Not to mention both networks agreed to pay Big12 pro rata share increase no matter what new schools are added. That is 500 mill for 2 schools for rest of the contract
ACC a better fit than Big 12?
- Thread starter OldGoldandBlue1
- Start date
topdecktiger
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.
Yes, the numbers are correct. They are from Neilson. It clearly said that in the graphic.
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: You posted a link from the ACC with erroneous or OLD numbers and claimed more pay tv subscribers in ACC areas than there are total tv households. I posted the current numbers. Here they are again for anyone that wants to check . There are only 37 million tv homes in states with ACC schools, NOT 43 million. You've never posted the correct number of satellite homes in states ACC schools reside in and I even gave you the current industry link where the information is obtainable. You are lying about information--but anyone actually associated with the information has to use REAL information--they aren't creating or getting anything out of lies.
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: The ACC has announced they were looking at creating a network since before 2010. I've posted a link that proves that and there are others on the internet.
Here's one that claimed 2016 is the goal:
excerpt:
In an article published to Florida State’s Rivals.com website last week, school president John Thrasher said an ACC Network, similar to what the Southeastern Conference launched last August, “is a viable thing.”
He went on to say, “Whether we can get it up and running by 2016, I don't know. But that's the goal."http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...01/26/acc-president-goal-tv-network/22343755/
Multiple yearly updates have been made on the supposedly "coming" ACC network. You saying they didn't is simply another lie. It doesn't matter--to date the ACC has neither bought back any rights, or even announced that they intend to have a network. Swoffords latest vague statements imply they'll continue to discuss discussing one while you claim the "launch date was always 2016-2017. Hate to break it to you but.... Its July 2016 NOW.
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: ESPN owns all of the ACCs content. All of it. Bought the rights--sublicensed some. If they get the sublicensed back, they aren't paying the ACC a dime for those rights. They can do whatever they want with those rights. If they want to put them on tv somewhere they can create a channel and put them on tv, or the internet or whereever. it doesn't need to be called "ACC" anything. It could be ESPN OCHO. but it doesn't matter because ESPN makes money through sublicensing that content and has no reason to buy it back. The ACC must have it to have an ACC network or buy back some of the rights they sold to ESPN in the first place.
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.
B: AGAIN. ESPN is not paying the ACC twice for something they own outright. In the Big Ten and SEC the CONFERENCES bought back the rights, not ESPN. As an example of this---
From Sports Business Daily Published April 12, 2013
The Southeastern Conference has completed the buy-back of its TV, digital and sponsorship rights from third parties, clearing the final hurdles to launch its TV channel with ESPN next year.
and that is EXACTLY what the Atlantic Coast Conference will have to do in order to have an ACC channel. They have not begun this process. No matter how many times you pretend that isn't true it still will be and the ACC knows this too.
No, the subscription fees are not payment for the rights to the games.
B: What are the subscription fees for then? Out of the kindness of ESPNs heart donations to the ACC?
The games are CONTENT as I said. Something has to be on an ACC channel. If the conference and ESPN create an ACC channel, the ACC will give or sell the content they've bought back back to ESPN and then ESPN will give them money to put those on a channel. I don't care how you try to spin it or what specific wording is used to describe it--that is what will happen. It isn't going to be ESPN giving the ACC money for NOTHING as you seem to think. Stop spinning.
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: Did ESPN create ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU and so forth? ESPN can create channels and put content they own on those channels. It doesn't have to be called "ACC network". Unfortunately for your misguided thought ESPN has no known incentive to end sublicensing agreements with Raycom to do anything with all of that content. There won't be an ACC channel if the ACC doesn't get those rights back and roll them back over to ESPN.
As evidence of this-here is what happened in the SEC:
From Sports Business Daily Published April 12, 2013
The Southeastern Conference has completed the buy-back of its TV, digital and sponsorship rights from third parties, clearing the final hurdles to launch its TV channel with ESPN next year........
The conference also gained control of its digital and sponsorship rights that will be rolled over to ESPN as well. That will enable ESPN to have TV, digital and sponsorship rights for the conference under one umbrella.
That is exactly what I stated and you continue to deny the ACC will need to do.
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: Again on the new SEC deal
From Forbes May 2013:
The new deal begins in 2014 and is an extension of their current 2.25 billion, 15-year contract..... financial terms have not been publicly revealed....
or this from the New York Times May 2013
The long-anticipated 20-year SEC Network deal, announced at a news conference in Atlanta, was a 10-year extension of ESPN’s existing SEC deal. The original contract, signed in 2008, guaranteed the SEC $2.25 billion over 15 years.
The extension will provide a significant financial boost to the conference, but the figures were not disclosed.
and once again straight from your own words:
Topdecktiger QUOTE "The $25 million is just for the TV contract. It's not for CFP, NCAA, or anything like that."
hmmm don't see any "clear indication of anything but exactly what you state there bud. Stop lying.
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: I am not dishonest, but as usual you are. Here's a quote of what I stated: B: "That allowed them (SEC) to have enough inventory to monetize. .......--the money for it prior to 2014 was coming from tier 3 contracts." To which you for some reason responded oddly T: "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."
You repeated what I had just told you as though you were telling me--to spin it.
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: So you want to ignore the truth and play make believe? IDK what you've dreamed up in your head, but the SEC recieves profits from the SEC network which is because their content is on the network. ESPN isn't just giving them free money for nothing as you seem to think.
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.
B: Something I don't get? I get it exactly, its YOU that has a comprehension problem. AGAIN ---
From Sports Business Daily Published April 12, 2013
The Southeastern Conference has completed the buy-back of its TV, digital and sponsorship rights from third parties, clearing the final hurdles to launch its TV channel with ESPN next year........
The conference also gained control of its digital and sponsorship rights that will be rolled over to ESPN as well. That will enable ESPN to have TV, digital and sponsorship rights for the conference under one umbrella.
and that is about as clearly as it can be made to you. If you can't understand that then you may need some special counseling or something. That is the way it will work for the ACC or anyone. ESPN is NOT going to reacquire the rights and give the ACC money for product ESPN owns and they aren't going to create an ACC network and give the ACC money unless the ACC buys back rights and provides the inventory for such a channel.
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: ESPN didn't repurchase the rights--the SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE did.
AGAIN for the comprehensively impaired---
From Sports Business Daily Published April 12, 2013
The Southeastern Conference has completed the buy-back of its TV, digital and sponsorship rights from third parties, clearing the final hurdles to launch its TV channel with ESPN next year........
The conference also gained control of its digital and sponsorship rights that will be rolled over to ESPN as well. That will enable ESPN to have TV, digital and sponsorship rights for the conference under one umbrella.
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.
B: I'm not the one misrepresenting BIG 12 numbers. I haven't left out anything. This article again, from one of the BIG 12s TV partners who PAY the money, spells out what the BIG 12 schools were paid.
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
As mentioned BIG 12 schools also recieved tier 3 tv money from about $4 -$15 million. Notice I said TV--not talking about radio and other rights schools in other conferences monetize.....and you've conveniently left out that from the money ACC schools got--Maryland delivered $3 million to each ACC school--a one time shot. They won't ever get that again--unless of course someone else leaves too.
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.
Yes, the numbers are correct. They are from Neilson. It clearly said that in the graphic.
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: You posted a link from the ACC with erroneous or OLD numbers and claimed more pay tv subscribers in ACC areas than there are total tv households. I posted the current numbers. Here they are again for anyone that wants to check . There are only 37 million tv homes in states with ACC schools, NOT 43 million. You've never posted the correct number of satellite homes in states ACC schools reside in and I even gave you the current industry link where the information is obtainable. You are lying about information--but anyone actually associated with the information has to use REAL information--they aren't creating or getting anything out of lies.
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: The ACC has announced they were looking at creating a network since before 2010. I've posted a link that proves that and there are others on the internet.
Here's one that claimed 2016 is the goal:
excerpt:
In an article published to Florida State’s Rivals.com website last week, school president John Thrasher said an ACC Network, similar to what the Southeastern Conference launched last August, “is a viable thing.”
He went on to say, “Whether we can get it up and running by 2016, I don't know. But that's the goal."http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...01/26/acc-president-goal-tv-network/22343755/
Multiple yearly updates have been made on the supposedly "coming" ACC network. You saying they didn't is simply another lie. It doesn't matter--to date the ACC has neither bought back any rights, or even announced that they intend to have a network. Swoffords latest vague statements imply they'll continue to discuss discussing one while you claim the "launch date was always 2016-2017. Hate to break it to you but.... Its July 2016 NOW.
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: ESPN owns all of the ACCs content. All of it. Bought the rights--sublicensed some. If they get the sublicensed back, they aren't paying the ACC a dime for those rights. They can do whatever they want with those rights. If they want to put them on tv somewhere they can create a channel and put them on tv, or the internet or whereever. it doesn't need to be called "ACC" anything. It could be ESPN OCHO. but it doesn't matter because ESPN makes money through sublicensing that content and has no reason to buy it back. The ACC must have it to have an ACC network or buy back some of the rights they sold to ESPN in the first place.
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.
B: AGAIN. ESPN is not paying the ACC twice for something they own outright. In the Big Ten and SEC the CONFERENCES bought back the rights, not ESPN. As an example of this---
From Sports Business Daily Published April 12, 2013
The Southeastern Conference has completed the buy-back of its TV, digital and sponsorship rights from third parties, clearing the final hurdles to launch its TV channel with ESPN next year.
and that is EXACTLY what the Atlantic Coast Conference will have to do in order to have an ACC channel. They have not begun this process. No matter how many times you pretend that isn't true it still will be and the ACC knows this too.
No, the subscription fees are not payment for the rights to the games.
B: What are the subscription fees for then? Out of the kindness of ESPNs heart donations to the ACC?
The games are CONTENT as I said. Something has to be on an ACC channel. If the conference and ESPN create an ACC channel, the ACC will give or sell the content they've bought back back to ESPN and then ESPN will give them money to put those on a channel. I don't care how you try to spin it or what specific wording is used to describe it--that is what will happen. It isn't going to be ESPN giving the ACC money for NOTHING as you seem to think. Stop spinning.
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: Did ESPN create ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU and so forth? ESPN can create channels and put content they own on those channels. It doesn't have to be called "ACC network". Unfortunately for your misguided thought ESPN has no known incentive to end sublicensing agreements with Raycom to do anything with all of that content. There won't be an ACC channel if the ACC doesn't get those rights back and roll them back over to ESPN.
As evidence of this-here is what happened in the SEC:
From Sports Business Daily Published April 12, 2013
The Southeastern Conference has completed the buy-back of its TV, digital and sponsorship rights from third parties, clearing the final hurdles to launch its TV channel with ESPN next year........
The conference also gained control of its digital and sponsorship rights that will be rolled over to ESPN as well. That will enable ESPN to have TV, digital and sponsorship rights for the conference under one umbrella.
That is exactly what I stated and you continue to deny the ACC will need to do.
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: Again on the new SEC deal
From Forbes May 2013:
The new deal begins in 2014 and is an extension of their current 2.25 billion, 15-year contract..... financial terms have not been publicly revealed....
or this from the New York Times May 2013
The long-anticipated 20-year SEC Network deal, announced at a news conference in Atlanta, was a 10-year extension of ESPN’s existing SEC deal. The original contract, signed in 2008, guaranteed the SEC $2.25 billion over 15 years.
The extension will provide a significant financial boost to the conference, but the figures were not disclosed.
and once again straight from your own words:
Topdecktiger QUOTE "The $25 million is just for the TV contract. It's not for CFP, NCAA, or anything like that."
hmmm don't see any "clear indication of anything but exactly what you state there bud. Stop lying.
