I don't know if the really cares. They added RU which may have had 3 good years in 50, and Maryland who has not been relevant since 2007.
ACC a better fit than Big 12?
- Thread starter OldGoldandBlue1
- Start date
You are an idiot and have nothing to back up what you claim. Enough with baseless words from you jack@$$--prove I am wrong about anything I stated- you can't. I'll be waiting.
Idiot, not once has Boren stated what you claim he did. He said no expansion candidates have value according to consultants? He said Texas could not be made whole if the BIg 12 created a network? The fact is you haven't posted $hit! About anything you claim he said, as usual you just dreamed it up and si ce you can't argue any of the points I clearly made now you once again try to attack me.
Get out of your mom as basement and learn comprehension skills.
It doesn't get any clearer than "our media consultants still tend to think, as I (Boren) said, were leaving $4-$6 million per school on the table, even now, even with the circumstances"-- the circumstances being the change in subscribers.
Stop making bs up and pretending you know anything about anything loser.
You are so freaking stupid. After the meeting with more facts Boren said the following
“I would say the marketplace has taken the Big 12 Network, in the traditional sense, off the marketplace. That would be true for the SEC or the Big Ten or anybody else coming up for the first time trying to create a network at this particular time,” Boren said. “There's no reason for us to quarrel with anybody over whether their network is going to continue or not when there is no possibility for a marketplace for creating a traditional Big 12 Network.”
The above comment supports my claim. He clearly states the marketplace, not Texas has stopped a traditional BIG12 Network and that the money isn't there.
You still have failed not once or twice, but three times in answer my simple request to provide one comment after Boren and the BIG12 recieved the new data to support your claim.
Why is that Bucko? Why is that Bucko? Why is that Bucko? Why is that Bucko?
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. You have to keep going back to old outdated quotes that are no longer true
.
Boren knows that there is little interest in Oklahoma of going to the PAC12, he knows that Oklahoma is pretty far down on the list of Big10 likely invites for their next two slots, he knows that OU is in competition with schools in far more populous states for the next two slots in the SEC. He knows that his state legislature does not want him to leave OK State behind, but Boren knows that he must. No other conference wants two schools from a state as sparsely populated as Oklahoma. He needs to get rid of OK State in his future negotiations with the SEC. If he is going to be going up against VT or NC State for the next two slots in the SEC, the last thing he needs is OK State hanging around his neck. He has known privately all along that Texas was never going to give up the LHN and he knew all along that his vague reference to unnamed media consultants who said that Texas could be made whole and that the other Big12 members would make up to 6 million dollars by adding G5 schools was just a throwaway statement. It never had to be true because Boren could always say, well that is what I had hoped and I tried my best to look out for the interests of OK State and the rest of the Big12. All political maneuvers for political cover by a politician. He is as free of obligations to OSU and the rest of the Big12 as he is ever going to be. The Big12 is likely still looking at expansion if for no other reason than to line up the best replacement they can find for Oklahoma. The same Oklahoma who along with Nebraska, Texas A&M and Texas opposed the first proposal for a Big12 Network long, long ago. Boren has lead the charge for discontent and further conflict in the Big12 under the banner of "trying to do good" for the conference when he is really focused on doing the best he can for OU. That is his job and he is as slick a politician as anyone. Oklahoma wants to be gone and really wants one of the last two slots in the SEC. They want to blame Texas for it as an added little kicker.
Spot on, the good thing with 10 team CCG, and the research about a traditional network, the BIG12 can take its time before making a decision.
The BIG12 asked the two research companies for more informmation. You can bet that part of that research will including starting some type of non-traditional steaming with a company like Amazon, Netflix or other.
Companies such as IMG could produce a quality HD broadcast for streaming video for a reasonable fee from the viewer, ads, or both. Those who could afford to pay a higher fee would receive the game without ads. This could ideally be done conference wide, but individual teams could add to their third tier income otherwise.
At least Big could argue TV and population on those moves. Duke's hoop brand is second to none but is it worth passing along $50-$75 million per year?
