ACC a better fit than Big 12?

[michaelwalkerbr]

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.

Steve, the idea is that the conference would be more valuable to the broadcast network with two particular teams that are effectively power 5 programs literally stranded in conference purgatory.

ESPN and Fox must be willing to renegotiate the current contract in consideration of the value of the additions and the product they bring. I am certain the broadcasters would demand an extended expiration date for both the revised broadcast contract as well as the GOR. The bottom line is, ESPN and Fox have to want any particular teams considered for expansion or it will not happen.

BYU could enter for both football and basketball, only the BB schedules would have to be altered to avoid Sunday play and it would not be much. I doubt ESPN/Fox give a damn about the other athletic teams at BYU anyway.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Steve, the idea is that the conference would be more valuable to the broadcast network with two particular teams that are effectively power 5 programs literally stranded in conference purgatory.

ESPN and Fox must be willing to renegotiate the current contract in consideration of the value of the additions and the product they bring. I am certain the broadcasters would demand an extended expiration date for both the revised broadcast contract as well as the GOR. The bottom line is, ESPN and Fox have to want any particular teams considered for expansion or it will not happen.

BYU could enter for both football and basketball, only the BB schedules would have to be altered to avoid Sunday play and it would not be much. I doubt ESPN/Fox give a damn about the other athletic teams at BYU anyway.

Oh I get that and agree, I was just saying without expansion and without something in return there is no GOR extension. Maybe Bowlsby can A push GOR extension with the TV deal assoicated with the CCG.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Oh I get that and agree, I was just saying without expansion and without something in return there is no GOR extension. Maybe Bowlsby can A push GOR extension with the TV deal assoicated with the CCG.

ESPN/Fox would likely demand it as a condition for renegotiation. Why wouldn't they? They hold all of the cards, always have.

 

[skygusty]

ESPN/Fox would likely demand it as a condition for renegotiation. Why wouldn't they? They hold all of the cards, always have.

A lot of people would feel better with an extended GOR. I don't particularly trust either Oklahoma OR Texas at this point not to bolt the conference. I can only hope that each school evaluates the expansion data objectively and can come to an agreement that every school can live with. I've been hoping that both Texas and Oklahoma stay but I know that the only thing you can trust is self interest. We are not screwed if we expand, we are not screwed if we don't expand, only screwed if both those schools leave.

 

[Buckaineer]

If you are the BIG 12 and you actually went ahead and expanded, why would you want to extend the contract at that point?

The Big Ten is going to get a new deal after their current new deal in 2023. The BIG 12s contract must be redone in 2025.

The best thing to do, if you decide it makes sense to add schools for 2017 or so is to just add them at pro rata shares (or better if you can get it) and let the existing contract go as is or close to it (perhaps 2023 like the Big Ten) and then redo the contract. That way you can get back in line with what the Big Ten is doing and they won't get 3 new negotiations to your one.

No matter what extend the grant of rights. That way the membership is secure and its obvious the conference is the focal point of everyone and no member is considering leaving.

No expectations of a gor extension or expansion.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

I can agree with that.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

If you are the BIG 12 and you actually went ahead and expanded, why would you want to extend the contract at that point?

The Big Ten is going to get a new deal after their current new deal in 2023. The BIG 12s contract must be redone in 2025.

The best thing to do, if you decide it makes sense to add schools for 2017 or so is to just add them at pro rata shares (or better if you can get it) and let the existing contract go as is or close to it (perhaps 2023 like the Big Ten) and then redo the contract. That way you can get back in line with what the Big Ten is doing and they won't get 3 new negotiations to your one.

No matter what extend the grant of rights. That way the membership is secure and its obvious the conference is the focal point of everyone and no member is considering leaving.

No expectations of a gor extension or expansion.

I guess that would depend on the type of additional money you can get from the networks (I doubt it would be much).

The problem with expansion is even getting pro rata share for new partners, you then have to split the other 45% of your revenue with more ways. That is unless you are going to pay those other partners less for an extended period of time, which can be counter productive if you want those programs to become more competitive.

 

[skygusty]

I guess that would depend on the type of additional money you can get from the networks (I doubt it would be much).

The problem with expansion is even getting pro rata share for new partners, you then have to split the other 45% of your revenue with more ways. That is unless you are going to pay those other partners less for an extended period of time, which can be counter productive if you want those programs to become more competitive.

CCG revenue would go down from 3 million per school to 2.5 million. What other revenue would be shared? Even when we got 50% the first year, it was one hell of a lot more than we were making in the Big East. I don't think WVU and TCU would stand for new members being treated drastically different and the other schools want the revenue bump from the pro rata increase.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

The schools being mentioned reportedly have no problem with their payouts being phased in over five years or longer.

 

[Buckaineer]

I guess that would depend on the type of additional money you can get from the networks (I doubt it would be much).

The problem with expansion is even getting pro rata share for new partners, you then have to split the other 45% of your revenue with more ways. That is unless you are going to pay those other partners less for an extended period of time, which can be counter productive if you want those programs to become more competitive.

You claim "The problem with expansion is even getting pro rata share for new partners". Why are you claiming that when the president of OU and commissioner Bowlsby have verified that pro rata shares are written in the contracts? If its in the contracts, where's the problem getting pro rata for new members?

As to "45% of revenue split more ways"--what is the conference really looking at?
As I've shown before:

The BIG 12 gets a set amount from the playoff, a set amount from bowl games, and the NCAA money stays in the same ballpark each year.

Right now the BIG 12 gets $51 million per year for conference playoff distribution

divided by 11 (1 share to conference) that = approx $4.6 million per school

divided by 13 (1 share to conference) that = approx $3.9 million per school

The difference? = -$700,000 per school.

Last year the BIG 12 made $13.86 million in bowl money (non playoff/NY6)

divided by 11 (1 share to conference) that = approx $1.26 million per school
divided by 13 (1 share to conference) that = approx $1.07 million per school

The difference? = -$190,000 per school.

The Sugar Bowl (only pays when NOT playoff bowl=7 more times from 2017)
$40 mil to each conference (SEC-BIG 12)

divided by 11 (1 share to conference) that = approx $3.6 million per school
divided by 13 (1 share to conference) that = approx $3.08 million per school

The difference? = -$520,000 per school.

Right now the BIG 12s NCAA pool is at right around $19 million

divided by 11 (1 share to conference) that = approx $1.7 million per school
divided by 13 (1 share to conference) that = approx $1.5 million per school

The difference? = -$200,000 per school.


So add the losses to existing schools up (assuming only pro rata shares for new teams if they expand).

$700,000+$190,000 +$520,000+$200,000=
-$1,610,000 lost per school in 7 of the years until the BIG 12 contract is up
-$1,090,000 lost per school in 3 of the years remaing (when Sugar is in playoff)


In 2017 the conference is going to have a CCG worth $28 million per year
divided by 11 (1 share to conference) that = approx +$2.54 million extra per school
divided by 13 (1 share to conference) that = approx +$2.15 million extra per school

So if the conference expands to 12 and gets only pro rata shares from expansion negotiations for the new members and you subtract the losses from the new guaranteed money (CCG)

$2.15 -$1.61 means for 7 years schools are at a $540,000 increase over current revenues
and
$2.15 -$1.09 means for 3 years schools are at a $1.06 million increase over current
revenues

Then there can be new corporate sponsorships, new NCAA money either from more existing members making the tournament or new members credits eventually, and potential new bowl revenue. So the money above what is currently expected to be made per school will be marginally higher at worst via expansion with available schools. Plus the new members will likely take smaller shares for several years.

 

[Buckaineer]

Adding to the above though--its very possible the BIG 12 could get more than pro rata shares if they expand. Why? They would be adding new inventory that didn't exist and adding in new markets (probably unless they added Houston). Is that worth an additional $1 to $2 million per existing school? Maybe.

After all the ACC got around $4 to $5 million additional per school per year average for adding Syracuse and Pitt.

 

[Buckaineer]

topdecktiger: 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).

B: The numbers in your graphic aren't accurate-someone (ACC?) made them up. The numbers I posted are Neilsens current numbers.

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.

B: OK--go through and tally up the satellite pay tv subscribers in the ACC states and post here with a link to the source and we'll add it to the accurate Neilsen numbers for cable subscribers I posted. Your numbers are substantially overstated.

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.

B: Yes, you've overstated the pay tv subscribers in ACC states, and imagined that all those subscribers would be forced to pay for an ACC network in places like the states of MA, GA, FL, PA, KY and others. That isn't realistic and still your numbers are too high. Go get the satellite subscribers in ACC states and post the source and we'll add those to the accurate Neilsen cable subscribers to illustrate how innacurate your numbers are assuming everyone had to pay for an ACC network.


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.

B: You claimed that the ACC wouldn't begin negotiating until 1 year out from a network. Then you claimed the ACC was always set to have a network in 2017. Well its mid 2016 now--and there hasn't been a contract signed or announced for an ACC network. You were 100% wrong on that. Then you claimed the SEC didn't negotiate until 1 year out. They completed buying back most rights in April 2013 and then launched their network in August 2014 so you were 100% wrong there. Yes you continue to be the one spinning--continually trying to change what you claimed. Your statements are pointless. The ACC has neither signed, announced, bought back any rights, is in process of buying back rights or anything else.

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

B: I already posted a link which clearly shows the ACC was considering a network prior to 2016-2017--YEARS before. Post a link that shows the ACC is "going to launch a network" in 2016-2017. All they have been doing all along is "discussion". Stop spinning. The ACC has discussed -and nothing else-having a network with multiple different supposed "launch" periods none of which ever materialized.

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.

B: Again--do you not comprehend that ESPN OWNS ALL ACC RIGHTS. They've bought them lock stock and barrel through 2027. Therefore ESPN can do whatever they choose to do with those rights. ESPN isn't going to create an ACC network with the product they already own. Because that would mean paying the ACC twice for the same product they already paid for AS WELL AS removing some of that inventory from their existing platforms in addition to other startup costs. ESPN isn't going to create an ACC network with that inventory so there's no reason to compensate the ACC for the use of a name for an ACC network. If the ACC doesn't provide the necessary inventory via buying back the material that Raycom and FOX now have rights to, then an ACC network will not happen.

