ACC a better fit than Big 12?

[skygusty]

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.

You are again making things up and claiming things to be fact that are not.

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.

Expecting Texas to give up the LHN was always impossible. They didn't because Texas could not be kept whole with Boren's scheme and it would NEVER have delivered exceptional gain for the entire membership of several million per member, it wouldn't have even replaced current third tier rights. Boren has known this all along, he is just being a politician as that is what he is and he really does have an agenda. Expansion for the Big12 has never been proven to be a good idea regardless of your insistent claims to the contrary. When someone that has credibility (that would not be you Buck) demonstrates that expansion is a great idea then I will have no serious problems with it.

 

[Buckaineer]

You are again making things up and claiming things to be fact that are not.

Expecting Texas to give up the LHN was always impossible. They didn't because Texas could not be kept whole with Boren's scheme and it would NEVER have delivered exceptional gain for the entire membership of several million per member, it wouldn't have even replaced current third tier rights. Boren has known this all along, he is just being a politician as that is what he is and he really does have an agenda. Expansion for the Big12 has never been proven to be a good idea regardless of your insistent claims to the contrary. When someone that has credibility (that would not be you Buck) demonstrates that expansion is a great idea then I will have no serious problems with it.

I haven't made anything up, I've just discussed what the conference has been discussing, analyzing and deciding. Why you always try to pretend its me, rather than Boren, Gee, and all the presidents, ADs etc. in the conference just shows you don't comprehend things well. The CONFERENCE looked at and chose what they have--NOT me. Why can't you understand that? When I present an article with quotes from a leader of the conference, its not ME, its THEM. But for some reason, you try to pretend that I made up what they said? That is a problem with you, not me.

Texas giving up the LHN was never impossible, and yes, Texas could have been kept "whole". Boren didn't have a "scheme", he had a well researched and well thought out plan, which the rest of the conference drug its feet on and wasted time, and eventually ignored due to fear and emotion before they even knew all the facts of the matter.

The conference network would have both brought the other members up to BigTen and SEC levels, made their media rights payouts across the board even and kept Texas whole with their LHN level earnings.

According to you the president of Oklahoma doesn't have credibility when he has told us publicly that research by analysts has shown expansion candidates have value and would add value to the existing membership, so no, no matter what anyone ever says, you'll pretend you know better because YOU have an agenda and you haven't looked at one fact about the matter. You've made decisions based on infantile emotion with nothing whatsoever to back up what you say--not one thing.

Unfortunately emotion has taken control of the fanbase of the BIG 12 due to the influence of outsiders wishing to break it apart and that has taken control of the leadership, leading to more inaction. That inaction will be the downfall of the conference. Standing still as you pine for was never an option.

 

[skygusty]

I haven't made anything up, I've just discussed what the conference has been discussing, analyzing and deciding. Why you always try to pretend its me, rather than Boren, Gee, and all the presidents, ADs etc. in the conference just shows you don't comprehend things well. The CONFERENCE looked at and chose what they have--NOT me. Why can't you understand that? When I present an article with quotes from a leader of the conference, its not ME, its THEM. But for some reason, you try to pretend that I made up what they said? That is a problem with you, not me.

Texas giving up the LHN was never impossible, and yes, Texas could have been kept "whole". Boren didn't have a "scheme", he had a well researched and well thought out plan, which the rest of the conference drug its feet on and wasted time, and eventually ignored due to fear and emotion before they even knew all the facts of the matter.

The conference network would have both brought the other members up to BigTen and SEC levels, made their media rights payouts across the board even and kept Texas whole with their LHN level earnings.

According to you the president of Oklahoma doesn't have credibility when he has told us publicly that research by analysts has shown expansion candidates have value and would add value to the existing membership, so no, no matter what anyone ever says, you'll pretend you know better because YOU have an agenda and you haven't looked at one fact about the matter. You've made decisions based on infantile emotion with nothing whatsoever to back up what you say--not one thing.

Unfortunately emotion has taken control of the fanbase of the BIG 12 due to the influence of outsiders wishing to break it apart and that has taken control of the leadership, leading to more inaction. That inaction will be the downfall of the conference. Standing still as you pine for was never an option.

You make up things I have said and other posters have said. Or more accurately you can't be bothered to keep people responding to you differentiated in your mind. Your last post was particularly confused in that regard. Show me a quote from Boren after the data was presented by Bevilacqua Helfant Ventures that ever said that Texas would be kept whole and that everyone would make millions over what they were already making by starting a Big12 Network that would exceed even MARGINALLY what they are making with the 10 team CCG. You don't have to get all emotional over it, just present the facts. You say "The conference network would have both brought the other members up to BigTen and SEC levels, made their media rights payouts across the board even and kept Texas whole with their LHN level earnings." You say the Big12 made decisions before they knew the facts of the matter implying that you are in possession of the facts of the matter. Well, document these facts with a credible source so we can all see them. I think they only exist in your mind because that is what you want to believe. It isn't just me that suspects that Boren may have had an agenda all along, there are lots of stories written out there that speculate the same things if you bother to search for them. No, Boren's comments from before the analysis was completed are not credible as not even HE is publicly saying that anymore. Give me a quote from after June7 2016 from BHV or Gee or even Boren that supports your claims with actual numbers. I have looked for them and have found nothing. You see inaction, I see them doing what they need to be doing and not doing things that don't make any sense. They seem united in the stance that FOR MULTIPLE REASONS a Big12 network did not make sense and are moving forward in other areas.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Texas giving up the LHN was never impossible, and yes, Texas could have been kept "whole". Boren didn't have a "scheme", he had a well researched and well thought out plan, which the rest of the conference drug its feet on and wasted time, and eventually ignored due to fear and emotion before they even knew all the facts of the matter.
.

Buck, did you see the final numbers presented to the BIG12 schools during the last meeting? If not how do you know Texas could have been kept whole. Boren stated BEFORE the numbers were presented, that a BIG12 network needed to keep Texas whole. According to EVERYONE who saw the numbers (including Boren), the numbers were not there to keep Texas whole and make money for everyone else.

Right before the last BIG12 meetings and BEFORE the full numbers were presented Boren said

"My hunch is that a Big 12 network might be very advantageous to the entire conference," said Boren, who recently took over as the Big 12 board chair. "But my hunch might be wrong."​

For the love of God, please pay attention to the two items highlighted in red. He said "My hunch",
"But my hunch might be wrong."

Let me define the word Hunch for you. According to Webster:
: a belief or idea about something (especially a future event) that is not based on facts or evidence

After the meeting and after ALL the numbers were presented, numbers you have not see by the way. Boren had the following to say

“I think it was kind of a watershed meeting,” said University of Oklahoma president and chairman of the Big 12 board of directors David Boren. “What we saw happen, I think the members put aside their previous inclinations. I’ve certainly had mine, and I’ve not been shy about expressing them.”​

“The data for expansion is going to require some further thought. There’s no doubt that expansion gives some marginal gain. But how much marginal gain? We have to refine that a little further financially. It does give some marginal gain. But you have weight that against reputational impacts.”

When the consultants tell you and the marketplace tells you, ‘Look, everything’s changed’ — if you were the CEO of ESPN or Fox or one of the traditional networks right now, with all this change and disruptive technology, would you be want to put millions of dollars into a partnership with a new traditional network? I think you’d say, Not now. We need to understand the impact of this technology first. That takes it off the table, the marketplace. So do I still need to pound the table and say, ‘We’ve got to have a traditional network, and they’ve got to fold up their competing network and so do we?’ No, it would be foolish to do that.”​

So Buck let me get your position straight. When Boren says the following, which he himself calls a hunch, (not based on facts), and he himself said his hunch might be wrong: You think it is gospel, and all factual based that the BIG12 was going to bring in all this money while keeping Texas whole
My hunch is that a Big 12 network might be very advantageous to the entire conference," "But my hunch might be wrong."

But you think Boren is lying when he said the items below based which by the way is based on Actual data, and Facts (again numbers you have not seen)

“The data for expansion is going to require some further thought. There’s no doubt that expansion gives some marginal gain. But how much marginal gain? We have to refine that a little further financially. It does give some marginal gain. But you have weight that against reputational impacts.”

So please answer this question and don't ignore it like you always do

Why is it you continue to quote and think everything is factual what Boren said BEFORE he got the information that he himself said was HUNCH yet you discount everything he says AFTER he got information from both research companies.

I will tell you and every other poster interested in this thread why. because I would bet the farm you are too much of a chicken shit to answer. Because everything Boren said based which was based on a Hunch and no factual data matches your agenda $ tiny little box, Everything Boren said based on Data and Facts, discounts your entire reason for living.

 

[Buckaineer]

topdecktiger,

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: There are actually
24,818,980 cable tv households in the states the ACC has schools in

You are assuming that cable providers in places like Massachussetts and NY are going to pay for an ACC network and that is not likely. Syracuse isn't likely going to land providers in Buffalo, let alone NYC. Boston College? That school gets around 20,000 people to games (I know, I've been to some there-it was pitiful). The city of Boston is not enthralled with BC or the ACC. Its the same across the states that the ACC is in. There might be success with one provider, but that doesn't mean every provider in those states will pick up such a network. Massachusetts alone has at least 4 different providers. Comcast is the largest and even the Big Ten has had difficulty getting deals with them in places like Philadelphia over the years.

You imagine a certain percentage of NY going for an ACC network. Using your number $21.6 --divide that by half--half to network, half to league. $10.8 million divided by 15 schools and conference? =$675,000 per year per school. And that is the highest subscription state.


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: The ACC continues to change the "drop dead date"--painting the image that there's no substance in the first place.

As to the SEC, they completed buying back their rights over a year out- I didn't make anything up troll:
excerpt from sports business daily Published April 15, 2013:
"The SEC "cleared its biggest obstacle" in its bid to launch a TV channel when it "reacquired the third-tier TV rights from IMG College, Learfield Sports and CBS Collegiate Sports Properties" in recent weeks, according to Smith & Ourand of SPORTSBUSINESS JOURNAL. The SEC and ESPN plan to launch the channel in August '14......

