ACC a better fit than Big 12?

[Mountaineer Steve]

What you reference is not new information. This is what Bowlsby and Boren stated right after the spring/summer meetings concluded. The conference still has meetings scheduled for the end of the summer obviously.
Here's some quotes from Boren as the meetings concluded:

excerpt--
Boren said the league’s presidents asked consulting firms Navigate Research and Bevilacqua Helfant Ventures (BHV) to do more research.

“We are certainly continuing to consider possible expansion and what that might do,” he said, “in terms of how it might impact the conference, both positively and negatively. We’re looking at the whole picture.”

But Boren also said this:

“The data for the championship game was absolutely compelling. The data for expansion is going to require some further thought. There’s no doubt that expansion gives some marginal (financial) gain, but how much marginal gain? We have to refine that a little further financially.”

If you’re parsing, pay very close attention to this next part:

“It does give some marginal gain,” Boren continued, “but you have to weight that against reputational impacts. In other words, our fans want to see our teams play against great teams. They don’t want to see them play mediocre teams. We have to determine what that’s going to do to the longtime reputation of the brands at each of the schools and what quality of opponents we’re having.”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...-12-expanding-one-way-but-not-other/85379550/

Later on Boren said what I posted before--he doesn't see any decisions on expansion later this summer.

This is the same thing Texas' AD said the day before the dissemination of the information--that as far as UT is concerned there is no need for expansion and UT expects the talks about expansion to go on indefinitely. He sees more realignment down the line

excerpt:

"I think the prudent thing for us to do as a conference is stay where we are," Perrin said......

Perrin, however, said that he doesn't see the need for the Big 12 to take any action on expansion this year.

"We have a really strong league when you look at the round-robin schedule," he said. "We had a team in the playoffs last year with Oklahoma. We could've had two teams (TCU and Baylor) in there the year before. I think the [Big 12] is well positioned on television. I think we're well positioned on the playoffs."

Perrin said that he likes the way the league is situated with all but one team operating out of the Central Time Zone. And he suggested that by expanding now, the Big 12 might limit its options down the line and doesn't want to disturb that.
"We're probably going to see another round of alignment," he said.
http://espn.go.com/college-football...horns-athletic-director-says-big-12-expansion

Yes, but you said is expansioni is not going to happen, and

1. As you pointed out, the research for the CCG, was absolutely compelling and is why the conference unanimously voted it in. You on the other hand keep insisting it is a stupid move without even seeing the data that was provided to them.

2. Boren said expansion isn't likly to happen this summer, but no where in his statement does it come close to saying that it WON'T hapen which again you keep insisting. They have asked for futher informaton, and we will see what happens next. Unless the CCG turns out to be a big problem in making the CCP, and there is no market for a new network, there is no reason to expand with a G5 program. If on the other hand it is a problem, then expansion is likely to happen with an extinsioin of GOR.

Just my opine

 

[Buckaineer]

That's what I thought you would say. Even though Bowlsby is the conference commissioner and made his latest remarks yesterday.

Again, it is the same thing Bowlsby said right after the meetings. No difference. Meetings still scheduled.

But Bowlsby takes his directions from the presidents. The presidents of the universities that decide what the conference will do say--no expansion decisions anytime in the forseable future.

But by all means go ahead and wait til the end of the summer to find out what they've already told us. And wait through 2017,2018,2019,2020,2021,2022 and 2023 as well. UT doesn't want to disturb future realignment--notice the Texas AD didn't say future BIG 12 realignment.

 

[Buckaineer]

Yes, but you said is expansioni is not going to happen, and

1. As you pointed out, the research for the CCG, was absolutely compelling and is why the conference unanimously voted it in. You on the other hand keep insisting it is a stupid move without even seeing the data that was provided to them.

2. Boren said expansion isn't likly to happen this summer, but no where in his statement does it come close to saying that it WON'T hapen which again you keep insisting. They have asked for futher informaton, and we will see what happens next. Unless the CCG turns out to be a big problem in making the CCP, and there is no market for a new network, there is no reason to expand with a G5 program. If on the other hand it is a problem, then expansion is likely to happen with an extinsioin of GOR.

Just my opine

Exactly when is it that you think BIG 12 expansion is going to happen?

Boren and the Texas AD have said--reputational impact is important--i.e. no G5 schools.

When is the first possibility of any P5 schools being available--maybe? After 2024 when the Pac 12 has to get a new contract. You may have noticed its 2016 and if the Pac 12 is getting a new contract then which schools are leaving?

The CCG with 10 teams is a stupid move and everyone in the conference from coaches to the commissioner were saying the same--up until Texas' AD said no to eliminating the LHN, no to expansion and that adding a 10 team CCG would be a good idea he would support. Its going to cost the BIG 12 with the guaranteed rematches. It has a better probability of making the playoff than doing nothing because the high rated team COULD win and you get the 13th data point, but it leaves you disadvantaged to every conference without a guaranteed rematch. Not sure why you fail to comprehend this.

Boren said there isn't going to be any movement on expansion this summer and doesn't give indications of when any interest in it might pick up again. But in this and other recent interviews he states that they don't want to add teams their fans don't want to see. That pretty much eliminates everyone the BIG 12 has a chance to add.

Waiting on "future realignment" as Texas' AD stated--but future realignment may mean BIG 12 schools being approached.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Nothing supersedes or overrides the most recent statement by the Big 12 commissioner. It doesn't matter what Boren, Gee or anyone else said after the meetings or before today. The only thing that overrides what the commissioner said yesterday is what he says today or tomorrow. Information and circumstances are fluid, people change their minds given more details.

Is that so hard to accept? Unless the commissioner says otherwise, there will be a meeting or conference in July to discuss expansion. Because that is the last thing he said. Period. With all of this 'what if' BS I hope they vote 10 - 0 to say forget expansion, ever. Except then we have to find something new to debate with ACC trolls.

 

[topdecktiger]

You have to consider the sources and the time line. Apparently something has changed that Boren was not privy to at that time. It could be conclusive results of the requested studies. It could put the matter to bed for the foreseeable future. But there will be serious discussion in July if Bowlsby knows what he's talking about. I don't personally care if they expand or not, and if so, who with or how many. But I'll bet we'll know by the end of July.

The two articles are really not indicative of anything changing. The both said basically the same thing. Last week, Boren said the firms were still doing research, and they might meet about expansion later in the summer. Then yesterday, Bowlsby said the conference was going to meet sometime in July (i.e. later in the summer) to discuss expansion further, based on more research. Pretty similar statements. It doesn't sound like Boren was missing anything, or something new happened during the week. It sounds like Boren gave a pretty accurate description of what Bowlsby outlined.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

That's what I thought you would say. Even though Bowlsby is the conference commissioner and made his latest remarks yesterday.

Come on Michael, you know Bucks mode of operandi. If it does no fit his little box, he comes up with a reason why it is a lie or not true

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

The two articles are really not indicative of anything changing. The both said basically the same thing. Last week, Boren said the firms were still doing research, and they might meet about expansion later in the summer. Then yesterday, Bowlsby said the conference was going to meet sometime in July (i.e. later in the summer) to discuss expansion further, based on more research. Pretty similar statements. It doesn't sound like Boren was missing anything, or something new happened during the week. It sounds like Boren gave a pretty accurate description of what Bowlsby outlined.

I am not saying anything different, I am just saying none of us know what is going to take place, and to say (as some on this board do) expansion is NOT going happen is not true. Saying it is ain't going to happen over and over, is not going to make it true. When it comes to the PAC, BIG12 and ACC anything can happen

 

[skygusty]

I am not saying anything different, I am just saying none of us know what is going to take place, and to say (as some on this board do) expansion is NOT going happen is not true. Saying it is ain't going to happen over and over, is not going to make it true. When it comes to the PAC, BIG12 and ACC anything can happen

I'm not sure Buck has been right about anything yet and have no reason to think he will be right about anything in the future. Can you imagine him on a landing craft in Normandy? "BAD SHIT IS GOING TO HAPPEN!" "WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!" "EISENHOWER DOESN'T KNOW SHIT" "TYPICAL STUPID PLAN FROM THE ADMINISTRATION" "GERMANY IS GOING TO WIN THE WAR!" "WE ARE LANDING IN THE WRONG PLACE!" "WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH AMMO!" Jesus, I might have had to shoot him myself.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

I'm not sure Buck has been right about anything yet and have no reason to think he will be right about anything in the future. Can you imagine him on a landing craft in Normandy? "BAD SHIT IS GOING TO HAPPEN!" "WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!" "EISENHOWER DOESN'T KNOW SHIT" "TYPICAL STUPID PLAN FROM THE ADMINISTRATION" "GERMANY IS GOING TO WIN THE WAR!" "WE ARE LANDING IN THE WRONG PLACE!" "WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH AMMO!" Jesus, I might have had to shoot him myself.

