I'm not attacking the ACC. This article is in little ways a "win" though.
The Clemson rep is publicly expressing his "worry" that the ACC is falling behind. "There is no question about that" and there is an "urgency" that a network be done in order to "mitigate" the amount of damage that will continue to be done. That is not a glowing endorsement of the ACC there.
From there he tells us that "aspirations" of reaching "where the B1G is" is not realistic. The ACC can only hope to "get in the game" when it comes to the SEC too. "It's clear" they (the SEC and especially the B1G) are bringing in more money than "we" (the ACC schools including Clemson and FSU" are.
Next, this in the know Clemson guy is stating publicly that it is indeed a matter of "IF" when it comes to an ACC Network. And he also goes on to explain all the reasons why it might not be the move for "all the smart people at ESPN" to develop a network due to things like "layoffs" and other changes that are beyond just "cord cutting".
Let's just say that this article is less than assuring. The guy tells us the ACC is WAY behind the B1G and shouldn't even try to get TV money that they do. And the ACC should simply try to get in the game when compared to the SEC. From there he mentions how an ACC Network will "mitigate" some of the "worrisome" gaps. And he very specifically dosn't mention the "when" of the ACCNetwork and tells us flat out it is an "IF" matter whether or not it happens.
We shall see. I would bet on no true network happening, and a new logo and slightly more games on already existing channels. That will bring in some additional revenue, but I would be shocked if it does get ACC schools anywhere near a level playing field when it comes to TV dollars.
|
(
In response to this post by Stech)
Posted: 05/01/2016 at 2:50PM