Now if you are so ignorant as to think they simply walked up and bought the rights without negotiating then you are even dumber than thought.

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.

B: There are no solid discussions to date for an ACC network so to claim the model would be one way or the other is asinine--you don't know what the ownership would be. But as I stated--ESPN owns ALL ACC rights. If ESPN gets all the subscription fees now for the rights they own, why are they going to move those rights for free to another platform where they would have to pay the ACC MORE for rights ESPN already owns? They will not.


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.

B: You understand that right now ESPN owns rights, correct. They aren't paying twice for something they've already paid for as you are suggesting. They've already paid the ACC for those rights. They aren't going to pay more for rights they already own. That makes no sense.

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: NO, its not. The SEC expanded to add inventory and bought back rights for the rest. ESPN didn't just take inventory they already owned and pay the SEC twice for it. Adding and reaquiring inventory is what allowed ESPN to keep the inventory they had on their channels and put inventory on an SEC network. Its why the SEC expanded and bought back tier 3 rights. The only way ESPN adds an ACC network is if the ACC provides inventory ESPN does not control now.

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.

B: It will be expensive. And you are forgetting the key point. The ACC didn't sell the rights to Raycom, and the ACC doesn't get any of that money either. ESPN did and does. They are getting an unkown sum of revenue back from Raycom for what they pay out to the ACC. Why does ESPN buy back those rights--and they certainly aren't doing it and giving the money to the ACC. FOX had no agreements with the SEC I'm aware of, but they did sublicense rights from Raycom. Someone would have to buy those rights from FOX and Raycom. Not remotely close to happening.

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.

B: Raycom has ACC product through 2027. Doubt Swoffords son is eager to put himself out of business in 2016 when there is no incentive to do so.

 

[Buckaineer]

Buck, did you see the final numbers presented to the BIG12 schools during the last meeting? If not how do you know Texas could have been kept whole. Boren stated BEFORE the numbers were presented, that a BIG12 network needed to keep Texas whole. According to EVERYONE who saw the numbers (including Boren), the numbers were not there to keep Texas whole and make money for everyone else.

Right before the last BIG12 meetings and BEFORE the full numbers were presented Boren said

"My hunch is that a Big 12 network might be very advantageous to the entire conference," said Boren, who recently took over as the Big 12 board chair. "But my hunch might be wrong."​

For the love of God, please pay attention to the two items highlighted in red. He said "My hunch",
"But my hunch might be wrong."

Let me define the word Hunch for you. According to Webster:
: a belief or idea about something (especially a future event) that is not based on facts or evidence

After the meeting and after ALL the numbers were presented, numbers you have not see by the way. Boren had the following to say

“I think it was kind of a watershed meeting,” said University of Oklahoma president and chairman of the Big 12 board of directors David Boren. “What we saw happen, I think the members put aside their previous inclinations. I’ve certainly had mine, and I’ve not been shy about expressing them.”​

“The data for expansion is going to require some further thought. There’s no doubt that expansion gives some marginal gain. But how much marginal gain? We have to refine that a little further financially. It does give some marginal gain. But you have weight that against reputational impacts.”

When the consultants tell you and the marketplace tells you, ‘Look, everything’s changed’ — if you were the CEO of ESPN or Fox or one of the traditional networks right now, with all this change and disruptive technology, would you be want to put millions of dollars into a partnership with a new traditional network? I think you’d say, Not now. We need to understand the impact of this technology first. That takes it off the table, the marketplace. So do I still need to pound the table and say, ‘We’ve got to have a traditional network, and they’ve got to fold up their competing network and so do we?’ No, it would be foolish to do that.”​

So Buck let me get your position straight. When Boren says the following, which he himself calls a hunch, (not based on facts), and he himself said his hunch might be wrong: You think it is gospel, and all factual based that the BIG12 was going to bring in all this money while keeping Texas whole
My hunch is that a Big 12 network might be very advantageous to the entire conference," "But my hunch might be wrong."

But you think Boren is lying when he said the items below based which by the way is based on Actual data, and Facts (again numbers you have not seen)

“The data for expansion is going to require some further thought. There’s no doubt that expansion gives some marginal gain. But how much marginal gain? We have to refine that a little further financially. It does give some marginal gain. But you have weight that against reputational impacts.”

So please answer this question and don't ignore it like you always do

Why is it you continue to quote and think everything is factual what Boren said BEFORE he got the information that he himself said was HUNCH yet you discount everything he says AFTER he got information from both research companies.

I will tell you and every other poster interested in this thread why. because I would bet the farm you are too much of a chicken shit to answer. Because everything Boren said based which was based on a Hunch and no factual data matches your agenda $ tiny little box, Everything Boren said based on Data and Facts, discounts your entire reason for living.

Boren did not change his opinion of the advantages of expansion and a conference network as you claim. He softened his wording after Texas contacted his BOR and one of them came out against making any moves prior to the facts being distributed and the meetings taking place.

He stated emphatically that the networks advised them that for a network they would need 12-14 schools, not ten. He stated prior to that advisors told them each school would get an additional $4-$6 million above what they get now from a network. He stated emphatically that would be enough money so that Texas could also remain whole and that was always the intention. He was on the composition committee for over a year and investigated these things in some detail. According to your ignorant thoughts he just made things up out of thin air-but that isn't what happened and if you read through any of the myriad of interviews that were posted here that happened over the previous year you too would understand this.

Never once has he stated that after seeing the consultants information he has determined that Texas couldn't be made whole, or that expansion would cost schools money--so why do you keep repeating those lies?

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Boren did not change his opinion of the advantages of expansion and a conference network as you claim. He softened his wording after Texas contacted his BOR and one of them came out against making any moves prior to the facts being distributed and the meetings taking place.

He stated emphatically that the networks advised them that for a network they would need 12-14 schools, not ten. He stated prior to that advisors told them each school would get an additional $4-$6 million above what they get now from a network. He stated emphatically that would be enough money so that Texas could also remain whole and that was always the intention. He was on the composition committee for over a year and investigated these things in some detail. According to your ignorant thoughts he just made things up out of thin air-but that isn't what happened and if you read through any of the myriad of interviews that were posted here that happened over the previous year you too would understand this.

Never once has he stated that after seeing the consultants information he has determined that Texas couldn't be made whole, or that expansion would cost schools money--so why do you keep repeating those lies?

You are so freaking blind to your own agenda you can't see the forest through the trees. Once again you quote things he said before the numbers were presented and discount what he said after.

For the shit sake, you refuse to acknowledge this quote from Boren

When the consultants tell you and the marketplace tells you, ‘Look, everything’s changed’ — if you were the CEO of ESPN or Fox or one of the traditional networks right now, with all this change and disruptive technology, would you be want to put millions of dollars into a partnership with a new traditional network?

That is not a freaking softening of his stance it is a statement of fact. You do understand what he said before the last meeting he said before he had factual data in front of him. You do understand his entire position changed after he saw the data. Stop quoting shit Boren said before he had numbers and facts. Please, please please provide one quote with a link where Boren states Texas could be made whole, and 3-4 million, (or for that mater 500,000) per team could be made with traditional network. Please please, I am begging you, just one. I know you won't because there is not one.

If you can't provide a quote then your opinion is pointless and wrong.

 

[Buckaineer]

You are so freaking blind to your own agenda you can't see the forest through the trees. Once again you quote things he said before the numbers were presented and discount what he said after.

For the shit sake, you refuse to acknowledge this quote from Boren

When the consultants tell you and the marketplace tells you, ‘Look, everything’s changed’ — if you were the CEO of ESPN or Fox or one of the traditional networks right now, with all this change and disruptive technology, would you be want to put millions of dollars into a partnership with a new traditional network?

That is not a freaking softening of his stance it is a statement of fact. You do understand what he said before the last meeting he said before he had factual data in front of him. You do understand his entire position changed after he saw the data. Stop quoting shit Boren said before he had numbers and facts. Please, please please provide one quote with a link where Boren states Texas could be made whole, and 3-4 million, (or for that mater 500,000) per team could be made with traditional network. Please please, I am begging you, just one. I know you won't because there is not one.

If you can't provide a quote then your opinion is pointless and wrong.

I have no agenda. The agenda was the BIG 12s. Comprehensive improvements were that agenda.

The conference drug its feet for years on issues of expansion and a network. Instead of adopting comprehensive improvements, the conference adopted a 10 team CCG which provides for some more money, but at the expense of a guaranteed rematch which no other conference has.

AGAIN, the BIG 12 isn't the only conference looking at a network --the ACC still is and has NOT declared in any way shape or form that it is no longer possible to pursue a network because of the "market". So what will you say if in fact they GET ONE? How would that be possible with "the market" and all?

Boren's position DIDN'T CHANGE. What changed? TEXAS SAID THEY WOULD NOT GIVE UP THE LHN.

Go back and read. A couple of weeks out, Boren stated that everything expansion related hinged on the network. Without the network, no need to expand because the primary reason for expanding was to generate the high level revenues needed to get the BIG 12 schools to the same levels as each other, and to the levels that the Big Ten and SEC were growing to long term. Expansion was needed for the inventory to put on the air.

With no network came no need for expansion other than to put the conference even with the others in making playoffs. The day before the presidents were to get the information, Texas declared the LHN was not going away and that they would need more than to be made whole, they didn't see any need for expansion, and that they supported a 10 team CCG. The next day a network was off, expansion was "cooled" and voila! A 10 team CCG was enacted. All of which you conveniently ignore over and over and over--but it all happened.

Not once, ever, in any of this did Boren proclaim there was no value in comprehensive improvements, no value in expansion candidates or any of the other bunk you and your cronies want to spread. He stated the other day it doesn't matter anymore what he thinks about it. He said without a network there's not as much value in expansion and his fanbase let it be known they'll only support certain types of expansion candidates--not that the consultants said there are none available that add value.

If the ACC is able to gain a network then its more than clear the "market" hasn't declared anything. Boren was never going to come out and say "Texas won't give up the LHN". Don't be such a fool.