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.

B: Conferences networks like the BTN and SECn get subscription fees based on subscribers. When the Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland, they INCREASED the number of subscribers at a certain rate and in general to the BTN---and thus increased the revenue received from the BTN. With the new TV partner contracts, the Big Ten has more inventory available for all platforms and thus monetized that (along with the huge added markets).

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.

B: The SEC contract has not been revealed so we do not know-as I stated-what the new tv contracts for the SEC pay out. Here is what the link YOU provided (with you claiming $25 mill per school for tv alone) states:

"Assuming the conference maintains its current lineup of 14 members, the combination of new deals with ESPN and CBS, along with the formation of a 100% SEC-owned network, would bring the SEC schools nearly $23 million apiece in 2014-15, according to an estimate prepared for USA TODAY Sports by a college sports rights-valuation firm. The SEC's postseason football revenues with the playoff, combined with money the conference is likely to get from its men's basketball tournament and from the NCAA, would provide at least another $11 million, according to past SEC revenue-distribution announcements, NCAA revenue-distribution reports and financial documents and a person with direct knowledge of the playoff's revenue distribution plan.

We know that in 2014-2015 SEC schools got $31.2 million per. We know they got conference playoff shares (around $3.4 per), NCAA payouts( between $1 and $2 mil per), and CCG payouts (around $1 mil per). We know they got around $5 million per school from the SEC network. Add those up and its about $11 million. That means from a combination of tv deals from CBS and ESPN they got around $20 million apiece for 2014-15. But they also reportedd some of the revenue was from other sources. It wasn't $25 million from tv and we don't know what their tv pay average through 2034 is.

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.

B: NO. The SEC may have gotten pro rata shares for adding A&M and Missouri (not reported but their pay was close to other SEC members once added, so probably). What they added however, was inventory--inventory that was not on ESPN or other platforms under SEC contracts UNTIL they started the network. For a couple of years schools maintained some inventory on their tier 3 platforms. Then the conference bought back third tier rights as well that were not under ESPNs contracts with the conference. That allowed them to have enough inventory to monetize. They did with the SEC network and that was all with content that wasn't being put on tv by ESPN previously--the money for it prior to 2014 was coming from tier 3 contracts.


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.

B: CBS said adding schools didn't change their inventory and thats what I said. ESPN ALSO didn't change the number of SEC games they had under contract--adding schools added pro rata shares until they created new contracts through 2034--but the average per school pay hasn't been reported. Math of all the SEC revenue sources shows that tv contract payouts can't be significantly different than it was before.

You said total households, which is what I posted.

B: You posted an incorrect number of pay tv households overstated by many tens of millions of subscribers from the accurate number. I posted the current number of accurate pay tv subscribers per the INDUSTRY.

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.

B: The ACC's problem is the SEC and Big Ten and BIG 12 because those conferences are far ahead of ACC per school revenue and likely to try to poach ACC school's in the future if they decide to expand.

 

[Pitt4Life34]

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.

Buck is to emotional about the ACC and their potential network. You are right on the money.

 

[Buckaineer]

Buck is to emotional about the ACC and their potential network. You are right on the money.

Yeah, I'm emotional, but you go into hystrionics anytime its discussed LOL!!

When you have something real about an ACC network get back to us.

 

[steeleer]

Why then am I posting? Consider this a PSA in order to improve things here.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

In other news....Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby spoke on the air to Randy Peterson of the Des Moines Register during the 'Cyclone Insider Show' last night. Bowlsby stated on the show that there is a meeting scheduled for July 19.

He touched on possible expansion by telling Peterson the 'meeting of the league’s Board of Directors could be the day of determination – whether the league votes to add additional schools, or whether the current round of expansion talk ends.'

Bowlsby said, “That’s up to our presidents and chancellors, but I think we have provided a lot of information, and the intention of that was to get the athletics directors and presidents to spend some time talking about the issues that are in hand, and to formulate some institutional positions,” Bowlsby said. “I think they’ve had an opportunity, and everybody’s been engaged on it.”

He also spoke about the setup of two divisions based upon two year results with inter-division games played as early in the season as possible. He finished his comments regarding possible expansion by saying, “It’s more likely that there will be some continued discussion,” the commissioner continued. “I have indicated that I think it’s about time we made some decisions one way or the other; whether that’ll be on the 19th is yet to be determined."

“We’ll not be served well by an ongoing, extended, protracted discussion of this. We’ve got the data we need. I think we need to establish institutional decisions and make some decisions.”

“I wouldn’t presume how it’s going to turn out,” Bowlsby said of the July 19 meeting. “There are those who are expansion advocates, there are those who are status quo advocates, and there’s probably a group of people in the middle who are waiting to be convinced by the discussion and by the data that’s presented.”

“There’s a lot of talk about ongoing discussion (among) the members of our conference, the conference office, and so-called candidate institutions,” Bowlsby said. “That absolutely has not taken place. We do not have a list of candidates, per se, but we certainly are looking at the landscape out there just like everybody else is.

“Assertions that expansion is a foregone conclusion are certainly not accurate. Equally inaccurate is there’s absolutely no way we would expand.”

He certainly cleared that up, didn't he? LOL!

Link

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Adding to the above though--its very possible the BIG 12 could get more than pro rata shares if they expand. Why? They would be adding new inventory that didn't exist and adding in new markets (probably unless they added Houston). Is that worth an additional $1 to $2 million per existing school? Maybe.

After all the ACC got around $4 to $5 million additional per school per year average for adding Syracuse and Pitt.

According to Boren (the other day) 45% of revenue comes from sources outside of TV contracts. So unless the new programs make less than current members for the duration of the contact, TV increase has to be more than pro rata (as you hinted to above) or existing programs will lose money.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

According to Boren (the other day) 45% of revenue comes from sources outside of TV contracts. So unless the new programs make less than current members for the duration of the contact, TV increase has to be more than pro rata (as you hinted to above) or existing programs will lose money.

Steve, that other 45% can also increase if teams are added that qualify for bowls and the NCAA Tournament. Unless the broadcasters agree to renegotiate the TV money based upon the quality of the teams added I don't believe expansion will occur. The new teams would almost certainly start out with a 50% share like WVU and TCU did although the conference would receive a full pro rata share.

 

[topdecktiger]

B: The numbers in your graphic aren't accurate-someone (ACC?) made them up. The numbers I posted are Neilsens current numbers.

No, they are accurate. You claimed that the numbers were including Maryland, and they weren't. The numbers you posted don't include satellite customers, so therefore yours are inaccurate, because they don't include that potential list of subscribers.

B: OK--go through and tally up the satellite pay tv subscribers in the ACC states and post here with a link to the source and we'll add it to the accurate Neilsen numbers for cable subscribers I posted. Your numbers are substantially overstated.

I already did that. I posted a link that showed the total number of satellite/cable subscribers in the ACC footprint.

B: Yes, you've overstated the pay tv subscribers in ACC states, and imagined that all those subscribers would be forced to pay for an ACC network in places like the states of MA, GA, FL, PA, KY and others. That isn't realistic and still your numbers are too high. Go get the satellite subscribers in ACC states and post the source and we'll add those to the accurate Neilsen cable subscribers to illustrate how innacurate your numbers are assuming everyone had to pay for an ACC network.

100% incorrect. I never "imagined all those subscribers would be forced to pay for an ACC network." Simply not true. For example, when I gave you that example about New York, I only estimated 25% of the subscribers getting the network. 25% of a market is not an unreasonable number at all. And again, my numbers are not too high. As I pointed out, you haven't factored in satellite subscribers, which is a major error on your part.

B: You claimed that the ACC wouldn't begin negotiating until 1 year out from a network. Then you claimed the ACC was always set to have a network in 2017. Well its mid 2016 now--and there hasn't been a contract signed or announced for an ACC network. You were 100% wrong on that. Then you claimed the SEC didn't negotiate until 1 year out. They completed buying back most rights in April 2013 and then launched their network in August 2014 so you were 100% wrong there. Yes you continue to be the one spinning--continually trying to change what you claimed. Your statements are pointless. The ACC has neither signed, announced, bought back any rights, is in process of buying back rights or anything else.

No, I've said 2016-2017 was the target date all along. I didn't say otherwise. I didn't spin at all. I correctly pointed out to you that the SEC only bough back their rights in 2013, and the network bought back the rights in 2014. That's a year earlier. Now you are trying to save face by clinging to a few extra months. Did the SEC buy back the rights 2 years before the network launched? Answer, no. It was 1 year.

You also ignored the point I made that the SEC was in talks with ESPN about forming a network as early as 2008, yet didn't get the network until 2014.

B: I already posted a link which clearly shows the ACC was considering a network prior to 2016-2017--YEARS before. Post a link that shows the ACC is "going to launch a network" in 2016-2017. All they have been doing all along is "discussion". Stop spinning. The ACC has discussed -and nothing else-having a network with multiple different supposed "launch" periods none of which ever materialized.

Ok, here's a link. It says:

ESPN and the ACC conference have been in works to launch an ACC Network starting in 2017, but it appears that it will take longer for the TV network to come to fruition.

Well, there you go. Here is a link that specifically states the network wasn't going to launch until 2017 to begin with. You asked for it, you got it.

B: Again--do you not comprehend that ESPN OWNS ALL ACC RIGHTS. They've bought them lock stock and barrel through 2027. Therefore ESPN can do whatever they choose to do with those rights. ESPN isn't going to create an ACC network with the product they already own. Because that would mean paying the ACC twice for the same product they already paid for AS WELL AS removing some of that inventory from their existing platforms in addition to other startup costs. ESPN isn't going to create an ACC network with that inventory so there's no reason to compensate the ACC for the use of a name for an ACC network. If the ACC doesn't provide the necessary inventory via buying back the material that Raycom and FOX now have rights to, then an ACC network will not happen.

No they can't. They can't start a network without the ACC. Having rights to games and rights to the ACC name and network are two completely separate things.