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: I am not dishonest, but as usual you are. Here's a quote of what I stated: B: "That allowed them (SEC) to have enough inventory to monetize. .......--the money for it prior to 2014 was coming from tier 3 contracts." To which you for some reason responded oddly T: "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."
You repeated what I had just told you as though you were telling me--to spin it.
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: So you want to ignore the truth and play make believe? IDK what you've dreamed up in your head, but the SEC recieves profits from the SEC network which is because their content is on the network. ESPN isn't just giving them free money for nothing as you seem to think.
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.
B: Something I don't get? I get it exactly, its YOU that has a comprehension problem. AGAIN ---
From Sports Business Daily Published April 12, 2013
The Southeastern Conference has completed the buy-back of its TV, digital and sponsorship rights from third parties, clearing the final hurdles to launch its TV channel with ESPN next year........
The conference also gained control of its digital and sponsorship rights that will be rolled over to ESPN as well. That will enable ESPN to have TV, digital and sponsorship rights for the conference under one umbrella.
and that is about as clearly as it can be made to you. If you can't understand that then you may need some special counseling or something. That is the way it will work for the ACC or anyone. ESPN is NOT going to reacquire the rights and give the ACC money for product ESPN owns and they aren't going to create an ACC network and give the ACC money unless the ACC buys back rights and provides the inventory for such a channel.
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: ESPN didn't repurchase the rights--the SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE did.
AGAIN for the comprehensively impaired---
From Sports Business Daily Published April 12, 2013
The Southeastern Conference has completed the buy-back of its TV, digital and sponsorship rights from third parties, clearing the final hurdles to launch its TV channel with ESPN next year........
The conference also gained control of its digital and sponsorship rights that will be rolled over to ESPN as well. That will enable ESPN to have TV, digital and sponsorship rights for the conference under one umbrella.
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.
B: I'm not the one misrepresenting BIG 12 numbers. I haven't left out anything. This article again, from one of the BIG 12s TV partners who PAY the money, spells out what the BIG 12 schools were paid.
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
As mentioned BIG 12 schools also recieved tier 3 tv money from about $4 -$15 million. Notice I said TV--not talking about radio and other rights schools in other conferences monetize.....and you've conveniently left out that from the money ACC schools got--Maryland delivered $3 million to each ACC school--a one time shot. They won't ever get that again--unless of course someone else leaves too.
Last edited:
You are the one who dishonestly tried to exclude satellite subscribers, not me. I posted you figures that were taken from Neilson. It's clearly stated on the graphic. The number is posted are REAL numbers. Sorry it doesn't fit in with your theory. Not my fault.
I will tell you again, "looking at" a network and announcing the actual launch of a network are completely different things. The only launch date ever announced for the ACC was 2016-1017. Even in the link you posted, Swofford said 2016. You haven't found one single link that says there was another launch date besides 2016-2017. "Talking about" a network is not what you said. You specifically said the ACC had announced multiple launch dates. Sorry, you haven't found one single launch date other tha 2016-2017.
No, they can't. ESPN cannot create an ACC specific channel. If ESPN wants to create a "football channel" and show ACC games along with other games, then yes that can do that. What they cannot do is start a channel that exclusively shows ACC content. Again, you don't understand that owning just the broadcast right to games themselves is different from owning the rights to a network.
Sorry, the article you quoted proves you wrong.
The conference channel cleared its biggest obstacle in recent weeks when it reacquired the third-tier TV rights from IMG College, Learfield Sports and CBS Collegiate Sports Properties, the three rights holders that work with the conference’s 14 schools. Those third-tier TV rights represent one football game, eight men’s basketball games, baseball, women’s basketball and all other nonrevenue sports that are not picked up by ESPN or a syndicated partner.
Those live games will move to ESPN for the conference channel, which is an important development because it means that ESPN will control the entire inventory of SEC football games, with the exception of CBS’s single game each week. That gives ESPN a lot of flexibility to use specific games in markets where it’s having trouble gaining distribution. If, for example, one of Louisiana’s biggest distributors, Cox, is holding out and not agreeing to carry the channel, it will be easier for ESPN to place more LSU games on it to help it gain more leverage in those negotiations......
The conference also gained control of its digital and sponsorship rights that will be rolled over to ESPN as well. That will enable ESPN to have TV, digital and sponsorship rights for the conference under one umbrella. Being able to package TV and digital advertising in corporate sponsorship deals is considered a vital revenue component, and neither the conference nor ESPN wanted multiple partners selling those rights in the marketplace.
See? The SEC doesn't have any of those rights. They sold all the rights to ESPN. The SEC did repurchase the Tier 3 rights.....and then sold them to ESPN. The article specifically says ESPN controls all the SEC games, except for the one CBS game.
The subscription fees are for the rights to the network itself. Sorry, but you don't get it. ESPN can't create an ACC network without compensating the ACC. You simply don't understand that the broadcast rights to games themselves, and rights to an actual network are two completely different things. ESPN also can't create a ACC network under a different name. The ACC would simply be able to take ESPN to court.
ESPN2 and ESPNU are not conference-specific channels. You don't have a clue about property rights if you think ESPN can create an ACC network without compensating the ACC.
I brought up this "rolled over" business earlier. Here is what you are suggesting.
Step 1: ESPN gets syndications rights back from Raycom/Fox.
Step 2: ESPN sells those rights to the ACC.
Step 3: ACC sells those rights back to ESPN.
That's redundant. ESPN already has the Raycom rights. It's stupid to suggest ESPN would get back the rights from Raycom, give them to the ACC, and then the ACC give them back to ESPN. Once ESPN gets the rights back from Raycom, that's the end of the process.
This is another example of you not understanding the process. The ACC cannot by the rights back from Raycom. ESPN has to buy back the rights from Raycom. That's because ESPN already bought them from the ACC. Here's how it works:
Step 1: ACC sells the rights to ESPN in 2010.
Step 2: ESPN syndicates those rights with Raycom
Step 3: Raycom sublicenses those games with Fox.
The ACC cannot go to Raycom or Fox to buy the rights, because Raycom and Fox are not the owners. They only syndicate. The ACC cannot do an end run around ESPN, and buy the rights straight from Raycom. This is exactly what happened with the SEC:
Meanwhile, ESPN is in the process of regaining its syndicated rights from Comcast SportsNet and Fox Sports Net. Both RSNs currently buy SEC games from ESPN.
See, it was ESPN, not the SEC that had to repurchase the syndication rights from Comcast and Fox. That's because ESPN owned those rights, not the SEC. The SEC had already sold ESPN those games. Once ESPN got back those rights, the didn't give them to the SEC, and then the SEC give them back to ESPN again. Once ESPN got the rights back from Comcast and Fox, that was the end of the process. By the same token, once ESPN get's the ACC syndication rights back from Raycom and Fox, that's the end of that process.
You can't just pick and choose. That's lying. I said:
It's there for everyone one to see. I clearly said "average." Sorry, it's there.
No, this is again you cherrypicking. Here is your full quote:
You said that A&M and Missouri added inventory that was not on platforms under SEC contract. Not true. A&M and Missouri's content was under contract on various platforms: ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU. That inventory appeared on those various platforms during the 2 years before the SEC started a network. If you want to say A&M and Missouri added Tier 3 content that was not on ESPN platforms, that was only 2 football games. Insignificant amount compared with their total inventory.
No, that's simply not how it works. ESPN owns all the content, as I already showed. The SEC doesn't own any of it. The subscription revenue is for the network itself, and for the broadcast rights, the SEC gets paid for those out of the regular contract. The SEC has to get paid just for allowing ESPN to have the network in the first place. That's in addition to the rights to the individual games.
No, that's simply not how it works. Money from the network is separate from the rights to the games. You have to have additional rights to start a network. It's not enough to get broadcast rights to games and then say, "Ok, let's start a network." There are naming rights, sponsorship rights, digital rights, and other property rights that you have to have to start a network.
For example, ESPN can't decide, "Hey, let's start a MLS network" without paying MLS for the network itself. It doesn't matter that ESPN owns MLS games. They can't create an MLS channel, unless they are given permission by MLS. ESPN would have to pay MLS for the network itself AND the broadcast rights to the games. ESPN also couldn't do a end-run and say, "Hey, let's make an MLS network, but we will name it something else." ESPN would get their butts sued off.
Nope, you're wrong. I posted this earlier:
Meanwhile, ESPN is in the process of regaining its syndicated rights from Comcast SportsNet and Fox Sports Net. Both RSNs currently buy SEC games from ESPN.
It clearly says ESPN, not the SEC, repurchased the syndication packages from Comcast and Fox. This is another example of your misunderstanding. You don't understand that syndication is different from regular broadcasting. The ACC's syndication rights with Raycom are not the same thing as the SEC's Tier 3 rights with IMG.
I'm not disputing anything Bowlsby said. Everything he said is correct. The problem is, you are not counting West Virginia and TCU. That's cherrypicking. The average payout included all the schools. If West Virginia and TCU had not gotten partial shares, then the other 8 schools would not have gotten as much. If you want to do that, then you can't count Syracuse, Pitt, and Louisville in the ACC's average either, which makes their average go up as well.
The ACC has the $45 million coming if they don't get a network, which is more than the $32 million from Maryland.
Nope, the Tier 3 money includes radio. Here's West Virginia's contract with IMG for example:
The contract covers television rights for one nonconference football game and several men’s and women’s basketball games not selected by national networks, radio broadcast rights and coaches’ shows.
See, that's just one example. The television rights are included with the radio and multimedia rights. The only ones who have the TV rights separate are Texas and Oklahoma, because they have their own networks.
Last edited:
As long as Buck has orgasms from expansion posts this thread, and his other 29 expansion threads, may never die.
topdecktigerYou are the one who dishonestly tried to exclude satellite subscribers, not me. I posted you figures that were taken from Neilson. It's clearly stated on the graphic. The number is posted are REAL numbers. Sorry it doesn't fit in with your theory. Not my fault.
B: I "dishonestly" posted the accurate numbers, while you posted ACC lies and spin. That is your fault. Still waiting on the accurate satellite numbers in ACC states. You were WAY off the actual cable and total tv household numbers the industry reports.
I will tell you again, "looking at" a network and announcing the actual launch of a network are completely different things. The only launch date ever announced for the ACC was 2016-1017. Even in the link you posted, Swofford said 2016. You haven't found one single link that says there was another launch date besides 2016-2017. "Talking about" a network is not what you said. You specifically said the ACC had announced multiple launch dates. Sorry, you haven't found one single launch date other tha 2016-2017.
B: I just posted "one single link" where the PRESIDENT OF FSU stated clearly the goal of the ACC was to launch the network in 2016. I just posted a link the other day where the ACC said the network that they had a goal of launching in 2010 they decided not to do. You are dishonest or ignorant or both.
No, they can't. ESPN cannot create an ACC specific channel. If ESPN wants to create a "football channel" and show ACC games along with other games, then yes that can do that. What they cannot do is start a channel that exclusively shows ACC content. Again, you don't understand that owning just the broadcast right to games themselves is different from owning the rights to a network.
B: I don't know why you are trying to argue a moot point. ESPN is not going to buy back Raycom rights and do anything with that content. EVER. They have no reason to. They already are making money off of it. If for some odd reason they did get it back, they could put it on existing platforms for no extra money to the ACC, or they could create a new channel and put the content on it such as ESPN OCHO as I stated before.
