ACC a better fit than Big 12?

[Buckaineer]

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 do not lie and am not a hypocrite. You are the one spinning and ignoring what has been said.

You ignored that Boren was on the compostition committee and collected data from consultants for years
You ignored Boren when he said the conference needed to expand, add a CCG and add a conference network
You ignored Boren when he said schools would get pro rata if added
You ignored Boren when he discussed consultants data about the conference network and candidates bringing value
You ignored Boren when he talked about future considerations for OU if comprehensive improvements weren't enacted
You ignored Boren when he discussed making UT whole if they gave up the LHN
You ignored Boren when he said that if a network wasn't possible then expansion wasn't necessary
You ignored Boren when he said that comprehensive changes, not simply one or the others was needed
You ignored that UT came out and said they didn't want a network or expansion but only a 10 team CCG and the very next day a 10 team CCG was approved and everything else shut down
You've ignored since then that Boren and now his AD have shut down expansion
This could go on and on and on.

For each of these items you have had a sea of spin, making up whatever you could to deny, deflect, alter the meaning or whatever so it would fit your agenda--even calling Boren a moron and liar. Why is that?

Hypocrite

 

[Buckaineer]

If you ever thought about anything rather than playing games--you'd realize that information and knowledge doesn't come in four word blurbs. Your laziness is your loss.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

I do not lie and am not a hypocrite. You are the one spinning and ignoring what has been said.

You ignored that Boren was on the compostition committee and collected data from consultants for years Old outdated quotes
You ignored Boren when he said the conference needed to expand, add a CCG and add a conference network Old outdated quotes
You ignored Boren when he said schools would get pro rata if added Old outdated quotes without a network expansion is not needed
You ignored Boren when he discussed consultants data about the conference network and candidates bringing value Old outdated quotes
You ignored Boren when he talked about future considerations for OU if comprehensive improvements weren't enacted Old outdated quotes
You ignored Boren when he discussed making UT whole if they gave up the LHN Old outdated quotes, can't make them whole with out profitable network.
You ignored Boren when he said that if a network wasn't possible then expansion wasn't necessary No I did not
You ignored Boren when he said that comprehensive changes, not simply one or the others was needed Old outdated quotes, he said without traditional network there is no rush to make a decesion
You ignored that UT came out and said they didn't want a network or expansion but only a 10 team CCG and the very next day a 10 team CCG was approved and everything else shut down
You've ignored since then that Boren and now his AD have shut down expansion Old outdated quotes
This could go on and on and on.

For each of these items you have had a sea of spin, making up whatever you could to deny, deflect, alter the meaning or whatever so it would fit your agenda--even calling Boren a moron and liar. Why is that?

Hypocrite

No Mr Hypocrite, I am not spinning anything. I am using Boren's latest quotes with the new data. You are the only person in the world still using his quotes with old outdated information?

What is that Mr Lair?

 

[steeleer]

If you ever thought about anything rather than playing games--you'd realize that information and knowledge doesn't come in four word blurbs. Your laziness is your loss.

What you call "laziness," 99% of people would call "appropriate use of my time."

Knowledge doesn't always come in 4 word blurbs, but "Make Love, Not War" has more enlightenment in it that anything you have written on this board. Ever.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

I don't think the ACC or BIG12 can or will get a traditional network. The cost is too high and Cable networks are not looking to add more bundles to sell.

So why the delay on any announcement on ACCN and what information did the BIG12 ask the research companies to evaluate? There are rumors ESPN is looking to partner with existing streaming companies (or they may go it alone) to provide pay as you go streaming as another avenue of distributing and generating revenue. Streaming will allow them to do this without having to rely on, Comcast, Time Warner, Dish or Direct, or other

If and when ESPN launches the ACCN, it will be based on this model and not the traditional channel accessed by TV provider.
I also believe this part of the additional data the BIG12 asked research companies to evaluate.

The major disadvantage of streaming, is the gap between reaching customers via Cable TV vs Streaming.
You might have others

The Advantages:

• There will longer be a 2 tier payment system: a higher monthly rate for states in the conference footprint, a much lower rate for states outside the network. We most likely would see a package that cost between $6-$10 a month regardless where the customer resides.
• Easier to reach international customers
• The gap of reaching customers between traditional TV provider and streaming is is dwindling each month.

 

[BOBwva1]

Talk about beating a dead horse!!!!!!

 

[skygusty]

What you call "laziness," 99% of people would call "appropriate use of my time."

Knowledge doesn't always come in 4 word blurbs, but "Make Love, Not War" has more enlightenment in it that anything you have written on this board. Ever.