Dude that is funny. Thanks

 

[Buckaineer]

Nothing supersedes or overrides the most recent statement by the Big 12 commissioner. It doesn't matter what Boren, Gee or anyone else said after the meetings or before today. The only thing that overrides what the commissioner said yesterday is what he says today or tomorrow. Information and circumstances are fluid, people change their minds given more details.

Is that so hard to accept? Unless the commissioner says otherwise, there will be a meeting or conference in July to discuss expansion. Because that is the last thing he said. Period. With all of this 'what if' BS I hope they vote 10 - 0 to say forget expansion, ever. Except then we have to find something new to debate with ACC trolls.

Ok, what does the article say Bowlsby said?

"Bowlsby said he also expects a July meeting, either in person or by phone, to discuss Big 12 expansion further."

Now--what did I say? I said and stand by what I said--which is exactly what Boren and Perrin said. The BIG 12 still has meetings on expansion scheduled, and they expect to continue discussing expansion. They just don't expect there to be any conclusions, nor do they expect there to be any expansion. But as I've repeated numerous times--they'll continue talking about it . Why try to spin what I've stated into something different? All of you continuously go out of your way to do this to try to convince others I've said something I didn't say.

Is that so hard to accept? Bowlsby hasn't said anything different than what I've stated and the article you shared doesn't even quote Bowlsby on the matter. From Boren and Perrin we have direct quotes about what is going on. Its not what buckaineer is saying its what the leaders of the BIG 12--the decision makers are saying.

 

[topdecktiger]

I am not saying anything different, I am just saying none of us know what is going to take place, and to say (as some on this board do) expansion is NOT going happen is not true. Saying it is ain't going to happen over and over, is not going to make it true. When it comes to the PAC, BIG12 and ACC anything can happen

Well, that's sort of pointless. That's like saying the sky is blue, or water is wet. It's a little bit tedious to keep having to attach that qualifier of "we don't know what will happen." I can understand you point that no one can say "will" or "won't" with absolute certainty. However, I'd have to say it's a little bit disingenuous. You've been pretty adamant about your belief that the ACC won't get a network, and that ACC teams will be taken in further expansion. The same argument could be made to you, regarding those positions.

As to the results of the meeting in July, it's not an unreasonable position to believe the Big 12 won't expand. The numbers obviously weren't that great, or they would have expanded already (like adding the CCG). Realistically, there isn't much that can change those numbers, particularly since a network is no longer in play. Are ESPN and Fox suddenly going to decide Cincinnati and UConn are somehow more valuable than they were last month? As it stands now, it's not really unreasonable to predict expansion doesn't happen.

 

[Buckaineer]

I'm not sure Buck has been right about anything yet and have no reason to think he will be right about anything in the future. Can you imagine him on a landing craft in Normandy? "BAD SHIT IS GOING TO HAPPEN!" "WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!" "EISENHOWER DOESN'T KNOW SHIT" "TYPICAL STUPID PLAN FROM THE ADMINISTRATION" "GERMANY IS GOING TO WIN THE WAR!" "WE ARE LANDING IN THE WRONG PLACE!" "WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH AMMO!" Jesus, I might have had to shoot him myself.

I'm not sure any of you have ever been right about anything. After all you've all been saying the ACC is collapsing and teams are joining the BIG 12 for years, the ACC would be left out of the playoff but not the BIG 12, and on and on.

You are the ones who would say Eisenhower doesn't know $h!t just as you claimed Boren didn't know anything and was a moron. With your ignorant attitudes Germany WOULD have won the war because your entire plan would have been to help the Nazi's bash anyone who said that something should be done to fight them, while claiming a grass roots effort to create and build the Nazi's up couldn't possibly have any influence or success. Then you'd follow that up with a do nothing but wait for the Axis powers to fall apart and then you'd just take who you wanted!

What a bunch of f'ing morons.

 

[Buckaineer]

Come on Michael, you know Bucks mode of operandi. If it does no fit his little box, he comes up with a reason why it is a lie or not true

The little box: "The BIG 12 can do nothing but sit and wait and magically ACC teams will come running. No one else is going to do anything until the BIG 12 is ready to."

That is YOUR modus operandi, not mine. And you are the one coming up with b.s. to fit in YOUR box. I'm simply talking about what the leaders of the BIG 12 are telling us.

Go ahead though by all means, keep pretending the BIG 12 is going to expand.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

There will be a Big 12 meeting in July regarding expansion. Apparently some of you are reading it here for the first time. Don't be 'shocked' if only BYU gets an invitation this year. They are power 5 in every measurement.

Then again, don't be surprised if no one does. But the issue will be settled.

 

[Orlaco]

There will be a Big 12 meeting in July regarding expansion. Apparently some of you are reading it here for the first time.

Yea... ...the first time.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

The two articles are really not indicative of anything changing. The both said basically the same thing. Last week, Boren said the firms were still doing research, and they might meet about expansion later in the summer. Then yesterday, Bowlsby said the conference was going to meet sometime in July (i.e. later in the summer) to discuss expansion further, based on more research. Pretty similar statements. It doesn't sound like Boren was missing anything, or something new happened during the week. It sounds like Boren gave a pretty accurate description of what Bowlsby outlined.

You are a f'ing idiot, too blinded by your trolling prejudices to even read the news. Bowlsby is in charge and speaks for the conference. Boren is a self appointed little jerk like you who pretends to call the shots. You and Buck together are totally freakin' clueless. But it doesn't matter, you're both ACC trolls.

I just put you both on ignore so save your ignorance for someone who will read it.

 

[skygusty]

Well, that's sort of pointless. That's like saying the sky is blue, or water is wet. It's a little bit tedious to keep having to attach that qualifier of "we don't know what will happen." I can understand you point that no one can say "will" or "won't" with absolute certainty. However, I'd have to say it's a little bit disingenuous. You've been pretty adamant about your belief that the ACC won't get a network, and that ACC teams will be taken in further expansion. The same argument could be made to you, regarding those positions.

As to the results of the meeting in July, it's not an unreasonable position to believe the Big 12 won't expand. The numbers obviously weren't that great, or they would have expanded already (like adding the CCG). Realistically, there isn't much that can change those numbers, particularly since a network is no longer in play. Are ESPN and Fox suddenly going to decide Cincinnati and UConn are somehow more valuable than they were last month? As it stands now, it's not really unreasonable to predict expansion doesn't happen.

I don't think they will expand either which many of us never thought was a great idea in the first place. However, they obviously don't feel like they have exhausted the topic because they are busy people and it costs both time and money to commission and listen to more data analysis in the midst of busy schedules. Even with the network off the table there are issues regarding recruiting territory, how expansion would enhance the chances of playoff participation, how expansion might make the path to the playoffs easier because it could make the regular season easier. Maybe they want to reach out to candidate schools with some feedback, maybe there are criteria they want to see improved. Maybe Houston and Colorado State will be viewed more positively with the network off the table, or maybe Cincy and UCF move up the list, digital distribution might look better with certain schools, maybe future TV contracts too. Maybe they think they have enough votes for expansion but have yet to come up with two schools that everyone can agree on. Maybe they get BYU to commit to some flexibility on weekend scheduling or maybe they come up with a scheme that can accommodate BYU. Maybe a travel partner for WVU has been a sticking point that is under reconsideration. Maybe they expand in 2 years, or 3. Maybe they don't expand at all, maybe it is all a smokescreen from Texas and OU. Predictions are worthless whether they are reasonable or not. The only fact is that the Big12 is still talking about expansion.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Well, that's sort of pointless. That's like saying the sky is blue, or water is wet. It's a little bit tedious to keep having to attach that qualifier of "we don't know what will happen." I can understand you point that no one can say "will" or "won't" with absolute certainty. However, I'd have to say it's a little bit disingenuous. You've been pretty adamant about your belief that the ACC won't get a network, and that ACC teams will be taken in further expansion. The same argument could be made to you, regarding those positions.

