ACC a better fit than Big 12?
- Thread starter OldGoldandBlue1
- Start date
Steve, there is no arguing with crabby old men, children or simpletons or even the trolls from other conferences. You will never convince them or enlighten their view. Some people cannot be helped. Spend your effort on those that have ears and brains.
Big NC State booster friend. I can't confirm it is accurate, but person has connection in the athletic department.
P.S. Don't call BS. I was not going to say this in the first place but you asked.
Last edited:
CM, you are right, sometimes it is fun arguing with Old Chicken little, but I think I am done talking to someone with less brains than a post.
Well, you've got some problems with that information. The cost isn't as big of an issue as you are saying. ESPN would be able to run the network out of the ESPN Plus facilities in Charlotte, where they produce ESPNU. This is what they already do for the SEC Network. (Fox does something similar for BTN.) It doesn't cost that much to run a network if you already have pre-existing facilities.
ESPN also wouldn't be paying for rights they already own. They have to produce those games anyway, whether they televise the games on ESPN2 or an ACC network. They just switch it from one channel to another. (Just like if they switched a game from ABC to ESPN2.) This is again the model they use for the SEC network.
The problem with a conference network has nothing to do with expenses or rights. It comes down to whether or not they can get enough subscribers or a high enough subscription fee.
I respectfully disagree with you. If this was simple and cost were not significant then it would have been done. ESPN has stated the startup costs are high and is why they kept delaying any launch.
ESPN hasn't stated that. ESPN hasn't made any statements on a network. It actually is that simple. You are setting up a false dichotomy. There are multiple things that would cause ESPN to refrain from starting a network. You are artificially limiting the factors to only start up costs. If the start up costs were that much, even the SEC network would not have turned a profit in its first year. You are basing your opinion on the classic "I know a guy who knows a guy."
How about this smart boy.
According to Georgia Tech president G.P. “Bud” Peterson (via the Atlanta Journal-Constitution), ESPN — which has been in talks with the ACC to partner up on a conference network — asked to delay plans so that further preparations could be made.
“(ESPN) had come back and said that in some of the other instances where (conference) networks have started, they lost considerable amounts of money in the first couple of years,”
I've read that full article. This is you taking a page out of Buckineer's playbook and twisting words. ESPN made a general comment that some networks lost money in the first couple of years. They didn't say how the networks lost money. You are just assuming it's because of start up costs. There are a variety of factors. In the case of the Big Ten, it was because they didn't get much carriage in the first couple of years, and Fox was on the hook to give the Big Ten a guaranteed amount of money, regardless of the actual profits from the network. Same thing with the LHN. The reason LHN loses money isn't because of startup costs. It's because LHN has minimal carriage and ESPN has to pay Texas and IMG a fixed amount. In fact, the article actually indicates otherwise. It says:
Evidently, the request to delay from 2017 is a result of ESPN’s desire to properly time the launch of an ACC channel, wanting to ensure broad distribution with cable operators.
So according to the article that YOU cited, the reason ESPN is delaying the launch isn't because of startup costs. It's because they want to get the distribution agreements set up ahead of time.
You also pulled another page out of Buckineer's playbook, by only taking the quotes that suit you. Peterson went on to say, in the very same paragraph you quoted:
“What they’d like to do is delay the start for a couple years and do the necessary preparation.”
So tell me this "smart boy," if the costs are so prohibitive, then why are they suddenly not going to be prohibitive in a couple of years? Also, Peterson's quotes that ESPN only wants to "delay" the launch, and wants to make "necessary preparations" actually sounds like ESPN is going to pursue a network. However, you are doing exactly what you accuse Buckineer of doing. You only take the comments from Peterson that fit your theory, that the ACC won't get a network. You disregard the comments that support the idea of a network. Pot calling the kettle black there.
As the quotes state, Every time a network is started it has lost considerable amounts of money in the first couple of years. Disney has cut 100's of millions from ESPN and is not about lose more money on a network that is just an overlap of the BIG and SEC.