The do nothing-nothing matters agenda you push daily is not going to benefit WVU come 2023. By 2017 it will be apparent what a huge mistake was made when the Big Ten rockets past the BIG 12 schools in earnings. That's apparently ok for you, its not ok for schools like Oklahoma.

 

[Rootmaster]

This discussion has gone from opinion positions to a bunch of wanna-be-experts and insiders expressing the Gospel. LOL

 

[topdecktiger]

B: There are actually
24,818,980 cable tv households in the states the ACC has schools in

You are assuming that cable providers in places like Massachussetts and NY are going to pay for an ACC network and that is not likely. Syracuse isn't likely going to land providers in Buffalo, let alone NYC. Boston College? That school gets around 20,000 people to games (I know, I've been to some there-it was pitiful). The city of Boston is not enthralled with BC or the ACC. Its the same across the states that the ACC is in. There might be success with one provider, but that doesn't mean every provider in those states will pick up such a network. Massachusetts alone has at least 4 different providers. Comcast is the largest and even the Big Ten has had difficulty getting deals with them in places like Philadelphia over the years.

You imagine a certain percentage of NY going for an ACC network. Using your number $21.6 --divide that by half--half to network, half to league. $10.8 million divided by 15 schools and conference? =$675,000 per year per school. And that is the highest subscription state.

No, your 24 million number is not correct. Post the source for your information.

You are assuming cable providers won't pay for an ACC network. You can't make that assumption. That's just your opinion, not backed up by any facts.

You act like the $600k is a bad thing. That's just one state. There would be 14 other state, plus any out of footprint subscribers. Even if the ACC only got $100,000 in the other 14 states, that would still put them up to $2 million per team.

B: The ACC continues to change the "drop dead date"--painting the image that there's no substance in the first place.

As to the SEC, they completed buying back their rights over a year out- I didn't make anything up troll:
excerpt from sports business daily Published April 15, 2013:
"The SEC "cleared its biggest obstacle" in its bid to launch a TV channel when it "reacquired the third-tier TV rights from IMG College, Learfield Sports and CBS Collegiate Sports Properties" in recent weeks, according to Smith & Ourand of SPORTSBUSINESS JOURNAL. The SEC and ESPN plan to launch the channel in August '14......

Now if you are so ignorant as to think they simply walked up and bought the rights without negotiating then you are even dumber than thought.

They haven't moved the drop dead date. The initial target was 2016-17. That was the target from day one. It's only been moved once, which was posted at the end of last year.

Your own quote proves you wrong. It was published on April 2013, and said the SEC required its Tier 3 right in "recent weeks." Well, "recent weeks" from April 2013 would still be in 2013. The SEC network launched in 2014. So no, they didn't reacquire the right more than a year out. By your own source, they got the Tier 3 rights in 2013, and launched the network in 2014.

That said, you are talking about Tier 3 rights, not syndication rights. Here is another quote from the same article. It says:

Meanwhile, ESPN is in the process of regaining its syndicated rights from Comcast SportsNet and Fox Sports Net. Both RSNs currently buy SEC games from ESPN.

See, ESPN had not yet repurchased the syndication rights in April of 2013. "In the process" means they hadn't completed the process. So we are only 1 year out from the launch of the SEC Network, and ESPN still hadn't repurchased the syndication packages. You were wrong, and it's clearly proven.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/04/15/Media/SEC.aspx

B: There are no solid discussions to date for an ACC network so to claim the model would be one way or the other is asinine--you don't know what the ownership would be. But as I stated--ESPN owns ALL ACC rights. If ESPN gets all the subscription fees now for the rights they own, why are they going to move those rights for free to another platform where they would have to pay the ACC MORE for rights ESPN already owns? They will not.

ESPN doesn't get ANY subscription fees now. That's what you don't get. They get zero now, so anything they get with a network would be 100% more than they get now. The only money ESPN gets now from its ACC programming is what it gets by selling advertising during ACC games (plus the Raycom syndication). By putting games on a conference network, they still get advertising revenue from the ACC games, PLUS subscription fees, PLUS advertising revenue from programming they replace ACC games with on the other channels.

Yeah, I do know ESPN will own 100% of the network. The ACC can't own any of the network because they don't own any of the content. That's just like the SEC. ESPN owns 100% of the SEC network, because they own 100% of the content. There have been plenty of reports that an ACC network would be set up like the SEC network. Here is just one example. I can give you more.

Observers like ESPN ACC reporter David Hale told Buzz Sports Radio in Raleigh, NC that he expected an ACC cable network to be more like the ESPN-run Longhorn and SEC Networks.
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/is-an-acc-network-getting-any-closer-maybe.html

B: You understand that right now ESPN owns rights, correct. They aren't paying twice for something they've already paid for as you are suggesting. They've already paid the ACC for those rights. They aren't going to pay more for rights they already own. That makes no sense.

No, you don't understand. ESPN would not be paying twice for the rights. You can't keep saying that, because it's not accurate. The ACC would only get a share of the subscription fees. Subscription fees and rights fees are two completely different things. You can't keep saying they are the same thing, because they aren't.

B: NO, its not. The SEC expanded to add inventory and bought back rights for the rest. ESPN didn't just take inventory they already owned and pay the SEC twice for it. Adding and reaquiring inventory is what allowed ESPN to keep the inventory they had on their channels and put inventory on an SEC network. Its why the SEC expanded and bought back tier 3 rights. The only way ESPN adds an ACC network is if the ACC provides inventory ESPN does not control now.

No, you are wrong. 100% wrong. ESPN does, DOES, show inventory on the SEC network which it already owned. This is a flat out lie on your part. For example, last year, Florida vs. Kentucky and South Carolina vs. Kentucky were broadcasted on the SECN. Those are games ESPN already owned. The games added by expansion and Tier 3 make up only a small portion of the games actually broadcasted on SECN. By your logic, ESPN "paid twice" for Florida vs. Kentucky and South Carolina vs. Kentucky.

B: It will be expensive. And you are forgetting the key point. The ACC didn't sell the rights to Raycom, and the ACC doesn't get any of that money either. ESPN did and does. They are getting an unkown sum of revenue back from Raycom for what they pay out to the ACC. Why does ESPN buy back those rights--and they certainly aren't doing it and giving the money to the ACC. FOX had no agreements with the SEC I'm aware of, but they did sublicense rights from Raycom. Someone would have to buy those rights from FOX and Raycom. Not remotely close to happening.

That's not a key point at all. It just illustrated your lack of understanding of TV contracts. When ESPN repurchased the SEC's syndication packages from Comcast and Fox, the SEC didn't get any of that money either. The only money the SEC gets from the SEC network is the subscriptions fees, and that was still enough for $5 million per team.

B: Raycom has ACC product through 2027. Doubt Swoffords son is eager to put himself out of business in 2016 when there is no incentive to do so.

There actually is incentive. They are going out of business either way. Better to get a golden parachute now that nothing later on.

 

[Orlaco]

I'm embarrassed that I made a sincere post (on topic) in this thread.

A few of you really are sick... It's like all the people who love hearing themselves tell their VERY long winded opinions in the exact same way over and over again met at IHOP... ...for the endless pancake breakfast special.

 

[topdecktiger]

Not once, ever, in any of this did Boren proclaim there was no value in comprehensive improvements, no value in expansion candidates or any of the other bunk you and your cronies want to spread.

Boren also made the comment that the market wasn't there for the network, and you twist around his words. The amount of money available from a network/expansion was never a certainty. You keep resting your argument on the "$4-6 million" comment Boren made. You are claiming that this was a hard figure. It was not. Boren said this on May 12 2016, just 3 weeks before the Big 12 Spring meeting:

I'm not out to get Texas. If we did something, you've got to make Texas financially whole. You can't expect them to give up $15 million ... unless [they're] compensated for that. Somehow, the conference has to get that $15 million back to them," Boren said. "You've got to devise a revenue distribution that lets them get paid back for the $15 million a year they're giving out. My suspicion is if the revenue figures [that] come out are very high or moderately high, you can afford to make everybody whole and everybody makes money. They'd be making more money than $15 million a year, if it's so advantageous to us financially to create a network. But we don't know the answer to that question yet."
http://espn.go.com/college-football...n-says-consensus-key-big-12-expansion-network

Well, there you go. Boren did not know the financial figures before the Spring meeting. He said so himself. He specifically said, in this quote, that he did not yet know if it was financially advantageous to create a network. So no, the timing of the Texas statement does not prove, at all, that the fix was in. Nobody knew what the financial figures were going to be until the meetings. When they actually got the figures, that's when everybody realized the money wasn't there, and that's why there wasn't a network. It's not because of Texas screwing the conference.

 

[Buckaineer]

"topdecktiger"No, your 24 million number is not correct. Post the source for your information.

B:You are a liar. Post the source for YOUR information!
https://www.tvb.org/Portals/0/media/file/PoliticalMedia/Cable_UEs_by_State.pdf
ACC States:
Massachussetts
NY
PA
IN
KY
VA
NC
SC
GA
FL
Total cable tv households as of Jan 2016 =24,818,980

You are assuming cable providers won't pay for an ACC network. You can't make that assumption. That's just your opinion, not backed up by any facts.

B: Its your assumption not backed up by any facts that they would. The Big Ten which has the most alumni of any conference in NYC had trouble getting on in NYC. They had trouble getting on in Philadelphia with PSU which is much more popular in PA than Pittsburgh. Georgia is the dominant program across GA, South Carolina carries more of that state than Clemson. Florida is the most popular Florida program up and down that state. In Miami, hardly anyone shows to games, much like Boston, much like Syracuse. Kentucky dominates that states interests, not Louisville. Yet you think those schools will have the backing of entire states cable subscribers? Anyone being honest sees there are likely carriage problems for any ACC network and the territory claimed isn't really ACC territory at all.

You act like the $600k is a bad thing. That's just one state. There would be 14 other state, plus any out of footprint subscribers. Even if the ACC only got $100,000 in the other 14 states, that would still put them up to $2 million per team.