Sorry, the article you quoted proves you wrong.
The conference channel cleared its biggest obstacle in recent weeks when it reacquired the third-tier TV rights from IMG College, Learfield Sports and CBS Collegiate Sports Properties, the three rights holders that work with the conference’s 14 schools. Those third-tier TV rights represent one football game, eight men’s basketball games, baseball, women’s basketball and all other nonrevenue sports that are not picked up by ESPN or a syndicated partner.
Those live games will move to ESPN for the conference channel, which is an important development because it means that ESPN will control the entire inventory of SEC football games, with the exception of CBS’s single game each week. That gives ESPN a lot of flexibility to use specific games in markets where it’s having trouble gaining distribution. If, for example, one of Louisiana’s biggest distributors, Cox, is holding out and not agreeing to carry the channel, it will be easier for ESPN to place more LSU games on it to help it gain more leverage in those negotiations......
The conference also gained control of its digital and sponsorship rights that will be rolled over to ESPN as well. That will enable ESPN to have TV, digital and sponsorship rights for the conference under one umbrella. Being able to package TV and digital advertising in corporate sponsorship deals is considered a vital revenue component, and neither the conference nor ESPN wanted multiple partners selling those rights in the marketplace.
See? The SEC doesn't have any of those rights. They sold all the rights to ESPN. The SEC did repurchase the Tier 3 rights.....and then sold them to ESPN. The article specifically says ESPN controls all the SEC games, except for the one CBS game.
B: guess you missed the part where the SEC ACQUIRED THOSE RIGHTS and rolled them back to ESPN huh? You know the part your lying self said wouldn't happen? ESPN controls ALL SEC games AFTER the SEC bought back rights and rolled them over to ESPN. You are either mentally challenged or just playing games, no one is that dishonest and ignorant.
The subscription fees are for the rights to the network itself. Sorry, but you don't get it. ESPN can't create an ACC network without compensating the ACC. You simply don't understand that the broadcast rights to games themselves, and rights to an actual network are two completely different things. ESPN also can't create a ACC network under a different name. The ACC would simply be able to take ESPN to court.
B: The SEC is paid from the PROFITS ESPN gets from rights fees and advertising for the SEC network.
You don't need to worry about ESPN creating an ACC network--they have no intention of doing what you claim they can't do. The only shot the ACC has at getting a network is if the ACC--not ESPN--buys back the rights and as I've said numerous times now, transfers those rights back to ESPN in some manner.
ESPN2 and ESPNU are not conference-specific channels. You don't have a clue about property rights if you think ESPN can create an ACC network without compensating the ACC.
B: You don't have a clue period. ESPN owns the rights and can do with them as they please. They can put them on television if they want to--they OWN THE RIGHTS. You are the one talking about a conference specific channel--but if ESPN wanted to just put ACC content they own on a new channel they most certainly can do that without paying anything more to the ACC. They may not call it "ACC network" it could be "the mediocre sports network" or some other moniker--but if they wanted to just put that extra content they've bought on it they most certainly could. Again its a moot point and not going to happen.
I brought up this "rolled over" business earlier. Here is what you are suggesting.
Step 1: ESPN gets syndications rights back from Raycom/Fox.
Step 2: ESPN sells those rights to the ACC.
Step 3: ACC sells those rights back to ESPN.
That's redundant. ESPN already has the Raycom rights. It's stupid to suggest ESPN would get back the rights from Raycom, give them to the ACC, and then the ACC give them back to ESPN. Once ESPN gets the rights back from Raycom, that's the end of the process.
B: NO ITS NOT. If ESPN gets the rights back from Raycom--rights they've already paid for once, the ACC doesn't get any money.
This is another example of you not understanding the process. The ACC cannot by the rights back from Raycom. ESPN has to buy back the rights from Raycom. That's because ESPN already bought them from the ACC. Here's how it works:
Step 1: ACC sells the rights to ESPN in 2010.
Step 2: ESPN syndicates those rights with Raycom
Step 3: Raycom sublicenses those games with Fox.
The ACC cannot go to Raycom or Fox to buy the rights, because Raycom and Fox are not the owners. They only syndicate. The ACC cannot do an end run around ESPN, and buy the rights straight from Raycom. This is exactly what happened with the SEC:
Meanwhile, ESPN is in the process of regaining its syndicated rights from Comcast SportsNet and Fox Sports Net. Both RSNs currently buy SEC games from ESPN.
See, it was ESPN, not the SEC that had to repurchase the syndication rights from Comcast and Fox. That's because ESPN owned those rights, not the SEC. The SEC had already sold ESPN those games. Once ESPN got back those rights, the didn't give them to the SEC, and then the SEC give them back to ESPN again. Once ESPN got the rights back from Comcast and Fox, that was the end of the process. By the same token, once ESPN get's the ACC syndication rights back from Raycom and Fox, that's the end of that process.
B: AGAIN:
From Sports Business Daily Published April 12, 2013
The Southeastern Conference has completed the buy-back of its TV, digital and sponsorship rights from third parties, clearing the final hurdles to launch its TV channel with ESPN next year........
The conference also gained control of its digital and sponsorship rights that will be rolled over to ESPN as well. That will enable ESPN to have TV, digital and sponsorship rights for the conference under one umbrella.
ESPN got the rights from the SEC AFTER the SEC got the rights back. Clear as day. The same exact thing the ACC will need to do if they want a network. A business lawyer could probably explain how the various transfers and buy backs would take place. ESPN is not going to buy back those rights (thus paying for them a second time) and then give the ACC MORE revenue for the same rights.
You can't just pick and choose. That's lying.
I clearly said "average." Sorry, it's there.
No, this is again you cherrypicking. Here is your full quote:
You said that A&M and Missouri added inventory that was not on platforms under SEC contract. Not true. A&M and Missouri's content was under contract on various platforms: ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU. That inventory appeared on those various platforms during the 2 years before the SEC started a network. If you want to say A&M and Missouri added Tier 3 content that was not on ESPN platforms, that was only 2 football games. Insignificant amount compared with their total inventory.
B: You clearly stated-more than once in previous responses, that the SEC got $25 million JUST FOR TV. You didn't say average. I can't remember what point you were trying to make since it is completely deflection of anything related to an ACC network. As to A&M and Missouri I stated they were added to the SEC and via their addition the SEC acquired much more inventory to be used on a network--and the ACC has not added schools so they can't take that step--all ACC content is already bought and paid for. The new inventory (numbers of games) that A&M and Missouri added to the existing SEC inventory was NOT part of the inventory was putting on its platforms and so became a certain number of events that, when combined with the bought back tier 3 inventory--provided ESPN with the necessary numbers of events to create an SEC network.
Right now there is nothing for the ACC to transfer to ESPN (if ESPN fully owns an ACC channel one day) to put on an ACC network. No inventory. Nothing. ESPN isn't going to buy that inventory to start a channel, the ACC will have to do that.
No, that's simply not how it works. ESPN owns all the content, as I already showed. The SEC doesn't own any of it. The subscription revenue is for the network itself, and for the broadcast rights, the SEC gets paid for those out of the regular contract. The SEC has to get paid just for allowing ESPN to have the network in the first place. That's in addition to the rights to the individual games.
B: NO. The SEC's tv contracts with ESPN and CBS provide for a certain number of games on each networks platforms and a pecking order for choosing those games. The additional inventory that is on the SEC network is NOT a part of those agreements other than the games are in part determined by the pecking order--they choose AFTER CBS and ESPN. The SEC doesn't get paid for "just allowing ESPN to have a network". ESPN didn't want the network necessarily--the SEC did!!! The SEC gets paid for the rights to airing of SEC content on the SEC network
No, that's simply not how it works. Money from the network is separate from the rights to the games. You have to have additional rights to start a network. It's not enough to get broadcast rights to games and then say, "Ok, let's start a network." There are naming rights, sponsorship rights, digital rights, and other property rights that you have to have to start a network.
B: I posted a link to an article that discussed all of these rights, you aren't presenting new information. What you've been erroneously claiming for who knows what reason, is that ESPN bought all ACC rights, is going to buy back rights they've sublicensed--and then give the ACC money for some reason when they air the games even though ESPN already paid twice for the rights. Never going to happen.
For example, ESPN can't decide, "Hey, let's start a MLS network" without paying MLS for the network itself. It doesn't matter that ESPN owns MLS games. They can't create an MLS channel, unless they are given permission by MLS. ESPN would have to pay MLS for the network itself AND the broadcast rights to the games. ESPN also couldn't do a end-run and say, "Hey, let's make an MLS network, but we will name it something else." ESPN would get their butts sued off.
B: If ESPN paid for a bunch of MLS games, they can put the games on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN News, ESPN 3, Watch ESPN, or if they want , create a new channel i.e. ESPN NEW if they want. They own the rights and can air them. Only a fool would believe they cannot.
Nope, you're wrong. I posted this earlier:
Meanwhile, ESPN is in the process of regaining its syndicated rights from Comcast SportsNet and Fox Sports Net. Both RSNs currently buy SEC games from ESPN.
It clearly says ESPN, not the SEC, repurchased the syndication packages from Comcast and Fox. This is another example of your misunderstanding. You don't understand that syndication is different from regular broadcasting. The ACC's syndication rights with Raycom are not the same thing as the SEC's Tier 3 rights with IMG.
B: I'm not the Sports Business Daily, I"m just posting a link to try to educate the misinformed such as yourself:
Again, here is how it works:
From Sports Business Daily Published April 12, 2013
The Southeastern Conference has completed the buy-back of its TV, digital and sponsorship rights from third parties, clearing the final hurdles to launch its TV channel with ESPN next year........
The conference also gained control of its digital and sponsorship rights that will be rolled over to ESPN as well. That will enable ESPN to have TV, digital and sponsorship rights for the conference under one umbrella.
here's an excerpt from Forbes Sep 2012 before the rights were regained:
"One of the major obstacles in the way of the SEC’s plans is that the conference doesn’t currently own all of its TV rights. Rather, the SEC will have to buy back its third-tier rights from sports marketing companies like Learfield Sports and IMG College, which bought them from the individual SEC schools."
here's an excerpt from CBS from April, 2013
The league bought back all its regional rights (mostly Tier 3 programming) from Learfield Sports, IMG and CBS Sports. That will be on the network.
and this from CBS from May 2013
SEC partisans will often point out that their league's distribution revenues don't include money generated by school-owned third-tier TV rights, while those of the Big Ten -- which owns those rights itself as part of the Big Ten Network -- do. But the recent sale of those rights back to the SEC as part of the SEC Network preparations established their value, reportedly, at only a little more than $1 million per year per school. Third-tier rights may represent a major source of revenue for the likes of Florida, but there's little doubt the SEC's rank-and-file are earning less money from their TV deals than the Big Ten's are.)
So STOP--the ACC will have to reacquire rights just as the SEC and Big Ten did.
I'm not disputing anything Bowlsby said. Everything he said is correct. The problem is, you are not counting West Virginia and TCU. That's cherrypicking. The average payout included all the schools. If West Virginia and TCU had not gotten partial shares, then the other 8 schools would not have gotten as much. If you want to do that, then you can't count Syracuse, Pitt, and Louisville in the ACC's average either, which makes their average go up as well.
B: You are the one taking "average". I haven't said anything about "average". "AVERAGE" doesn't matter, what matters is what schools ACTUALLY got. and ACTUALLY--ALL BIG 12 schools made more television media rights money than ACC schools.