As to the results of the meeting in July, it's not an unreasonable position to believe the Big 12 won't expand. The numbers obviously weren't that great, or they would have expanded already (like adding the CCG). Realistically, there isn't much that can change those numbers, particularly since a network is no longer in play. Are ESPN and Fox suddenly going to decide Cincinnati and UConn are somehow more valuable than they were last month? As it stands now, it's not really unreasonable to predict expansion doesn't happen.

My opinion is the ACC will not get a network.

1. So far the network has been delayed multiple times getting delayed.
2. You just answered this question with your second paragraph above. The BIG12 researches comes out saying the current numbers are not there and the market place I.E. ESPN, FOX... are not interested in starting a brand network. Why do you think it is going to be better for the ACC, especially when the ACC footprint and network has to go head to head with the more powerful SEC and B1G network
3. Right now there is massive cord cutting taking place, and the cable companies are not interested in pushing out a new cost to their customers even if it is subscription based.
4. Based on 2 and 3 why would ESPN be interested in spending time and money starting an ACCN when they currently own the product and have enough channels to show the content.

The only thing in the ACC favor are the roomers that ESPN has to pay the ACC 40 some odd million $$ if they don't launch a network. I have not seen the contract, I don't know if it is true, and I don't know if it is a one time payment or yearly, but it has been widely reported. Even so I don't believe the ACCN will get off the ground, and if it does I don't think it will be successful.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Exactly when is it that you think BIG 12 expansion is going to happen?

Boren and the Texas AD have said--reputational impact is important--i.e. no G5 schools.

When is the first possibility of any P5 schools being available--maybe? After 2024 when the Pac 12 has to get a new contract. You may have noticed its 2016 and if the Pac 12 is getting a new contract then which schools are leaving?

The CCG with 10 teams is a stupid move and everyone in the conference from coaches to the commissioner were saying the same--up until Texas' AD said no to eliminating the LHN, no to expansion and that adding a 10 team CCG would be a good idea he would support. Its going to cost the BIG 12 with the guaranteed rematches. It has a better probability of making the playoff than doing nothing because the high rated team COULD win and you get the 13th data point, but it leaves you disadvantaged to every conference without a guaranteed rematch. Not sure why you fail to comprehend this.

Boren said there isn't going to be any movement on expansion this summer and doesn't give indications of when any interest in it might pick up again. But in this and other recent interviews he states that they don't want to add teams their fans don't want to see. That pretty much eliminates everyone the BIG 12 has a chance to add.
e
Waiting on "future realignment" as Texas' AD stated--but future realignment may mean BIG 12 schools being approached.

Apparently and even though you love to point out how wrong I am, you have not paid attention to anything I actually said, which makes me wonder how you think I am wrong.

For 2 years have said the following

1. The BIG12 won't be interested in expanding for expansion sake.
2. The BIG12 would expand if the new rules passed last year did not allow for a ten team CCG.
3. The rule passed and the BIG12 schedules the first CCG 2017, bringing in another 30 million per year split between 10 not 12 teams.
4. TV contracts states: adding teams would provide a pro rata share increase. But why expand with a G5 program if your TV $$ stay the same while all your other revenue has to be shared with two more teams that dilute the power of your conference .
5. If the an automatic rematch of the CCG proved to an issue reaching the CCP, (as you think it will), then the BIG12 would expand with a G5 program.
6. It will take several years (at least 3) to determine if automatic rematch is an issue, which means expansion would not occur until about 2020, at which time the TV contract would be reexamined. TV Contract would be renegotiated extending the date with an associated extension of GOR.
7. For all of the above reasons there is no longer a rush to expand. If Texas and OU are truly interested in staying in the BIG12, they can sit back and wait for the dominoes to fall. If they are not interested they the BIG12 is toast.

So far 1-4 have been spot on and yet kept saying that was not going to happen.

 

[Buckaineer]

Apparently and even though you love to point out how wrong I am, you have not paid attention to anything I actually said, which makes me wonder how you think I am wrong.

For 2 years have said the following

1. The BIG12 won't be interested in expanding for expansion sake.
2. The BIG12 would expand if the new rules passed last year did not allow for a ten team CCG.
3. The rule passed and the BIG12 schedules the first CCG 2017, bringing in another 30 million per year split between 10 not 12 teams.
4. TV contracts states: adding teams would provide a pro rata share increase. But why expand with a G5 program if your TV $$ stay the same while all your other revenue has to be shared with two more teams that dilute the power of your conference .
5. If the an automatic rematch of the CCG proved to an issue reaching the CCP, (as you think it will), then the BIG12 would expand with a G5 program.
6. It will take several years (at least 3) to determine if automatic rematch is an issue, which means expansion would not occur until about 2020, at which time the TV contract would be reexamined. TV Contract would be renegotiated extending the date with an associated extension of GOR.
7. For all of the above reasons there is no longer a rush to expand. If Texas and OU are truly interested in staying in the BIG12, they can sit back and wait for the dominoes to fall. If they are not interested they the BIG12 is toast.

So far 1-4 have been spot on and yet kept saying that was not going to happen.

and what have I said:

1.The BIG 12 is examining expansion, a network and a CCG as a comprehensive way to improve the conference. TRUE
2. The conference is examining those things because they are disadvantaged to making the playoff and at a revenue disadvantage to the Big Ten and SEC long term. TRUE
3. Without doing all three of those things, leaders like OUs Boren believe the conference will NOT be able to overcome these disadvantages. TRUE
4. Oklahoma's president has stated, publicly that if those changes are NOT enacted, then he will have to consider other future options for the University of Oklahoma. TRUE
5. Having a guaranteed rematch is something virtually everyone involved with athletics at the various BIG 12 universities and the conference has said publicly would be a problem and I agree. No other conference has that disadvantage. TRUE
6. In order to enact comprehensive changes, the university of Texas would need to let go of the LHN so that they could join a conference network. TRUE
7. In order to have a conference network it would be necessary for the conference to add available programs to the BIG 12 in populous markets or regions that have strong tv and pay tv subscription and viewing numbers. TRUE
8. There are programs available that would help the BIG 12 in reaching these goals. TRUE
9. If the BIG 12 added some of these programs they would see a revenue increase, not a decline as many claimed. TRUE
10. The BIG 12 failed to enact comprehensive changes to date, thus putting membership at risk when the next realignment comes about because there will be a revenue disparity and the conference remains disadvantaged to the other conferences as the only one with a guaranteed rematch. TRUE
11. The leaders of the conference (OU and UT) are not seeking expansion and have either declared no action in the forseeable future towards that, that it isn't needed, and/or that their fanbases have made it clear that they only support adding unnatainable teams. TRUE

 

[skygusty]

I'm not sure any of you have ever been right about anything. After all you've all been saying the ACC is collapsing and teams are joining the BIG 12 for years, the ACC would be left out of the playoff but not the BIG 12, and on and on.

You are the ones who would say Eisenhower doesn't know $h!t just as you claimed Boren didn't know anything and was a moron. With your ignorant attitudes Germany WOULD have won the war because your entire plan would have been to help the Nazi's bash anyone who said that something should be done to fight them, while claiming a grass roots effort to create and build the Nazi's up couldn't possibly have any influence or success. Then you'd follow that up with a do nothing but wait for the Axis powers to fall apart and then you'd just take who you wanted!

What a bunch of f'ing morons.

Well there is the problem, you think you are sitting at the table with Roosevelt, Churchill Stalin, Eisenhower, Bradley and Patton, when in fact you are just another Joe in the landing craft having to deal with a situation out of your control. You are, and have always been, delusional, at best.

 

[Buckaineer]

My opinion is the ACC will not get a network.

1. So far the network has been delayed multiple times getting delayed.
2. You just answered this question with your second paragraph above. The BIG12 researches comes out saying the current numbers are not there and the market place I.E. ESPN, FOX... are not interested in starting a brand network. Why do you think it is going to be better for the ACC, especially when the ACC footprint and network has to go head to head with the more powerful SEC and B1G network
3. Right now there is massive cord cutting taking place, and the cable companies are not interested in pushing out a new cost to their customers even if it is subscription based.
4. Based on 2 and 3 why would ESPN be interested in spending time and money starting an ACCN when they currently own the product and have enough channels to show the content.