B: When you are the lowest paid conference and you are going to have nearly every school $20 million behind several conferences in a few years time, $2 million isn't really going to make that much difference now is it?



They haven't moved the drop dead date. The initial target was 2016-17. That was the target from day one. It's only been moved once, which was posted at the end of last year.

B: Lies. The ACC has been claiming since 2012 or before that they would get a network soon. It only became 2016-2017 after all the other dates passed. That hasn't been the target date for more than about 1.5 years ago--and lo and behold its mid 2016 and no ACC network is even at the planning stages or having rights bought back.

Your own quote proves you wrong. It was published on April 2013, and said the SEC required its Tier 3 right in "recent weeks." Well, "recent weeks" from April 2013 would still be in 2013. The SEC network launched in 2014. So no, they didn't reacquire the right more than a year out. By your own source, they got the Tier 3 rights in 2013, and launched the network in 2014.

B: Wow. Umm--March, April 2013 is more than a year out from August 2014. So, yes they did reacquire the rights more than a year out. Your statement makes it clear you are just here to troll and aren't serious.

That said, you are talking about Tier 3 rights, not syndication rights. Here is another quote from the same article. It says:

B: We were discussing reacquiring rights for the SEC--you claimed they didn't begin negotiating for them until a year before starting the network. You ignore that the network was reported in the works long before that. No one but the ACC is claiming an ACC network is in the works now.

Meanwhile, ESPN is in the process of regaining its syndicated rights from Comcast SportsNet and Fox Sports Net. Both RSNs currently buy SEC games from ESPN.

See, ESPN had not yet repurchased the syndication rights in April of 2013. "In the process" means they hadn't completed the process. So we are only 1 year out from the launch of the SEC Network, and ESPN still hadn't repurchased the syndication packages. You were wrong, and it's clearly proven.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/04/15/Media/SEC.aspx

B: Yes they were in process. No one is in process of buying any ACC rights back.



ESPN doesn't get ANY subscription fees now. That's what you don't get. They get zero now, so anything they get with a network would be 100% more than they get now. The only money ESPN gets now from its ACC programming is what it gets by selling advertising during ACC games (plus the Raycom syndication). By putting games on a conference network, they still get advertising revenue from the ACC games, PLUS subscription fees, PLUS advertising revenue from programming they replace ACC games with on the other channels.

B: ESPN doesn't get any subscription fees for ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU and so forth? Really? You better tell them that because that is where a huge chunk of their revenues come from. Why do you think everyone is talking about ESPN losing cable subscribers now for? Obviously you are just talking out of your @$$ now playing games.

Yeah, I do know ESPN will own 100% of the network. The ACC can't own any of the network because they don't own any of the content. That's just like the SEC. ESPN owns 100% of the SEC network, because they own 100% of the content. There have been plenty of reports that an ACC network would be set up like the SEC network. Here is just one example. I can give you more.

Observers like ESPN ACC reporter David Hale told Buzz Sports Radio in Raleigh, NC that he expected an ACC cable network to be more like the ESPN-run Longhorn and SEC Networks.
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/is-an-acc-network-getting-any-closer-maybe.html

B: That's great. ESPN isn't paying the ACC twice for something they already bought once.

No, you don't understand. ESPN would not be paying twice for the rights. You can't keep saying that, because it's not accurate. The ACC would only get a share of the subscription fees. Subscription fees and rights fees are two completely different things. You can't keep saying they are the same thing, because they aren't.

B: You should not talk about things you don't understand. ESPN would be paying twice for the rights:

Here is what you are purporting---
I. ESPN bought ACC rights
II. ESPN puts ACC content on ESPN channels and derives revenues from those rights
III. ESPN removes some content from ESPN channels to put on new ACC network
IV. ESPN pays ACC again for rights they already paid for in step one

This is NOT going to happen ever. If ESPN makes additional money from such an ACC network, they'll keep all that money--they own ALL the rights and don't owe the ACC anything from further selling that content.

No, you are wrong. 100% wrong. ESPN does, DOES, show inventory on the SEC network which it already owned. This is a flat out lie on your part. For example, last year, Florida vs. Kentucky and South Carolina vs. Kentucky were broadcasted on the SECN. Those are games ESPN already owned. The games added by expansion and Tier 3 make up only a small portion of the games actually broadcasted on SECN. By your logic, ESPN "paid twice" for Florida vs. Kentucky and South Carolina vs. Kentucky.

B: OMG you are really that unintelligent? When I state that they acquired new inventory, that doesn't mean they will only put A&M and Missouri and the tier 3 games on the SEC network, it means they have a certain number of games that were not previously under contract with ESPN to put on the network. It can be games from ANY of the conferences teams. But as a whole, the conference now has content in NUMBERS that they didn't have prior. You must just be joking, no one can be that uninformed.

That's not a key point at all. It just illustrated your lack of understanding of TV contracts. When ESPN repurchased the SEC's syndication packages from Comcast and Fox, the SEC didn't get any of that money either. The only money the SEC gets from the SEC network is the subscriptions fees, and that was still enough for $5 million per team.

B: Sorry but its you that doesn't understand networks. ESPN launched the SEC network and its in something like 69% of homes across the country now. The ACC isn't likely going to garner anywhere near 69% penetration, its likely to be much closer to Pac network numbers which are very low. The SEC is the most successful football conference going while the ACC?? Not so much. There is interest in seeing Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, A&M, Alabama, Auburn etc. Where's the interest in seeing Pitt, SU, BC, UL, VA, NC State, Wake, Duke (football) etc. etc. etc.? Its not going to go that well for the ACC.

There actually is incentive. They are going out of business either way. Better to get a golden parachute now that nothing later on.[/QUOTE]

B: Raycom is not trying to go out of business-don't be ridiculous. Actually you already have been so...

 

[HSVMountie]

Not to mention, we can whup the ACC asses almost always.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Boren also made the comment that the market wasn't there for the network, and you twist around his words. The amount of money available from a network/expansion was never a certainty. You keep resting your argument on the "$4-6 million" comment Boren made. You are claiming that this was a hard figure. It was not. Boren said this on May 12 2016, just 3 weeks before the Big 12 Spring meeting:

I'm not out to get Texas. If we did something, you've got to make Texas financially whole. You can't expect them to give up $15 million ... unless [they're] compensated for that. Somehow, the conference has to get that $15 million back to them," Boren said. "You've got to devise a revenue distribution that lets them get paid back for the $15 million a year they're giving out. My suspicion is if the revenue figures [that] come out are very high or moderately high, you can afford to make everybody whole and everybody makes money. They'd be making more money than $15 million a year, if it's so advantageous to us financially to create a network. But we don't know the answer to that question yet."
http://espn.go.com/college-football...n-says-consensus-key-big-12-expansion-network

Well, there you go. Boren did not know the financial figures before the Spring meeting. He said so himself. He specifically said, in this quote, that he did not yet know if it was financially advantageous to create a network. So no, the timing of the Texas statement does not prove, at all, that the fix was in. Nobody knew what the financial figures were going to be until the meetings. When they actually got the figures, that's when everybody realized the money wasn't there, and that's why there wasn't a network. It's not because of Texas screwing the conference.

Don't bother, he is a total Buffoon, I gave him these same exact points and he refuses to look at the facts. And the major Facts are Boren's original comments that 'person' keeps quoting was before he saw any actual numbers. After, Boren saw the numbers, admited the numbers are not there for a traditional network. Yet the same Buffoon, refuses to take Boren at his word when it goes against is tiny box and agenda

 

[topdecktiger]

B:You are a liar. Post the source for YOUR information!
https://www.tvb.org/Portals/0/media/file/PoliticalMedia/Cable_UEs_by_State.pdf
ACC States:
Massachussetts
NY
PA
IN
KY
VA
NC
SC
GA
FL
Total cable tv households as of Jan 2016 =24,818,980

Here are the numbers. Page 21. In the ACC footprint, there are 43.3 million homes with televisions. Of those, 38.4 million are "wired," meaning they have either cable or satellite. The figures you posted are only for cable households. It doesn't include satellite homes, who are also potential subscribers. The Big Ten, SEC, Pac 12, and LHN all have their channels available with satellite providers as well as cable. You have to count both.
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1147299/maryland-acc-brief-exhibit-a.pdf

B: Its your assumption not backed up by any facts that they would. The Big Ten which has the most alumni of any conference in NYC had trouble getting on in NYC. They had trouble getting on in Philadelphia with PSU which is much more popular in PA than Pittsburgh. Georgia is the dominant program across GA, South Carolina carries more of that state than Clemson. Florida is the most popular Florida program up and down that state. In Miami, hardly anyone shows to games, much like Boston, much like Syracuse. Kentucky dominates that states interests, not Louisville. Yet you think those schools will have the backing of entire states cable subscribers? Anyone being honest sees there are likely carriage problems for any ACC network and the territory claimed isn't really ACC territory at all.

They would get some subscribers. Even the SEC doesn't have 100% subscriptions in every state. You can't assume that the ACC would get zero carriage in any one particular state or city. That's just your opinion not backed up by any facts. You can't use that as a defense of your position.

B: When you are the lowest paid conference and you are going to have nearly every school $20 million behind several conferences in a few years time, $2 million isn't really going to make that much difference now is it?

I wasn't pegging on a $2 million figure. I was just showing you what it would add up to even if you took a lowball figure. For example, the SEC has 11 home states. They made $5 million per school. Divided by 11 states, that means the SEC schools average $455,000 per state. Yet you are trying to say $600,000 would be bad. That was my point.

B: Lies. The ACC has been claiming since 2012 or before that they would get a network soon. It only became 2016-2017 after all the other dates passed. That hasn't been the target date for more than about 1.5 years ago--and lo and behold its mid 2016 and no ACC network is even at the planning stages or having rights bought back.

Nope, they haven't. That's again you just making up something.

B: Wow. Umm--March, April 2013 is more than a year out from August 2014. So, yes they did reacquire the rights more than a year out. Your statement makes it clear you are just here to troll and aren't serious.