Let's jump back on this after the Network is announced. Don't be so emotional Buck!!! This is a message board and no one has ultimate facts. I read two blogs that predicted ESPN didn't want to pay the ACC $45,000,000 if they didn't commit a Network to the ACC on July 1st. So I'm playing the odds ESPN committed to the ACC last week and it will be announced soon. It will be worth at least $6-$8 million per team. Not Big or SEC money but a commitment that puts the conference on firm ground. Let's take the hostility down a level. Not worth it.
That 45 mill will be the only reason ACC network gets off the gound. I bet a few people are getting their ass chewed out for allowing that in the contract. However, and we will see in time, but I think your 6-8 million is way overstated. I also believe that a network that gets created, will not be a traditional network like SEC, B1G, and PAC, but some type of streaminng option of an Apple, Roku or other type device.
You may be right but according to Buck I'm an idiot for believing that your first two sentence are correct.
Agree. I've said for a long time that four 16-team conferences with the 8 division winners forming the national playoffs is the wave of the future. I will happen. Just a matter of time. 4 spots for 5 power conferences just doesn't work. Bad math. Somebody is guaranteed to be pissed off. And with power.
I still think a 6 or 8 team playoff is the answer. Too many schools who have invested millions are being left out. Too many schools like Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, Illinois, Northwestern, Boston College, Duke, Rutgers... get a free pass with no particular pedigree other than being grandfathered in.
Well, I dreamed I saw the silver spaceships flying
In the yellow haze of the sun
There were children crying and colors flying
All around the chosen ones
All in a dream, all in a dream
The loading had begun
Flyin' mother nature's silver seed
To a new home in the sun
Flyin' mother nature's silver seed
To a new home in the sun
In the yellow haze of the sun
There were children crying and colors flying
All around the chosen ones
All in a dream, all in a dream
The loading had begun
Flyin' mother nature's silver seed
To a new home in the sun
Flyin' mother nature's silver seed
To a new home in the sun
Classic! You go nuclear emotional and hostile in every post towards me and then tell ME not to be "so emotional".
Perhaps you need to remember its a message board and that YOU don't rule the messages of others first.
Two ACC blogs talking about $45,000,000 that someone in the ACC says exists, but no one else does including ESPN does not make an ACC network a reality. It also doesn't make some $45,000,000 payment to the ACC for nothing a reality.
The only thing the ACC possibly had coming in their fifth year is a look in to their current tv contract. Perhaps we'll hear from Swofford about that this summer. A look in isn't a guarantee of additional revenues, and certainly not $45,000,000 for nothing--or a network.
It will be interesting to see--now that the tv networks have given the Big Ten a large revenue increase--if conferences such as the BIG 12, and ACC are able to get contract increases through their look-ins now that the market has been reset.
Great idea! Of course you have to convince the tv network, college football playoff organization, SEC, Big Ten, Pac 12, ACC and BIG 12 its a good idea which will be a very tall task since few if any of the leaders of these groups by their words think that is a good idea and the contract that goes through 2026 has no provisions for reopening.
The problem with that idea is 4 16 team conferences is 64 teams.
Big Ten 14 teams
SEC 14 teams
ACC 14 teams
Pac 12 12 teams
BIG 12 10 teams
Notre Dame
That is 65 teams. Who gets left out?
If OU wanted to leave for the Big Ten or Pac 12 its naive to think those conferences will not accept OU.
OU is one of the premiere athletics programs in the college world. One of the largest brands in all of college football history.
Where is the evidence of this "list" of "likely invites" or "slots" for the Big Ten? LINK?
Link to no other conference wanting two schools from Oklahoma? Didn't the Pac 12 try to add two schools from Oklahoma around 2011-2012 in fact?
Oklahoma "up against" VT or NC State? LOL!!!!! There isn't a conference that would turn down Oklahoma for VT or NC State--except maybe the ACC.
LINK to Boren "always knowing secretly" that Texas would never give up the LHN?
Oklahoma from Boren's own words said he has been trying to get a conference network for at least 5 or 6 years. He's lying about that in your mind too? So let's see--he lied about candidates. Lied about needing expansion, a network, and a CCG;Lied about the conference network; Lied about the LHN, Lied about wanting these things for the betterment of the conference; and you say all these things and claim more without ONE LINK to support any of these skygusty agenda items? And the same posters that bash me regularly for posting factual LINKS throw praise at you for making things up in your head. Typical.