The only thing in the ACC favor are the roomers that ESPN has to pay the ACC 40 some odd million $$ if they don't launch a network. I have not seen the contract, I don't know if it is true, and I don't know if it is a one time payment or yearly, but it has been widely reported. Even so I don't believe the ACCN will get off the ground, and if it does I don't think it will be successful.

People have long been saying things about the ACC and a pattern has come out of that--everything people said they couldn't do they have done. They stayed (mostly) together despite large revenue gaps. They got an Orange Bowl deal after the Rose and Sugar deals were done that seemed to end the ACC as a power conference. They added ND while the BIG 12 held off taking other ACC teams to wait for Notre Dame. They added Louisville while the BIG 12 waited for "more valuable teams". They managed to get a couple of revenue increases in a short period of time that got them at the bottom end of the ballpark--but in the ballpark. They got a grant of rights signed securing their conference long term. They won football and basketball national championships the last few seasons and have participated in the playoff every year so far, while the BIG 12 got left out despite having TWO deserving teams the first year.

The one thing that has not transpired to date is an ACC network of some sort. Considering the other things they've managed it seems likely they'll be eventually successful in that regard. If they are, then CLEARLY Boren's statements need to be re addressed because there would be NO mandate from the industry that a conference network is no longer viable.

 

[Buckaineer]

Well there is the problem, you think you are sitting at the table with Roosevelt, Churchill Stalin, Eisenhower, Bradley and Patton, when in fact you are just another Joe in the landing craft having to deal with a situation out of your control. You are, and have always been, delusional, at best.

You are the one bringing up the WWII references, and then as usual try to twist it around to me because I responded? Please. What a jack hole.

 

[Buckaineer]

You are a f'ing idiot, too blinded by your trolling prejudices to even read the news. Bowlsby is in charge and speaks for the conference. Boren is a self appointed little jerk like you who pretends to call the shots. You and Buck together are totally freakin' clueless. But it doesn't matter, you're both ACC trolls.

I just put you both on ignore so save your ignorance for someone who will read it.

I'm an ACC troll because I state accurately they have a grant of rights through 2027 and may get the network they are trying to get? CLASSIC.

I really thought for awhile you were more intelligent than that. Apparently not.

The problem on this board is many are stuck in fantasyland with their "ACC collapsing and coming to the BIG 12" b.s. which is no more likely tomorrow than it is today.

As it has been and will be--the BIG 12 needs to worry about ITSELF, NOT the ACC which will still be intact in 2027 LONG after the BIG 12 has been forced to do something for itself.

Since the other fanbases in the conference have been completely duped much like people here though and let their leaders know they won't support anyone but unnattainable programs? Looking towards the end of the BIG 12s current deals the last few are going to be very difficult-because other conferences do NOT stand still and wait--they take action, something the BIG 12 seems nearly incapable of doing.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

and what have I said:

1.The BIG 12 is examining expansion, a network and a CCG as a comprehensive way to improve the conference. TRUE
2. The conference is examining those things because they are disadvantaged to making the playoff and at a revenue disadvantage to the Big Ten and SEC long term. TRUE
3. Without doing all three of those things, leaders like OUs Boren believe the conference will NOT be able to overcome these disadvantages. TRUE
4. Oklahoma's president has stated, publicly that if those changes are NOT enacted, then he will have to consider other future options for the University of Oklahoma. TRUE
5. Having a guaranteed rematch is something virtually everyone involved with athletics at the various BIG 12 universities and the conference has said publicly would be a problem and I agree. No other conference has that disadvantage. TRUE
6. In order to enact comprehensive changes, the university of Texas would need to let go of the LHN so that they could join a conference network. TRUE
7. In order to have a conference network it would be necessary for the conference to add available programs to the BIG 12 in populous markets or regions that have strong tv and pay tv subscription and viewing numbers. TRUE
8. There are programs available that would help the BIG 12 in reaching these goals. TRUE
9. If the BIG 12 added some of these programs they would see a revenue increase, not a decline as many claimed. TRUE
10. The BIG 12 failed to enact comprehensive changes to date, thus putting membership at risk when the next realignment comes about because there will be a revenue disparity and the conference remains disadvantaged to the other conferences as the only one with a guaranteed rematch. TRUE
11. The leaders of the conference (OU and UT) are not seeking expansion and have either declared no action in the forseeable future towards that, that it isn't needed, and/or that their fanbases have made it clear that they only support adding unnatainable teams. TRUE

As the landscape changes, so has your position. That is understandable when you opinion has always been wrong.

You have been adamant that the BIG12 would expand, because the conference is leaving too much money on the table not to expand and that each program would make more money with expansion. Now we come to find out research proves your opinion wrong

You were also adamant The BIG12 would not be interested in a 10 team CCG or that it would be bad for the league. Again, the research has indicated this was a win win for the conference so a 10 team CCG has been scheduled. I will admit there are no facts to back one position or another just yet, but I tend to put stock in a company that was paid who knows how much money, and spent who knows how many hours research this than your average internet board poster with an option (that has been wrong every step) such as yourself.

Next you will say you did not say these things, which is very predictable of you. I am not going back 2 years to find post you made to prove I am correct, because I know I am and it is a waste of time. However, if you say otherwise your memory is very bad or you are a lair.

 

[Buckaineer]

As the landscape changes, so has your position. That is understandable when you opinion has always been wrong.

You have been adamant that the BIG12 would expand, because the conference is leaving too much money on the table not to expand and that each program would make more money with expansion. Now we come to find out research proves your opinion wrong

You were also adamant The BIG12 would not be interested in a 10 team CCG or that it would be bad for the league. Again, the research has indicated this was a win win for the conference so a 10 team CCG has been scheduled. I will admit there are no facts to back one position or another just yet, but I tend to put stock in a company that was paid who knows how much money, and spent who knows how many hours research this than your average internet board poster with an option (that has been wrong every step) such as yourself.

Next you will say you did not say these things, which is very predictable of you. I am not going back 2 years to find post you made to prove I am correct, because I know I am and it is a waste of time. However, if you say otherwise your memory is very bad or you are a lair.

My position has NOT CHANGED. That is a complete and total lie-as usual coming from you.

I have NOT been adamant that the BIG 12 WOULD expand, I've been adamant that the conference NEEDED to expand because they are leaving too much money on the table and would make more money with expansion. I was right and still am--each school WILL make more money with expansion--even WITHOUT a network:

Again--directly from Oklahoma's president just a couple of weeks ago--
"The data for expansion is going to require some further thought. There’s no doubt that expansion gives some marginal (financial) gain, but how much marginal gain? We have to refine that a little further financially.”

If you’re parsing, pay very close attention to this next part:

“It does give some marginal gain,” Boren continued...."

While you have claimed all along schools would LOSE money with expansion. And apparently STILL are claiming that b.s.

I stated that a 10 team CCG would be bad for the league based directly on what the commissioner, WVU's president, OU's president, and multiple other ADs, presidents, coaches etc. said about the CCG and what is obvious to anyone with a brain--playing a guaranteed rematch is a DISADVANTAGE TO EVERY CONFERENCE THAT DOES NOT. The BIG 12 knows this, but chose the money and the boost in their chances to make the playoff over doing nothing. Still leaves them at a distinct disadvantage--especially when the other conferences have NO rematch.

You have continued to spin, misconstrue and outright LIE about me and what I"ve said--all in an attempt to hide your continued support and aid of those trying to wreck WVUs conference. All the while claiming fans have no influence on conference leaders which UT and OU just blew up completely when stating that their fans don't want to see less than stellar opponents and so reputational impact may outweigh money in expansion.

Stop lying about me, trying to get others to ignore me-and worry about yourself. YOU are one of the people hurting WVUs future--not me--I'm simply talking about what's happening while you and your fellow fools try to play make believe with the ACC.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

My position has NOT CHANGED. That is a complete and total lie-as usual coming from you.

I have NOT been adamant that the BIG 12 WOULD expand, I've been adamant that the conference NEEDED to expand because they are leaving too much money on the table and would make more money with expansion. I was right and still am--each school WILL make more money with expansion--even WITHOUT a network:

Again--directly from Oklahoma's president just a couple of weeks ago--
"The data for expansion is going to require some further thought. There’s no doubt that expansion gives some marginal (financial) gain, but how much marginal gain? We have to refine that a little further financially.”