I have told you multiple times that the ACC has to get back the syndication packages from Raycom and Fox to start a network. I've said that I don't know how many times, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. I have no idea why you are arguing about I point that I have already made myself.

B: Conferences networks like the BTN and SECn get subscription fees based on subscribers. When the Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland, they INCREASED the number of subscribers at a certain rate and in general to the BTN---and thus increased the revenue received from the BTN. With the new TV partner contracts, the Big Ten has more inventory available for all platforms and thus monetized that (along with the huge added markets).

That's correct. I already said that. What I told you is that subscription fees have nothing to do with broadcast rights. The Big Ten gets two payments from its network, payment for the rights to the games AND subscription fees from the network. The SEC gets two payments from its network, payment for the rights to the games AND a subscription fee from the network.

For some reason, you don't understand the point I'm making, and I think it's got to do with this Raycom business. He is what I'm telling you. It's true, that the syndication packages with Raycom and Fox have to be repurchased before a network can be started. What I'm telling you is, the ACC will not get any money when those rights are repurchased. What would happen is, ESPN would actually repurchase those rights directly from Raycom and Fox. (Then the ACC would have to reimburse ESPN for that purchase.) Then, the only money the ACC would get would be subscription fees from the network. ESPN would not pay the ACC anything for the rights themselves that come back from Raycom and Fox.

B: The SEC contract has not been revealed so we do not know-as I stated-what the new tv contracts for the SEC pay out. Here is what the link YOU provided (with you claiming $25 mill per school for tv alone) states:

"Assuming the conference maintains its current lineup of 14 members, the combination of new deals with ESPN and CBS, along with the formation of a 100% SEC-owned network, would bring the SEC schools nearly $23 million apiece in 2014-15, according to an estimate prepared for USA TODAY Sports by a college sports rights-valuation firm. The SEC's postseason football revenues with the playoff, combined with money the conference is likely to get from its men's basketball tournament and from the NCAA, would provide at least another $11 million, according to past SEC revenue-distribution announcements, NCAA revenue-distribution reports and financial documents and a person with direct knowledge of the playoff's revenue distribution plan.

We know that in 2014-2015 SEC schools got $31.2 million per. We know they got conference playoff shares (around $3.4 per), NCAA payouts( between $1 and $2 mil per), and CCG payouts (around $1 mil per). We know they got around $5 million per school from the SEC network. Add those up and its about $11 million. That means from a combination of tv deals from CBS and ESPN they got around $20 million apiece for 2014-15. But they also reportedd some of the revenue was from other sources. It wasn't $25 million from tv and we don't know what their tv pay average through 2034 is.

You didn't read the whole article. It says:

SEC television arrangements

ESPN and CBS contracts: $21.4 million per school ($300 million total)

Estimated to be worth $5.25 billion if new 15-year deals replace the 15-year deals that began with the 2009-10 school year. While the annual average would be $25 million per school, the deal likely would pay the school less in the early years, more in the later years.

SEC Network: $1.5 million per school ($21 million total)

A dedicated conference network is projected to have extremely good distribution among cable and satellite TV providers, especially in states where the conference has schools. It also may be attractive nationally.

If you had paid careful attention to the article, it was estimating what the SEC would specifically make in 2014-2015. The average is $25 million, but the specific payment in 2014-2015 would only be $21 million. You didn't pay attention to that part.

B: NO. The SEC may have gotten pro rata shares for adding A&M and Missouri (not reported but their pay was close to other SEC members once added, so probably). What they added however, was inventory--inventory that was not on ESPN or other platforms under SEC contracts UNTIL they started the network. For a couple of years schools maintained some inventory on their tier 3 platforms. Then the conference bought back third tier rights as well that were not under ESPNs contracts with the conference. That allowed them to have enough inventory to monetize. They did with the SEC network and that was all with content that wasn't being put on tv by ESPN previously--the money for it prior to 2014 was coming from tier 3 contracts.

Actually no. Missouri and A&M joined the SEC in 2012, and the network didn't start until 2014. So yeah, that additional inventory WAS on other platforms before the network started.

B: CBS said adding schools didn't change their inventory and thats what I said. ESPN ALSO didn't change the number of SEC games they had under contract--adding schools added pro rata shares until they created new contracts through 2034--but the average per school pay hasn't been reported. Math of all the SEC revenue sources shows that tv contract payouts can't be significantly different than it was before.

Yes it is. They went from $20.9 million in 2014 to $31.2 million in 2015. That's a $10.3 million difference. Some of that's got to do with the CFP, but not the whole $10.3 million increase. Also keep in mind, the contracts are on a graduated scale. In 2015, the payouts from the TV contract would be less than the lifetime average. Since the contract runs through 2034, the SEC's payouts won't hit their average until around 2023-2024.

B: The ACC's problem is the SEC and Big Ten and BIG 12 because those conferences are far ahead of ACC per school revenue and likely to try to poach ACC school's in the future if they decide to expand.

Actually to this point, the ACC is slightly ahead. In 2015, the ACC paid out an average of $26 million per school, and the Big 12 paid out an average of $25 million.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Actually to this point, the ACC is slightly ahead. In 2015, the ACC paid out an average of $26 million per school, and the Big 12 paid out an average of $25 million.

I express my opinion and prognosticate, but I do not do well as a debater. However, to this point the Big 12 paid out $30.4 million per school recently. I have no idea what the ACC paid out for 2016. It doesn't really matter, it's not a contest.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Actually to this point, the ACC is slightly ahead. In 2015, the ACC paid out an average of $26 million per school, and the Big 12 paid out an average of $25 million.

I express my opinion and prognosticate, but I do not do well as a debater. However, to this point the Big 12 paid out $30.4 million per school recently. I have no idea what the ACC paid out for 2016. It doesn't really matter, it's not a contest.

If I am not mistaken 2015 included the massive 31.4 million exit fee to leave the conference. That is a onetime 2.5 million $ bump per program they will never see again.

Also for whatever reason the ACC reports revenue sharing a year behind the BIG12

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Steve, that other 45% can also increase if teams are added that qualify for bowls and the NCAA Tournament. Unless the broadcasters agree to renegotiate the TV money based upon the quality of the teams added I don't believe expansion will occur. The new teams would almost certainly start out with a 50% share like WVU and TCU did although the conference would receive a full pro rata share.

Michael, while I agree with to a some point with the bowls. my guess those added bowles would lower tier like the ACC has, where the money barley covers expenses (if at all). Also the past 3 years the BIG12 has sent 7 teams in the NCAA BB tournament , (as many or more than any conference with more programs). Do you really think the BIG12 can get more than 7 teams in the tournament by adding two teams more teams? I don't. So if my points are correct, where is the extra money going to come from?

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Michael, while I agree with to a some point with the bowls. my guess those added bowles would lower tier like the ACC has, where the money barley covers expenses (if at all). Also the past 3 years the BIG12 has sent 7 teams in the NCAA BB tournament , (as many or more than any conference with more programs). Do you really think the BIG12 can get more than 7 teams in the tournament by adding two teams more teams? I don't. So if my points are correct, where is the extra money going to come from?

Steve, the bottom line is the new teams must have a value at least equal to where WVU and TCU were five years ago. The progressive payouts cushion against the potential 45% negative balance and they will not be invited unless ESPN/Fox approves and renegotiates. The commissioner keeps saying the Big 12 content is currently undervalued, maybe he is right.

If expansion by one or two schools does not bring the current teams at least a couple million more per year, it's not likely to happen. I think we can agree on that.

 

[Buckaineer]

According to Boren (the other day) 45% of revenue comes from sources outside of TV contracts. So unless the new programs make less than current members for the duration of the contact, TV increase has to be more than pro rata (as you hinted to above) or existing programs will lose money.

According to Boren just a week or so ago, expansion would deliver "marginal gains" to existing members and I broke it down based on known revenues above. All existing members would make more than now.

But as I told you before--its over--they aren't going to expand-- and this article pretty much confirms that as expected:

excerpt:
"(OU AD) Castiglione is one of two high-placed sources to tell CBS Sports Big 12 expansion is over. The other source, who preferred to remain anonymous, said expansion was dead regarding "those teams."

That's a reference to usual group of schools attached to the Big 12 that includes BYU, UCF, Cincinnati, Colorado State, UConn, Houston and Memphis.

"I stop short of speaking in absolutes about anything regarding conference realignment outside the contracts that exist," Castiglione said. "We've seen things happen that one could never imagine ... [but] I don't see any conversation in the near future."

http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/oklahoma-ad-says-big-12-expansion-is-dead-for-the-time-being/

 

[topdecktiger]

If I am not mistaken 2015 included the massive 31.4 million exit fee to leave the conference. That is a onetime 2.5 million $ bump per program they will never see again.

Also for whatever reason the ACC reports revenue sharing a year behind the BIG12

It did, but they have the $45 million coming if ESPN doesn't start a network.

The ACC didn't announce the payouts at all. Journalists got the figures from the ACC's tax returns. Since taxes are filed for the previous year, that's why the numbers came out a year later.

, the bottom line is the new teams must have a value at least equal to where WVU and TCU were five years ago.

The new schools can't be compared to West Virginia and TCU. When WVU and TCU joined, they were replacing A&M and Missouri, so none of the money had to be split extra ways.

The problem is that the other 45% doesn't automatically increase. For example, it's possible that the new schools can go to bowl games and make up some of the difference. However, adding the new schools doesn't mean new bowl contracts for the Big 12 (like the Russell Athletic, Capital One, etc.) It also doesn't mean additional bids for the NCAA, unless the teams earn at-large selections, etc. The reason this is all a problem is that you have to convince presidents (i.e. Texas) based on money that isn't guaranteed.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

It did, but they have the $45 million coming if ESPN doesn't start a network.

The ACC didn't announce the payouts at all. Journalists got the figures from the ACC's tax returns. Since taxes are filed for the previous year, that's why the numbers came out a year later.



The new schools can't be compared to West Virginia and TCU. When WVU and TCU joined, they were replacing A&M and Missouri, so none of the money had to be split extra ways.