Actually no, the SEC network went on the air before August of 2014. They just showed the first football game in August. Even with that said, it's hilarious that you would act like 3 months proves your point. It proves my point. The SEC didn't buy back Tier 3 rights until 2013, and the network started in 2014. That's not "well over" a year.

B: We were discussing reacquiring rights for the SEC--you claimed they didn't begin negotiating for them until a year before starting the network. You ignore that the network was reported in the works long before that. No one but the ACC is claiming an ACC network is in the works now.

I didn't ignore it. You are just splitting hair because it wasn't literally12 exact months. The rights weren't repurchased until 2013, and the network went on air in 2014. The ACC was looking at 2017 as the original launch date. It's now been pushed back, so that's at least 2018. So, if we go by the SEC timeline, then the ACC wouldn't be due to buy back the rights until April of 2017 in the first place.

B: Yes they were in process. No one is in process of buying any ACC rights back.

And that's because the network was launching the next year. We already know the ACC isn't launching a network next year, therefore no reason to buy back the rights beforehand.

B: ESPN doesn't get any subscription fees for ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU and so forth? Really? You better tell them that because that is where a huge chunk of their revenues come from. Why do you think everyone is talking about ESPN losing cable subscribers now for? Obviously you are just talking out of your @$$ now playing games.

Nope, not what I said. ESPN would still get a subscription fee to the regular channels even if they didn't have any ACC content. For example, ESPN itself gets $7.00 per subscriber. If they didn't have a single ACC game, ESPN would still get $7.00 per subscriber from its main channel.

B: That's great. ESPN isn't paying the ACC twice for something they already bought once.

They wouldn't be.

B: You should not talk about things you don't understand. ESPN would be paying twice for the rights:

Here is what you are purporting---
I. ESPN bought ACC rights
II. ESPN puts ACC content on ESPN channels and derives revenues from those rights
III. ESPN removes some content from ESPN channels to put on new ACC network
IV. ESPN pays ACC again for rights they already paid for in step one

This is NOT going to happen ever. If ESPN makes additional money from such an ACC network, they'll keep all that money--they own ALL the rights and don't owe the ACC anything from further selling that content.

#4 does not happen. This is your lack of understanding of how the contracts work. Subscription fees and rights fees are completely different things. ESPN would not be paying the ACC twice for the rights fees. If ESPN and the ACC split the revenue from a network that's only subscription fees. Texas does the same thing with the LHN. IMG already owned all the Tier 3 rights for Texas. They pay about $10 million a year for those. However, IMG pays Texas an additional $15 million from the LHN (via ESPN). That's not because IMG is "paying twice" for the rights. The $15 million is not for the rights. The $15 million is strictly from revenue generated from the LHN. That's completely different from the broadcast rights.

B: OMG you are really that unintelligent? When I state that they acquired new inventory, that doesn't mean they will only put A&M and Missouri and the tier 3 games on the SEC network, it means they have a certain number of games that were not previously under contract with ESPN to put on the network. It can be games from ANY of the conferences teams. But as a whole, the conference now has content in NUMBERS that they didn't have prior. You must just be joking, no one can be that uninformed.

Here's what you don't get. The $5 million each school got from the SECN was not for rights to those new games. That $5 million was strictly from subscription revenue. The additional rights are paid out of the regular broadcast contract with ESPN. All the rights for the SEC (excluding the one CBS game) are in one big pot. ESPN pays for them in a lump sum every year. From the network, the SEC's payout doesn't have anything to do with the number of games.

Here is where you are going wrong. Prior to the network, the SEC's regular TV contract with ESPN paid out $20 million per team (average). Now, (after expansion) their contract pays out $25 million per team. Additionally, they get $5 million from the SECN in subscription revenue.

Now here is how it would work with the ACC. The ACC's contract with ESPN pays out about $18 million per school (average). IF, IF, the ACC got a network, they would still only get the same $18 million payout for the rights. Then they would get $__ million from subscription fees. You see the difference? The SEC got a boost to their contract AND subscription fees from the network. The ACC would only get a subscription fee from the network, but not a contract boost. That's because ESPN already owns the rights.

Now one other point about this. The ACC would have additional inventory. They would have the ~35 games that are currently syndicated with Fox and ESPN. (If they can't buy out the syndication packages, then the whole network is a moot point.) The difference is, they would not get paid any extra for these 35 games, because they are already getting paid out of their regular contract, as I just showed. Again, that's the difference. The SEC got a contract boost AND subscription fees. The ACC would only get subscription fees.

B: Sorry but its you that doesn't understand networks. ESPN launched the SEC network and its in something like 69% of homes across the country now. The ACC isn't likely going to garner anywhere near 69% penetration, its likely to be much closer to Pac network numbers which are very low. The SEC is the most successful football conference going while the ACC?? Not so much. There is interest in seeing Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, A&M, Alabama, Auburn etc. Where's the interest in seeing Pitt, SU, BC, UL, VA, NC State, Wake, Duke (football) etc. etc. etc.? Its not going to go that well for the ACC.

Incorrect. There are 133 million homes in the U.S. The SEC is in roughly 69 million. That's barely 50%, not 69%. The thing is, the ACC doesn't have to get in that many homes. Nobody said they have to match the SEC. Here's how to look at it. The SEC makes $546 million a year in revenue. If the ACC only made half that, ESPN would clear $100 million a year, and that's taking into account operating costs and being generous and splitting 50/50 with the ACC. Now, would the ACC even make that much? I don't know. I'm just showing you that the bar is not nearly has high as you are claiming to make a network viable.

B: Raycom is not trying to go out of business-don't be ridiculous. Actually you already have been so...

 

[topdecktiger]

Don't bother, he is a total Buffoon, I gave him these same exact points and he refuses to look at the facts. And the major Facts are Boren's original comments that 'person' keeps quoting was before he saw any actual numbers. After, Boren saw the numbers, admited the numbers are not there for a traditional network. Yet the same Buffoon, refuses to take Boren at his word when it goes against is tiny box and agenda

This is why I made the point to you earlier, regarding an ACC network. He told you this:

If the ACC is able to gain a network then its more than clear the "market" hasn't declared anything.

But he told me this:

B: Its your assumption not backed up by any facts that they would. The Big Ten which has the most alumni of any conference in NYC had trouble getting on in NYC. They had trouble getting on in Philadelphia with PSU which is much more popular in PA than Pittsburgh. Georgia is the dominant program across GA, South Carolina carries more of that state than Clemson. Florida is the most popular Florida program up and down that state. In Miami, hardly anyone shows to games, much like Boston, much like Syracuse. Kentucky dominates that states interests, not Louisville. Yet you think those schools will have the backing of entire states cable subscribers? Anyone being honest sees there are likely carriage problems for any ACC network and the territory claimed isn't really ACC territory at all.

When he's talking to you, he says the ACC can still get a network. When he talks to me, he tells me why the ACC can't get a network. You don't see the cognitive dissonance there?

 

[Buckaineer]

This is why I made the point to you earlier, regarding an ACC network. He told you this:


But he told me this:


When he's talking to you, he says the ACC can still get a network. When he talks to me, he tells me why the ACC can't get a network. You don't see the cognitive dissonance there?

More lies. Not once have I said the ACC will or won't get a network. I stated accurately that A: unlike Boren the ACC has not declared chances for their network dead and B: unlike your misinformation, the only way the ACC gets a network is if they get back the inventory needed for one- but that it isn't some guaranteed success with false numbers of subscribers as you proclaim.

You have a serious problem with lying and lack of comprehension. And you are a troll to boot. Bad mix.

 

[Buckaineer]

"topdecktiger,Here are the numbers. Page 21. In the ACC footprint, there are 43.3 million homes with televisions. Of those, 38.4 million are "wired," meaning they have either cable or satellite. The figures you posted are only for cable households. It doesn't include satellite homes, who are also potential subscribers. The Big Ten, SEC, Pac 12, and LHN all have their channels available with satellite providers as well as cable. You have to count both.
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1147299/maryland-acc-brief-exhibit-a.pdf

B: i see the problem. I am using current Neilsen numbers, and you are using numbers from prior to Maryland exiting the ACC which also included the state of Maryland and DC. Maryland is in the Big Ten. Pay tv has lost numbers since then. Lots of them. So has tv in general. As of January 2016 there were 37,861,070total tv households in ACC states. I am not going through and calculating all the satellite tvs subscribers in ACC "states". The numbers are lower than what you've reported as with everything else. The Pac hasn't been able to get deals with some satellite providers and with similar fan interest its doubtful the ACC would do much better there--in other words they would not strike deals with some of the major carriers.

You may want to keep up.


They would get some subscribers. Even the SEC doesn't have 100% subscriptions in every state. You can't assume that the ACC would get zero carriage in any one particular state or city. That's just your opinion not backed up by any facts. You can't use that as a defense of your position.

B: No one said the SEC has 100% subscriptions in every state--but their core states are solid for them and they get more than $1.00 per subscriber in those home states as well. Highly unlikely for the ACC to accomplish. NYC is hardly signing up for an ACC network because a small private school hrs. away in upstate NY is a member of the ACC. Philadelphia? There's no ACC school anywhere near Philadelphia and they aren't supporting Pittsburgh. The numbers you pretend exist are WAAY high.



I wasn't pegging on a $2 million figure. I was just showing you what it would add up to even if you took a lowball figure. For example, the SEC has 11 home states. They made $5 million per school. Divided by 11 states, that means the SEC schools average $455,000 per state. Yet you are trying to say $600,000 would be bad. That was my point.

B: I'm saying what the ACC is likely to get compared to the BTN or SECN is minimal--the numbers you want to claim are in the ACC fold are overstated and misleading.


Actually no, the SEC network went on the air before August of 2014. They just showed the first football game in August. Even with that said, it's hilarious that you would act like 3 months proves your point. It proves my point. The SEC didn't buy back Tier 3 rights until 2013, and the network started in 2014. That's not "well over" a year.