In grad school we studied Strunk and Whites Elements of Style as an application of how to eliminate bullshit from our reasoning. Their motto was omit needless words. 99% of what has been said about expansion comprises needless words.

 

[topdecktiger]

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.

No, I do understand. You are simply ignoring statements that don't fit in with your theory. You mention that Boren and Gee were on the committee "for years." Well Boren and Gee are not going to sit on information "for years" Sorry, conferences don't work that way. Boren and Gee didn't have all that data and hide it from there rest of the conference. Boren and Gee simply did not know the results of the research by BVH and Navigate Research until it was presented at the spring meetings. Boren even said, just three weeks before the meetings:

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.


“There’s a possibility we could be leaving a substantial amount of money on the table if we’re not having a conference network,” Boren said.


Or not. By most indications, conditions are not ripe for launching a network.


The SEC Network, a not quite two-year-old venture with ESPN, has been a rousing success. The Big Ten Network, partnered with Fox, continues to be. But the Pac-12, which did not partner with ESPN or Fox when it launched several years ago, distributed only $1.4 million to each of its member schools through its network last year. And ESPN, which owns the rights to launch an ACC Network, has not shown much interest in the idea.




In order to launch a Big 12 network, Texas would have to give up its Longhorn Network, which pays an annual average of $15 million. Though Boren noted the school would have to “be made financially whole” — “You can’t expect them to give up $15 million,” he said — there’s been no indication that Texas is ready to consider dumping its network.


ESPN.com reported earlier this week the Big 12 would need at least $80 million annually from a conference network in order for Texas to recoup the Longhorn Network payout. And never mind Texas, Oklahoma receives approximately $6 million annually from a deal with Fox for its third-tier rights. Kansas (Time Warner Cable) and West Virginia (IMG) net similar amounts. The Big 12’s other schools have other arrangements, all of which would have to be unwound — and any conference network would have to distribute at least as much as the schools are already getting.



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.”

Clearly, from Boren's own statements, he didn't know the data before the meetings. He also said there was a "possibility" the Big 12 was leaving money on the table by not having a network. He didn't say there "were" leaving money on the table, just "possibly." That's because he didn't have the complete data until the meetings.

 

[topdecktiger]

So why the delay on any announcement on ACCN and what information did the BIG12 ask the research companies to evaluate?

There are too many possibilities regarding the ACC delay to reach the conclusion that it's because they aren't getting a network. Bowlsby and Boren were both pretty clear the additional research is in regards to expanding. They were pretty explicit after the meeting that the network issue had been settled.

 

[Buckaineer]

No, I do understand. You are simply ignoring statements that don't fit in with your theory. You mention that Boren and Gee were on the committee "for years." Well Boren and Gee are not going to sit on information "for years" Sorry, conferences don't work that way. Boren and Gee didn't have all that data and hide it from there rest of the conference. Boren and Gee simply did not know the results of the research by BVH and Navigate Research until it was presented at the spring meetings. Boren even said, just three weeks before the meetings:



Clearly, from Boren's own statements, he didn't know the data before the meetings. He also said there was a "possibility" the Big 12 was leaving money on the table by not having a network. He didn't say there "were" leaving money on the table, just "possibly." That's because he didn't have the complete data until the meetings.

No, I believe the problem is--you are an ACC troll on a BIG 12 message board and haven't got a clue about anything from what I"ve read to date. Basically make up everything you say.

Aren't there like 14.5 ACC schools? You couldn't find ONE that would allow you to post on their boards really?

 

[Buckaineer]

In grad school we studied Strunk and Whites Elements of Style as an application of how to eliminate bullshit from our reasoning. Their motto was omit needless words. 99% of what has been said about expansion comprises needless words.

stupid is as stupid does

 

[topdecktiger]

No, I believe the problem is--you are an ACC troll on a BIG 12 message board and haven't got a clue about anything from what I"ve read to date. Basically make up everything you say.

Aren't there like 14.5 ACC schools? You couldn't find ONE that would allow you to post on their boards really?

Deflection. You couldn't answer the actual point I made. Boren's own words indicate that he did not know the final data on the research until the spring meetings. I gave your direct quotes form Boren to back up my position.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Deflection. You couldn't answer the actual point I made. Boren's own words indicate that he did not know the final data on the research until the spring meetings. I gave your direct quotes form Boren to back up my position.

That is Buck mode of operandi. You could ask him directly the same question 1000's time and he wiil always deflect, and never answer, if that question is outside of his tiny box he sits in (all alone).

Pretty sad actually, I picture Bucko as a child playing all alone in little sandbox that nobody will enter, becuase he peed in it.