As to partial shares--do ACC schools get "partial shares" from Notre Dame? We know they got $3 million apiece from Maryland that will never happen again. In the BIG 12 this past year all schools got full shares and it was over $30 million apiece.
The ACC has the $45 million coming if they don't get a network, which is more than the $32 million from Maryland.
B: There's no evidence to support the ACC has $45 million coming if they don't get a network. It makes no sense on its face. If that is the case why isn't the BIG 12 getting $45 million for not getting a network? Why didn't the Pac 12 get $45 million for having to pay for their own network? ESPN didn't write a contract that says to the ACC "we guarantee that you get a network or $45 million"--they bought all of the ACCs rights period. They owe nothing to the ACC except the monetary compensation for the rights.
Nope, the Tier 3 money includes radio. Here's West Virginia's contract with IMG for example:
The contract covers television rights for one nonconference football game and several men’s and women’s basketball games not selected by national networks, radio broadcast rights and coaches’ shows.
See, that's just one example. The television rights are included with the radio and multimedia rights. The only ones who have the TV rights separate are Texas and Oklahoma, because they have their own networks.
B:Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State--ALL of these schools have deals not mixed in with their other deals. WVU's TOTAL tier 3 money is in the $8 million per year range. The portion from just tv is in the $4 to $6 million range. That they combined various rights into one contract does not mean they don't get anything for just the tv portion idiot. ACC schools DO NOT GET ANY additional tv rights and as a league the BIG 12 is ahead of the ACC in total media rights including the b.s. you try to claim is the same as BIG 12 tv deals.
B: I "dishonestly" posted the accurate numbers, while you posted ACC lies and spin. That is your fault. Still waiting on the accurate satellite numbers in ACC states. You were WAY off the actual cable and total tv household numbers the industry reports.
I will tell you again, "looking at" a network and announcing the actual launch of a network are completely different things. The only launch date ever announced for the ACC was 2016-1017. Even in the link you posted, Swofford said 2016. You haven't found one single link that says there was another launch date besides 2016-2017. "Talking about" a network is not what you said. You specifically said the ACC had announced multiple launch dates. Sorry, you haven't found one single launch date other tha 2016-2017.
B: I just posted "one single link" where the PRESIDENT OF FSU stated clearly the goal of the ACC was to launch the network in 2016. I just posted a link the other day where the ACC said the network that they had a goal of launching in 2010 they decided not to do. You are dishonest or ignorant or both.
No, they can't. ESPN cannot create an ACC specific channel. If ESPN wants to create a "football channel" and show ACC games along with other games, then yes that can do that. What they cannot do is start a channel that exclusively shows ACC content. Again, you don't understand that owning just the broadcast right to games themselves is different from owning the rights to a network.
B: I don't know why you are trying to argue a moot point. ESPN is not going to buy back Raycom rights and do anything with that content. EVER. They have no reason to. They already are making money off of it. If for some odd reason they did get it back, they could put it on existing platforms for no extra money to the ACC, or they could create a new channel and put the content on it such as ESPN OCHO as I stated before.
Sorry, the article you quoted proves you wrong.
The conference channel cleared its biggest obstacle in recent weeks when it reacquired the third-tier TV rights from IMG College, Learfield Sports and CBS Collegiate Sports Properties, the three rights holders that work with the conference’s 14 schools. Those third-tier TV rights represent one football game, eight men’s basketball games, baseball, women’s basketball and all other nonrevenue sports that are not picked up by ESPN or a syndicated partner.
Those live games will move to ESPN for the conference channel, which is an important development because it means that ESPN will control the entire inventory of SEC football games, with the exception of CBS’s single game each week. That gives ESPN a lot of flexibility to use specific games in markets where it’s having trouble gaining distribution. If, for example, one of Louisiana’s biggest distributors, Cox, is holding out and not agreeing to carry the channel, it will be easier for ESPN to place more LSU games on it to help it gain more leverage in those negotiations......
The conference also gained control of its digital and sponsorship rights that will be rolled over to ESPN as well. That will enable ESPN to have TV, digital and sponsorship rights for the conference under one umbrella. Being able to package TV and digital advertising in corporate sponsorship deals is considered a vital revenue component, and neither the conference nor ESPN wanted multiple partners selling those rights in the marketplace.
See? The SEC doesn't have any of those rights. They sold all the rights to ESPN. The SEC did repurchase the Tier 3 rights.....and then sold them to ESPN. The article specifically says ESPN controls all the SEC games, except for the one CBS game.
B: guess you missed the part where the SEC ACQUIRED THOSE RIGHTS and rolled them back to ESPN huh? You know the part your lying self said wouldn't happen? ESPN controls ALL SEC games AFTER the SEC bought back rights and rolled them over to ESPN. You are either mentally challenged or just playing games, no one is that dishonest and ignorant.
The subscription fees are for the rights to the network itself. Sorry, but you don't get it. ESPN can't create an ACC network without compensating the ACC. You simply don't understand that the broadcast rights to games themselves, and rights to an actual network are two completely different things. ESPN also can't create a ACC network under a different name. The ACC would simply be able to take ESPN to court.
B: The SEC is paid from the PROFITS ESPN gets from rights fees and advertising for the SEC network.
You don't need to worry about ESPN creating an ACC network--they have no intention of doing what you claim they can't do. The only shot the ACC has at getting a network is if the ACC--not ESPN--buys back the rights and as I've said numerous times now, transfers those rights back to ESPN in some manner.
ESPN2 and ESPNU are not conference-specific channels. You don't have a clue about property rights if you think ESPN can create an ACC network without compensating the ACC.
B: You don't have a clue period. ESPN owns the rights and can do with them as they please. They can put them on television if they want to--they OWN THE RIGHTS. You are the one talking about a conference specific channel--but if ESPN wanted to just put ACC content they own on a new channel they most certainly can do that without paying anything more to the ACC. They may not call it "ACC network" it could be "the mediocre sports network" or some other moniker--but if they wanted to just put that extra content they've bought on it they most certainly could. Again its a moot point and not going to happen.
I brought up this "rolled over" business earlier. Here is what you are suggesting.
Step 1: ESPN gets syndications rights back from Raycom/Fox.
Step 2: ESPN sells those rights to the ACC.
Step 3: ACC sells those rights back to ESPN.
That's redundant. ESPN already has the Raycom rights. It's stupid to suggest ESPN would get back the rights from Raycom, give them to the ACC, and then the ACC give them back to ESPN. Once ESPN gets the rights back from Raycom, that's the end of the process.
B: NO ITS NOT. If ESPN gets the rights back from Raycom--rights they've already paid for once, the ACC doesn't get any money.
This is another example of you not understanding the process. The ACC cannot by the rights back from Raycom. ESPN has to buy back the rights from Raycom. That's because ESPN already bought them from the ACC. Here's how it works:
Step 1: ACC sells the rights to ESPN in 2010.
Step 2: ESPN syndicates those rights with Raycom
Step 3: Raycom sublicenses those games with Fox.
The ACC cannot go to Raycom or Fox to buy the rights, because Raycom and Fox are not the owners. They only syndicate. The ACC cannot do an end run around ESPN, and buy the rights straight from Raycom. This is exactly what happened with the SEC:
Meanwhile, ESPN is in the process of regaining its syndicated rights from Comcast SportsNet and Fox Sports Net. Both RSNs currently buy SEC games from ESPN.
See, it was ESPN, not the SEC that had to repurchase the syndication rights from Comcast and Fox. That's because ESPN owned those rights, not the SEC. The SEC had already sold ESPN those games. Once ESPN got back those rights, the didn't give them to the SEC, and then the SEC give them back to ESPN again. Once ESPN got the rights back from Comcast and Fox, that was the end of the process. By the same token, once ESPN get's the ACC syndication rights back from Raycom and Fox, that's the end of that process.
B: AGAIN:
From Sports Business Daily Published April 12, 2013
The Southeastern Conference has completed the buy-back of its TV, digital and sponsorship rights from third parties, clearing the final hurdles to launch its TV channel with ESPN next year........
The conference also gained control of its digital and sponsorship rights that will be rolled over to ESPN as well. That will enable ESPN to have TV, digital and sponsorship rights for the conference under one umbrella.
ESPN got the rights from the SEC AFTER the SEC got the rights back. Clear as day. The same exact thing the ACC will need to do if they want a network. A business lawyer could probably explain how the various transfers and buy backs would take place. ESPN is not going to buy back those rights (thus paying for them a second time) and then give the ACC MORE revenue for the same rights.
You can't just pick and choose. That's lying.
I clearly said "average." Sorry, it's there.
No, this is again you cherrypicking. Here is your full quote:
You said that A&M and Missouri added inventory that was not on platforms under SEC contract. Not true. A&M and Missouri's content was under contract on various platforms: ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU. That inventory appeared on those various platforms during the 2 years before the SEC started a network. If you want to say A&M and Missouri added Tier 3 content that was not on ESPN platforms, that was only 2 football games. Insignificant amount compared with their total inventory.
B: You clearly stated-more than once in previous responses, that the SEC got $25 million JUST FOR TV. You didn't say average. I can't remember what point you were trying to make since it is completely deflection of anything related to an ACC network. As to A&M and Missouri I stated they were added to the SEC and via their addition the SEC acquired much more inventory to be used on a network--and the ACC has not added schools so they can't take that step--all ACC content is already bought and paid for. The new inventory (numbers of games) that A&M and Missouri added to the existing SEC inventory was NOT part of the inventory was putting on its platforms and so became a certain number of events that, when combined with the bought back tier 3 inventory--provided ESPN with the necessary numbers of events to create an SEC network.
Right now there is nothing for the ACC to transfer to ESPN (if ESPN fully owns an ACC channel one day) to put on an ACC network. No inventory. Nothing. ESPN isn't going to buy that inventory to start a channel, the ACC will have to do that.
No, that's simply not how it works. ESPN owns all the content, as I already showed. The SEC doesn't own any of it. The subscription revenue is for the network itself, and for the broadcast rights, the SEC gets paid for those out of the regular contract. The SEC has to get paid just for allowing ESPN to have the network in the first place. That's in addition to the rights to the individual games.
B: NO. The SEC's tv contracts with ESPN and CBS provide for a certain number of games on each networks platforms and a pecking order for choosing those games. The additional inventory that is on the SEC network is NOT a part of those agreements other than the games are in part determined by the pecking order--they choose AFTER CBS and ESPN. The SEC doesn't get paid for "just allowing ESPN to have a network". ESPN didn't want the network necessarily--the SEC did!!! The SEC gets paid for the rights to airing of SEC content on the SEC network
No, that's simply not how it works. Money from the network is separate from the rights to the games. You have to have additional rights to start a network. It's not enough to get broadcast rights to games and then say, "Ok, let's start a network." There are naming rights, sponsorship rights, digital rights, and other property rights that you have to have to start a network.
B: I posted a link to an article that discussed all of these rights, you aren't presenting new information. What you've been erroneously claiming for who knows what reason, is that ESPN bought all ACC rights, is going to buy back rights they've sublicensed--and then give the ACC money for some reason when they air the games even though ESPN already paid twice for the rights. Never going to happen.
For example, ESPN can't decide, "Hey, let's start a MLS network" without paying MLS for the network itself. It doesn't matter that ESPN owns MLS games. They can't create an MLS channel, unless they are given permission by MLS. ESPN would have to pay MLS for the network itself AND the broadcast rights to the games. ESPN also couldn't do a end-run and say, "Hey, let's make an MLS network, but we will name it something else." ESPN would get their butts sued off.