B: The SEC announced a network was happening prior to a year out, negotiated for rights back prior to a year out from launch, expanded for content prior to a year out. Your spin just paints you as dishonest or worse. The ACC hasn't announced a network is coming in 2016 or 17, they've continually changed the timeframe for a network as it hasn't materialized and have talked about it for years. Stop pretending the ACC is on the verge of a network and its always been planned that way. No one is in process of buying back rights or inventory at this point in time and no network is definitive--whereas in the SEC it was by this point in time.

I didn't ignore it. You are just splitting hair because it wasn't literally12 exact months. The rights weren't repurchased until 2013, and the network went on air in 2014. The ACC was looking at 2017 as the original launch date. It's now been pushed back, so that's at least 2018. So, if we go by the SEC timeline, then the ACC wouldn't be due to buy back the rights until April of 2017 in the first place.

B: Initially the ACC announced a network being investigated prior to 2010 when it signed the tv deal prior to the current one

excerpt:
Commissioner John Swofford said the league did its "due diligence" by researching the issue, but said the ACC opted to avoid the upfront startup costs and the financial risk in favor of utilizing ESPN's in-place broadcast and multimedia outlets.
so please, stop with the "2017 was always the launch date" b.s. The ACC has discussed a network on and off for years.
And if the ACC were going to be buying back rights they would be negotiating now for those rights. That isn't happening now.

And that's because the network was launching the next year. We already know the ACC isn't launching a network next year, therefore no reason to buy back the rights beforehand.

B: You don't just buy back rights because you want to, they must be negotiated for first, and there's no mandate that they are bought back one year before launch of a network. That is pure b.s. from you trying to excuse the lack of any real movement and you know it.



Nope, not what I said. ESPN would still get a subscription fee to the regular channels even if they didn't have any ACC content. For example, ESPN itself gets $7.00 per subscriber. If they didn't have a single ACC game, ESPN would still get $7.00 per subscriber from its main channel.

B: ESPN gets subscription fees--you said just above they get $0 now, but would from the ACC. Everyone can read what you wrote. Part of the reason ESPN gets a subscriber rate is because of the content on their networks. Owning and showing ACC content is a part of that. The point is ESPN already bought the ACCs rights. They aren't paying for them a second time.

#4 does not happen. This is your lack of understanding of how the contracts work. Subscription fees and rights fees are completely different things. ESPN would not be paying the ACC twice for the rights fees. If ESPN and the ACC split the revenue from a network that's only subscription fees. Texas does the same thing with the LHN. IMG already owned all the Tier 3 rights for Texas. They pay about $10 million a year for those. However, IMG pays Texas an additional $15 million from the LHN (via ESPN). That's not because IMG is "paying twice" for the rights. The $15 million is not for the rights. The $15 million is strictly from revenue generated from the LHN. That's completely different from the broadcast rights.

B: Your lack of understanding is the problem. AGAIN
I. ESPN bought ACC rights-meaning they own all rights--paid for
II. ESPN monetizes those rights by putting ACC content-all of that which they own on ESPN platforms

If they then create a new platform ESPN gets that money and has 0 incentive to give any of that revenue to the ACC.
Why? BECAUSE THEY ALREADY PAID THE ACC FOR IT ONCE--again they aren't paying the ACC twice for the same product.


Here's what you don't get. The $5 million each school got from the SECN was not for rights to those new games. That $5 million was strictly from subscription revenue. The additional rights are paid out of the regular broadcast contract with ESPN. All the rights for the SEC (excluding the one CBS game) are in one big pot. ESPN pays for them in a lump sum every year. From the network, the SEC's payout doesn't have anything to do with the number of games.

B: Here's what you don't get. The subscription revenue SEC schools get is for NEW inventory that was not previously part of the inventory the SEC could offer ESPN. They added 40 plus football games and numerous basketball and olympic sports to their available inventory which allowed ESPN to continue putting on a certain amount of SEC product with no reduction, while also putting the new surplus on the SEC network.

Let's do it more graphically for the comprehensively challenged:

pre SEC network
Group A content:--SEC had the inventory of 12 teams minus tier 3 rights from each school

in order to create an SEC network the SEC added:
Group B content
--Two schools worth of inventory via expansion
--inventory from each existing schools tier 3 rights which were bought back

Combining Groups A and B allow the SEC to both have content on ESPN and CBS and now an SECN

Here is where you are going wrong. Prior to the network, the SEC's regular TV contract with ESPN paid out $20 million per team (average). Now, (after expansion) their contract pays out $25 million per team. Additionally, they get $5 million from the SECN in subscription revenue.

B: I am not going wrong. After expansion the exact amount of the SECs tv deals have not been announced. You are confusing their "average" payout increase as their new contract numbers. With an average the number starts low, hits an average point and grows over time. They aren't getting $25 million per year from ESPN, they are getting an entire conference payout from two tv deals, conference playoff payout, NCAAs, an SEC CCG and other things in that number and then an additional amount from the SECN of around $5 million per school.

Now here is how it would work with the ACC. The ACC's contract with ESPN pays out about $18 million per school (average). IF, IF, the ACC got a network, they would still only get the same $18 million payout for the rights. Then they would get $__ million from subscription fees. You see the difference? The SEC got a boost to their contract AND subscription fees from the network. The ACC would only get a subscription fee from the network, but not a contract boost. That's because ESPN already owns the rights.

B: NO. Here is how it would work. If the ACC can reacquire rights from Raycom and FOX then they would have the inventory to have a network (without ND football or hockey). From there if they got a network they would get subscription fees while ESPN kept putting the same numbers on their current platforms as is contracted through 2027.

Now one other point about this. The ACC would have additional inventory. They would have the ~35 games that are currently syndicated with Fox and ESPN. (If they can't buy out the syndication packages, then the whole network is a moot point.) The difference is, they would not get paid any extra for these 35 games, because they are already getting paid out of their regular contract, as I just showed. Again, that's the difference. The SEC got a contract boost AND subscription fees. The ACC would only get subscription fees.

B: We don't know if the SEC got a contract boost--it hasn't been announced. CBS did not increase the contract on their side and ESPN doesn't appear to have by much. However they also added TWO SCHOOLS. The ACC hasn't expanded so has the same inventory. As I stated and you denied multiple times until now, they would have to get back Raycom and FOX inventory to create the network or its a moot point.

Incorrect. There are 133 million homes in the U.S. The SEC is in roughly 69 million. That's barely 50%, not 69%. The thing is, the ACC doesn't have to get in that many homes. Nobody said they have to match the SEC. Here's how to look at it. The SEC makes $546 million a year in revenue. If the ACC only made half that, ESPN would clear $100 million a year, and that's taking into account operating costs and being generous and splitting 50/50 with the ACC. Now, would the ACC even make that much? I don't know. I'm just showing you that the bar is not nearly has high as you are claiming to make a network viable.[/QUOTE]

B: Incorrect. In 2016 there are only 100 million pay tv homes which means the SEC is in 69% of those homes. You need to get your numbers straight before challenging others. The problem for the ACC is not that they couldn't make money if they could get a network--its how much--how close can they get to Big Ten, SEC and BIG 12 numbers? Because money drives realignment and currently the ACC is at the bottom of rights fees per school. If other conferences are $15 or $20 million or more ahead by 2027 or close to it--look out.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

I have no agenda. The agenda was the BIG 12s. Comprehensive improvements were that agenda.

The conference drug its feet for years on issues of expansion and a network. Instead of adopting comprehensive improvements, the conference adopted a 10 team CCG which provides for some more money, but at the expense of a guaranteed rematch which no other conference has.

AGAIN, the BIG 12 isn't the only conference looking at a network --the ACC still is and has NOT declared in any way shape or form that it is no longer possible to pursue a network because of the "market". So what will you say if in fact they GET ONE? How would that be possible with "the market" and all?

Boren's position DIDN'T CHANGE. What changed? TEXAS SAID THEY WOULD NOT GIVE UP THE LHN.

Go back and read. A couple of weeks out, Boren stated that everything expansion related hinged on the network. Without the network, no need to expand because the primary reason for expanding was to generate the high level revenues needed to get the BIG 12 schools to the same levels as each other, and to the levels that the Big Ten and SEC were growing to long term. Expansion was needed for the inventory to put on the air.

With no network came no need for expansion other than to put the conference even with the others in making playoffs. The day before the presidents were to get the information, Texas declared the LHN was not going away and that they would need more than to be made whole, they didn't see any need for expansion, and that they supported a 10 team CCG. The next day a network was off, expansion was "cooled" and voila! A 10 team CCG was enacted. All of which you conveniently ignore over and over and over--but it all happened.

Not once, ever, in any of this did Boren proclaim there was no value in comprehensive improvements, no value in expansion candidates or any of the other bunk you and your cronies want to spread. He stated the other day it doesn't matter anymore what he thinks about it. He said without a network there's not as much value in expansion and his fanbase let it be known they'll only support certain types of expansion candidates--not that the consultants said there are none available that add value.

If the ACC is able to gain a network then its more than clear the "market" hasn't declared anything. Boren was never going to come out and say "Texas won't give up the LHN". Don't be such a fool.

The do nothing-nothing matters agenda you push daily is not going to benefit WVU come 2023. By 2017 it will be apparent what a huge mistake was made when the Big Ten rockets past the BIG 12 schools in earnings. That's apparently ok for you, its not ok for schools like Oklahoma.

This is your typical mombo jumbo garbage. I had respectfully asked you and will ask you again:

Please, please please provide one quote with a link where Boren states Texas could be made whole, and 3-4 million, (or for that mater 500,000) per team could be made with traditional network as you claim.

Don't provide 10 paragraphs of YOUR interpretation of what you think Boren is saying.

Please please, I am begging you, just one link where Boren is saying something other than the market place is not there to support the type of network he was asking for, before he received the facts and data.

Again I know you won't because there is not one.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

This is why I made the point to you earlier, regarding an ACC network. He told you this:


But he told me this:


When he's talking to you, he says the ACC can still get a network. When he talks to me, he tells me why the ACC can't get a network. You don't see the cognitive dissonance there?