The problem is that the other 45% doesn't automatically increase. For example, it's possible that the new schools can go to bowl games and make up some of the difference. However, adding the new schools doesn't mean new bowl contracts for the Big 12 (like the Russell Athletic, Capital One, etc.) It also doesn't mean additional bids for the NCAA, unless the teams earn at-large selections, etc. The reason this is all a problem is that you have to convince presidents (i.e. Texas) based on money that isn't guaranteed.

Great point on the 45 million now owed to the ACC because the network was not launched by July 1st. You would have to assume the AACN is dead if ESPN is paying this penalty. I mean why would ESPN pay out that type of money if you indented to create a network.

The Tax returns is something I did not think of. I wonder why reporters don't hit a public school with FOIA to get the money received the year sooner.

 

[Buckaineer]

topdecktigerNo, they are accurate. You claimed that the numbers were including Maryland, and they weren't. The numbers you posted don't include satellite customers, so therefore yours are inaccurate, because they don't include that potential list of subscribers.

B: I've proven your numbers innacurate. You claimed there are 43 plus mil tv households when in reality there are only 37 million. You claimed huge numbers for ACC potential pay subscribers when there are only 24 million actually in the footprint (cable)

I already did that. I posted a link that showed the total number of satellite/cable subscribers in the ACC footprint.

B: The only thing I've seen posted by you had erroneous figures on it. Post the actual numbers from the industry

100% incorrect. I never "imagined all those subscribers would be forced to pay for an ACC network." Simply not true. For example, when I gave you that example about New York, I only estimated 25% of the subscribers getting the network. 25% of a market is not an unreasonable number at all. And again, my numbers are not too high. As I pointed out, you haven't factored in satellite subscribers, which is a major error on your part.

B: Post the accurate satellite numbers and we'll combine those with the accurate cable tv households. Still waiting.


No, I've said 2016-2017 was the target date all along. I didn't say otherwise. I didn't spin at all. I correctly pointed out to you that the SEC only bough back their rights in 2013, and the network bought back the rights in 2014. That's a year earlier. Now you are trying to save face by clinging to a few extra months. Did the SEC buy back the rights 2 years before the network launched? Answer, no. It was 1 year.

B: You've said 2016-17 in about the last year--before that? NO. The ACC has had MULTIPLE launch periods none of which panned out. You are the one that needs to "save face" because nothing you've purported is true.

You also ignored the point I made that the SEC was in talks with ESPN about forming a network as early as 2008, yet didn't get the network until 2014.

B: What does that have to do with anything? You ignored that question--I assume your trying to deflect here?



Ok, here's a link. It says:

ESPN and the ACC conference have been in works to launch an ACC Network starting in 2017, but it appears that it will take longer for the TV network to come to fruition.

Well, there you go. Here is a link that specifically states the network wasn't going to launch until 2017 to begin with. You asked for it, you got it.

B: That is a link from 2015. I already posted a link that showed the ACC had been trying to get a network going long before that. There are articles from 2010 on where the ACC is talking about getting a network. They didn't make it about 2016-2017 until last year--and still to date nothing has transpired towards that of any significance.


No they can't. They can't start a network without the ACC. Having rights to games and rights to the ACC name and network are two completely separate things.

B: Reread what I wrote. I stated clearly ESPN has NO INTENTION of starting an ACC network with content they've already paid for.

I have told you multiple times that the ACC has to get back the syndication packages from Raycom and Fox to start a network. I've said that I don't know how many times, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. I have no idea why you are arguing about I point that I have already made myself.

B: B.S. At the start of these incredibly long posts you denied again and again until you couldn't anymore. Dont pretend you were saying that from the start.

That's correct. I already said that. What I told you is that subscription fees have nothing to do with broadcast rights. The Big Ten gets two payments from its network, payment for the rights to the games AND subscription fees from the network. The SEC gets two payments from its network, payment for the rights to the games AND a subscription fee from the network.

B: The Big Ten gets subscription fees and advertising fees based on agreements with the majority owner FOX from the BTN. The SEC likely gets the same from ESPN.

For some reason, you don't understand the point I'm making, and I think it's got to do with this Raycom business. He is what I'm telling you. It's true, that the syndication packages with Raycom and Fox have to be repurchased before a network can be started. What I'm telling you is, the ACC will not get any money when those rights are repurchased. What would happen is, ESPN would actually repurchase those rights directly from Raycom and Fox. (Then the ACC would have to reimburse ESPN for that purchase.) Then, the only money the ACC would get would be subscription fees from the network. ESPN would not pay the ACC anything for the rights themselves that come back from Raycom and Fox.

B: You've completely twisted what you said before--obviously now you understand that ESPN won't pay the ACC twice for content they own and the ACC must get content back in order to start a network. What you don't understand STILL is that the ACC is going to have to purchase those rights, or at least a portion from ESPN in order to get a network going or the ACC won't get any money at all from ESPN from that content. ESPN already paid for it once and have or are getting money from Raycom (who gets money from FOX) for that inventory. In order for the ACC to get money from it they will have to OWN it and resell it.

You didn't read the whole article. It says:

SEC television arrangements

ESPN and CBS contracts: $21.4 million per school ($300 million total)

Estimated to be worth $5.25 billion if new 15-year deals replace the 15-year deals that began with the 2009-10 school year. While the annual average would be $25 million per school, the deal likely would pay the school less in the early years, more in the later years.

SEC Network: $1.5 million per school ($21 million total)

A dedicated conference network is projected to have extremely good distribution among cable and satellite TV providers, especially in states where the conference has schools. It also may be attractive nationally.

If you had paid careful attention to the article, it was estimating what the SEC would specifically make in 2014-2015. The average is $25 million, but the specific payment in 2014-2015 would only be $21 million. You didn't pay attention to that part.

B: I stand by what I stated and showed you that in fact the tv portion from ESPN and CBS was around $20 million while you stated clearly that they got $25 million from tv. I said it was from an average.

Actually no. Missouri and A&M joined the SEC in 2012, and the network didn't start until 2014. So yeah, that additional inventory WAS on other platforms before the network started.

B: ? Are you claiming that Missouri and A&M weren't on ESPN until 2014--better tell Johnny Manziel that. I already stated that for a couple of years much of the additional content was on tier 3 outlets before the SECn started. You are repeating what I stated.


Yes it is. They went from $20.9 million in 2014 to $31.2 million in 2015. That's a $10.3 million difference. Some of that's got to do with the CFP, but not the whole $10.3 million increase. Also keep in mind, the contracts are on a graduated scale. In 2015, the payouts from the TV contract would be less than the lifetime average. Since the contract runs through 2034, the SEC's payouts won't hit their average until around 2023-2024.

B: I broke down the extra money and in fact your article breaks it down--things such as CFP, NCAA money, championship games in football and basketball etc. and the SEC network. As to the average I pointed that out--but again none of this has anything to do with an ACC network.


Actually to this point, the ACC is slightly ahead. In 2015, the ACC paid out an average of $26 million per school, and the Big 12 paid out an average of $25 million.

B: The lowest paid BIG 12 member got $25.3 million from the conference and another $4 million from tier 3 tv so no, the ACC was not ahead. Plus $3 million per ACC school came from the Maryland settlement.

 

[topdecktiger]

B: I've proven your numbers innacurate. You claimed there are 43 plus mil tv households when in reality there are only 37 million. You claimed huge numbers for ACC potential pay subscribers when there are only 24 million actually in the footprint (cable)

No, you haven't proven anything inaccurate, except your own statements. Here is the link again, on page 21. The ACC footprint has 43 million total households with televisions. Of those, 38 million have cable or satellite. I said that clearly the first time. What you inaccurately do is try to limit the discussion to only cable households. That's simply not accurate, because you HAVE to count satellite subscribers as well. It's actually a reasonable figure. You have 24 million with just cable, out of 38 million total. That leaves 14 million satellite subscribers. 14 million satellite customers in MA, NY, PA, IN, VA, NC, KY, SC, GA, and FL is a reasonable figure.

B: The only thing I've seen posted by you had erroneous figures on it. Post the actual numbers from the industry

The numbers I posted were sourced from Neilson. The figures are accurate, and sourced. You just don't like them. You don't get to throw out a number just because you don't like it.

B: Post the accurate satellite numbers and we'll combine those with the accurate cable tv households. Still waiting.

I did post accurate numbers. 38 million homes with cable or satellite. You are the one that inaccurately tried to claim only cable subscribers. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

B: You've said 2016-17 in about the last year--before that? NO. The ACC has had MULTIPLE launch periods none of which panned out. You are the one that needs to "save face" because nothing you've purported is true.

LOL. You're grasping at straws now. I've said all along 2016-2017 was the target date.

The ACC has not had multiple launch periods. Post just one. (Remember, launch periods.)

B: What does that have to do with anything? You ignored that question--I assume your trying to deflect here?

Here's what that has to do with it. You are claiming that the fact that there have been no reports about the ACC repurchasing the syndication rights means they aren't working on a network. What I was pointing out is that the SEC started talking with ESPN about a network all the way back in 2008. They didn't end up repurchasing the rights until 2013. Ok, well that shows you there is going to be a long period of time between the ACC and ESPN talking about a network, and then actually repurchasing the rights. You are assuming that the lack of reports about repurchasing the rights means nothing is going on. This is inaccurate. ESPN isn't going to repurchase the rights until the decide to form a network, just like they did with the SEC.

B: That is a link from 2015. I already posted a link that showed the ACC had been trying to get a network going long before that. There are articles from 2010 on where the ACC is talking about getting a network. They didn't make it about 2016-2017 until last year--and still to date nothing has transpired towards that of any significance.

"Talking about getting a network" is not the same as a launch date. As I pointed out, the SEC was "talking about getting a network" in 2008, but didn't get one until 2014.

You are incorrect to say the ACC didn't make the target date 2016-2017 until last year. Here is an article from May 2013:

Industry insiders say there is not a rush to put together an ACC channel, and that it likely would be 2016 or 2017 before one would launch, if then.