If you’re parsing, pay very close attention to this next part:

“It does give some marginal gain,” Boren continued...."

While you have claimed all along schools would LOSE money with expansion. And apparently STILL are claiming that b.s.

I stated that a 10 team CCG would be bad for the league based directly on what the commissioner, WVU's president, OU's president, and multiple other ADs, presidents, coaches etc. said about the CCG and what is obvious to anyone with a brain--playing a guaranteed rematch is a DISADVANTAGE TO EVERY CONFERENCE THAT DOES NOT. The BIG 12 knows this, but chose the money and the boost in their chances to make the playoff over doing nothing. Still leaves them at a distinct disadvantage--especially when the other conferences have NO rematch.

You have continued to spin, misconstrue and outright LIE about me and what I"ve said--all in an attempt to hide your continued support and aid of those trying to wreck WVUs conference. All the while claiming fans have no influence on conference leaders which UT and OU just blew up completely when stating that their fans don't want to see less than stellar opponents and so reputational impact may outweigh money in expansion.

Stop lying about me, trying to get others to ignore me-and worry about yourself. YOU are one of the people hurting WVUs future--not me--I'm simply talking about what's happening while you and your fellow fools try to play make believe with the ACC.

Bla Bla Bla bla Bla, as I said it would be predictable that you would deny and lie, which continues to show (as many on this board are well aware) that you are a liar

 

[topdecktiger]

You are a f'ing idiot, too blinded by your trolling prejudices to even read the news. Bowlsby is in charge and speaks for the conference. Boren is a self appointed little jerk like you who pretends to call the shots. You and Buck together are totally freakin' clueless. But it doesn't matter, you're both ACC trolls.

I just put you both on ignore so save your ignorance for someone who will read it.

Childish response. I gave a perfectly reasonable analysis to back up my point. You on the other hand, gave nothing but an emotional outburst, completely unrelated to the points I raised. Poor response from someone who has a background in journalism.

My opinion is the ACC will not get a network.

1. So far the network has been delayed multiple times getting delayed.
2. You just answered this question with your second paragraph above. The BIG12 researches comes out saying the current numbers are not there and the market place I.E. ESPN, FOX... are not interested in starting a brand network. Why do you think it is going to be better for the ACC, especially when the ACC footprint and network has to go head to head with the more powerful SEC and B1G network
3. Right now there is massive cord cutting taking place, and the cable companies are not interested in pushing out a new cost to their customers even if it is subscription based.
4. Based on 2 and 3 why would ESPN be interested in spending time and money starting an ACCN when they currently own the product and have enough channels to show the content.

The only thing in the ACC favor are the roomers that ESPN has to pay the ACC 40 some odd million $$ if they don't launch a network. I have not seen the contract, I don't know if it is true, and I don't know if it is a one time payment or yearly, but it has been widely reported. Even so I don't believe the ACCN will get off the ground, and if it does I don't think it will be successful.

I notice you didn't respond to anything else I pointed out in that post. The ACC issue was only mentioned as an illustration to underline my point about Big 12 expansion. You sidestepped that part

If you are asking me about the network issue (you might have just asking rhetorically), this is my answer.

1. The network hasn't been delayed multiple times. 2016-2017 was always the target date to begin with, so there were no delays in that regard. The only instance where there has been a report of a delay was last year, when Georgia Tech's president said ESPN wanted a delay. I'll agree with you that there has been one delay, but not multiple delays.

2. That's what Boren said, not the report itself. I'll agree that market conditions certainly play a factor. I don't agree that you will find any information about an ACC network in a Big 12 study. That's not what the firms were commissioned to research.

As to why I think it would be better for the ACC to start a network, there are several reasons. One, you keep bringing up this issue that the ACC is at a disadvantage because their network would compete against the Big Ten and SEC. You don't understand the business model. They aren't going head-to-head, like in a regular broadcast. These conference networks make their real money on subscriptions, not ratings. They make money by getting their networks included in larger packages, so that 80-year-old grandmas who never watch the channel still pay for it. Being in the same territory as the Big Ten or SEC doesn't affect that. Along those lines, being in overlapping territory would actually help. For example, South Carolina fans would watch the network just to see Clemson lose. Florida fans would watch just to see FSU lose. That would actually make local providers more likely to include the network in a package. Two, the ACC has more content, with 14 schools (plus Notre Dame). Boren did say that the report specifically mentioned that it found that there wouldn't be enough content with only 10 schools. Three, the ACC has a much larger media footprint. The ACC has 43 million households in its footprint, compared to 14 million for the Big 12. (That's also compared to 40 million for the Big Ten (not counting New York) and 33 million for the SEC). These networks make a majority of their revenue from the higher in-footprint subscriptions, which is why size of the footprint is so important. And four, the ACC doesn't have the issue of schools with their own individual networks (Texas, Oklahoma) that would have to be resolved.

3. There is truth to that. The cost doesn't rise proportionally. For example, when the SEC network started two years ago, our cable bills here did not go up.

4. This is where you really don't understand the business model. The fact that ESPN already owns the content doesn't matter. The fact that they already have channels to show the content doesn't matter. Here's how it works. Let's say ESPN televises Virginia Tech/NC State on ESPN2. Ok, so how do they make money from that game? The sell advertising spots. Now, let's say that same game is televised on an ACC network. How does ESPN make money off of that? They sell advertising spots AND they get subscription revenue. See, the conference network offers a new source of revenue. You don't get that just by putting the game on ESPN2. ESPN gets a subscription fee for ESPN2, regardless of that Virginia Tech/NC State game. ESPN doesn't even need the ACC at all to get subscription fees for ESPN2. The only way they can generate an extra revenue stream for that game is by having a conference network.

What this all comes down to is a simple question, will a network make enough money for ESPN? None of this other stuff that is being brought up has any relevance. It's certainly a fair question to ask if a network would in fact make a sufficient amount of revenue. There isn't a correct answer to that question at this moment (at least that we know). I'm not telling you definitively there will or won't be a network. What I'm telling you is that these roadblocks you are constructing are not applicable. If you say, "I don't think the ACC will get a network because they won't make enough money," that's a fair opinion. However, making up all this nonsense like ESPN already owns the rights, they overlap the SEC, etc. isn't a factor. The only factor is whether or not the cable providers are willing to pay enough for a network to make money for ESPN. It all comes down to that one point.

I'll also point out, none of this has anything to do with my point in my previous post. You didn't respond to my main point.

 

[Buckaineer]

Bla Bla Bla bla Bla, as I said it would be predictable that you would deny and lie, which continues to show (as many on this board are well aware) that you are a liar

Yes the childish blah blah blah because, once again you can't say anything to counter what I've said. So what do you do? As expected resort to personal attack and then try to associate yourself with "other" and pretend no one agrees with me- all in attempt to make yourself seem important and to try to get people to disregard what I'm saying. Childish and ignorant.

The three other people here agreeing with you are just the same. Everyone else makes up their own mind but can clearly see the liar, and it certainly isn't me.

 

[Buckaineer]

Childish response. I gave a perfectly reasonable analysis to back up my point. You on the other hand, gave nothing but an emotional outburst, completely unrelated to the points I raised. Poor response from someone who has a background in journalism.



I notice you didn't respond to anything else I pointed out in that post. The ACC issue was only mentioned as an illustration to underline my point about Big 12 expansion. You sidestepped that part

If you are asking me about the network issue (you might have just asking rhetorically), this is my answer.

1. The network hasn't been delayed multiple times. 2016-2017 was always the target date to begin with, so there were no delays in that regard. The only instance where there has been a report of a delay was last year, when Georgia Tech's president said ESPN wanted a delay. I'll agree with you that there has been one delay, but not multiple delays.

2. That's what Boren said, not the report itself. I'll agree that market conditions certainly play a factor. I don't agree that you will find any information about an ACC network in a Big 12 study. That's not what the firms were commissioned to research.