B: If ESPN paid for a bunch of MLS games, they can put the games on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN News, ESPN 3, Watch ESPN, or if they want , create a new channel i.e. ESPN NEW if they want. They own the rights and can air them. Only a fool would believe they cannot.
Nope, you're wrong. I posted this earlier:
Meanwhile, ESPN is in the process of regaining its syndicated rights from Comcast SportsNet and Fox Sports Net. Both RSNs currently buy SEC games from ESPN.
It clearly says ESPN, not the SEC, repurchased the syndication packages from Comcast and Fox. This is another example of your misunderstanding. You don't understand that syndication is different from regular broadcasting. The ACC's syndication rights with Raycom are not the same thing as the SEC's Tier 3 rights with IMG.
B: I'm not the Sports Business Daily, I"m just posting a link to try to educate the misinformed such as yourself:
Again, here is how it works:
From Sports Business Daily Published April 12, 2013
The Southeastern Conference has completed the buy-back of its TV, digital and sponsorship rights from third parties, clearing the final hurdles to launch its TV channel with ESPN next year........
The conference also gained control of its digital and sponsorship rights that will be rolled over to ESPN as well. That will enable ESPN to have TV, digital and sponsorship rights for the conference under one umbrella.
here's an excerpt from Forbes Sep 2012 before the rights were regained:
"One of the major obstacles in the way of the SEC’s plans is that the conference doesn’t currently own all of its TV rights. Rather, the SEC will have to buy back its third-tier rights from sports marketing companies like Learfield Sports and IMG College, which bought them from the individual SEC schools."
here's an excerpt from CBS from April, 2013
The league bought back all its regional rights (mostly Tier 3 programming) from Learfield Sports, IMG and CBS Sports. That will be on the network.
and this from CBS from May 2013
SEC partisans will often point out that their league's distribution revenues don't include money generated by school-owned third-tier TV rights, while those of the Big Ten -- which owns those rights itself as part of the Big Ten Network -- do. But the recent sale of those rights back to the SEC as part of the SEC Network preparations established their value, reportedly, at only a little more than $1 million per year per school. Third-tier rights may represent a major source of revenue for the likes of Florida, but there's little doubt the SEC's rank-and-file are earning less money from their TV deals than the Big Ten's are.)
So STOP--the ACC will have to reacquire rights just as the SEC and Big Ten did.
I'm not disputing anything Bowlsby said. Everything he said is correct. The problem is, you are not counting West Virginia and TCU. That's cherrypicking. The average payout included all the schools. If West Virginia and TCU had not gotten partial shares, then the other 8 schools would not have gotten as much. If you want to do that, then you can't count Syracuse, Pitt, and Louisville in the ACC's average either, which makes their average go up as well.
B: You are the one taking "average". I haven't said anything about "average". "AVERAGE" doesn't matter, what matters is what schools ACTUALLY got. and ACTUALLY--ALL BIG 12 schools made more television media rights money than ACC schools.
As to partial shares--do ACC schools get "partial shares" from Notre Dame? We know they got $3 million apiece from Maryland that will never happen again. In the BIG 12 this past year all schools got full shares and it was over $30 million apiece.
The ACC has the $45 million coming if they don't get a network, which is more than the $32 million from Maryland.
B: There's no evidence to support the ACC has $45 million coming if they don't get a network. It makes no sense on its face. If that is the case why isn't the BIG 12 getting $45 million for not getting a network? Why didn't the Pac 12 get $45 million for having to pay for their own network? ESPN didn't write a contract that says to the ACC "we guarantee that you get a network or $45 million"--they bought all of the ACCs rights period. They owe nothing to the ACC except the monetary compensation for the rights.
Nope, the Tier 3 money includes radio. Here's West Virginia's contract with IMG for example:
The contract covers television rights for one nonconference football game and several men’s and women’s basketball games not selected by national networks, radio broadcast rights and coaches’ shows.
See, that's just one example. The television rights are included with the radio and multimedia rights. The only ones who have the TV rights separate are Texas and Oklahoma, because they have their own networks.
B:Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State--ALL of these schools have deals not mixed in with their other deals. WVU's TOTAL tier 3 money is in the $8 million per year range. The portion from just tv is in the $4 to $6 million range. That they combined various rights into one contract does not mean they don't get anything for just the tv portion idiot. ACC schools DO NOT GET ANY additional tv rights and as a league the BIG 12 is ahead of the ACC in total media rights including the b.s. you try to claim is the same as BIG 12 tv deals.
Last edited:
No, I posted numbers that were taken from Neilson. You are the one who is falsely trying to exclude satellite homes.
And that's the problem. The only "launch date" you have been able to find is 2016, which is what I said. The only launch date ever announced was the 2016-2017 date, and that's all you have posted. Your other post did not say 2010 was a launch date. It only said the ACC "considered" a network. 2010 was ever announced as a launch date.
ESPN would have to buy back the syndication rights from Raycom to start an ACC network. It can't happen otherwise.
Nope. You are simply wrong. The article is 100% clear. It says:
Meanwhile, ESPN is in the process of regaining its syndicated rights from Comcast SportsNet and Fox Sports Net. Both RSNs currently buy SEC games from ESPN.
It says it right there plain as day. ESPN repurchased the syndication packages directly from Comcast and Fox. The SEC did not buy back those rights. You are confusing the Tier 3 rights with the syndication rights. Comcast and Fox did not have any Tier 3 rights. The Tier 3 rights were with IMG and Learfield. That's what the SEC repurchased. The SEC did not repurchase anything from Comcast or Fox. Again, the article clearly says that it was ESPN that purchased the rights from Comcast and Fox, not the SEC.
Notice here how it says both Comcast and Fox buy SEC games "from ESPN." You get that? Comcast and Fox by the games from ESPN. So tell me this smartass, if ESPN didn't already own those games, then how could Comcast and Fox buy them from ESPN?
That brings up another point. ESPN had to already own those games to sell them to Comcast and Fox. So tell me, why would ESPN repurchase those games they already own? You keep saying ESPN won't do that, but right here is proof they just did it.
No, ESPN paid the SEC from profits from subscription fees and advertising. ESPN doesn't get any rights fees for the rights. ESPN gets money from subscriptions. Subscription fees are not rights fees. They are two different things.
No, ESPN can't do as they please. They cannot create an ACC network without the ACC's consent. It's illegal. It's also illegal for ESPN to make an ACC network and call it something else.
ESPN isn't giving the ACC any money for the Raycom rights. Subscription fees are not for broadcast rights. It doesn't matter how many times you say it. It's not true.
Nope. I just posted this earlier. Meanwhile, ESPN is in the process of regaining its syndicated rights from Comcast SportsNet and Fox Sports Net. Both RSNs currently buy SEC games from ESPN. There is no way you can change the meaning of that sentence. ESPN bought the syndication rights back from Comcast and Fox. The SEC didn't do it.
Yes, under the new contract, the SEC gets $25 million a year, just for TV. That's the average amount they get. I even posted the link which says that.
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.
See, I showed you where I got the number, and it's an average. So to say I tried to lie is not accurate. The source where I got the number from said it was an average, so it makes logical sense I've been saying it was an average, since that what my source says. You are acting like if I don't use the qualifier "average" every single time, that I'm changing my position. It's clear that I've been using $25 million as an average.
Nope, not true. There is no pecking order within ESPN. Between CBS and ESPN, yes. Within ESPN, not. Yet, again I quote from the same article.
Those live games will move to ESPN for the conference channel, which is an important development because it means that ESPN will control the entire inventory of SEC football games, with the exception of CBS’s single game each week. That gives ESPN a lot of flexibility to use specific games in markets where it’s having trouble gaining distribution. If, for example, one of Louisiana’s biggest distributors, Cox, is holding out and not agreeing to carry the channel, it will be easier for ESPN to place more LSU games on it to help it gain more leverage in those negotiations.
See, ESPN can mix and match games on the different platforms. That's because you are dead wrong in your statement. The additional inventory IS part of the agreement with ESPN. All the SEC's games (minus the CBS game) are in one pot. ESPN can pull from that pot for any platform. There are not any games that are restricted only to the SEC network. Here is another link about the SEC network. It says: The long-anticipated 20-year SEC Network deal, announced at a news conference in Atlanta, was a 10-year extension of ESPN’s existing SEC deal. See? The additional inventory is just part of the regular contract. None of the SEC's inventory with ESPN is segregated or restricted only to the SEC network. You are simply wrong about that.
I've posted plenty of new information, a lot just in this post. ESPN would not be paying the ACC twice for those rights. Giving the ACC a cut of the subscription revenue is not paying twice for the rights. It's doesn't matter how much you repeat it, it's not true. As I proved to you, ESPN repurchased the syndication rights from Comcast and Fox. ESPN already owned those rights, and they were just syndicating them with Comcast and Fox.
No, ESPN could not create an MLS channel. You are correct that they could put the games on ESPN2 or ESPNNews, but the could not create an MLS channel. You simply don't understand that simply having the broadcast rights to games does not give you the additional rights to create a stand-alone channel. That's what you are missing ESPN2 or ESPNU are not stand-alone channels.
Nope, all the schools in the Big 12 didn't make more than the ACC schools. As I said, Florida ST and Georgia Tech made $27 million just from the conference payouts. That's not counting their Tier 3 deals with IMG either. Iowa St didn't make more than those two. TCU didn't make more than those two. So no, all the Big 12 did not make more than all the ACC schools.
Regarding averages, I am talking about averages. I'm the one that brought it up in the first place. The fact is, in 2015, the Big 12 paid out an average of $25 million per schools, and the ACC paid out an average of $26 million per school. Fact. No way to dispute it.
Yes, there is. This is just one link. I can post more. If you are going to talk about evidence, post some evidence to back up your claim that content for the SEC network is not included in the regular ESPN contract. Post the evidence.
I never said West Virginia doesn't get anything form TV for Tier 3. This is a blatant lie by you. Here is what I actually said:
Talk about lying, you're the one that doing the lying. West Virginia has one Tier 3 contract. It includes radio and TV. West Virginia does not have a separate TV contract like Oklahoma and Texas. Texas hast two Tier 3 contracts. One with IMG, and one with LHN for just TV. Oklahoma has two contracts, one with IMG and one with Fox, just for TV. West Virginia doesn't have that. Iowa St doesn't have that.
Last edited:
Do you all think you can make these post any longer. Soon one post will take up one whole page
Some skulls are so thick its pointless having a discussion with them.
When someone starts by lying about numbers and then goes on to lie about nearly every thing else they claim -its clear no matter what is explained, no matter how many links are provided, the person is going to continually ignore the truth.
This article explains in detail the plight the ACC faces. Its simple and clear:
excerpt:
ACC network may stall over rights issues
By Michael Smith & John Ourand, Staff Writers
Published May 20, 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.”
.....
The main roadblock is rights. 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 (notice NOT ESPN), 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.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/05/20/Media/ACC-net.aspx
On an interesting note the article references a supposed increase to ACC rights if they don't get a network--in 2013 it was supposedly an increase from an $18 mil average for the 14 schools to a $20 million average which would be alot more than $45,000,000 for 10 years from 2017 (at their $18 million average the ACC schools will earn$204.345 million from TV from the 2016-2017 season through 2027 end of contract.)
The article references anonymous "sources" stating this rights fee increase exists. One can bet its an anonymous ACC source as they appear to be the only people referencing such an odd increase for nothing in return. ESPN already owns all rights--why must they pay more to the ACC if they don't give them a network? For what reason? Either way its extremely odd the claim has gone from a supposed more than $204 million to $45 million in under three years.