You and I have different opinions when it comes to the ACC Network. I respect your opinion that the ACC will get a successful network off the ground even if your opinion is Wrong. At least your are consistent with your point of views.

What is really sad. He (Buck) probably has no clue he is arguing two sides of the coin and opposite position when he argues with me vs with with you.

 

[TexasforevEER]

Now hear this: Ole Warez does not bother to read a post over 4 lines in length. I don't want to hear some long winded version of what it is that we are a talking about. Besides, it's just what you THINK. Heck, if the poster is making up things or posting straight dope..............it doesn't matter.

 

[Buckaineer]

Previously posted quotes from Oklahoma president David Boren for the reading impaired to illustrate his position on improvements needed for the BIG 12:


On just doing one thing or another rather than comprehensive improvements---

From Tulsa World Jan 15, 2016:
Boren wants the Big 12 to expand to 12 teams, he wants the league to fold Texas’ Longhorn Network and other third-tier properties into a Big 12 Network, and he wants a conference championship game. All at once, in that order, and immediately.


“I think if we try to do it piecemeal, we’re just gonna kind of end up with just a Band-Aid on top,” Boren said. “I think we need a comprehensive plan to strengthen the conference and give it equal status with the other Power 5 conferences.”....
“I’m hoping that the idea of the playoff (championship) game will not be considered in isolation,” Boren said. “I hope it will be part of a comprehensive reform of the conference. I really think this is an opportunity to do that.”

From Tulsa World Jan 14, 2016:
“But I think if you’re just talking about a playoff (championship) game in isolation, some years that’s gonna be a benefit to certain schools like OU, or some years it’s going to be a disadvantage. If you don’t have 12 members and you don’t have two divisions, playing the same team twice is not always beneficial. You might win the first time, lose the second time. So it’s debatable if you consider it only in isolation as to whether or not it’s advantageous. I think it’s only slightly advantageous, but sometimes I think it’s going to be disadvantageous.


On adding schools under grants of rights agreements--

From Tulsa World Jan 15, 2016:
Adding members does get tricky with teams from the ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 all bound by grant-of-rights agreements similar to the Big 12’s, in which schools that leave presumably won’t get paid in their new league because they have granted their media rights (and all those millions of dollars) to their current conference.

“There are the dream schools that you’d like to try to get, but if they’ve signed away their grant of rights, I think it’s gonna be pretty hard to get them in play,” Boren said. “It doesn’t mean it’ll never happen, but I think it’ll be pretty difficult.”

From Tulsa World Jan 14, 2016:
Q: As a man who knows the law, how strong are these Grant of Rights agreements?

A: Uhh, well, I think that’s really interesting. … I think it’s probably not — I think it’s strong enough that most schools that have given away their grants of rights … I think most of them will be reluctant to test the strength of that legally. So I think we have to zero in that would be additive to the conference where there’s not a grant of rights problem.

“Now, if that doesn’t work and we feel we can find somebody to test that, then we’d have to consider that. I would say it’s a significant legal problem. But it may not be, until it’s tested, we don’t know if it’s gonna be 100 percent binding or not. I think we’re all operating under the assumption that it is binding. And I think other schools are now, too, and they’re not willing to risk the buyout provisions they might face, the amount of money they might have to put on the table it they did try to leave.

On what happens if comprehensive improvements aren't adopted:

From Tulsa World Jan 15, 2016:
He also addressed the question of what was a better long-term scenario for OU: staying in the Big 12 or moving to another conference.

“I think if — if — we can get the Big 12 on the right track, if this comprehensive plan could be adopted, then I would rather stay in the Big 12,” he said. “I think that would be to our advantage. But it’s something that we really need to have happen. But we just need to wait and see what develops. Certainly, my first choice, if we can get the right things done in the Big 12, the right steps taken, especially these three, then I think we ought to stay in the Big 12. If it just doesn’t happen, then I try to think long-term.” It isn’t just a matter of Oklahoma or whatever, I just think the stability and strength of the Big 12 will not be well-served if we don’t take these steps to strengthen it.”

On the conference network and LHN

From Norman Transcript Jan 28, 2016

“I have felt all along that we should and so, to have a network that’s efficient and functioning, our leadership in the conference, our media advisors, say that you’ve gotta have everybody in it,” Boren said Thursday after the University of Oklahoma Board of Regents meeting. “In other words, you can’t have a Big 12 network and have 10 schools and have nine of them in it or something like that. All the outstanding networks have to be folded into the Big 12 network. And we’re probably losing $4 million or $5 million, $6 million, there are various estimates a year by not having a Big 12 network. Per school.”

It was a sellers’ market for Power 5 Conference’s broadcast rights in 2011. It may not be now. Boren believes it still is.
“Our media consultants still tend to think, as I said, we’re leaving $4-$6 million per school on the table even now, even with the circumstances.”

From Tulsa World Jan 14, 2016

"— we’re leaving money on the table in terms of the interests of most of the members of the conference, and we can always find a transition distribution that will help Texas not be disadvantaged from their current setup as we transition from the Longhorn Network. But over the next 5-10 years, having a conference network is very important. Having 12 members is very important...."

“...as I said, there are ways to find a transition formula for revenue distribution and so on. It’s going to be so much of an advantage to other schools for that to be ended and for us to have a Big 12 Conference (network)..... And I think the other schools would see enough long-term advantage that they would be willing to keep it revenue- neutral for Texas, so that Texas would not be making a huge financial sacrifice under the right transition plan to get it done. I think it’s such a long-range advantage to everybody that we can have a transition plan that will work.”


there are of course many other quotes out there but they've mostly been posted and I don't have all day to do this. This information is coming straight from the BIG 12 and their paid consultants, not buckaineer despite the attempts by some misguided individuals to paint it that way to further their do nothing agenda--people who rarely if ever post ANYTHING to back up anything they say.

 

[Buckaineer]

Now hear this: Ole Warez does not bother to read a post over 4 lines in length. I don't want to hear some long winded version of what it is that we are a talking about. Besides, it's just what you THINK.

And that's the problem. People don't want to read real information that is more than 4 lines in length. But facts aren't folded into neat little packages like that. Unsubstantiated opinions are--and that is all anyone with such a lazy attitude is getting.

 

[Buckaineer]

Mountaineer Steve has a serious problem.

He ignores every news story and fact and quote that doesn't fit his agenda, then when someone discusses those things he pretends the person reiterating the factual information made it up.

He calls for others to back up what they say with detailed facts and links, then when given the same, denies they are what they are--because they don't fit his/her agenda.

The most curious thing about this disturbed individual? While demanding all this evidence from others- and attacking anyone who doesn't provide the same as though he/she is the "supreme ruler" of the board or some such bunk-he/she provides NOTHING to back up anything he/she claims.

Such people need to get out of their mommies basement and learn how to research things past one day, and do their own legwork. They also need to understand they are NOT in charge of the board, the information or anything else.

Most importantly get out of fantasyland. Your imagination is NOT what is really happening.

 

[ColoradoMountaineer]

Mountaineer Steve has a serious problem.

He ignores every news story and fact and quote that doesn't fit his agenda, then when someone discusses those things he pretends the person reiterating the factual information made it up.

He calls for others to back up what they say with detailed facts and links, then when given the same, denies they are what they are--because they don't fit his/her agenda.

The most curious thing about this disturbed individual? While demanding all this evidence from others- and attacking anyone who doesn't provide the same as though he/she is the "supreme ruler" of the board or some such bunk-he/she provides NOTHING to back up anything he/she claims.

Such people need to get out of their mommies basement and learn how to research things past one day, and do their own legwork. They also need to understand they are NOT in charge of the board, the information or anything else.

Most importantly get out of fantasyland. Your imagination is NOT what is really happening.

If expansion wasn't an issue what else would you do with your time?

 

[Panthergrowl13]

This is why I made the point to you earlier, regarding an ACC network. He told you this:


But he told me this:


When he's talking to you, he says the ACC can still get a network. When he talks to me, he tells me why the ACC can't get a network. You don't see the cognitive dissonance there?

Hey Top

Check out our board, a thread was started about very positive comments from Debbie Yow AD of North Carolina State with respect to an ACC Network. A link was provided.

Do believe it will happen.

Stay tuned.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Previously posted quotes from Oklahoma president David Boren for the reading impaired to illustrate his position on improvements needed for the BIG 12:


On just doing one thing or another rather than comprehensive improvements---

From Tulsa World Jan 15, 2016:
Boren wants the Big 12 to expand to 12 teams, he wants the league to fold Texas’ Longhorn Network and other third-tier properties into a Big 12 Network, and he wants a conference championship game. All at once, in that order, and immediately.


“I think if we try to do it piecemeal, we’re just gonna kind of end up with just a Band-Aid on top,” Boren said. “I think we need a comprehensive plan to strengthen the conference and give it equal status with the other Power 5 conferences.”....
“I’m hoping that the idea of the playoff (championship) game will not be considered in isolation,” Boren said. “I hope it will be part of a comprehensive reform of the conference. I really think this is an opportunity to do that.”

From Tulsa World Jan 14, 2016:
“But I think if you’re just talking about a playoff (championship) game in isolation, some years that’s gonna be a benefit to certain schools like OU, or some years it’s going to be a disadvantage. If you don’t have 12 members and you don’t have two divisions, playing the same team twice is not always beneficial. You might win the first time, lose the second time. So it’s debatable if you consider it only in isolation as to whether or not it’s advantageous. I think it’s only slightly advantageous, but sometimes I think it’s going to be disadvantageous.


On adding schools under grants of rights agreements--

From Tulsa World Jan 15, 2016:
Adding members does get tricky with teams from the ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 all bound by grant-of-rights agreements similar to the Big 12’s, in which schools that leave presumably won’t get paid in their new league because they have granted their media rights (and all those millions of dollars) to their current conference.

“There are the dream schools that you’d like to try to get, but if they’ve signed away their grant of rights, I think it’s gonna be pretty hard to get them in play,” Boren said. “It doesn’t mean it’ll never happen, but I think it’ll be pretty difficult.”