As to why I think it would be better for the ACC to start a network, there are several reasons. One, you keep bringing up this issue that the ACC is at a disadvantage because their network would compete against the Big Ten and SEC. You don't understand the business model. They aren't going head-to-head, like in a regular broadcast. These conference networks make their real money on subscriptions, not ratings. They make money by getting their networks included in larger packages, so that 80-year-old grandmas who never watch the channel still pay for it. Being in the same territory as the Big Ten or SEC doesn't affect that. Along those lines, being in overlapping territory would actually help. For example, South Carolina fans would watch the network just to see Clemson lose. Florida fans would watch just to see FSU lose. That would actually make local providers more likely to include the network in a package. Two, the ACC has more content, with 14 schools (plus Notre Dame). Boren did say that the report specifically mentioned that it found that there wouldn't be enough content with only 10 schools. Three, the ACC has a much larger media footprint. The ACC has 43 million households in its footprint, compared to 14 million for the Big 12. (That's also compared to 40 million for the Big Ten (not counting New York) and 33 million for the SEC). These networks make a majority of their revenue from the higher in-footprint subscriptions, which is why size of the footprint is so important. And four, the ACC doesn't have the issue of schools with their own individual networks (Texas, Oklahoma) that would have to be resolved.

3. There is truth to that. The cost doesn't rise proportionally. For example, when the SEC network started two years ago, our cable bills here did not go up.

4. This is where you really don't understand the business model. The fact that ESPN already owns the content doesn't matter. The fact that they already have channels to show the content doesn't matter. Here's how it works. Let's say ESPN televises Virginia Tech/NC State on ESPN2. Ok, so how do they make money from that game? The sell advertising spots. Now, let's say that same game is televised on an ACC network. How does ESPN make money off of that? They sell advertising spots AND they get subscription revenue. See, the conference network offers a new source of revenue. You don't get that just by putting the game on ESPN2. ESPN gets a subscription fee for ESPN2, regardless of that Virginia Tech/NC State game. ESPN doesn't even need the ACC at all to get subscription fees for ESPN2. The only way they can generate an extra revenue stream for that game is by having a conference network.

What this all comes down to is a simple question, will a network make enough money for ESPN? None of this other stuff that is being brought up has any relevance. It's certainly a fair question to ask if a network would in fact make a sufficient amount of revenue. There isn't a correct answer to that question at this moment (at least that we know). I'm not telling you definitively there will or won't be a network. What I'm telling you is that these roadblocks you are constructing are not applicable. If you say, "I don't think the ACC will get a network because they won't make enough money," that's a fair opinion. However, making up all this nonsense like ESPN already owns the rights, they overlap the SEC, etc. isn't a factor. The only factor is whether or not the cable providers are willing to pay enough for a network to make money for ESPN. It all comes down to that one point.

I'll also point out, none of this has anything to do with my point in my previous post. You didn't respond to my main point.

Only in the ACC do you think that 43 million people consider their areas to be "ACC country". What is really there is North Carolina and Virginia, then part of Florida, part of Atlanta, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, a small piece of Boston, Part of western South Carolina. To pretend the state of PA or the state of Massachusetts, GA, SC, FL, KY, NY, etc are "all in" on an ACC network or anything about that conference is silly and just not accurate.

On the rights issue- the problem with rights is that FOX and Swoffords son via Raycom own all rights to the necessary inventory to create an ACC network and no buy backs are even at the negotiating stage from any reports out there.

The content ESPN already owns- ESPN loses money if they give that back to the ACC for nothing. Now they make rights fees and advertising money off of that material as all of their content contributes to rights fees which could be reduced if existing inventory is removed and instead placed on an ACC network. More importantly ESPN doesn't pay the ACC as high of a portion of those rights fees or advertising monies as they would if they simply gave it back for free to the ACC. Second are rebroadcast rights fees which ESPN makes some money from, but would make less of on an ACC network,

If the ACC ever gets a network it's likely to be an extension of their digital network rather than something exactly like the SECn or BTN. As a result it will be more tied to numbers of subscribers because only those wanting it will be getting it rather than everyone paying for it.

 

[skygusty]

My position has NOT CHANGED. That is a complete and total lie-as usual coming from you.

I have NOT been adamant that the BIG 12 WOULD expand, I've been adamant that the conference NEEDED to expand because they are leaving too much money on the table and would make more money with expansion. I was right and still am--each school WILL make more money with expansion--even WITHOUT a network:

Again--directly from Oklahoma's president just a couple of weeks ago--
"The data for expansion is going to require some further thought. There’s no doubt that expansion gives some marginal (financial) gain, but how much marginal gain? We have to refine that a little further financially.”

If you’re parsing, pay very close attention to this next part:

“It does give some marginal gain,” Boren continued...."

While you have claimed all along schools would LOSE money with expansion. And apparently STILL are claiming that b.s.

I stated that a 10 team CCG would be bad for the league based directly on what the commissioner, WVU's president, OU's president, and multiple other ADs, presidents, coaches etc. said about the CCG and what is obvious to anyone with a brain--playing a guaranteed rematch is a DISADVANTAGE TO EVERY CONFERENCE THAT DOES NOT. The BIG 12 knows this, but chose the money and the boost in their chances to make the playoff over doing nothing. Still leaves them at a distinct disadvantage--especially when the other conferences have NO rematch.

You have continued to spin, misconstrue and outright LIE about me and what I"ve said--all in an attempt to hide your continued support and aid of those trying to wreck WVUs conference. All the while claiming fans have no influence on conference leaders which UT and OU just blew up completely when stating that their fans don't want to see less than stellar opponents and so reputational impact may outweigh money in expansion.

Stop lying about me, trying to get others to ignore me-and worry about yourself. YOU are one of the people hurting WVUs future--not me--I'm simply talking about what's happening while you and your fellow fools try to play make believe with the ACC.

You actually expressed the thought in public that the Big12 should expand for marginal gain? Here are some synonyms (words that mean the same thing and are in most cases interchangeable) for marginal: questionable, nominal, insignificant, doubtful, miniscule, insubstantial, disputable, minor, weak, ephemeral, inconsequential, anemic, borderline. I hope you didn't go to WVU. You can't do fractions, your vocabulary is a joke and your intelligence is marginal. There, I used it in a sentence so you could understand that marginal is not a good thing.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

I notice you didn't respond to anything else I pointed out in that post. The ACC issue was only mentioned as an illustration to underline my point about Big 12 expansion. You sidestepped that part

Was that directed at me? I don't know what part of your post I did not respond to.

 

[topdecktiger]

Only in the ACC do you think that 43 million people consider their areas to be "ACC country". What is really there is North Carolina and Virginia, then part of Florida, part of Atlanta, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, a small piece of Boston, Part of western South Carolina. To pretend the state of PA or the state of Massachusetts, GA, SC, FL, KY, NY, etc are "all in" on an ACC network or anything about that conference is silly and just not accurate.

It's got nothing to do with being "all in." Subscribers would still be considered in-footprint, and thus subject to the higher rate. Now, if Pennsylvania carriers, for example, said, "We don't think enough people would be interested in an ACC network, so we aren't going to carry it," that's a distinct possibility. However, IF, IF, they did decide to carry an ACC network, they would in fact have to pay the higher in-footprint rate. You are mixing up two different issues, whether there would be enough local interest in a network vs. what rate would apply those areas.

On the rights issue- the problem with rights is that FOX and Swoffords son via Raycom own all rights to the necessary inventory to create an ACC network and no buy backs are even at the negotiating stage from any reports out there.

The repurchasing of syndication rights didn't start until 1 year before the SEC network launched, and the same for the Big Ten. It wouldn't make logical sense for ESPN to repurchase the rights until the definitively decide to launch the network. Buying back syndication rights is simply not as hard as you are trying to make it out to be.

The content ESPN already owns- ESPN loses money if they give that back to the ACC for nothing. Now they make rights fees and advertising money off of that material as all of their content contributes to rights fees which could be reduced if existing inventory is removed and instead placed on an ACC network. More importantly ESPN doesn't pay the ACC as high of a portion of those rights fees or advertising monies as they would if they simply gave it back for free to the ACC. Second are rebroadcast rights fees which ESPN makes some money from, but would make less of on an ACC network

Another misunderstanding of the business model. ESPN would not be "giving back" the rights to the ACC. ESPN would still own the rights to all the ACC games. ESPN would simply be shifting content from one channel to another. ESPN doesn't have to "give back" any rights if they shift a game from ABC to ESPN2. It's literally no different than shifting a game from ESPN2 to an ACC network. ESPN would own an ACC network, just like they own ESPN2 or ESPNews.

Here's the perspective on the syndication fees. ESPN gets $50 million a year from Raycom. By contract, ESPN gets $546 million a year from the SECN, and Fox gets $370 million from the BTN. Even if an ACC network only made half of what the BTN makes, that would still be triple what ESPN gets from Raycom. If you want to say you still don't think the ACC would make that much money, fair point, but it still stands that a conference network on average brings in more than a syndication package.