Boren laid it all out on the table, helped bring in information to the conference to make educated intelligent decisions. The conference chose to bow to Texas' wishes which are to do nothing that will alter options in 2025 for UT--but its Boren's fault and Oklahoma's fault. All with NOT ONE LINK to support any of it. And anyone that sways from this Texcentric line of thought will be bashed. Got it.
Last edited:
That depends on which conference falls. I can promise the following are programs that won’t be left out
Any current SEC, or BIG school
· ND (although they are not in a football conference and are still part of the equation)
· OU,
· TexA$$,
· FSU,
· Cryami
· Clemson,
· VT,
· UVA,
· GT,
· UNC,
· probably Dork.
If the BIG12 is the conference that fails, it could very well come down to WVU or ISU
If the ACC is the conference that fails, it could be sPitt, UofL, BC, Cuse, NC State, Wake.
All of Boren's comments you quoted was based on information before he got additional facts end of May. Now he is not saying any of that.
The ACC hasn't declared anything about a "marketplace" You keep declaring "marketplace"--post a link--have been waiting and you refuse to do this.
Boren-when declaring no network said this:
excerpt:
“I'd just say the marketplace has changed,” Boren said of the conference network idea. “It's a moot issue now. The marketplace simply isn't interested in a traditional network. I can be for it or against it, but the important thing is, is there a market for it? Is there a willing partner right now for a network for anybody?”
http://newsok.com/article/5502121
In this statement Boren revealed nothing about anyone saying the BIG 12 couldn't have any sort of network, that Texas couldn't be made whole, that expansion candidates wouldn't make the network possible, or any other such bunk. Why is it that you continue to claim that is what was said fool?
Secondly, he ASKED THE QUESTION--"
Is there a willing partner right now for a network for anybody?”
AGAIN, we will find out the answer to that question from the ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE.
You've failed to answer repeatedly what it means if the ACC gets a network. Now why is that? What exactly are you afraid of in answering that question? You keep making unlinked, unsubstantiated CLAIMS--baseless claims that a network is no longer possible--BUT YOU PROVIDE NO LINKS. Again and again I've asked, and still not one shred of evidence that anyone from any network has decried that "the marketplace" will not allow any network to go forth. The BIG 12--and specifically Boren himself has said SINCE that they may still be looking at some digital/streaming technologies for the future. How can this be, if there is NO MARKET?
I know as usual you will just toss out some tired baseless opinions with nothing to support your assertions mixed in with personal attack because you CANT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS PUT BEFORE YOU.http://newsok.com/article/5502121
All information was information Boren collected and has now. He hasn't said any of that information was wrong has he? He has said he can think what he wants but it doesn't matter now--yet he still says the conference is looking at future technology distributions since the narrow time period you are so focused on.
You can't promise ANYTHING. You aren't associated with major college athletics. No one that is is trying to create 4 16 team conferences.
The BIG 12 leaves itself vulnerable with no means to close the financial gap that will soon be evident, and the continued playoff disadvantage will will hurt the conference in making the playoff.
The BIG 12s contracts run out long before the ACCs--and two conferences that have poached the BIG 12 (one of which requires BIG 12 product to prosper in the future) have contract renewals just as the BIG 12 must try to renegotiate--a renegotiation that will likely feature flat tv ratings, flat fan support, years of negative press, high likelihood of multiple misses of playoffs, no new markets, inventory or footprint.
Conclusions from what I have read from links posted and interviews I have found on my own. There is still a possibility of the Big 12 expanding and an announcement this month. There will be a meeting this month and criteria for expansion has changed since a conference network is out of the picture.
Personally, I think conference networks will slowly collapse as cable companies go out of business. Streaming video and pay per view on satellite providers is the future. If the SEC and B1G network executives are smart, they will begin the transition now if contracts allow to avoid a reduction in future payouts.
What has to happen now is for the consultant to determine from ESPN and Fox if there are any available teams that would trigger a renegotiation of the broadcast contract, not simply a pro quo increase. Regardless of opinions, by any logical measurement BYU, Houston, and maybe Cincinnati are power 5 teams not in a power 5 conference. BYU would have the third largest stadium in the conference. They could go elsewhere for Olympic sport affiliations and basketball schedules can be worked out.