In case anyone wanted to know an ACC source DID create the $45 million figure topdeck pretends to date is real (it was supposed to take effect July 1 btw)
excerpt:
Wes Durham, play-by-play announcer for the ACC on FOX Sports Net, brought up a specific clause in ESPN's contract that would pay the ACC $45 million on July 1 in a recent interview with a Louisville radio station. However, Durham quickly walked back specific dates and dollar amounts.
"I mistakenly used the word 'reported,' when I should have used the word 'speculated,' when discussing a possible annual fee to the ACC from ESPN," said Durham. "The numbers and timeline had not been reported, but had been discussed in other circles. I shouldn't have assigned a monetary figure or deadline to my comments."
Read more at http://www.wralsportsfan.com/acc-co...ed-espn-channel/15584633/#MRersQ3vGxxjwF6u.99
Here's an example of where the imagined "guaranteed" rights fees increases are coming from---Swofford himself:
excerpt:
“If we’re going to do this (ACC network),” Swofford said, “we need to do it in the right way from the beginning that gives us the opportunity to have long-term success, and that’s what we’re trying to do and time it in a way so the distribution can be good, if not great, coming out, if we go this route. The other alternative is larger rights fees (from ESPN).”
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-swofford-2015-kickoff-post.html
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-swofford-2015-kickoff-post.html
So Swofford seems to be saying that if they can't get a network, an ALTERNATIVE to generating more revenues from a network will be if they can get more rights fees from ESPN. ACC fans have apparently interpreted such talk as factual information that ESPN will increase ACC rights if they don't start an ACC network, when what Swofford says isn't a guarantee, merely a suggestion of another way to get increases.
ESPN has never said they will give the ACC a rights fee increase or a network.
When someone starts by lying about numbers and then goes on to lie about nearly every thing else they claim -its clear no matter what is explained, no matter how many links are provided, the person is going to continually ignore the truth.
This article explains in detail the plight the ACC faces. Its simple and clear:
excerpt:
ACC network may stall over rights issues
By Michael Smith & John Ourand, Staff Writers
Published May 20, 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.”
.....
The main roadblock is rights. 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 (notice NOT ESPN), 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.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/05/20/Media/ACC-net.aspx
On an interesting note the article references a supposed increase to ACC rights if they don't get a network--in 2013 it was supposedly an increase from an $18 mil average for the 14 schools to a $20 million average which would be alot more than $45,000,000 for 10 years from 2017 (at their $18 million average the ACC schools will earn$204.345 million from TV from the 2016-2017 season through 2027 end of contract.)
The article references anonymous "sources" stating this rights fee increase exists. One can bet its an anonymous ACC source as they appear to be the only people referencing such an odd increase for nothing in return. ESPN already owns all rights--why must they pay more to the ACC if they don't give them a network? For what reason? Either way its extremely odd the claim has gone from a supposed more than $204 million to $45 million in under three years.
In case anyone wanted to know an ACC source DID create the $45 million figure topdeck pretends to date is real (it was supposed to take effect July 1 btw)
excerpt:
Wes Durham, play-by-play announcer for the ACC on FOX Sports Net, brought up a specific clause in ESPN's contract that would pay the ACC $45 million on July 1 in a recent interview with a Louisville radio station. However, Durham quickly walked back specific dates and dollar amounts.
"I mistakenly used the word 'reported,' when I should have used the word 'speculated,' when discussing a possible annual fee to the ACC from ESPN," said Durham. "The numbers and timeline had not been reported, but had been discussed in other circles. I shouldn't have assigned a monetary figure or deadline to my comments."
Read more at http://www.wralsportsfan.com/acc-co...ed-espn-channel/15584633/#MRersQ3vGxxjwF6u.99
Here's an example of where the imagined "guaranteed" rights fees increases are coming from---Swofford himself:
excerpt:
“If we’re going to do this (ACC network),” Swofford said, “we need to do it in the right way from the beginning that gives us the opportunity to have long-term success, and that’s what we’re trying to do and time it in a way so the distribution can be good, if not great, coming out, if we go this route. The other alternative is larger rights fees (from ESPN).”
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-swofford-2015-kickoff-post.html
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-swofford-2015-kickoff-post.html
So Swofford seems to be saying that if they can't get a network, an ALTERNATIVE to generating more revenues from a network will be if they can get more rights fees from ESPN. ACC fans have apparently interpreted such talk as factual information that ESPN will increase ACC rights if they don't start an ACC network, when what Swofford says isn't a guarantee, merely a suggestion of another way to get increases.
ESPN has never said they will give the ACC a rights fee increase or a network.
Last edited:
I knew you wouldn't address the link I posted. Don't worry, I'll post it again so you can't ignore it.
Meanwhile, ESPN is in the process of regaining its syndicated rights from Comcast SportsNet and Fox Sports Net. Both RSNs currently buy SEC games from ESPN.
That tells us three thing:
1) ESPN bought back the rights from Comcast and Fox, not the SEC.
2) ESPN sold SEC games to Comcast and Fox. That means ESPN had to already own those games to sell them.
3) ESPN repurchased games that they already own, something you said would not happen.
So, you were proven 100% wrong. This source, which you have been quoting, clearly states that it was ESPN, not the SEC, that repurchased the syndicated games from Comcast and Fox. This is exactly what will happen if ESPN starts an ACC network.
Here is the reason ESPN has to pay the ACC if there isn't a network. The ACC got to renegotiate its TV contract when Notre Dame was added to the league. Since the contract was opened, the ACC was able to renegotiate new clauses into the contract. One of the things they negotiated on was an conference network. The agreement was, ESPN would pay the ACC an increased sum if the network wasn't started. You have to remember, at this point, the contract was reopened, and being renegotiated. It's not as simple as saying ESPN is paying for rights it already owns. The ACC had some leverage because there had to be an agreement to close the deal on a new contract. ESPN couldn't just unilaterally close the contract.
By the way, you missed another point about the ACC network in this new link. It says this in the second paragraph:
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.
See? It says ESPN needs to control those rights (just like I demonstrated with the SEC). Once ESPN buys back the syndication rights from Raycom, they control the rights. The article clearly says ESPN (not the ACC) needs to control the syndicated rights. It's stupid for the ACC to buy the rights from Raycom, when ESPN is the one who has to end up controlling those rights.
This is just another illustration of you cherrypicking from sources.
Last edited:
More lies and nothing but lies.
The ACC will have to buy the Raycom licensed product back --as the just posted link from Sports Business Daily clearly shows. I knew as usual you would ignore that as you have the multiple other links I provided.
Doesn't matter--in reality the ACC will have to provide ESPN with content for an ACC network.
When ESPN renegotiated for adding ND partially to the ACC there are no indications anywhere that that agreement included ANY provisions for A: A conference network or B: payment to the ACC if they didn't get one.
Its not true and its just more unsubstantiated bunk in your desperate attempts to paint a picture that you've created in your head-or rather the ACC painted in your head.
ESPN gave the ACC schools about $1 million extra and paid ND a few million per year (revenue neutral from the Big East Swarbrick reported) for Olympic Sports. Nothing more reported in that agreement.
ESPN doesn't owe the ACC anything and didn't make guarantees of anything. ACC people are making it up.
No TV network would guarantee the startup of a conference network they don't know if they want or if it would be successful,or if they don't start it they'll just dole out millions for nothing in return. I've already demonstrated -with links mind you -that the supposed network or increase has changed over the years and the latest was made up by an ACC announcer--which you of course ignored.
Last edited:
Again, this is from the same link you posted:
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.
Sorry, you can't get around that. ESPN, not the ACC, has to control those rights. We already have precedent for this with the SEC:
Meanwhile, ESPN is in the process of regaining its syndicated rights from Comcast SportsNet and Fox Sports Net. Both RSNs currently buy SEC games from ESPN.
ESPN repurchased the SEC's syndication package, the same way they would repurchase the ACC's syndication package. You are already wrong when you said the SEC repurchased those rights. Your own link said it was ESPN, not that SEC, that repurchased the rights.
You are also wrong about the ACC "making up" the $45 million.
There have been several reports in the media over the past few months that there is a clause in the league’s current deal with ESPN where the network would have to pay the ACC $45 million if there is not an agreement in place by July 1.
“ESPN has a clause in their contract that if they do not offer a network by July 1 of 2016, they owe the ACC – reportedly I should say – a clause in the contract that requires ESPN to pay the ACC $45 million a year to be divided among its schools,” Durham told Louisville Sports Live.
See, I can quote multiple reports about the $45 million. You on the other hand, can't quote anything. You said "ACC people are making it up." Ok, prove that. Prove ACC people are making it up. You can't. You said "ESPN doesn't owe the ACC anything and didn't make any guarantees of anything." Again, prove that. Your word is not proof. You don't have any evidence to refute the reports. You can't post any link that says, "ESPN doesn't owe the ACC anything for not starting a network," or, "ACC people made up the $45 million." Hell, even the source you previously quoted said, "ESPN, if it says no to a channel, would increase its compensation to the ACC, pushing the per-school average to close to $20 million." Your own source ven said ESPN owes the ACC money if they don't start a network. So again, show me one link that says ESPN doesn't owe the ACC anything. I've given you three links that show ESPN does owe the ACC something. You have no facts to back up your statement.
"topdecktigerAgain, this is from the same link you posted:
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.
Sorry, you can't get around that. ESPN, not the ACC, has to control those rights. We already have precedent for this with the SEC:
B: I stated initially and repeatedly ESPN has to control the rights. The ACC has to BUY THEM because ESPN has already paid for them and already makes money off of those rights and doesn't pay the ACC a dime for them btw.
Meanwhile, ESPN is in the process of regaining its syndicated rights from Comcast SportsNet and Fox Sports Net. Both RSNs currently buy SEC games from ESPN.
ESPN repurchased the SEC's syndication package, the same way they would repurchase the ACC's syndication package. You are already wrong when you said the SEC repurchased those rights. Your own link said it was ESPN, not that SEC, that repurchased the rights.
B: ESPN owns the rights to the content they've bought from the ACC. They aren't paying twice for the same product and they aren't paying a third time for it to pay the ACC after they've bought it back from Raycom either. The SEC bought back tier 3 rights and added schools in order to have content for a channel. The ACC isn't expanding--and the rights they need have been sublicensed to FOX and Raycom. If ESPN buys them back the ACC isn't owed anything.
You are also wrong about the ACC "making up" the $45 million.
There have been several reports in the media over the past few months that there is a clause in the league’s current deal with ESPN where the network would have to pay the ACC $45 million if there is not an agreement in place by July 1.
“ESPN has a clause in their contract that if they do not offer a network by July 1 of 2016, they owe the ACC – reportedly I should say – a clause in the contract that requires ESPN to pay the ACC $45 million a year to be divided among its schools,” Durham told Louisville Sports Live.
See, I can quote multiple reports about the $45 million. You on the other hand, can't quote anything. You said "ACC people are making it up." Ok, prove that. Prove ACC people are making it up. You can't. You said "ESPN doesn't owe the ACC anything and didn't make any guarantees of anything." Again, prove that. Your word is not proof. You don't have any evidence to refute the reports. You can't post any link that says, "ESPN doesn't owe the ACC anything for not starting a network," or, "ACC people made up the $45 million." Hell, even the source you previously quoted said, "ESPN, if it says no to a channel, would increase its compensation to the ACC, pushing the per-school average to close to $20 million." Your own source ven said ESPN owes the ACC money if they don't start a network. So again, show me one link that says ESPN doesn't owe the ACC anything. I've given you three links that show ESPN does owe the ACC something. You have no facts to back up your statement.