 

[topdecktiger]

Was that directed at me? I don't know what part of your post I did not respond to.

You didn't respond to this part:

Well, that's sort of pointless. That's like saying the sky is blue, or water is wet. It's a little bit tedious to keep having to attach that qualifier of "we don't know what will happen." I can understand you point that no one can say "will" or "won't" with absolute certainty. However, I'd have to say it's a little bit disingenuous. You've been pretty adamant about your belief that......ACC teams will be taken in further expansion. The same argument could be made to you, regarding those positions.

Or this part:

As to the results of the meeting in July, it's not an unreasonable position to believe the Big 12 won't expand. The numbers obviously weren't that great, or they would have expanded already (like adding the CCG). Realistically, there isn't much that can change those numbers, particularly since a network is no longer in play. Are ESPN and Fox suddenly going to decide Cincinnati and UConn are somehow more valuable than they were last month? As it stands now, it's not really unreasonable to predict expansion doesn't happen.

 

[Buckaineer]

You actually expressed the thought in public that the Big12 should expand for marginal gain? Here are some synonyms (words that mean the same thing and are in most cases interchangeable) for marginal: questionable, nominal, insignificant, doubtful, miniscule, insubstantial, disputable, minor, weak, ephemeral, inconsequential, anemic, borderline. I hope you didn't go to WVU. You can't do fractions, your vocabulary is a joke and your intelligence is marginal. There, I used it in a sentence so you could understand that marginal is not a good thing.

Gain is gain. Not sure what part of that your feable mind doesn't comprehend in your sad attempts to attack me.
If you are behind someone, and some of your members are concerned enough about that they might LEAVE, you do what you can to minimize disadvantage. OU's president said there would be gain, and I've shown via math which YOU don't comprehend that yes indeed each existing school would make upwards of $1 million to $2 or $3 million additional if they expanded--which they did not do btw. That doesn't put them up at Big Ten numbers, but its a marginal gain-and no its not insignificant. Its real money that I'm sure AD's like WVU could use.

I expressed what Boren, Gee and others were expressing--that the conference should adopt comprehensive improvements--which would have put them financially--top to bottom--on par with everyone. Now we have a situation where Texas will keep up for awhile, and everyone else will fall behind significanty against the Big Ten in the short and long term and are expected to also be behind the SEC.

If they expand it would put them in a better position to make the playoff and probably put more teams in bowls and the NCAA tournament. All of which would bring gain to existing members. But don't worry--they aren't going to--so you can carry on with your stupidity endlessly.

Meanwhile WVU fans can begin pushing their administration to prepare for 2023 and beyond.

 

[Orlaco]

So many words... ...over and over again... ...directed between people who'll never respect the others opinion.

The person who types the most won't be declared the winner. How about posting your opinion and moving on.....?

 

[Buckaineer]

(topdecktiger) It's got nothing to do with being "all in." Subscribers would still be considered in-footprint, and thus subject to the higher rate. Now, if Pennsylvania carriers, for example, said, "We don't think enough people would be interested in an ACC network, so we aren't going to carry it," that's a distinct possibility. However, IF, IF, they did decide to carry an ACC network, they would in fact have to pay the higher in-footprint rate. You are mixing up two different issues, whether there would be enough local interest in a network vs. what rate would apply those areas.

B: NY, MA, PA, FL, GA--these states and probably some I've missed have different cable providers across the states. So if you get a provider in Pittsburgh to carry an ACC network, or a provider in part of Boston--it doesn't mean the rest of the providers in those states are going to pick up the ACC network. It is unlikely the ACC would have any more success getting picked up by the national satellite companies than the Pac did either. The ACC isn't getting full rates in NY, PA, GA, SC--many of the states that you claim. Besides while the population of the states you have teams in may be 43 million--the numbers of pay tv subscribers is FAR less in those states.



The repurchasing of syndication rights didn't start until 1 year before the SEC network launched, and the same for the Big Ten. It wouldn't make logical sense for ESPN to repurchase the rights until the definitively decide to launch the network. Buying back syndication rights is simply not as hard as you are trying to make it out to be.

B: The ACC has talked repeatedly about this July being some drop dead date--that is well under a year is it not? The SEC bought back their rights around a year out but they negotiated for those rights prior.

Another misunderstanding of the business model. ESPN would not be "giving back" the rights to the ACC. ESPN would still own the rights to all the ACC games. ESPN would simply be shifting content from one channel to another. ESPN doesn't have to "give back" any rights if they shift a game from ABC to ESPN2. It's literally no different than shifting a game from ESPN2 to an ACC network. ESPN would own an ACC network, just like they own ESPN2 or ESPNews.

B: ESPN would not simply be shifting their content from one channel to another. They own all ACC rights now. With an ACC network the ACC would have something like a 50% ownership like the Big Ten does probably. So yes, ESPN would be paying more to the ACC for the same rights they already own. If they didn't pay more for those rights but just put them on a different platform--what is the benefit to ESPN OR the ACC? There's no point in your mistaken "model". It doesn't work that way and neither side would benefit from that. The entire purpose for a network is to put inventory that isn't currently monetized on a new platform for both parties to make money. It isn't the same as putting the game on ESPN and shifting it to ESPN2 or ESPNU. ESPN already makes money on the ACC games they own, they aren't putting those on an ACC network and then paying extra money to the ACC for them--it would have to be the inventory from Raycom and FOX and they've said so.

Here's the perspective on the syndication fees. ESPN gets $50 million a year from Raycom. By contract, ESPN gets $546 million a year from the SECN, and Fox gets $370 million from the BTN. Even if an ACC network only made half of what the BTN makes, that would still be triple what ESPN gets from Raycom. If you want to say you still don't think the ACC would make that much money, fair point, but it still stands that a conference network on average brings in more than a syndication package.

B: The problem for the ACC isn't how much ESPN can make--its what is Raycom and FOX going to SELL BACK those rights for? It isn't going to be cheap if they even want to do that. Raycom goes out of business as a result and FOX loses valuable east coast properties. Doubtful and nowhere close to happening.

 

[skygusty]

Gain is gain. Not sure what part of that your feable mind doesn't comprehend in your sad attempts to attack me.
If you are behind someone, and some of your members are concerned enough about that they might LEAVE, you do what you can to minimize disadvantage. OU's president said there would be gain, and I've shown via math which YOU don't comprehend that yes indeed each existing school would make upwards of $1 million to $2 or $3 million additional if they expanded--which they did not do btw. That doesn't put them up at Big Ten numbers, but its a marginal gain-and no its not insignificant. Its real money that I'm sure AD's like WVU could use.

I expressed what Boren, Gee and others were expressing--that the conference should adopt comprehensive improvements--which would have put them financially--top to bottom--on par with everyone. Now we have a situation where Texas will keep up for awhile, and everyone else will fall behind significanty against the Big Ten in the short and long term and are expected to also be behind the SEC.

If they expand it would put them in a better position to make the playoff and probably put more teams in bowls and the NCAA tournament. All of which would bring gain to existing members. But don't worry--they aren't going to--so you can carry on with your stupidity endlessly.

Meanwhile WVU fans can begin pushing their administration to prepare for 2023 and beyond.

You haven't shown anything with regards to teams making an additional 1,2 or 3 million by expanding. You can't show a link that this is true. All you have is Boren's contentions which have NEVER been upheld by data. Actually the talent they hired to investigate has concluded that they money isn't there. They are making that much money and more with the CCG. It would be great to see a Big12 champion in the playoffs for the next 3-4 years just so you have the opportunity to continue to display how much you hate the Big12. Comprehensive improvements is code for Boren intentionally asking for the impossible. He knows it, you know it, we know it. Unfortunately for Boren, the other conference members decided to look at each of the three legs of Borens definition of improvement one by one. They added the CCG, they may yet surprise everyone and expand in the next few years. Boren didn't get Texas to give up the LHN in exchange for your MARGINAL gains so his demands for "comprehensive reform" was recognized for what it was. Politics and wishful thinking unsupported by finances. Yeah a dollar is more than 0 dollars, that would qualify as a marginal gain for you. You are a math genius who can't even calculate percentages.

