ACC Network?
- Thread starter Buckaineer
- Start date
That's the point and timing I talked about with you about a while back as you turned into a real tool! Stick with Expansion and keep calling for the end of the ACC you punk computer geek tool. Riddle me this........when the ACC and ESPN blow each other(real soon) will that indicate to anyone that the ACC is not here as a P5 to stay? Make sure to back peddle, call me a few names and then jerk it to possible Big12 expansion. Have a good night ya tool.
For the other morons talking about poor market conditions crawl back under your rock. LOL. Nobody gives a crap about Big12 content. Outside of Texas and Oklahoma no one gives a crap about the other program. Not me! I like WVU and TCU as well! So save the crap stick up for the conference crap. It's historically the most dysfunctional conference because Texas is the most arrogant program in the country. Watching that Lornhorn circus at the NCAAs at the Consol a couple years back made me hate that place forever. Programs have always left the Big12. My guess is if the landscape changing again history will repeat itself.
Last edited:
It's official, the ACC network will launch in August of 2019 and will also include streaming content for all ACC schools. The deal also locks in Notre Dame to the ACC until 2039 if it tries to join a conference. This looks like a huge windfall of cash for all the schools, and solidifies the ACC as a top tier conference. Is this a great day to be a Pitt fan or what? 
Panda
Panda
excerpt:
John Ourand Verified account @Ourand_SBJ
Source: ESPN to launch a digital-only, "ACC Network Plus" in Aug 2016 and a linear "ACC Network" in Aug 2019. Full story in SBD tomorrow.
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/esp...-by-2019-extends-acc-rights-through-2036.html
So--where's M Steve and Skygusty and the rest--bashing me endlessly? Explain again how there's "no market"?
"the market says there can't be a BIG 12 network"?
Just as I said. One day the network was not only a possibility, but advised and worth alot to each and every member, and then Texas said "we see no reason to give up the LHN". Next thing you know, no BIG 12 network---but somehow the ACC can have one.
2023 is fast approaching.
John Ourand Verified account @Ourand_SBJ Source: ESPN to launch a digital-only, "ACC Network Plus" in Aug 2016 and a linear "ACC Network" in Aug 2019. Full story in SBD tomorrow.
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/esp...-by-2019-extends-acc-rights-through-2036.html
So--where's M Steve and Skygusty and the rest--bashing me endlessly? Explain again how there's "no market"?
"the market says there can't be a BIG 12 network"?
Just as I said. One day the network was not only a possibility, but advised and worth alot to each and every member, and then Texas said "we see no reason to give up the LHN". Next thing you know, no BIG 12 network---but somehow the ACC can have one.
2023 is fast approaching.
excerpt:
Source: ESPN to launch a digital-only, "ACC Network Plus" in Aug 2016 and a linear "ACC Network" in Aug 2019. Full story in SBD tomorrow.
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/esp...-by-2019-extends-acc-rights-through-2036.html
So--where's M Steve and Skygusty and the rest--bashing me endlessly? Explain again how there's "no market"?
"the market says there can't be a BIG 12 network"?
Just as I said. One day the network was not only a possibility, but advised and worth alot to each and every member, and then Texas said "we see no reason to give up the LHN". Next thing you know, no BIG 12 network---but somehow the ACC can have one.
Flip flopper.
2023 is fast approaching.
It's official, the ACC network will launch in August of 2019 and will also include streaming content for all ACC schools. The deal also locks in Notre Dame to the ACC until 2039 if it tries to join a conference. This looks like a huge windfall of cash for all the schools, and solidifies the ACC as a top tier conference. Is this a great day to be a Pitt fan or what?
Panda
Ouch!!! I've been saying all along that the ACC has the most fertile footprint in college football. So good that even the big bad Big10 had to come to NY and DC to secure their brand for the future. If they could take back their decision to let step child Big 12 Nebraska in they would. Had to listen to the resident morons chirp about how great the Big12 is and that the Big12 will be poaching the ACC into oblivion LOL! Although I am a Pitt grad I happen to have a lot of respect and fondness for WVU and realize WVU had no choice but to except the life preserver the Big12 threw out to WVU. However there is no question that the Big12 is in jeopardy at all times because Texas is a piece of shit partner that holds all of the cards. Anyone that argues against that fact is a resident moron.
excerpt:
Source: ESPN to launch a digital-only, "ACC Network Plus" in Aug 2016 and a linear "ACC Network" in Aug 2019. Full story in SBD tomorrow.