If the broadcasters respond with, "If you get team X and Y or even only team X, we will renegotiate your current contract provided you extend the GOR another five years" expansion will be the result. That is the ultimate deciding factor now, because that brings in more money for everyone along with the temporary bonus to existing teams as the new one(s) phase in on payouts. Otherwise expansion is a dead issue for now.
These are conclusions and opinions I have read elsewhere that I agree with. I'm not looking up the links because it would only be to someone else's predictions and opinions. Besides, most of you ignore them anyway.
If you disagree, that's fine. Everything on here is conjecture and speculation anyway. Some make more sense than others, but that doesn't make them more accurate.
Personally, I think conference networks will slowly collapse as cable companies go out of business. Streaming video and pay per view on satellite providers is the future. If the SEC and B1G network executives are smart, they will begin the transition now if contracts allow to avoid a reduction in future payouts.
What has to happen now is for the consultant to determine from ESPN and Fox if there are any available teams that would trigger a renegotiation of the broadcast contract, not simply a pro quo increase. Regardless of opinions, by any logical measurement BYU, Houston, and maybe Cincinnati are power 5 teams not in a power 5 conference. BYU would have the third largest stadium in the conference. They could go elsewhere for Olympic sport affiliations and basketball schedules can be worked out.
If the broadcasters respond with, "If you get team X and Y or even only team X, we will renegotiate your current contract provided you extend the GOR another five years" expansion will be the result. That is the ultimate deciding factor now, because that brings in more money for everyone along with the temporary bonus to existing teams as the new one(s) phase in on payouts. Otherwise expansion is a dead issue for now.
These are conclusions and opinions I have read elsewhere that I agree with. I'm not looking up the links because it would only be to someone else's predictions and opinions. Besides, most of you ignore them anyway.
If you disagree, that's fine. Everything on here is conjecture and speculation anyway. Some make more sense than others, but that doesn't make them more accurate.
Extension of the grant of rights should be a focus now--especially for everyone in the conference not named Texas or OU. If that were to happen then intentions are clear. If on the other hand that isn't done? Intentions aren't certain, but we know the direction people are leaning.
Gave you a chance but hey whatever dickhead. I didn't go nuclear. The $45,000,000 is a factual contractual obligation to he ACC. You don't know crap about crap. The entire site calls you out as a trolling nimrod so you are par for the course.
Your statements illustrate clearly what YOU are.
As to your bogus claims about $45,000,000 to the ACC from ESPN for NOTHING in exchange--prove it.
No, those numbers aren't prior to Maryland exiting. You can clearly see that Maryland is not included in the ACC graphic, but is rather included in the Big Ten graphic (along with New Jersey).
Satellite homes are potential subscribers. The SEC, Big Ten, LHN, and Pac 12 all have satellite subscribers. You simply aren't giving an accurate number unless you include satellite homes.
No, the numbers aren't high. We just established that you aren't counting satellite subscribers, so you numbers are the ones that aren't accurate. As I showed you previously, the ACC could get only 25% subscriptions in markets like New York, and still make a decent amount.
No, they aren't overstated. Again, I only figured for 25% subscriptions in my New York example. Only figuring for 1/4 of the market is not overstating, by any means.
Sorry, I'm not the one spinning. The SEC and ESPN actually started actual negotiations for a network in 2012. They finished the negotiations around September/October 2012. Then they renegotiated for the rights in 2013. Then the network launched in 2014. So no, you aren't correct. They actually signed the agreement for the network in 2012. That's just the agreement with ESPN. Then they repurchased the rights in 2013. Then they launched the network in 2014.
The SEC "investigated" a network all the way back in 2008. They didn't actually start working on it until 2012.
Correct. You don't buy back rights until you actually have a deal in place for a network. The ACC doesn't have a deal in place for a network, hence the reason no rights have yet been repurchased.
Discussion and launch date aren't the same thing. Post something that says the ACC was going to launch a network prior to 2016-2017
Here's what I said:
I was not taking about ESPN in general, but what the get from ACC programming. Of course, I'm not surprised you couldn't figure that out.