 

[Buckaineer]

You haven't shown anything with regards to teams making an additional 1,2 or 3 million by expanding. You can't show a link that this is true. All you have is Boren's contentions which have NEVER been upheld by data. Actually the talent they hired to investigate has concluded that they money isn't there. They are making that much money and more with the CCG. It would be great to see a Big12 champion in the playoffs for the next 3-4 years just so you have the opportunity to continue to display how much you hate the Big12. Comprehensive improvements is code for Boren intentionally asking for the impossible. He knows it, you know it, we know it. Unfortunately for Boren, the other conference members decided to look at each of the three legs of Borens definition of improvement one by one. They added the CCG, they may yet surprise everyone and expand in the next few years. Boren didn't get Texas to give up the LHN in exchange for your MARGINAL gains so his demands for "comprehensive reform" was recognized for what it was. Politics and wishful thinking unsupported by finances. Yeah a dollar is more than 0 dollars, that would qualify as a marginal gain for you. You are a math genius who can't even calculate percentages.

You haven't seen any of the leagues data because they never released any other than some CCG info. I have shown exactly how its possible for the existing members to make more money per school and OUs president just stated that YES in fact the existing schools WILL make more money. Has he not seen the consultants reports according to you?

You have an agenda and don't want expansion. Therefore nothing anyone does or says matters--if it doesn't fit the agenda you ignore it. The consultants haven't said anything whatsoever about candidates not being valuable or expansion causing existing members to lose money. You just made that up out of your @$$.

The only thing the conference has said is that due to "the market" they won't have a network, and that they voted to have a CCG because they decided the boost to their playoff chances was too much to leave things as they are now.

Comprehensive improvements wasn't asking for the impossible, it was intelligent planning to solve the issues facing the membership all at once. Expand to increase the footprint and markets and inventory, create a network that would have given not only significant revenues to existing members to put them on par with their peers long term, but also deliver positive exposure across the country to the existing members that would reap strong benefits in attracting viewers and recruits and new fans and students, and add a CCG with at least 12 teams that would have both delivered money and helped the league be successful. These would have benefitted the entire membership long term by bringing all members up to the same media rights levels instead of one or two being ok and the rest rapidly falling behind.

The LHN going away in place of a conference wide network would not have delivered a "marginal" gain--it would have delivered and exceptional gain for the entire membership of several million per member.

The "marginal" gain is what can be had now if they still went ahead and expanded without a network. Try to keep up.

 

[topdecktiger]

B: NY, MA, PA, FL, GA--these states and probably some I've missed have different cable providers across the states. So if you get a provider in Pittsburgh to carry an ACC network, or a provider in part of Boston--it doesn't mean the rest of the providers in those states are going to pick up the ACC network. It is unlikely the ACC would have any more success getting picked up by the national satellite companies than the Pac did either. The ACC isn't getting full rates in NY, PA, GA, SC--many of the states that you claim. Besides while the population of the states you have teams in may be 43 million--the numbers of pay tv subscribers is FAR less in those states.

You are again confusing the # of subscriptions vs. the amount of the fee. Let's take your example with Boston. The fee would be the same for all carriers. If the in-footprint fee was $1.00 per subscriber, then Provider A and Provider B would both pay the same fee. However, you are correct that even though Provider A carries the network, Provider B might not.

That said, it's not fatal to a network if all providers in an area do not pick up the network. For example, New York state has a total of about 7.2 households. Let's say only 1/4 of them subscribe to a network. That's still 1.8 million subscribers. By contrast, the entire state of South Carolina has only 1.5 million households. So, even if you only get 1/4 of the households in New York, that's still more than if you got every single household in the state of South Carolina. Now, let's just say hypothetically that the in-footprint rate is $1.00 per subscriber. That would mean that those 1.8 million subscribers from New York would bring in $21.6 million per year. Of course, we don't know that the fee will be $1.00. I'm just using that as an example to illustrate that the point that it's not necessary for all the households in a city/state to subscribe for a network to make money. That was the whole point of adding the Northern schools. The ACC wasn't depending on them to be the backbone of the conference. They are just there to get a percentage of the population to put the numbers over the top.

To your comment about the 43 million, you're wrong. 43 million is not the total number of households. That only the number of households that have TV. Of that 43 million, 38 million have either cable or satellite, which would be 88%. That's not "far less."

B: The ACC has talked repeatedly about this July being some drop dead date--that is well under a year is it not? The SEC bought back their rights around a year out but they negotiated for those rights prior.

Nope, the drop dead date was pushed back, as has been posted here previously.

Regarding the SEC, they negotiated about a year or so prior to forming the network. You just made it up off the top of your head that the negotiated prior.

B: ESPN would not simply be shifting their content from one channel to another. They own all ACC rights now. With an ACC network the ACC would have something like a 50% ownership like the Big Ten does probably. So yes, ESPN would be paying more to the ACC for the same rights they already own. If they didn't pay more for those rights but just put them on a different platform--what is the benefit to ESPN OR the ACC? There's no point in your mistaken "model". It doesn't work that way and neither side would benefit from that. The entire purpose for a network is to put inventory that isn't currently monetized on a new platform for both parties to make money. It isn't the same as putting the game on ESPN and shifting it to ESPN2 or ESPNU. ESPN already makes money on the ACC games they own, they aren't putting those on an ACC network and then paying extra money to the ACC for them--it would have to be the inventory from Raycom and FOX and they've said so.

No, incorrect. ESPN would not have only 50% ownership of the rights (as you indicate Fox has for the Big Ten). ESPN would have 100% ownership of the rights (and the network). They would not pay the ACC extra for those rights. The ACC would only be paid from the revenue generated by the subscription fees. For the rights to the actual games, that's already covered in the current contract.

The value to both ESPN and the ACC is the revenue from the subscriptions to the network. Right now, ESPN has only indirectly monetized ACC content. I'll go back to my example of a Virginia Tech/NC State game, televised on ESPN2. Well, whether or not that game is on ESPN2 does not affect the subscription fee ESPN gets for ESP2 (which is 88¢ per subscriber). ESPN2 does not get its subscription fee strictly on ACC content. ESPN2 televises multiple sports from multiple leagues. No one source is responsible for ESPN2's subscriptions, so therefore the VT/ NCST game does not directly account for subscriptions, and thus is indirectly monetized. It's just thrown into a pot with NBA, NASCAR, tennis, soccer, etc.

Now, contrast that with an ACC network. You take that same VT/NCST game, and put it on an ACC network. Now, you get two subscription fees. You get __¢ from your ACC network, plus you still get your 88¢ from ESPN2. You don't lose anything by simply shifting the VT/NCST game over from ESPN2 to ACCN. You just put something else on ESPN2 (which they can do because they have plenty of content). This doesn't require paying any extra money to the ACC. ESPN and the ACC simply split the new revenue generated by the network subscriptions. That's where your theory falls apart, because you aren't taking into account that ESPN is going to have new revenue from a conference network, and still have the revenue (from the replacement content) from the other platforms.

This is EXACTLY the model ESPN uses with the SEC. ESPN owns 100% of the SECN. The only money the SEC gets from the network is revenue from the subscription fees. Now, how does that benefit ESPN or the SEC you ask? Well, the SECN gets $546 million a year in subscription fees. Even if you split the revenue 50/50 (and I'm talking revenue, not ownership), that's $273 million per year for ESPN. Of course, some money comes off the top of the 546 to pay for operations, but you get my point. There is big money in conference networks, IF, big IF, you can get the right mix of subscribers and fees.

B: The problem for the ACC isn't how much ESPN can make--its what is Raycom and FOX going to SELL BACK those rights for? It isn't going to be cheap if they even want to do that. Raycom goes out of business as a result and FOX loses valuable east coast properties. Doubtful and nowhere close to happening.

Actually, it won't be all that expensive. It didn't cost the SEC, Big Ten, or Pac 12 that much to repurchase the syndication rights. It also doesn't make sense that Fox would be willing to resale the SEC (most popular conference) but not the ACC. The problem is, syndication rights are not nearly as valuable as original rights. You don't make a distinction between the two. Syndication is basically like renting. Raycom and Fox are really just "renting" ACC games from ESPN. ESPN still actually holds ownership of the rights, just like a renter still holds ownership of his property.

You have a point about Raycom going out of business. However, you fail to deal with the fact that Raycom has nothing once the contract is up with the ACC. Raycom is screwed either way.