See, 3 years ago, the launch date was 2016-2017. So no, they didn't just start saying that until last year. You are simply wrong, and it's easily provable.

B: Reread what I wrote. I stated clearly ESPN has NO INTENTION of starting an ACC network with content they've already paid for.

That's not what I was telling you. With the network, the ACC don't get paid for the content. They strictly get paid for the subscribers.

By the way, ESPN has already paid for all of the ACC's content, including the Raycom and Fox games.

B: B.S. At the start of these incredibly long posts you denied again and again until you couldn't anymore. Dont pretend you were saying that from the start.

Nope, I didn't deny it at all. I've said it the whole time.

B: The Big Ten gets subscription fees and advertising fees based on agreements with the majority owner FOX from the BTN. The SEC likely gets the same from ESPN.

I know that. The point is, the subscriptions are not for rights to the games. You keep trying to say the subscription fees are for the rights, and they aren't. The subscription fees don't have anything to do with the rights. So in other words, ESPN is not paying twice for content by giving the ACC subscription fees.

B: You've completely twisted what you said before--obviously now you understand that ESPN won't pay the ACC twice for content they own and the ACC must get content back in order to start a network. What you don't understand STILL is that the ACC is going to have to purchase those rights, or at least a portion from ESPN in order to get a network going or the ACC won't get any money at all from ESPN from that content. ESPN already paid for it once and have or are getting money from Raycom (who gets money from FOX) for that inventory. In order for the ACC to get money from it they will have to OWN it and resell it.

No, that's incorrect. When you say "In order for the ACC to get money from it they will have to OWN it and resell it," that's 100% inaccurate. The ACC doesn't have to own or resell any rights to make money from a network. They make money from the subscription fees, which doesn't require them to own or resell an content. You simply don't understand that subscription fees have nothing to do with content.

B: I stand by what I stated and showed you that in fact the tv portion from ESPN and CBS was around $20 million while you stated clearly that they got $25 million from tv. I said it was from an average.

Nope, you're wrong. I said that the $25 million was an average. You can go back and look earlier posts, and I said that. The SEC gets $25 million from their TV contract, and get an additional $5 million from SECN revenue. I clearly indicated the $25 million is an average, and I showed you where I got that number in the link. You even said yourself that the TV contracts increase over time. Ok, well 2015 was the first year for the SEC under the new contract, so obviously the $20 million they got is going to increase, and is not the average.

B: ? Are you claiming that Missouri and A&M weren't on ESPN until 2014--better tell Johnny Manziel that. I already stated that for a couple of years much of the additional content was on tier 3 outlets before the SECn started. You are repeating what I stated.

You said:

The SEC may have gotten pro rata shares for adding A&M and Missouri (not reported but their pay was close to other SEC members once added, so probably). What they added however, was inventory--inventory that was not on ESPN or other platforms under SEC contracts UNTIL they started the network.

You clearly said that A&M and Missouri added inventory that was not on ESPN until they started the network. False. A&M and Missouri joined the SEC in 2012, and thus were on ESPN for 2 years before the network started.

B: I broke down the extra money and in fact your article breaks it down--things such as CFP, NCAA money, championship games in football and basketball etc. and the SEC network. As to the average I pointed that out--but again none of this has anything to do with an ACC network.

No, you are still not correct. The article I linked has $20 million just in TV money. The rest of the things like CFP were in addition to that.

To your other point, it clearly has something to do with an ACC network, and I already explained. You are just being so damned stubborn and argumentative that you won't listen to what I'm telling you. This is the point I'm making. The SEC was getting $20 million a year average from their previous contract with ESPN & CBS. Now, they get $25 million a year average from the contract with ESPN and CBS. Additionally, they get $5 million a year from the SECN subscription fees.

Here is what that means. The $5 million the SEC gets from subscription fees is not due to rights or added inventory. That's strictly from subscribers to the network. The increase for the additional rights and inventory came in the regular contract. By your logic, if the subscription fees were for rights and inventory, then the regular television contract would not have gone up, because that would mean ESPN was paying twice for the same rights. However, subscription fees are not for rights or inventory. That's why ESPN has to bump up the regular contract, in addition to paying the SEC the subscription revenue.

Now my point is, the ACC is not going to get an increase in the regular contract. The only money the ACC would get is from subscription fees. They would not get the boost in the regular contract like the SEC did. So the point is, paying the ACC subscription fees from the network is not paying twice for content. ESPN would only be paying twice for content if they increased the ACC's contract, in addition to the subscription fees.

B: The lowest paid BIG 12 member got $25.3 million from the conference and another $4 million from tier 3 tv so no, the ACC was not ahead. Plus $3 million per ACC school came from the Maryland settlement.

Nope, wrong. West Virginia got $23 million and TCU got $24 million. The Big 12 distributed a total of $252 million. That works out to $25 million per team. The other schools just got a little bit more because West Virginia and TCU got partial shares. The ACC had $403 million in total revenue. Notre Dame got $6.2, which takes it down to $396.8. Divide that 15 ways (accounting for the league office) and the ACC average was $26.4 million.

 

[topdecktiger]

Great point on the 45 million now owed to the ACC because the network was not launched by July 1st. You would have to assume the AACN is dead if ESPN is paying this penalty. I mean why would ESPN pay out that type of money if you indented to create a network.

The Tax returns is something I did not think of. I wonder why reporters don't hit a public school with FOIA to get the money received the year sooner.

It depends. When the delay was announced, Bud Peterson said ESPN might start making the payments until the network launches. "In exchange for a later start date, ESPN could make additional payments on top of the rights fees already paid to the conference, Peterson said."

The payout figures actually did get reported. Last year, two stories came out, one about Clemson making $25 million, and one about Georgia Tech making $27 million. They were just reported locally and never got picked up nationally. Why, I don't know.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

It did, but they have the $45 million coming if ESPN doesn't start a network.

The ACC didn't announce the payouts at all. Journalists got the figures from the ACC's tax returns. Since taxes are filed for the previous year, that's why the numbers came out a year later.



The new schools can't be compared to West Virginia and TCU. When WVU and TCU joined, they were replacing A&M and Missouri, so none of the money had to be split extra ways.

The problem is that the other 45% doesn't automatically increase. For example, it's possible that the new schools can go to bowl games and make up some of the difference. However, adding the new schools doesn't mean new bowl contracts for the Big 12 (like the Russell Athletic, Capital One, etc.) It also doesn't mean additional bids for the NCAA, unless the teams earn at-large selections, etc. The reason this is all a problem is that you have to convince presidents (i.e. Texas) based on money that isn't guaranteed.

It means the broadcast networks have to agree to the chosen teams and express a willingness to renegotiate an extended contract in consideration of the invited schools. That would also likely include an extension of the GOR. If not it's a dead issue. It's all about the money and conference security. I simply regurgitated what Bowlsby said yesterday. I didn't write his script. I would not be surprised if only BYU was invited. I would not be surprised if they put the issue to rest.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

It means the broadcast networks have to agree to the chosen teams and express a willingness to renegotiate an extended contract in consideration of the invited schools. That would also likely include an extension of the GOR. If not it's a dead issue. It's all about the money and conference security. I simply regurgitated what Bowlsby said yesterday. I didn't write his script. I would not be surprised if only BYU was invited. I would not be surprised if they put the issue to rest.

I doubt the BIG12 could ever suprise me again, but dang just inviting BYU just does fit in todays world. I doubt you want to play a 10 game RR, which is for CCG if you don't break up into divisions. Can anyone really see the BIG12 splitting into 6-5 divisions? This would only make sense if they had something big waiting in the wings, which at this time they don't

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

It depends. When the delay was announced, Bud Peterson said ESPN might start making the payments until the network launches. "In exchange for a later start date, ESPN could make additional payments on top of the rights fees already paid to the conference, Peterson said."

The payout figures actually did get reported. Last year, two stories came out, one about Clemson making $25 million, and one about Georgia Tech making $27 million. They were just reported locally and never got picked up nationally. Why, I don't know.

45 million is a lot of money for ESPN when Disney is doing everything to slash 100 million a year through next year. Why would they pay that kind of money if they were going to have a network.

If as someone on this board said, (which I disagree with), the cost of starting a ACCN would very small why wait, pay a huge fee, unless they are not going to build it.

 

[topdecktiger]

45 million is a lot of money for ESPN when Disney is doing everything to slash 100 million a year through next year. Why would they pay that kind of money if they were going to have a network.

If as someone on this board said, (which I disagree with), the cost of starting a ACCN would very small. So why wait unless they are not going to build it.

Well, this is kind of getting into that territory we've been dealing with about twisting around David Boren's words. Bud Peterson (who is the president of Georgia Tech) said that ESPN might make the payments until the network is formed, as a compensation to the ACC for delaying the network. Well, you really can't make that mean anything other that what it says. According to Peterson, ESPN is considering making these payments in the interim. It may not make sense to you personally, but you can't deny the fact that the president of school involved in the negotiations said this is a distinct possibility. As to why ESPN would do that? Well, you have to consider this. If ESPN forgoes a network, then they have to pay 45 million a year until 2027. That's $450 million over 10 years ESPN would be paying for nothing. They wouldn't be getting anything in return. So if they put a network on hold for a couple of years, yeah the pay the $45 million a couple of years, but then the don't have to pay the $45 million any more, plus the get a profit every year from the network. Now, that of course assumes the network would actually make money. We don't know that. However, if it did, that would make the payments for a couple of years make sense.

The startup cost isn't the issue. The issue is the long-term revenue. If a network makes even half what the Big Ten and SEC make, then you could probably pay off the startup costs in a couple of years. The problem is if a network doesn't make much money, because not only will you not be able to pay the startup costs, you won't be able to pay to operate it year-in, year-out. So that said, here is one possible reason to wait. Dan Radakovich (Clemson's AD) said this in April:

“I think the one reason why it has been kind of pushed back a little bit, and I think you guys have heard this before is the distribution channels and the ability for ESPN to get on the Comcast, the Time Warner and the DirecTV. Those are really done during their contract negotiation periods or renewals with those cable providers and those start to happen in 2018, ‘19 and ‘20.