No, the article didn't state that. It said "in some instances" networks lost money in the beginning. (For the record, the SEC network did not lose money in the beginning, so your statement that "every" network lost money is false.)
Aside from that, you sidestepped the point. Peterson's comments don't back up your position. He only said that ESPN wanted to delay the launch for a couple of years. He didn't say anything close to what you are extrapolating. Again, you are accusing other people of twisting around Boren's comments on the Big 12, yet you are doing the exact same thing in this instance.
To address the network point specifically, here is another interview, with Clemson AD Dan Radakovich:
Yet another quote that contradicts your theory. According to Radakovich, ESPN is waiting until its general contracts are up with Comcast, Time Warner, and DirecTV, to put a network in with their overall negotiations. This contradicts your idea that costs are prohibitive, and also the idea refusing a network altogether.
I read Vingle's comments and I think the nature of his piece is misrepresented by the OP.
I was expecting an article in which Vingle would lay out multiple reasons for making a case of WVU to the ACC. What he wrote resembled no such thing.
I was expecting an article in which Vingle would lay out multiple reasons for making a case of WVU to the ACC. What he wrote resembled no such thing.
Why would the ACC invite WVU? Or more to the point, which schools would vote for us? I think those against inviting us would be, UNC, Duke, UVA, BC, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Notre Dame (if they get to vote) probably Pitt, Syracuse, probably Miami, probably Louisville and VT - all against it. Not too sure if NCST, Clemson or FSU would vote for us at this point. Even if BC is against UCONN being added, I see the ACC going there instead of inviting WVU. How many times do you have to be told no before you understand no?
more than one North Carolinian has a negative view of the typical West by God Virginian...........just sayin'.......... That's based on my visits to the Tar Heel state and comments from the natives. I didn't exactly do an in-depth survey while I was there........but, the drift was hard to miss. The schools in North Carolina have NEVER wanted WVU in their conference....... Having said that, things MAY have changed somewhat in the last few years what with the R1 status now having been attained by WVU and by Jim Clements now being at Clemson who would undoubtedly speak positively of WVU. Whether those 2 items would carry the day is somewhat doubtful, given the long-time dislike of all things West Virginia by the elitists at the North Carolina schools............
Why would WVU go backwards a step? Right now it would be a pay cut. No one knows about tomorrow, if they did they would win the lottery or become wealthy from the stock market. Or both.
1. it isn't relevant what the average fan thinks, it only matters what the conference as a whole believes is good.
2. These people who support schools like UNC have no leg to stand on when their great state school was letting their entire athletic student body maintain eligibility by providing bogus classes.
No. Didn't exist in the ACC yet.
However, comments like 'rock solid' and 'no one is getting out of one, or even going to try' are completely speculative and could easily be debated.
Does anyone even have a link to the Big 12 GOR agreement?
No one has a link to any of them in any conference. Conferences only have on hand the signing appendage so that when FOIAs come in that is all they can produce. No one outside of a select few have seen the original documents and since those existing copies are in the hands of a few legal firms and the broadcaster, FOIA cannot reach them.
Any one that says they have seen one or obtained one is lying - 100%.
I thought so... ..which makes people claiming they're ironclad look silly.
Not sure what your point is Steve. North Carolinians and the North Carolina schools have traditionally had the same view..........they don't view WV'ians nor WVU in a positive light. That may be changing with our new R1 status and Jimbo running Clemson. That was my point.
Why would we care what they think? What purpose does it fulfill to have their validation? Entrenched stereotypically thoughts are never influenced by facts, but why do we care if they are ignorant people?
No, Maryland was not under a grant of rights until they joined the Big Ten.
They paid over $30 million in exit fees to exit the ACC--had nothing to do with a grant of rights, and is not a similar contract.
Buyout or exit fees are punitive damages for breaking an agreement to be part of a conference.