B: I just posted a link showing the CLAIM of $45 million was MADE UP by an ACC source and yet you still refuse to admit it? WOW.
Here it is once again:
excerpt:
Wes Durham, play-by-play announcer for the ACC on FOX Sports Net, brought up a specific clause in ESPN's contract that would pay the ACC $45 million on July 1 in a recent interview with a Louisville radio station. However, Durham quickly walked back specific dates and dollar amounts.
"I mistakenly used the word 'reported,' when I should have used the word 'speculated,' when discussing a possible annual fee to the ACC from ESPN," said Durham. "The numbers and timeline had not been reported, but had been discussed in other circles. I shouldn't have assigned a monetary figure or deadline to my comments."
Read more at http://www.wralsportsfan.com/acc-co...ed-espn-channel/15584633/#MRersQ3vGxxjwF6u.99
As to your "links"? All ACC sourced and nothing but ACC sourced. Anyone referencing states it was ACC sources that said it or "anonymous" sources. Durham clearly stated the $45 mil was for July 1 and ......that didnt happen. And the link I posted which you reference as I mentioned claims the ACC schools will each get more than a $2 million average more per year (according to anonymous source) for 10 years--WAAY more than the $45 mil you and Durham claim now.
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.
Sorry, you can't get around that. ESPN, not the ACC, has to control those rights. We already have precedent for this with the SEC:
B: I stated initially and repeatedly ESPN has to control the rights. The ACC has to BUY THEM because ESPN has already paid for them and already makes money off of those rights and doesn't pay the ACC a dime for them btw.
Meanwhile, ESPN is in the process of regaining its syndicated rights from Comcast SportsNet and Fox Sports Net. Both RSNs currently buy SEC games from ESPN.
ESPN repurchased the SEC's syndication package, the same way they would repurchase the ACC's syndication package. You are already wrong when you said the SEC repurchased those rights. Your own link said it was ESPN, not that SEC, that repurchased the rights.
B: ESPN owns the rights to the content they've bought from the ACC. They aren't paying twice for the same product and they aren't paying a third time for it to pay the ACC after they've bought it back from Raycom either. The SEC bought back tier 3 rights and added schools in order to have content for a channel. The ACC isn't expanding--and the rights they need have been sublicensed to FOX and Raycom. If ESPN buys them back the ACC isn't owed anything.
You are also wrong about the ACC "making up" the $45 million.
There have been several reports in the media over the past few months that there is a clause in the league’s current deal with ESPN where the network would have to pay the ACC $45 million if there is not an agreement in place by July 1.
“ESPN has a clause in their contract that if they do not offer a network by July 1 of 2016, they owe the ACC – reportedly I should say – a clause in the contract that requires ESPN to pay the ACC $45 million a year to be divided among its schools,” Durham told Louisville Sports Live.
See, I can quote multiple reports about the $45 million. You on the other hand, can't quote anything. You said "ACC people are making it up." Ok, prove that. Prove ACC people are making it up. You can't. You said "ESPN doesn't owe the ACC anything and didn't make any guarantees of anything." Again, prove that. Your word is not proof. You don't have any evidence to refute the reports. You can't post any link that says, "ESPN doesn't owe the ACC anything for not starting a network," or, "ACC people made up the $45 million." Hell, even the source you previously quoted said, "ESPN, if it says no to a channel, would increase its compensation to the ACC, pushing the per-school average to close to $20 million." Your own source ven said ESPN owes the ACC money if they don't start a network. So again, show me one link that says ESPN doesn't owe the ACC anything. I've given you three links that show ESPN does owe the ACC something. You have no facts to back up your statement.
B: I just posted a link showing the CLAIM of $45 million was MADE UP by an ACC source and yet you still refuse to admit it? WOW.
Here it is once again:
excerpt:
Wes Durham, play-by-play announcer for the ACC on FOX Sports Net, brought up a specific clause in ESPN's contract that would pay the ACC $45 million on July 1 in a recent interview with a Louisville radio station. However, Durham quickly walked back specific dates and dollar amounts.
"I mistakenly used the word 'reported,' when I should have used the word 'speculated,' when discussing a possible annual fee to the ACC from ESPN," said Durham. "The numbers and timeline had not been reported, but had been discussed in other circles. I shouldn't have assigned a monetary figure or deadline to my comments."
Read more at http://www.wralsportsfan.com/acc-co...ed-espn-channel/15584633/#MRersQ3vGxxjwF6u.99
As to your "links"? All ACC sourced and nothing but ACC sourced. Anyone referencing states it was ACC sources that said it or "anonymous" sources. Durham clearly stated the $45 mil was for July 1 and ......that didnt happen. And the link I posted which you reference as I mentioned claims the ACC schools will each get more than a $2 million average more per year (according to anonymous source) for 10 years--WAAY more than the $45 mil you and Durham claim now.
Last edited:
Interesting link you provided, but it does not go as far as saying a penalty was made up. While it has been widely reported we don't know if it is fact since since no official Rep from ESPN or ACC will confirm.
If the 45m is a bogus claim, then the ACCN is dead until new contracts
If the 45 mill is real and it is an annual fee, ESPN would be stupid not to create, assuming the ACC buys back the rights necessary to form network. Buying back the rights will be very costly to the conference
Its pretty clear that this is where the $45 million originated from --and the source that made the claim says right there that he should have said "speculated". Speculated by definition means to form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence. ACC people have conjectured about this increase but I believe what they have done is mistaken "look ins" that Swofford announced when describing the last tv deal from 2012--saying that the conference would have look ins and could get increases from look ins to get more revenues if they aren't able to get more revenues via a network. "Look ins" aren't a guarantee of revenue and pretty much all conferences have them.
When asked specifically about the $45 million recently--Swofford declined comment and the reported July 1 date from the source has come and gone as we can all see. I've also shown that previously the ACC was claiming a much higher "guarantee" figure.
I would not agree that the $45 million not being real means for certain the ACC couldn't get a network. That isn't really related--the $45 million or whatever figure was for nothing in return to ESPN according to these people.
If ESPN feels a network will make them money then they could back one if the ACC provides the necessary content to put on such a network via buy backs of rights.
And if the research the BIG12 has provided which clearly states ESPN, and FOX are not interested in starting a new network is true, then without the penalty ESPN has no incentive of moving forward. One day in the future both the BIG12 and ACC will create a network, it just won't look like the B1G or the SEC.
What we know: Boren was stating THIS:
From Norman Transcript Jan 28, 2016
It was a sellers’ market for Power 5 Conference’s broadcast rights in 2011. It may not be now. Boren believes it still is.
“Our media consultants still tend to think, as I said, we’re leaving $4-$6 million per school on the table even now, even with the circumstances.”
Until Texas AD said THIS:
From Austin American Statesman June 1 2016
As for Texas’ beloved Longhorn Network, Perrin said he was emphatically in favor of keeping the only single-school network in the country other than BYU’s, probably into perpetuity. But at least through a contract running through 2031. “I would not disturb it at this time,” he said.
That is when Boren almost overnight switched tunes and declared there would be no BIG 12 network.
It's interesting to see the take of the commissioner of the ACC on these exact same points from an earlier conversation with him:
Excerpt:
The marketplace, indeed. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month that as more folks reject cable bundling and opt for a la carte television consumption, ESPN has lost 7.2 million subscribers in the last four years, three million in the last year. Moreover, the Hollywood Reporter says the network has been directed by parent company Disney to slash costs.
Swofford does not believe those developments will affect what he called ongoing “quality discussions” with ESPN.
“ESPN is our partner, and obviously you’re interested in anything going on with them,” he said. “What they would do with us, in theory, it’s a growth opportunity for them. It’s a revenue-generating opportunity, the channels that they do.
“They’re business people. When they go in that direction, they go in that direction because they think that they can make money. It’s an investment. I don’t think companies like that look at investments falling into the belt-tightening, cost-cutting area. It’s really sort of two different things.”
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-swofford-2015-kickoff-post.html
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-swofford-2015-kickoff-post.html
We'll eventually find out which one is on point.
ESPN can't control the rights if the ACC owns them. The ACC doesn't have to buy the Raycom rights. If the ACC buys the rights, then the ACC controls them, not ESPN. For ESPN to control the rights, ESPN has to own them.
You are so wrong on this. The SEC literally only added 14 football games to their total content. The CBS games are off the table. ESPN owned most of the right already. ESPN already owned the rights that were syndicated with Comcast and Fox. ESPN already owned the new content from Texas A&M and Missouri, as evidenced by the fact that ESPN televised games with those teams for two years before the network was launched. The only new football content the SEC added was 14 football games. ESPN isn't paying the SEC millions for 14 extra football games. The $5 million from the SECN is strictly for subscription fees. It isn't for broadcast rights. Same thing with the ACC. If they get a channel, they will get paid from the subscription fees, not the broadcast rights.
LOL. Talk about spin. Wes Durham made his comments in March of 2016. The article you linked (which mentioned the $2 million a year) came out in May of 2013. The reports of the payments were out long before Wes Durham said anything.
Nothing you posted proves the payments are made up. You have no evidence, literally no evidence, that the payments were made up, nor that ACC people made it up. Nothing you have posted has said, "The ACC doesn't get payments from ESPN." Wes Durham didn't say that either.
You keep leaving out key factor here. Boren made the $4-6 million comments back in February. Then in May, just 3 weeks before the Spring meetings, Boren said this:
During meetings in Irving, Texas, May 31-June 3, the Big 12’s presidents and chancellors will hear more presentations from the consulting firms Navigate Research and Bevilacqua Helfant Ventures (BHV) on everything from computer modeling designed to show the likelihood of making the College Football Playoff to financial projections on the viability of a conference network.........
Boren was asked: What if the presentations from BHV and Navigate don’t show a significant windfall, or if prospective TV partners don’t seem enthused with the idea?
“I think we’d have to just say, ‘We can’t do it,’ ” he said. “I think the facts will speak for themselves.”
But calling himself an optimist, he said, “Once we get the data from our consultants, it will put everything on the table and there’ll be all sorts of discussion about what should be done.”
Here is the point. When Boren made the "$4-6 million" comment, the research was not complete. He clearly said, on May 13, "Once we get the data from our consultants." That means, Boren didn't have the data when he made the "$4-6 million" comment.
topdecktiger ESPN can't control the rights if the ACC owns them. The ACC doesn't have to buy the Raycom rights. If the ACC buys the rights, then the ACC controls them, not ESPN. For ESPN to control the rights, ESPN has to own them.
B: As has been mentioned NUMEROUS TIMES--and as the SEC did--the ACC will have to roll the rights BACK to ESPN. Read slower next time before going into hystrionics.
You are so wrong on this. The SEC literally only added 14 football games to their total content. The CBS games are off the table. ESPN owned most of the right already. ESPN already owned the rights that were syndicated with Comcast and Fox. ESPN already owned the new content from Texas A&M and Missouri, as evidenced by the fact that ESPN televised games with those teams for two years before the network was launched. The only new football content the SEC added was 14 football games. ESPN isn't paying the SEC millions for 14 extra football games. The $5 million from the SECN is strictly for subscription fees. It isn't for broadcast rights. Same thing with the ACC. If they get a channel, they will get paid from the subscription fees, not the broadcast rights.