Well that's pretty logical explanation. If ESPN waits, and makes an ACC network part of their overall negotiations, then you can mitigate the startup costs by getting good carriage right off the bat. If ESPN got the network broadly distributed from the beginning, you have plenty of revenue to take care of the startup costs right off the bat, and then you have a good profit from there on out. ESPN may calculate that it would be worth it to pay the ACC for a couple of years. I'm not telling you that's definitive, but it's certainly a logical and realistic explanation. It's not out on a limb, by any means.

Edit:
This doesn't directly deal with the $45 million issue, but is does relate to the possibility of a network. Debbie Yow, AD of NC State, made some comments about an ACC network last week. She didn't say anything definitive, but did mention one thing that is suggestive:

“I will tell you this, there is another construction project and it’s a broadcast studio for the ACC Network. That would tell you I am very bullish on the ACC Network."

So NC State is building a broadcast studio for the ACC network. You combine that with Bud Peterson stating that ESPN was requesting a delay, and Dan Radakovich explaining that the delay was probably to negotiate with cable and satellite providers, I'd say those thing point to at least a decent chance that the ACC will get a network. Not certain by any means, but would on average lean more to the positive side.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

I doubt the BIG12 could ever suprise me again, but dang just inviting BYU just does fit in todays world. I doubt you want to play a 10 game RR, which is for CCG if you don't break up into divisions. Can anyone really see the BIG12 splitting into 6-5 divisions? This would only make sense if they had something big waiting in the wings, which at this time they don't

How long did the Big 10 do it with PSU?

 

[topdecktiger]

How long did the Big 10 do it with PSU?

Never. They didn't have divisions or a title game with just 11 teams.

 

[Buckaineer]

topdecktigerNo, you haven't proven anything inaccurate, except your own statements. Here is the link again, on page 21. The ACC footprint has 43 million total households with televisions. Of those, 38 million have cable or satellite. I said that clearly the first time. What you inaccurately do is try to limit the discussion to only cable households. That's simply not accurate, because you HAVE to count satellite subscribers as well. It's actually a reasonable figure. You have 24 million with just cable, out of 38 million total. That leaves 14 million satellite subscribers. 14 million satellite customers in MA, NY, PA, IN, VA, NC, KY, SC, GA, and FL is a reasonable figure.

B: The link you provided IS INCORRECT. As of January 2016 there are NOT 43 million total tv households in the ACC footprint, there are

37,861,070
and that is straight from the INDUSTRY SOURCE THAT PROVIDES THE NUMBERS.

Your claim as to how many of those have cable or satellite is HIGHER THAN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ACTUAL TV HOMES!!!!! Its INCORRECT. NOT TRUE. WRONG.

I haven't tried to do anything and offered to allow you to bring in the accurate current numbers of total pay tv subscribers in ACC states--you have yet to do this, so don't say I didn't do something--you are the one making the claims.

The numbers I posted were sourced from Neilson. The figures are accurate, and sourced. You just don't like them. You don't get to throw out a number just because you don't like it.

B: The Neilsen numbers are HERE. I don't know what your numbers represent but they are not current or correct.



I did post accurate numbers. 38 million homes with cable or satellite. You are the one that inaccurately tried to claim only cable subscribers. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

B: AGAIN-there are not 38 million total TV HOMES in ACC states. There CANNOT be more cable or satellite homes than TOTAL TV HOMES. I didn't try to "only" claim anything--again present accurate satellite homes in ACC states and we will add them up with the 24 million current cable tv homes. You are the one providing bogus info therefore the burden of proof is YOURS.



LOL. You're grasping at straws now. I've said all along 2016-2017 was the target date.

The ACC has not had multiple launch periods. Post just one. (Remember, launch periods.)

B: AGAIN I already provided a link that showed the ACC worked on having a network in place for 2010--A full seven years before your claims. Since that time they've discussed getting a network multiple times with different "announcement dates" none of which have ever come to fruition.

Here's what that has to do with it. You are claiming that the fact that there have been no reports about the ACC repurchasing the syndication rights means they aren't working on a network. What I was pointing out is that the SEC started talking with ESPN about a network all the way back in 2008. They didn't end up repurchasing the rights until 2013. Ok, well that shows you there is going to be a long period of time between the ACC and ESPN talking about a network, and then actually repurchasing the rights. You are assuming that the lack of reports about repurchasing the rights means nothing is going on. This is inaccurate. ESPN isn't going to repurchase the rights until the decide to form a network, just like they did with the SEC.

The SEC started working on a network according to you in 2008. The ACC? Worked on a network prior to 2010 and decided against in 2010. Then when members became disgruntled again, started talking about a network again in 2011 or 2012 and have been talking about it since. After adding SU and Pitt So

"Talking about getting a network" is not the same as a launch date. As I pointed out, the SEC was "talking about getting a network" in 2008, but didn't get one until 2014.

You are incorrect to say the ACC didn't make the target date 2016-2017 until last year. Here is an article from May 2013:

Industry insiders say there is not a rush to put together an ACC channel, and that it likely would be 2016 or 2017 before one would launch, if then.

See, 3 years ago, the launch date was 2016-2017. So no, they didn't just start saying that until last year. You are simply wrong, and it's easily provable.

B: See in 2010 the ACC had already considered a network and decided against one. In November 2012 Swofford again talked about a network for the ACC. In 2013 this article appeared with the suggestion of 3 years for the SEC network to get up and going. The difference is that the SEC announced they would get a network, set about negotiations and buying back rights. To date the ACC hasn't declared even that they will try to have a network--yet you claim 2016-2017 as a launch date so they wouldn't need to start buying back rights. Excuses. If the ACC were having a network anytime soon they would be negotiating for rights back already. Your spin is ridiculous.


That's not what I was telling you. With the network, the ACC don't get paid for the content. They strictly get paid for the subscribers.

B: The ACC MUST have something--CONTENT--to put on any ACC network. There has to be something to show in the way of games. That all resides with Raycom and FOX. The ACC can't get subscriber fees for something it DOES NOT OWN.

By the way, ESPN has already paid for all of the ACC's content, including the Raycom and Fox games.

B: I told you this. Why act as though this is a new revelation?

I know that. The point is, the subscriptions are not for rights to the games. You keep trying to say the subscription fees are for the rights, and they aren't. The subscription fees don't have anything to do with the rights. So in other words, ESPN is not paying twice for content by giving the ACC subscription fees.

B: You are attempting to twist words to make a bogus argument. Without the rights to content the ACC has nothing to sell for "subscription fees". What part of this do you not understand?

right now the ACC has this to put on an ACC network-----------------------------.

That means they must either expand (not really an option because it will reduce shares to member schools from tv contracts) or BUY BACK RIGHTS TO GAMES. If they buy back rights, they can then sell these back to ESPN for VOILA! Subscription fees from ESPN. As anyone can see--it will take quite awhile to buy back rights and sell them back and make money off of them. If ESPN buys them back then they owe nothing to the ACC and can do with them what they want--they are the rights owner.

No, that's incorrect. When you say "In order for the ACC to get money from it they will have to OWN it and resell it," that's 100% inaccurate. The ACC doesn't have to own or resell any rights to make money from a network. They make money from the subscription fees, which doesn't require them to own or resell an content. You simply don't understand that subscription fees have nothing to do with content.

B: Why would ESPN give the ACC "subscription fees" for product ESPN owns? They would NOT.
Think about it. If you buy a house from party A and then sell it to a third party, then buy the rights back from that third party--you don't owe ANYTHING to party A now do you? Its the same with these rights to ACC product.

Nope, you're wrong. I said that the $25 million was an average. You can go back and look earlier posts, and I said that. The SEC gets $25 million from their TV contract, and get an additional $5 million from SECN revenue. I clearly indicated the $25 million is an average, and I showed you where I got that number in the link. You even said yourself that the TV contracts increase over time. Ok, well 2015 was the first year for the SEC under the new contract, so obviously the $20 million they got is going to increase, and is not the average.

B: You are lying-your EXACT wording: The $25 million is just for the TV contract. It's not for CFP, NCAA, or anything like that. Now to me that means exactly what you stated. And this is the problem. You state something, then when called on that try to change what you stated to something else. You lie, distort and twist everything in a desperate attempt to correct previous mistakes. The exact amount of the new ESPN contract has not been divulged. We don't know what the average is.

You said:

The SEC may have gotten pro rata shares for adding A&M and Missouri (not reported but their pay was close to other SEC members once added, so probably). What they added however, was inventory--inventory that was not on ESPN or other platforms under SEC contracts UNTIL they started the network.

You clearly said that A&M and Missouri added inventory that was not on ESPN until they started the network. False. A&M and Missouri joined the SEC in 2012, and thus were on ESPN for 2 years before the network started.

B: I just said in our previous exchange that A&M and Missouri were on ESPN networks prior to the start of the SEC network when you claimed they were not. Once again you are trying to twist things to pretend YOU said something I did. Why are you so dishonest? What you stated was that I was wrong about A&M and Missouri's inventory because they had joined prior to the network being started to which I clearly responded that the additional inventory was on tier 3 networks. You are confusing the added numbers of inventory with games featuring A&M and Missouri intentionally or stupidly to try and twist the discussion to something you didn't say.

No, you are still not correct. The article I linked has $20 million just in TV money. The rest of the things like CFP were in addition to that.

B: You claimed $25 million just for TV. More than once--exact wording: The $25 million is just for the TV contract. It's not for CFP, NCAA, or anything like that. Now you say you said $20 million. Liar.

To your other point, it clearly has something to do with an ACC network, and I already explained. You are just being so damned stubborn and argumentative that you won't listen to what I'm telling you. This is the point I'm making. The SEC was getting $20 million a year average from their previous contract with ESPN & CBS. Now, they get $25 million a year average from the contract with ESPN and CBS. Additionally, they get $5 million a year from the SECN subscription fees.

B: AND....THEY ADDED INVENTORY!!!!!!! Without the added inventory NO SEC NETWORK. The ACC ONCE AGAIN HAS NOT ADDED INVENTORY!!!!!!