ESPN wouldn't be paying for the rights for a second time. Again, by that logic, ESPN is paying for the SEC rights for a second time.
No, they aren't paying for the same product. ESPN can't start a network called "ACC Network" without compensating the ACC. There is more to it than just the rights to the games themselves. The ACC has the rights to its name, etc., ESPN needs more than just the broadcast rights to the games themselves to start a network.
No, that's simply incorrect. The subscription revenue is not for the rights to the games. The subscription revenue is not based on content, or the amount of. The Big Ten didn't get more money from BTN for inventory when they added Rutgers and Maryland. That's because subscription fees aren't for rights.
Nope, not correct. I clearly said the payouts were averages. The $25 million is just for the TV contract. It's not for CFP, NCAA, or anything like that.
The old TV contract paid out $20 million per team. That's just for TV, not for anything else. The new contract pays out $25 million just for TV, and then the SEC gets an additional payout from the SEC.
That said, your own explanation proves you wrong. By your logic, ESPN would be paying twice for the rights they already had under contract, because they are paying the SEC for the rights they already had under the previous contract, and then they are paying for rights again through the SECN. They wouldn't increase the regular contract if the SECN subscription fees were for the new content.
I already said that. It doesn't address the other point I raised.
You aren't being honest when you leave out the specifics of the CBS contract. CBS gets one game of the week (starting in Week 4), two flex games, and the CCG. Point being, CBS has a fixed inventory. Adding teams to the SEC doesn't give CBS any more inventory. That's why they didn't give an increase. ESPN did get an increase, which is why their contract went up.
You said total households, which is what I posted.
Incorrect. The ACC's problem isn't the SEC or Big Ten. Everybody is behind them. They just need to get ahead of the other two conferences. That's not difficult to do with a network.
Last edited:
Sounds like the list of expansion candidates has been whittled down to BYU, Houston and Cincy. If BYU was a football only member, the Sunday schedules would be a non issue, and ND has already provided a precedent in both the Big East and the ACC for limited participation membership. http://www.frogsowar.com/2016/6/6/11860950/big-12-expansion-its-down-to-byu-houston-and-cincinnati.
Bowlsby just today indicated that expansion is still very much alive but that he does not see it dragging out past this summer. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...12-conference-expansion-bob-bowlsby/86717604/
While this is interesting to watch, I don't see anything that will indicate what Texas and Oklahoma truly want until the GOR comes up for renewal.
Bowlsby just today indicated that expansion is still very much alive but that he does not see it dragging out past this summer. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...12-conference-expansion-bob-bowlsby/86717604/
While this is interesting to watch, I don't see anything that will indicate what Texas and Oklahoma truly want until the GOR comes up for renewal.
Last edited:
And ND has indeed set the precedent for creating discord...I say pass on anyone who wants special treatment, as we have been there, done that.
I was thinking that in this case, partial membership would cut down on problems with playing all the non-revenue sports with a no Sunday rule vs BYU. Playing BYU ONLY in football is a lot different than having ND TELL you that they WONT play football. But the idea of tailgating with Mormons doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun either!
I agree an extended or new GOR is needed.
I am not a lawyer, but not sure a new contract would be valid unless the programs were getting something in return like an extended TV contract or BIG12 network.
While it has been widely reported there is a $45 million clause ESPN would owe the ACC should a network not be in place by July 1st, neither ESPN nor the ACC (Swafford) would commment on it. So I believe it exists, but there are no facts to back it up unless someone has access to the actual contract.
I have answered this question many times and I will answer it once again.
Should the ACC get a SUCCESSFUL traditional ACCN, then the BIG12 is toast if they stand pat. I define Successful network as one that makes 4-5 million per program within a three year period without the ACC having to spend 100s of millions to get it off the ground.
+
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...12-conference-expansion-bob-bowlsby/86717604/
Bowslby wants a decesion one way or another. July 19 meeting of the league’s Board of Directors could be the day of determination
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...12-conference-expansion-bob-bowlsby/86717604/
Latest posts
-
-
-
WVSPORTS.COM West Virginia basketball transfer portal tracker
- Latest: jlaudiomaster
-
-