B: The SEC added TWO TEAMS worth of inventory from Texas A&M and Missouri--bought back tier 3 rights from all its teams. As reported the rights repurchased didn't come from ESPN, but from multiple sources--excerpt from the Sports Business Daily April 2013
The conference channel cleared its biggest obstacle in recent weeks when it reacquired the third-tier TV rights from IMG College, Learfield Sports and CBS Collegiate Sports Properties, the three rights holders that work with the conference’s 14 schools.
The pay the SEC gets or the ACC might get, is to compensate the league for its product so that it can be aired. It comes from PROFITS ESPN gets from subscriptions and advertising after taking out expenses.
LOL. Talk about spin. Wes Durham made his comments in March of 2016. The article you linked (which mentioned the $2 million a year) came out in May of 2013. The reports of the payments were out long before Wes Durham said anything.
Nothing you posted proves the payments are made up. You have no evidence, literally no evidence, that the payments were made up, nor that ACC people made it up. Nothing you have posted has said, "The ACC doesn't get payments from ESPN." Wes Durham didn't say that either.
B:The article I posted is not from 2013. http://www.wralsportsfan.com/acc-co...ed-espn-channel/15584633/#MRersQ3vGxxjwF6u.99 The article talking about Wes Durham backtracking after claiming the ACC would get $45 million by July 1 2016 which you use as gospel is from March 21 2016.
You are referring to a SECOND article when you refer to the 2013 article I posted which also posted an erroneous imaginary number ESPN would supposedly have to pay the ACC which has ALSO NOT HAPPENED. Stop making $h!t up, its much easier just to deal with what is than to create fantasies to pretend things are better than they are.
B: As has been mentioned NUMEROUS TIMES--and as the SEC did--the ACC will have to roll the rights BACK to ESPN. Read slower next time before going into hystrionics.
You are so wrong on this. The SEC literally only added 14 football games to their total content. The CBS games are off the table. ESPN owned most of the right already. ESPN already owned the rights that were syndicated with Comcast and Fox. ESPN already owned the new content from Texas A&M and Missouri, as evidenced by the fact that ESPN televised games with those teams for two years before the network was launched. The only new football content the SEC added was 14 football games. ESPN isn't paying the SEC millions for 14 extra football games. The $5 million from the SECN is strictly for subscription fees. It isn't for broadcast rights. Same thing with the ACC. If they get a channel, they will get paid from the subscription fees, not the broadcast rights.
B: The SEC added TWO TEAMS worth of inventory from Texas A&M and Missouri--bought back tier 3 rights from all its teams. As reported the rights repurchased didn't come from ESPN, but from multiple sources--excerpt from the Sports Business Daily April 2013
The conference channel cleared its biggest obstacle in recent weeks when it reacquired the third-tier TV rights from IMG College, Learfield Sports and CBS Collegiate Sports Properties, the three rights holders that work with the conference’s 14 schools.
The pay the SEC gets or the ACC might get, is to compensate the league for its product so that it can be aired. It comes from PROFITS ESPN gets from subscriptions and advertising after taking out expenses.
LOL. Talk about spin. Wes Durham made his comments in March of 2016. The article you linked (which mentioned the $2 million a year) came out in May of 2013. The reports of the payments were out long before Wes Durham said anything.
Nothing you posted proves the payments are made up. You have no evidence, literally no evidence, that the payments were made up, nor that ACC people made it up. Nothing you have posted has said, "The ACC doesn't get payments from ESPN." Wes Durham didn't say that either.
B:The article I posted is not from 2013. http://www.wralsportsfan.com/acc-co...ed-espn-channel/15584633/#MRersQ3vGxxjwF6u.99 The article talking about Wes Durham backtracking after claiming the ACC would get $45 million by July 1 2016 which you use as gospel is from March 21 2016.
You are referring to a SECOND article when you refer to the 2013 article I posted which also posted an erroneous imaginary number ESPN would supposedly have to pay the ACC which has ALSO NOT HAPPENED. Stop making $h!t up, its much easier just to deal with what is than to create fantasies to pretend things are better than they are.
I haven't left out ANYTHING. BOREN stated unequivocally that CONSULTANTS gave him the $4-$6 million figure after analyses.
Again I will say if there is not penalty for not having the ACCN, then ESPN won't create on
If there is a penalty, ESPN would be foolish to give it away with nothing in return, assuming ACC is willing to buy back their rights
That's the point. There is no reason to "roll back" rights that ESPN already has. The SEC didn't "roll back" they syndication rights, because ESPN already had them in the first place.
ESPN was already airing the TWO TEAMS worth of inventory before the network started. The Tier 3 rights only comprise 14 football games. The conference channel cleared its biggest obstacle in recent weeks when it reacquired the third-tier TV rights from IMG College, Learfield Sports and CBS Collegiate Sports Properties, the three rights holders that work with the conference’s 14 schools. Those third-tier TV rights represent one football game, eight men’s basketball games, baseball, women’s basketball and all other nonrevenue sports that are not picked up by ESPN or a syndicated partner
The 14 football games were the only ones that were added. ESPN already had the rights to everything else.
No, you don't understand what I'm saying. The SECOND article is the one I was referring to in the first place. That's the whole point. The SECOND article came out 3 years before Wes Durham ever made his statements. I'm not making up anything. There are plenty of articles that reference ESPN giving the ACC the additional payment. You don't have ANY EVDINCE that this is made up. You don't have ANY EVIDENCE the ACC people made it up. You just claim that, without any proof, so it's you that is making up stuff.
No, he didn't unequivocally say that. From your own quote:
He said the media consultants "tend to think." Well, "tend to think" is not definitive. The fact is, the research had not been completed when Boren made the $4-6 million comment. He said that himself. Boren didn't know the final numbers from the research until the meetings in June. Fact.
Un-named media consultants TEND to think. Yeah, that is pretty much the Websters definition of unequivocal.
Come on TD, it isn't fair to argue using facts with Buck. when all he has is outdated quotes before the data was completed on the Network. Buck must be right when he says Boren is lying about the data media consultants provided, because he wants to play Nice TexA$$. After all we know Boren is afraid of TexA$$ and would never call the out.
If the ACC gets a network--then obviously the so-called "outdated" information provided to Boren from consultants was spot on. AND it illustrates that Boren was very likely protecting conference mate Texas from criticism for ending the conversation about a potential network as well.
The ACC is still proceeding with their network hopes so we shall see what happens.
People try to bash at me for talking about things happening--like one day Boren being wholeheartedly for a network,and then doing a 180 the day after Texas says they don't intend to let go of the LHN.
But these same people want to believe consultants Boren talked to about the network for at least a year if not more while he investigated these issues as part of the composition committee don't exist. Or that the consultants he has repeatedly referenced didn't do a thorough investigation or some other such bunk. Some want to imply Boren is just LYING. So its not me that has a problem--its all of you with your continuous fantasies--which is the only way you have looked at this entire situation from day one.
No valuable candidates, No pro rata shares for expansion, ACC falling apart and joining BIG 12, ACC guaranteed millions for nothing----on and on and on nothing but unsubstantiated fantasies oozing daily out of every one of you hypocrites.
The ACC is still proceeding with their network hopes so we shall see what happens.
People try to bash at me for talking about things happening--like one day Boren being wholeheartedly for a network,and then doing a 180 the day after Texas says they don't intend to let go of the LHN.
But these same people want to believe consultants Boren talked to about the network for at least a year if not more while he investigated these issues as part of the composition committee don't exist. Or that the consultants he has repeatedly referenced didn't do a thorough investigation or some other such bunk. Some want to imply Boren is just LYING. So its not me that has a problem--its all of you with your continuous fantasies--which is the only way you have looked at this entire situation from day one.
No valuable candidates, No pro rata shares for expansion, ACC falling apart and joining BIG 12, ACC guaranteed millions for nothing----on and on and on nothing but unsubstantiated fantasies oozing daily out of every one of you hypocrites.
98% of board posters knows the only hypocrite is Bucko. Most reasonable people take into account everything that is being presented, you take bits in pieces from here and there and put them together to suit your needs. Bowsbly and all the presidents are saying the same thing which is the TV world is changing the the data the received in the last meeting proves that.
You keep using quotes from Boren that came before the BIG12, was presented all the facts. You totally ignore what is being said with facts and call them lies. Once again the reason, it does not fit the little box you can't come out of. That Mr. Buck is being hypocrite.
You can blame TexA$$ all you want for screwing up expansion in the past, (See FSU And Clemson), but you can't blame them for this.
Last edited:
I hope that Baylor is under discussion at the July 19 meeting. Is the death penalty actually a possibility? Even if they are banned from football for a year it would really screw up the rest of the conference. If they had to be replaced, I can see either Houston or BYU as teams at the top of the list. There hasn't been much written about this since early June. Waiting for the NCAA I guess. No matter what happens, Baylor has been severely damaged and that things might not look very good there for a long time to come.
Hell no the death penalty is not in play. Even pedophile U had NCAA sanctions were reduced after about 1 year. And as Bad as Baylor crap is, what went on at PSU is way worse.
Even without sanctions that are coming they have been hit hard with 2016 defections and losing 2017 verbals.
Nobody is saying the consultants didn't exist. The problem is, you don't know exactly what information the Big 12 had asked for at the time, or what additional information Navigate Research and BVH subsequently provided at the meetings. When Bore made the $4-6 million comment, you don't know if it was Navigate Research and BVH, or different consultants giving him this information. I posted a link where Boren clearly said in May that they were going to get new data at the meetings. If they already knew the information that was going to be presented, then there wouldn't have been any presentation at the meetings in the first place.
Could you imagine being in the coastal division? The winner of that division lost to the university of South Carolina who one only 3 games all year. What a freaking cake walk
I told me wife just moments ago................."Honey, shut up and talk to me." I learn more from her this way and vice versa.
It doesn't matter which consultants gave the information--that doesn't make the information invalid.
A clue to who the consultants were is the tv partners of the BIG 12 who Boren recently commented told the BIG 12 that in order to have a conference network they would require the league to have 12 to 14 members, not ten.
I don't believe you understand how things work in the BIG 12. Boren you see was on the composition committee along with WVUs president and Baylor's. They researched candidates, expansion and issues such as a network for over a year. They were tasked with acquiring information and were to present the information they gained to the full membership at some point. That point was the May/June meetings and the meetings prior. In the earlier meetings people had more questions and the league hired additional consultants because as Boren noted, the conference needed to base decisions on detailed analysis and not emotions which were still being used by some after the initial meetings obviously. So when you say "if they already knew the information" what you don't understand is: Boren, Gee and Starr knew the information. The entire conference membership did not. That's what the purpose of the May/June meetings was--to disseminate ALL the information that had been collected to the rest of the membership.
Prior to the release of the additional info in May/June, Texas declared that the LHN wasn't going to be part of a conference network--they saw no reason for that or expansion. Without expansion? No possibility of a network. Without a network? OU and UT saw no reason to expand.
Last edited:
All you've ever done is take bits and pieces that fit your agenda, and fill it in with ridiculous fantasies.
Hypocrite.
I haven't ignored anything--but you do all the time. ALL of the information is relevant--not just the part you think fits your agenda.
You are not only a hypocrite you are a major lier. You totally ignore and spin what Boren and the rest of the big12 have said about information provided by both research companies about the current position of creating a network. Instead you quote Boren based on old and uninformed data. Why is that Mr hypocrite?
I really didn't read this post AT ALL, but someone inspired me. This board is a hot mess right now. So many awful threads. Therefore I have decided to make the longest single post ever on here. Feel free to "reply" to this pile of drivel as much and as often as possible. Add a GIF, emojis,etc. Whatever floats your boat. It's early July...let's make this board great again!!!
Similar threads