Here is what that means. The $5 million the SEC gets from subscription fees is not due to rights or added inventory. That's strictly from subscribers to the network. The increase for the additional rights and inventory came in the regular contract. By your logic, if the subscription fees were for rights and inventory, then the regular television contract would not have gone up, because that would mean ESPN was paying twice for the same rights. However, subscription fees are not for rights or inventory. That's why ESPN has to bump up the regular contract, in addition to paying the SEC the subscription revenue.


Now my point is, the ACC is not going to get an increase in the regular contract. The only money the ACC would get is from subscription fees. They would not get the boost in the regular contract like the SEC did. So the point is, paying the ACC subscription fees from the network is not paying twice for content. ESPN would only be paying twice for content if they increased the ACC's contract, in addition to the subscription fees.

B: NO!!!!! Why can you not understand this.

Here is what happened with the ACC. They got a contract worth around $12 or $13 million. Other conferences got more. The Big East was about to get a new deal probably with another network. The ACC raided the Big East for Pitt and Syracuse. ESPN increased the rights fees to the ACC by about $5 million per team to a $17 million average through 2027. The ACC was still behind other conferences. The ACC switched its rules and invited ND as a partial member. ESPN raised the rights fees for the ACC to about an $18 million average through 2027. At some point during all of that renegotiation there was more content than ESPN platforms had space for. From the Sports Business Journal, May 2013:
When it signed its ACC deal in 2010, ESPN and Charlotte-based Raycom Sports cut a deal that grants Raycom the ACC’s digital and corporate sponsorship rights, plus a heavy dose of live football and basketball games. Through a sublicensing agreement, Raycom owns the rights to 31 live football games and 60 live men’s basketball games.

Even if the conference is able to buy back those rights from Raycom, a second roadblock remains. Raycom sublicensed 17 of those football games and 25 of those basketball games to Fox, which carries the games on its regional sports networks throughout the ACC footprint. Live local sports programming is important to Fox’s RSNs, and they are not likely to give up those games cheaply.

So that means ESPN owns those rights still and sublicences those rights. If Raycom gets back the FOX games and ESPN attains those rights back from Raycom--WHO owns those rights still? ESPN. Not the ACC.

In order for the ACC to get money from those GAMES/CONTENT/RIGHTS--however or whatever you want to call them. The ACC will have to buy back those rights. From the same Sports Business Journal Article:

Sports Business Journal, May 2013:
Don’t expect an ACC-branded TV channel to be launched any time soon.

The biggest problem so far is a rights issue. ESPN needs to control the conference’s syndicated rights to launch a channel. But those rights are tied up until 2027 through deals with Raycom and Fox Sports Net.

“There’s no way an ACC network co-exists with a syndicated model,” said Chris Bevilacqua, a media consultant who worked with the Pac-12 to form a league network. “They’re going to have to get those rights back.”


Nope, wrong. West Virginia got $23 million and TCU got $24 million. The Big 12 distributed a total of $252 million. That works out to $25 million per team. The other schools just got a little bit more because West Virginia and TCU got partial shares. The ACC had $403 million in total revenue. Notre Dame got $6.2, which takes it down to $396.8. Divide that 15 ways (accounting for the league office) and the ACC average was $26.4 million.[/QUOTE]

B: NOPE WRONG: West Virginia did get $23 million and TCU did get $24 million. The other schools got between $27 -$25 milion in payouts from the BIG 12:

excerpt:
The 10 members received between $23 million and $27 million per school, based on league distribution formulas, commissioner Bob Bowlsby said at the conclusion of the Big 12’s spring meetings.

Bowlsby said TCU received “almost $24 million” in distributions, the highest figure in school history and slightly more than the $23 million given to West Virginia, the league’s other third-year member waiting to receive its first full share of league revenues during the 2015-16 school year.


Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/college/big-12/article22632750.html#storylink=cpy

and this:
excerpt:

Commissioner Bob Bowlsby announced $252 million in distributable revenue from the 2014-15 school year to close the league's spring business meetings on Friday.


The league's eight remaining founding members received shares ranging from $25.5 million to $27 million, which varied by participation in various championships.


TCU received a share of nearly $24 million, about a million more than West Virginia because the Frogs qualified for a CFP access bowl last season.
http://www.foxsports.com/southwest/story/big-12-distributes-252-million-in-annual-revenue-052915

and then BIG 12 members also got their tv rights for tier 3 ranging from about $4 million to $15 million. The ACCs numbers were not higher.

 

[topdecktiger]

QUOTE="Buckaineer, post: 1120071, member: 844"]B: The link you provided IS INCORRECT. As of January 2016 there are NOT 43 million total tv households in the ACC footprint, there are

37,861,070
and that is straight from the INDUSTRY SOURCE THAT PROVIDES THE NUMBERS.

Your claim as to how many of those have cable or satellite is HIGHER THAN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ACTUAL TV HOMES!!!!! Its INCORRECT. NOT TRUE. WRONG.

I haven't tried to do anything and offered to allow you to bring in the accurate current numbers of total pay tv subscribers in ACC states--you have yet to do this, so don't say I didn't do something--you are the one making the claims.[/QUOTE]

No, the link I provided is not incorrect. The numbers I provided you came from Neilson as well. I will certainly say you didn't do something, because you didn't. You did not provide the number of satellite subscribers. I did.

B: The Neilsen numbers are HERE. I don't know what your numbers represent but they are not current or correct.

Yes, the numbers are correct. They are from Neilson. It clearly said that in the graphic.

B: AGAIN-there are not 38 million total TV HOMES in ACC states. There CANNOT be more cable or satellite homes than TOTAL TV HOMES. I didn't try to "only" claim anything--again present accurate satellite homes in ACC states and we will add them up with the 24 million current cable tv homes. You are the one providing bogus info therefore the burden of proof is YOURS.

Yes, there are 43 million total TV homes. There are 38 million homes with either cable or satellite. The burden of proof is not on me at all. I provided with a link to figures that were take from Neilson.

B: AGAIN I already provided a link that showed the ACC worked on having a network in place for 2010--A full seven years before your claims. Since that time they've discussed getting a network multiple times with different "announcement dates" none of which have ever come to fruition.

No, there has never been an "announcement date" other than 2016-2017. You have not provided a link showing the ACC announced a date.

B: See in 2010 the ACC had already considered a network and decided against one. In November 2012 Swofford again talked about a network for the ACC. In 2013 this article appeared with the suggestion of 3 years for the SEC network to get up and going. The difference is that the SEC announced they would get a network, set about negotiations and buying back rights. To date the ACC hasn't declared even that they will try to have a network--yet you claim 2016-2017 as a launch date so they wouldn't need to start buying back rights. Excuses. If the ACC were having a network anytime soon they would be negotiating for rights back already. Your spin is ridiculous.

I'll tell you again. Swofford "talking about" a network, and actually setting a launch date are two completely different things. You have not produced anything that shows a launch date other than 2016-2017.

B: The ACC MUST have something--CONTENT--to put on any ACC network. There has to be something to show in the way of games. That all resides with Raycom and FOX. The ACC can't get subscriber fees for something it DOES NOT OWN.

No they don't. The ACC will not own anything on the network. Just like the SEC. ESPN owns 100% of the SEC Network. "The SEC Network, like Texas’s Longhorn Network, will be owned and operated by ESPN." ESPN owns all the content for the SECN. The SEC doesn't own any of it.

The ACC is not getting a subscriber fee for the content. ESPN can't start an ACC Network without compensating the ACC. Even though ESPN owns all the ACC's games, they still can't create and "ACC Network" without paying the ACC. The rights to the games themselves and the rights to a network, the ACC name, etc. are completely different things.

B: I told you this. Why act as though this is a new revelation?

I'm not. I've been saying it the whole time. The problem is you just now realized it.

B: You are attempting to twist words to make a bogus argument. Without the rights to content the ACC has nothing to sell for "subscription fees". What part of this do you not understand?

right now the ACC has this to put on an ACC network-----------------------------.

That means they must either expand (not really an option because it will reduce shares to member schools from tv contracts) or BUY BACK RIGHTS TO GAMES. If they buy back rights, they can then sell these back to ESPN for VOILA! Subscription fees from ESPN. As anyone can see--it will take quite awhile to buy back rights and sell them back and make money off of them. If ESPN buys them back then they owe nothing to the ACC and can do with them what they want--they are the rights owner.

The ACC doesn't sell anything for subscription fees. You simply do not understand that the rights to a network itself and the rights to individual games are not the same thing. The ACC doesn't provide content for the network. ESPN does. The ACC is providing ESPN the right to create a network with the ACC name. Otherwise, ESPN can't do it. The only thing ESPN could do is show the games on its other channels, which is already happening.

No, the subscription fees are not payment for the rights to the games.

B: Why would ESPN give the ACC "subscription fees" for product ESPN owns? They would NOT.
Think about it. If you buy a house from party A and then sell it to a third party, then buy the rights back from that third party--you don't owe ANYTHING to party A now do you? Its the same with these rights to ACC product.

The aren't giving ESPN subscription fees for a product they already own. ESPN cannot start an ACC network without compensating the ACC. ESPN only has the rights to the games themselves. ESPN does not have the rights to a network.

B: You are lying-your EXACT wording: The $25 million is just for the TV contract. It's not for CFP, NCAA, or anything like that. Now to me that means exactly what you stated. And this is the problem. You state something, then when called on that try to change what you stated to something else. You lie, distort and twist everything in a desperate attempt to correct previous mistakes. The exact amount of the new ESPN contract has not been divulged. We don't know what the average is.

No, that's not a lie. You didn't post the whole quote. I said:

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.

Before expansion, the SEC got $20 million a year. Now, they get $25 million a year. I clearly indicated that the numbers were averages. You just left out that part because YOU were twisting words and lying.

