the value of a school has to be closer to X*Z (where Z probably changes depending on how you might rebundle/unbundle the programming), where the only people bothering to keep cable are those interested in live sports. Does that track? Have I asked the wrong guy?

I was in charge of all video data for one of the country's largest cable companies. I also worked on a suggestion team that consulted with ESPN around what content should be included for app viewing when they launched the SEC network, so I do know the territory. Right now, the pay TV world is becoming increasingly fragmented as the consumers move from a big, cable subscription distribution model to a model that goes toward streaming. It is no accident that the big streamers are owned by most of the same players (Peacock - Comcast/NBCU, Max - Warner Media/Discovery, ESPN+/Hulu - Disney, Paramount + - CBS/Viacom, Amazon, Netflix, and Apple). I guess the big difference in the approach this time is that schools need to prove that they can deliver sets of eyeballs. Since the streamers can track down to the individual device (something I helped pioneer in my Cable days :) ) the eyeball count is more important than ever and the need to supply fresh programming to those eyeballs.

Even with football down, VT games rate very well with viewers. Men's Basketball has some of the highest ratings in the ACC and the women blew it out during the final four in basketball setting record numbers. I think Tech is actually in a good position here and viewership is a reason why we are in the conversation.

with a streaming subscription, which is exactly the same thing, gets the same per subscriber fee. In reality, the financial model hasn't changed, just the distribution. Of course, in reality you are paying about the same (only real savings is local franchise fees) to the same people because the streaming services are owned by the same companies that own the cable companies.

subscription including Live TV/sports, but instead the On Demand offerings of HBO, Hulu, Disney+, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Paramount+, etc. None of those are paying for ACCN or SECN. I suppose the ACCN might receive more from a YoutubeTV subscription in a state with a school versus not; but I'd guess Google is paying the ACCN more wisely than Cable Companies which have less ability to track actual views, geography, etc. Those changes in distribution are certainly changing some aspects of the financial model as well.

In this Pay TV includes OTT like Youtube TV, Hulu Live, etc., cable, and satellite; but not on-demand services. =================== Pay TV is suffering from what Moffett calls “the impoverishment cycle,” in which higher sports-broadcast fees have driven retail prices higher — thereby fueling cord-cutting and forcing distributors to increase prices to compensate. Even ESPN, one-time stalwart of the traditional ecosystem, has conceded that there will be a day when a la carte streaming is a viable option, Moffett noted. “We haven’t really changed our position regarding basically migrating ESPN’s flagship service as a direct-to-consumer or streaming platform,” Disney CEO Bob Iger said on the conglomerate’s May 10 earnings call. “We think there’s an inevitability to that, but it’s a huge decision for us to make. And we know that we’ve got to get it right, both in terms of pricing and timing.”

I think both universities realized that being a package deal works well and I expect that Tech, UVa, and UNC will all land in the same place. It sure would help if Tech had that AAU accreditation but rules are always meant to be broken.

my mantra throughout all this has been if VT somehow ties itself to UVa and UNC it will all end well.

ran the conference into the ground. Need to get away from them as soon as possible.

thing could change that, and that’s if the SEC takes 8 from the ACC. My problem with the B1G taking both Virginia and Virginia Tech, is that I think they eventually take Stanford, Cal, Oregon and Washington. That means only 4 from the ACC. IMHO their first 4 from the ACC is UNC, UVA, GT and Miami. Thus leaving Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina State and Virginia Tech to the SEC.

But you're right. Maybe the SEC will add sports. But not likely. As long as UNC is there.

money made by the remaining 16. If ESPN and Fox wanted 64, they could have gone with ACC having 16 and either B12 or PAC having 16. That doesn't seem where we are headed IMHO. They want to shave off 16 from being tier 1 payment wise. Two ways to make more money, make more profit or cut the cost without cutting the revenue. ** Edited by Stech at 5/16/2023, 8:10:10 PM

make us grovel a bit, kiss the ring, whatever to feed their ego's and support their overinflated sense of self worth.