Grants of rights means the school has transferred the value of their media rights to someone else--in this case the conference. Its like signing over your house or car to someone. Once done you don't just get them back because you change your mind, and the new entity that has ownership is under no obligation to sell them back, let alone give them back.
The question is--why would the ACC expand?
The answer --only for more money per member--that after all is their "problem"--their members make considerably less from their conference and media rights per school than those in other conferences--behind the Big Ten, SEC and BIG 12 and to an extent behind the Pac 12.
So if they are going to consider adding WVU--assuming WVUs media rights are available--it would have to mean WVU raises the per team payout to existing ACC members. Unfortunately, the ACC is likely to recieve a pro rata increase for such an addition. That's what they would get for adding just about anyone (if they could attract any P5 school). Its why they want to get Notre Dame to join them. If that happens, they'll get more than pro rata and can add another school and the existing members will get more money. Problem is that even that isn't going to bring them up to Big Ten or SEC numbers so it may not matter in the long run (which is why ND is already "flirting" with conferences like the Big ten (by putting some sports in that conference and beginning to make overtures to play Big Ten rivals again---leaving options open for the future realignment .
The Big Ten network didn't lose money, and the SEC network didn't lose money. The Pac 12 network also did not lose money--it just doesn't pay out like the BTN and SECN do.
The BIG 12 CANT have a network if Texas is not in agreement to merge the LHN into it, or in expanding to add the inventory to have a network.
As per the DAY BEFORE Boren announced the BIG 12 wouldn't pursue a network--the AD of Texas who is speaking on these matters for them stated that he didn't see Texas doing anything with the LHN and didn't think expansion was needed. The NEXT DAY--voila! No network and expansion talk continuing indefinitely.
What part of that can you simply not comprehend?
Had Texas stated they would be interested in expansion and participating in a BIG 12 network, the BIG 12 would be working on a network now. It may not be a "television" network--as the conference said years ago they wouldn't necessarily be interested in that, but "future technologies" (i.e. streaming)
As proof that the ability of conferences to have a network hasn't been ended, the ACC has NOT announced that they cannot have a network "due to the market". In fact they may announce something about an ACC network later this year.
Again, why can you not comprehend this. If the ACC forms an ACC network--then it IS possible for a conference with the right mix of inventory, markets and footprint and demand to have a conference network. No amount of ignorant name calling will change that.
BIG 12 payouts.
The money this year is nice. It isn't much different from financial projections however.
The BIG 12 estimates (via ISU) for fiscal year 2016 were: 29,931,415
$30.4 million is not far off from $29.9 million. It should also be noted that ISU didn't likely include playoff participation in their estimates from the conference.
The problem is that as time goes on, Big Ten ans SEC revenue projections grow more quickly than BIG 12 revenues and in five to twelve years time-according to people such as WVUs AD, and the commisioner of the conference Bowlsby, and the president of Oklahoma--have all stated the conference is going to fall behind by a wide margin.
That is why, while the previous years payout is great--the fact that comprehensive improvements were not adopted is a problem going forward for the conference.
The money this year is nice. It isn't much different from financial projections however.
The BIG 12 estimates (via ISU) for fiscal year 2016 were: 29,931,415
$30.4 million is not far off from $29.9 million. It should also be noted that ISU didn't likely include playoff participation in their estimates from the conference.
The problem is that as time goes on, Big Ten ans SEC revenue projections grow more quickly than BIG 12 revenues and in five to twelve years time-according to people such as WVUs AD, and the commisioner of the conference Bowlsby, and the president of Oklahoma--have all stated the conference is going to fall behind by a wide margin.
That is why, while the previous years payout is great--the fact that comprehensive improvements were not adopted is a problem going forward for the conference.
Question. Why would Pitt, Syracuse, Miami, UL and VT vote against WV? Or rather, what would lead you to believe that?