B: I just said in our previous exchange that A&M and Missouri were on ESPN networks prior to the start of the SEC network when you claimed they were not. Once again you are trying to twist things to pretend YOU said something I did. Why are you so dishonest? What you stated was that I was wrong about A&M and Missouri's inventory because they had joined prior to the network being started to which I clearly responded that the additional inventory was on tier 3 networks. You are confusing the added numbers of inventory with games featuring A&M and Missouri intentionally or stupidly to try and twist the discussion to something you didn't say.

Sorry, that's you being dishonest. You can go back and look at every post I made, and nowhere will you find where I said, "Missouri and A&M were not on ESPN networks." I said the opposite. The games with A&M and Missouri were already being televised by ESPN prior to the network, so that's not new inventory. The Tier 3 rights were the only new inventory. That's only 14 games (similar to the Big 12). The SEC network shows 45 games a year. Tier 3 isn't nearly enough content to fill up the network. It's also not enough content to account for the money the SEC gets, if you are sticking to your claim that subscription fees are for content.

B: You claimed $25 million just for TV. More than once--exact wording: The $25 million is just for the TV contract. It's not for CFP, NCAA, or anything like that. Now you say you said $20 million. Liar.

No, I'm not the liar. You are. I clearly said it was an average in the first post about the $25 million. You just dishonestly ignored that.

B: AND....THEY ADDED INVENTORY!!!!!!! Without the added inventory NO SEC NETWORK. The ACC ONCE AGAIN HAS NOT ADDED INVENTORY!!!!!!

The $5 million subscription fee is not for inventory. I don't care how many times you insist on this, it isn't true.

B: NO!!!!! Why can you not understand this.

Here is what happened with the ACC. They got a contract worth around $12 or $13 million. Other conferences got more. The Big East was about to get a new deal probably with another network. The ACC raided the Big East for Pitt and Syracuse. ESPN increased the rights fees to the ACC by about $5 million per team to a $17 million average through 2027. The ACC was still behind other conferences. The ACC switched its rules and invited ND as a partial member. ESPN raised the rights fees for the ACC to about an $18 million average through 2027. At some point during all of that renegotiation there was more content than ESPN platforms had space for. From the Sports Business Journal, May 2013:
When it signed its ACC deal in 2010, ESPN and Charlotte-based Raycom Sports cut a deal that grants Raycom the ACC’s digital and corporate sponsorship rights, plus a heavy dose of live football and basketball games. Through a sublicensing agreement, Raycom owns the rights to 31 live football games and 60 live men’s basketball games.

Even if the conference is able to buy back those rights from Raycom, a second roadblock remains. Raycom sublicensed 17 of those football games and 25 of those basketball games to Fox, which carries the games on its regional sports networks throughout the ACC footprint. Live local sports programming is important to Fox’s RSNs, and they are not likely to give up those games cheaply.

So that means ESPN owns those rights still and sublicences those rights. If Raycom gets back the FOX games and ESPN attains those rights back from Raycom--WHO owns those rights still? ESPN. Not the ACC.

In order for the ACC to get money from those GAMES/CONTENT/RIGHTS--however or whatever you want to call them. The ACC will have to buy back those rights. From the same Sports Business Journal Article:

Sports Business Journal, May 2013:
Don’t expect an ACC-branded TV channel to be launched any time soon.

The biggest problem so far is a rights issue. ESPN needs to control the conference’s syndicated rights to launch a channel. But those rights are tied up until 2027 through deals with Raycom and Fox Sports Net.

“There’s no way an ACC network co-exists with a syndicated model,” said Chris Bevilacqua, a media consultant who worked with the Pac-12 to form a league network. “They’re going to have to get those rights back.”

This is what you don't get. YOu said:

So that means ESPN owns those rights still and sublicences those rights. If Raycom gets back the FOX games and ESPN attains those rights back from Raycom--WHO owns those rights still? ESPN. Not the ACC.



The ACC doesn't have to own those rights. ESPN has to own them to put them on the network. This is EXACTLY how the SEC network functions now. ESPN owns all the rights to those games, not the SEC. The ACC doesn't have to get back those rights.

Here is something else you don't get. When ESPN repurchased the SECs syndication package from Comcast and Fox, the SEC never got back those rights. Those rights went straight from ESPN to the SECN. The sec never got them back.

B: NOPE WRONG: West Virginia did get $23 million and TCU did get $24 million. The other schools got between $27 -$25 milion in payouts from the BIG 12:

excerpt:
The 10 members received between $23 million and $27 million per school, based on league distribution formulas, commissioner Bob Bowlsby said at the conclusion of the Big 12’s spring meetings.

Bowlsby said TCU received “almost $24 million” in distributions, the highest figure in school history and slightly more than the $23 million given to West Virginia, the league’s other third-year member waiting to receive its first full share of league revenues during the 2015-16 school year.


Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/college/big-12/article22632750.html#storylink=cpy

and this:
excerpt:

Commissioner Bob Bowlsby announced $252 million in distributable revenue from the 2014-15 school year to close the league's spring business meetings on Friday.


The league's eight remaining founding members received shares ranging from $25.5 million to $27 million, which varied by participation in various championships.


TCU received a share of nearly $24 million, about a million more than West Virginia because the Frogs qualified for a CFP access bowl last season.
http://www.foxsports.com/southwest/story/big-12-distributes-252-million-in-annual-revenue-052915



and then BIG 12 members also got their tv rights for tier 3 ranging from about $4 million to $15 million. The ACCs numbers were not higher.

The average for the Big 12 was $25.2 million. You have to count West Virginia and TCU fort he average. You can't just count 8 schools and not the other two. The ACC had schools that got $27 million as well, such as Florida St and Georgia TEch. That's why you have to take an average. You are also not correct when you try to limit the Big12's Tier 3 figures to just TV. For most of the schools, the TV rights are included in their total Tier 3 package. TExas and Oklahoma aren't because they have their own networks, but that's not true for the rest of them.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

How long did the Big 10 do it with PSU?

Until last year, the rule was you must have at least 12 teams with 2 evenly. So the BIG wasn't allowed to have division until they invited Nebraska.
The rule has now changed to allow either a 10 team, 2 division conference, or a round robin. I don't believe the rules allow for a 11 team division split.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Well, this is kind of getting into that territory we've been dealing with about twisting around David Boren's words. Bud Peterson (who is the president of Georgia Tech) said that ESPN might make the payments until the network is formed, as a compensation to the ACC for delaying the network. Well, you really can't make that mean anything other that what it says. According to Peterson, ESPN is considering making these payments in the interim. It may not make sense to you personally, but you can't deny the fact that the president of school involved in the negotiations said this is a distinct possibility. As to why ESPN would do that? Well, you have to consider this. If ESPN forgoes a network, then they have to pay 45 million a year until 2027. That's $450 million over 10 years ESPN would be paying for nothing. They wouldn't be getting anything in return. So if they put a network on hold for a couple of years, yeah the pay the $45 million a couple of years, but then the don't have to pay the $45 million any more, plus the get a profit every year from the network. Now, that of course assumes the network would actually make money. We don't know that. However, if it did, that would make the payments for a couple of years make sense.

The startup cost isn't the issue. The issue is the long-term revenue. If a network makes even half what the Big Ten and SEC make, then you could probably pay off the startup costs in a couple of years. The problem is if a network doesn't make much money, because not only will you not be able to pay the startup costs, you won't be able to pay to operate it year-in, year-out. So that said, here is one possible reason to wait. Dan Radakovich (Clemson's AD) said this in April:

“I think the one reason why it has been kind of pushed back a little bit, and I think you guys have heard this before is the distribution channels and the ability for ESPN to get on the Comcast, the Time Warner and the DirecTV. Those are really done during their contract negotiation periods or renewals with those cable providers and those start to happen in 2018, ‘19 and ‘20.

Well that's pretty logical explanation. If ESPN waits, and makes an ACC network part of their overall negotiations, then you can mitigate the startup costs by getting good carriage right off the bat. If ESPN got the network broadly distributed from the beginning, you have plenty of revenue to take care of the startup costs right off the bat, and then you have a good profit from there on out. ESPN may calculate that it would be worth it to pay the ACC for a couple of years. I'm not telling you that's definitive, but it's certainly a logical and realistic explanation. It's not out on a limb, by any means.

Edit:
This doesn't directly deal with the $45 million issue, but is does relate to the possibility of a network. Debbie Yow, AD of NC State, made some comments about an ACC network last week. She didn't say anything definitive, but did mention one thing that is suggestive:

“I will tell you this, there is another construction project and it’s a broadcast studio for the ACC Network. That would tell you I am very bullish on the ACC Network."

So NC State is building a broadcast studio for the ACC network. You combine that with Bud Peterson stating that ESPN was requesting a delay, and Dan Radakovich explaining that the delay was probably to negotiate with cable and satellite providers, I'd say those thing point to at least a decent chance that the ACC will get a network. Not certain by any means, but would on average lean more to the positive side.

I will just make comment on the 45 million.
Originally I thought the 45m was a one time penalty. Although there is still no official word. I have since read it is a yearly amount. If that is true it kind of changes my thinking. The only reason ESPN would develop an ACC network is if they have to pay this for the duration of the ACC contract. It does not change the fact that the market place has gone through a major transition and neither ESPN nor Fox wants to develop a new network. That 45m a year would be a flat out loss to ESPN, with zero chance to recoup that money.

 

[skygusty]

I will just make comment on the 45 million.
Originally I thought the 45m was a one time penalty. Although there is still no official word, I have since read it is a yearly amount. If that is true it kind of changes my thinking. The only reason ESPN would develop an ACC network if they have to pay this for the duration of the contract. It does not change the fact that the market place has gone through a major transistion and neither ESPN nor Fox wants to develop a new network. That 45m a year would be a flat out loss to ESPN, with zero chance to recoup that money.

I don't know who is signing off on these contracts at ESPN, but sweet deals for both Texas and the ACC. Agreements like this are also a part of "market forces" - no wonder there is no money for a Big12 network - ESPN is obligated to pay 60 million a year against a guarantee of only losing money for years. 3 million per school in the ACC for NOT having a network. Sweet deal. The Big12 had to play a 10 team CCG to get that kind of money.