From Tulsa World Jan 14, 2016:
Q: As a man who knows the law, how strong are these Grant of Rights agreements?

A: Uhh, well, I think that’s really interesting. … I think it’s probably not — I think it’s strong enough that most schools that have given away their grants of rights … I think most of them will be reluctant to test the strength of that legally. So I think we have to zero in that would be additive to the conference where there’s not a grant of rights problem.

“Now, if that doesn’t work and we feel we can find somebody to test that, then we’d have to consider that. I would say it’s a significant legal problem. But it may not be, until it’s tested, we don’t know if it’s gonna be 100 percent binding or not. I think we’re all operating under the assumption that it is binding. And I think other schools are now, too, and they’re not willing to risk the buyout provisions they might face, the amount of money they might have to put on the table it they did try to leave.

On what happens if comprehensive improvements aren't adopted:

From Tulsa World Jan 15, 2016:
He also addressed the question of what was a better long-term scenario for OU: staying in the Big 12 or moving to another conference.

“I think if — if — we can get the Big 12 on the right track, if this comprehensive plan could be adopted, then I would rather stay in the Big 12,” he said. “I think that would be to our advantage. But it’s something that we really need to have happen. But we just need to wait and see what develops. Certainly, my first choice, if we can get the right things done in the Big 12, the right steps taken, especially these three, then I think we ought to stay in the Big 12. If it just doesn’t happen, then I try to think long-term.” It isn’t just a matter of Oklahoma or whatever, I just think the stability and strength of the Big 12 will not be well-served if we don’t take these steps to strengthen it.”

On the conference network and LHN

From Norman Transcript Jan 28, 2016

“I have felt all along that we should and so, to have a network that’s efficient and functioning, our leadership in the conference, our media advisors, say that you’ve gotta have everybody in it,” Boren said Thursday after the University of Oklahoma Board of Regents meeting. “In other words, you can’t have a Big 12 network and have 10 schools and have nine of them in it or something like that. All the outstanding networks have to be folded into the Big 12 network. And we’re probably losing $4 million or $5 million, $6 million, there are various estimates a year by not having a Big 12 network. Per school.”

It was a sellers’ market for Power 5 Conference’s broadcast rights in 2011. It may not be now. Boren believes it still is.
“Our media consultants still tend to think, as I said, we’re leaving $4-$6 million per school on the table even now, even with the circumstances.”

From Tulsa World Jan 14, 2016

"— we’re leaving money on the table in terms of the interests of most of the members of the conference, and we can always find a transition distribution that will help Texas not be disadvantaged from their current setup as we transition from the Longhorn Network. But over the next 5-10 years, having a conference network is very important. Having 12 members is very important...."

“...as I said, there are ways to find a transition formula for revenue distribution and so on. It’s going to be so much of an advantage to other schools for that to be ended and for us to have a Big 12 Conference (network)..... And I think the other schools would see enough long-term advantage that they would be willing to keep it revenue- neutral for Texas, so that Texas would not be making a huge financial sacrifice under the right transition plan to get it done. I think it’s such a long-range advantage to everybody that we can have a transition plan that will work.”


there are of course many other quotes out there but they've mostly been posted and I don't have all day to do this. This information is coming straight from the BIG 12 and their paid consultants, not buckaineer despite the attempts by some misguided individuals to paint it that way to further their do nothing agenda--people who rarely if ever post ANYTHING to back up anything they say.

You are the only poster on this board that can't freaking read. I have asked over and over for you to post one link that happened after Boren saw current facts regsrding ESPN, FOX, or any others who is willing to start up a new traditional conference network. And per your normal operandi you post quotes that occurred before bored had any facts. Just like you, Borden was spewing things about the BIG12N before he had any facts. Now unlike you, Boren changed his position after he was presented with figures that proved that a new network would not bring in enough money to male it worth while to bring down the reputation of the conference by expanding with G5 schools.

So I ask again provide one link on or after the last Big12 meetings that matches your non fact based opinion . Just in case you can't remember that is on or after Jun 1st 2016
Again you can't and won't. But you will continue to spew unfactual based quotes because that is all you have.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Hey Top

Check out our board, a thread was started about very positive comments from Debbie Yow AD of North Carolina State with respect to an ACC Network. A link was provided.

Do believe it will happen.

Stay tuned.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

And when would Top have time to visit an ACC board? Just teasing!

 

[Buckaineer]

You are the only poster on this board that can't freaking read. I have asked over and over for you to post one link that happened after Boren saw current facts regsrding ESPN, FOX, or any others who is willing to start up a new traditional conference network. And per your normal operandi you post quotes that occurred before bored had any facts. Just like you, Borden was spewing things about the BIG12N before he had any facts. Now unlike you, Boren changed his position after he was presented with figures that proved that a new network would not bring in enough money to male it worth while to bring down the reputation of the conference by expanding with G5 schools.

So I ask again provide one link on or after the last Big12 meetings that matches your non fact based opinion . Just in case you can't remember that is on or after Jun 1st 2016
Again you can't and won't. But you will continue to spew unfactual based quotes because that is all you have.

As I imagined-- ignore all evidence that shoots down your bs while providing NOTHING to corroborate your bs.

Boren specifically mentions consultants giving him this information after years of research on the matter in these articles and you ignore that and lie about it as expected.

You won't provide anything to back up your lies because you CANT. I've provided all the information that anyone needs to know while you've yapped like a scared little dog--trying to attack the messenger because you can't ignore or address the message.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

As I imagined-- ignore all evidence that shoots down your bs while providing NOTHING to corroborate your bs.

Boren specifically mentions consultants giving him this information after years of research on the matter in these articles and you ignore that and lie about it as expected.

You won't provide anything to back up your lies because you CANT. I've provided all the information that anyone needs to know while you've yapped like a scared little dog--trying to attack the messenger because you can't ignore or address the message.

Once again you prove what all other posters on this board know, which is your an idiot. I posted links (post BIG12 meeting) that quoted Boren's exact posistion after seeing the new evidence. You are too stupid to understand Boren's position had changed once he was given ALL the new facts, facts which the BIG12 paid for I might add. He read the reports, and realize the network and G5 expansion was not worth the effort because the market was not there to support it. Hell you wouldn't believe it, if Boren came to your house with the data that backs his new position. Why? because you are incapable of thinking out side your Agenda and Tiny Little Box.

Stop being such a dumb ass and show me One link after May 31st 2016, where Boren position matches yours and not mine.

 

[TD_istheman]

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.

Nobody outside 15 miles of campus watches VA TECH, the others definitely.

 

[Rootmaster]

Geez Steve...if you are going to attack Buck at least do it accurately. I guess when you said

your

that you meant the contraction of you are...which would be you're? LOL

 

[Pitt4Life34]

You are an idiot. FSU and Clemson tried to walk previously but were not offered by the BIG 12. North Carolina had discussions with SEC people about their concern with the ACC falling apart. They had to break with their supposed academic superiority and allow in Louisville to placate members as well as signing a partial agreement with ND which now gets many of their prime slots, and money from the league.

The ACC has a grant of rights holding them together and nothing else. They are far behind financially and money is what drives realignment, not "cities and tvs". Besides the ACC doesn't have "cities and tvs". The ACC claims a huge market presence, but everyone knows that what they actually have is a disparate group of islands and small pockets of interest joined out of necessity rather than common goals. Boston college has little in common with schools like FSU or Clemson. Louisville a small city school has little in common with schools like Duke or Wake Forest, Virginia Tech or North Carolina.

Every move the ACC has made has been about desperation and survival.

The BIG 12 while lacking vision is in a stable place today and for years to come. Their decisions aren't based on panic. The conference has made the playoffs, the final four and the CWS--its very successful. But like everyone money talks. Down the road shortly changing circumstances have made keeping up with their peers more difficult.

If that is a problem for the BIG 12 it is a HUGE problem for a league that nearly collapsed a few years back.

ND is in the ACC because the ACC is the only league that would roll over backwards for ND. Had the ACC not done that in a desperate attempt to keep members happy--ND would likely be playing games in Morgantown every so often now. It certainly isn't because they wanted to be playing Dook and Wake and so forth--although they probably figured they would beat those schools in the ACC more often than not and that undoubtedly played a large part in their equation.

The ACC with no further means of boosting revenues is on borrowed time-thanks to their grant of rights. When 2027 rolls around the few schools that can, will be departing that league. In the BIG 12, Texas is waiting on offers but could choose to keep their own conference and OU is going to get offered undoubtedly--we'll see if the conference has taken any steps to keep them content financially as things get closer.

You are a legitmate moron! Nothing you said was accurate and a Network will be announced very soon. Just sit back and enjoy moron! Oh.......when the announcement of the ACC Network is anounced soon I'll be thinking of you crap for brains.

 

[LowFatMilk]

You are a legitmate moron! Nothing you said was accurate and a Network will be announced very soon. Just sit back and enjoy moron! Oh.......when the announcement of the ACC Network is anounced soon I'll be thinking of you crap for brains.

I'll give you an endless amount of guesses (pretty sure you'll need them) to explain why so many words in your post are ironic.

 

[Pitt4Life34]

I can't disagree with any of those, however I would think any conference that took UNC, would want to take Dork as well.

I'd see UVA as a better option than Duke. I get UNC and Duke staying together but man that Duke football program is downright pathetic. I went to a legit ACC Duke game and the crowd was less than 20,000. It looked like a South Florida game I attended one year.

 

[Pitt4Life34]

I'll give you an endless amount of guesses (pretty sure you'll need them) to guess why so many words in your post are ironic.

Move along loser.

 

[LowFatMilk]

Move along loser.

Aka... ...even an endless amount of guesses wasn't enough.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

OK, Mrs. Orlaco. What makes it so ironic? Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Geez Steve...if you are going to attack Buck at least do it accurately. I guess when you said
that you meant the contraction of you are...which would be you're? LOL

Excellent point. I will keep that in mind.