Mostly because the Tobacco Road schools appear to be adamantly against it. I think they would rather back the will of the power in the conference rather than buck it just to get the band back together. That is the biggest difference we have in the Big12, the power in the conference wanted us. The power in the ACC never has and never will. I can believe that some schools in the ACC might consider us, if it ever came to that, but in the end, I don't think we would get many votes. If the ACC does still have a shot at a network, I can see how the population of CT and the northeast would get the nod over WVU. Hell, they might even invite Cincy before WVU. As long as ND strings them along, they probably aren't inviting anybody.
Even if the BIG12 expands, and even if the additions are additive instead of dilutive, it is likely that the BIG10 and the SEC revenues grow more quickly than that of the other 3 conferences. Someone needs to post a line graph of projected (per capita) distributed revenues of all 5 conferences and include an option that shows the effect of adding specific schools to the BIG12. It isn't enough to just show the gross increase in conference revenue that actually just covers expenses, it has to be worth it long term for all schools and clearly show that expansion will close the gap. My guess is that the presidents HAVE seen those numbers and are not convinced it is worth it right now. Comprehensive improvements were adopted. The Big12 now has a 13th data point, a CCG and an additional estimated 3 million per team.
Nole the answer to your question is a complicated one, however I will try to simplify the answer for you. History is why they wouldn't vote for WVU. Pitt doesn't like us...UL doesn't like us and still have a bad taste in their mouth over the big12 invite...VT doesn't like us...Cuse and Miami think they are above us. Unless the ACC breaks apart WVU will not be invited and it doesn't even matter what our academic ranking is, or if an earthquake creates a coastline on our eastern panhandle, or if WV somehow has a population boom. It is what it is.
Not sure where the idea of "the effect of adding specific schools to the BIG 12" comes from.
The BIG 12 can only add who it can add. If it adds Cincinnati, or BYU, or UCF, or Tulane--the conference is going to get pro rata shares from the television partners.
Schools like Memphis, and Cincinnati have had corporations speak to the conference on their behalf and made financial guarantees should those schools be added, but other than that? Its the same amount as CBS once reported whether the conference adds Appalachian State or FSU.
Notre Dame was reported to bring an increase when Texas was trying to get them to join--but Notre Dame isn't joining the BIG 12.
Now, quotes from leaders in the conference and news articles state that the conference is still evaluating candidates but its based on the reputational impact and how they'll affect each school from that and maybe from a ticket sales standpoint.
Comprehensive improvements don't = adopting 1 of 3, but 3 of 3. Adding a 10 team CCG is a single short term move to boost revenues that guarantees a rematch and very likely knocks out your champion from playoff contention. When the conference had 12 teams in the five years they had rematches , the team that won the first game lost the second 40% of the time. That would mean missing out on the playoffs 3 or 4 more years between 2017 and 2026. $6 million per year at least. All for an amount of revenue that will only keep you in the ballpark in the short term, not the long term.
Comprehensive improvements with expansion, a network and then a CCG would have put the BIG 12 financially on par long term with those other conferences which will continue reaping profits from the traditional model of a network long into the future and probably long after 2025--and they will merge their established product into whatever comes next.
Last edited:
Like you said above, the only reason for the ACC to expand is more money per school. Same reason the BIG12 isn't expanding, no more money per school, unless they can renegotiate a TV package. BYU would probably look a lot better in terms of future negotiated contracts. As you say, the pool of available teams is limited but some teams have to project out better than others for future dollars. The idea of specific schools is simple. Right now there is a pool of 6-8 potentials. At some point, they are going to have to choose specific schools. If there is no difference between BYU and Appy State in terms of future money then you have your answer as to why they are not expanding with the current available pool, if ever. I view the CCG as comprehensive improvement, apparently the conference does too. Tell me again why anyone thought Texas would give up 15 million a year and also vote to bring in schools that nobody else wants and would not enhance the prestige of the league or result in a future TV package worth more money per school and which also would dilute the power of Texas in any future decisions? It would be Texas thinking about leaving if that came to pass. Like sane people, the BIG12 presidents compromised, improved their situation and are moving forward. As long as there are 4 slots for 5 conferences someone is going to be left out. Wah. You are going to have to show your work as far as your contention that if all 3 of those things had come to pass, that these actions would have put the BIG12 financially on par with the other conferences. What does financially on par even mean? I'd say that the presidents looked at the ramifications of doing what you want and not only said no but hell no. Yeah, I bet Texas had a big say in things, just like the North Carolina schools had a big say in WVU never being included in an ACC invite. Power is wielded by the powerful and it is always easy to spend someone else's money.
This is not necessarily true - using just one example, what if the two teams playing the championship rematch have only the one loss between them from the regular season matchup. Then as you say, the one loss team beats the undefeated team in the rematch - unless all four other conferences have undefeated champions, the B12 champ would definitely be in.
A 2nd example would be if both teams enter the conference championship with one loss, obviously the winner ends up with one loss and again, unless most other conferences have undefeated champs (besides maybe the SEC), the B12 would likely get the nod just from the fact they play everyone in their conference.
The bottom line:
Average TV Viewership per Conference game:
SEC 5,597,143
B10 5,013,964
B12 4,524,800
P12 2,711,750
ACC 2,113,357
AAC 752,667
Would you really want to be in a conference with 40% the viewership per game of the B12? The B12 was an unfair underpaid mess in 2010 and nearly fell apart but it has been fixed now (funny that two of the teams that worked to make the B12 unfair in their favor, A$M and the Nubs, ended up leaving the conference they made just like they wanted).
We don't have a Network but we do have control of our Tier III games and if we can make more money from the team network that I think every B12 team has then we can be richer and see more of the sports from our favorite team (ie: I can watch Cyclones.tv and see nearly every Cyclone softball, soccer, wrestling, tennis (for what reason I do not know), girls basketball, gymnastics, and non-conference basketball games while my Hawkeye friends see their team seldom on the B10 Network).
I would say that due to viewership alone that the B12 is more likely to poach the ACC or P12 than the other way around. The ACC Network will not amount to anything and the P12 network will go bankrupt.
Wouldn't you like a poke at RichRod every year if AZ realized that more money and more national viewership was just 500 miles east?
I understand the geography isn't the best but you guys should consider the facts before you trade airplane rides for bus rides. Not only is our football more fun than an ACC game but we have a heck of a basketball conference too.
I think you are making a spurious correlation here. You are focusing too much on the timing. These discussions always take place before any official announcements. You are making an assumption that because Texas said "no change in LHN" first and Boren said "no network" second, Texas squashed the whole thing. What you are leaving out is that discussions were taking place before either announcement. So in other words, what probably happened is that all the presidents were looking at the data during the meetings, and found it wasn't compelling enough for a network.
You are assuming that a network was still on the table until Texas made the announcement, and Boren's statement was simply a reaction to Texas. It's more likely that the decision was made before either one of them made an announcement.
I haven't seen anything that indicates NC State and Wake Forest would be against West Virginia. I can see your point about Duke and North Carolina. However, keep in mind that Duke and North Carolina didn't want Miami and Virginia Tech either, and we see what happened.
Its not necessarily true that 40% of the time the BIG 12 had rematches, the team that won the first matchup lost?
Yes it is true. Its also true that when you have a guaranteed rematch its a 50-50 proposition as to who is going to win.
I think we could expect to see Clemson and FSU in the Big12 before we would see WVU in the ACC, and this would be the day after hell froze over and Pigs flew. The ships have all sailed. WVU is not going to be in the ACC in any likely scenario, and it is unlikely that any ACC school will ever join the Big12. Unless the top 65 schools in college football form a collective bargaining cabal, or the Big10 or SEC stun the world and add some really plum teams from other conferences, I think expansion may be done. As far as the ACC is concerned, past is prologue and there is abundant evidence that WVU will never happen there.
Similar threads