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/esp...-by-2019-extends-acc-rights-through-2036.html
So--where's M Steve and Skygusty and the rest--bashing me endlessly? Explain again how there's "no market"?
"the market says there can't be a BIG 12 network"?
Just as I said. One day the network was not only a possibility, but advised and worth alot to each and every member, and then Texas said "we see no reason to give up the LHN". Next thing you know, no BIG 12 network---but somehow the ACC can have one.
2023 is fast approaching.
Oh, no, no, no. You can't point the finger at anybody. You said the ACC wasn't getting a network without buying back the rights from Raycom. You said there weren't any negotiations ongoing. You said ESPN wasn't paying for content they already own. Well, riddle me this, does this mean the ACC didn't buy back the rights from Raycom? Does this mean there weren't any discussions going on, since it wasn't reported? Does this mean ESPN is "paying twice" for content?
Hmm, looks to me like 3 years before a TV network gets going and VOILA---articles are talking about the rights from Raycom having to be gotten back. We'll see what the details say tomorrow.
There already has been a digital ACC network--it was launched a couple of years back--still no word on content.
There already has been a digital ACC network--it was launched a couple of years back--still no word on content.
Here's more info from ESPN for all of those that bashed me saying waiting for the ACC to crumble was fools gold and a disaster for the BIG 12:
excerpt:
The ACC also extended its conference grant of rights deal nine years through 2035-36, a source said.
The conference's grant of rights makes it untenable financially for a school to leave, guaranteeing in the 20 years of the deal that a school's media rights, including revenue, for all home games would remain with the ACC regardless of the school's affiliation.
The ACC's new grant of rights also automatically extends Notre Dame's contract with the conference as a member in all sports but football through 2035-36, a source said. If the Irish forgo football independence in the next 20 years, they are contracted to join the ACC.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...year-rights-deal-lead-2019-launch-acc-network
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...year-rights-deal-lead-2019-launch-acc-network
Hello M Steve? Skygusty? Everyone else? Hello????? Still waiting for the ACC to fall apart and schools to flock to the BIG 12 that is run by a Texas just trying to stall any BIG 12 movement until they bolt?
excerpt:
The ACC also extended its conference grant of rights deal nine years through 2035-36, a source said.
The conference's grant of rights makes it untenable financially for a school to leave, guaranteeing in the 20 years of the deal that a school's media rights, including revenue, for all home games would remain with the ACC regardless of the school's affiliation.
The ACC's new grant of rights also automatically extends Notre Dame's contract with the conference as a member in all sports but football through 2035-36, a source said. If the Irish forgo football independence in the next 20 years, they are contracted to join the ACC.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...year-rights-deal-lead-2019-launch-acc-network
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...year-rights-deal-lead-2019-launch-acc-network
Hello M Steve? Skygusty? Everyone else? Hello????? Still waiting for the ACC to fall apart and schools to flock to the BIG 12 that is run by a Texas just trying to stall any BIG 12 movement until they bolt?
No, sorry, you were wrong on this. You said Raycom wasn't selling, not to mention Fox. Well, sorry, but ESPN wouldn't be announcing this if they didn't already have a plan in place. Obviously, they either don't depend on the Raycom content (doubtful), or they are confident they will be able to get back the rights from Raycom and Fox (likely). You also said the ACC wasn't going to get enough carriage for a network, because of being unpopular up north and competing with the SEC down south. Well, obviously ESPN disagrees with you, otherwise they wouldn't be launching the network.
LIES. I never once said anyone wasn't selling. I said there haven't been any reports those entities are selling.
So far, there haven't been any official announcements from the ACC. We don't know what will be on--maybe its repeats or sports people aren't watching until they get rights back from Raycom. You talk about carriage? ESPN has no carriage as of yet, so its premature at best to make some lying claims about carriage. Either way I never said they wouldn't have enough to have a network, that is another blatant LIE. I said that the territory you are claiming as "ACC" is grossly overstated.
Nope. Nothing I said was a lie. I can directly quote you to prove my point:
Like I said, ESPN must disagree with you.
Yep, that fits right in to what I said about you claiming they wouldn't get enough subscribers to start a network.
Well no, they get a full fledged cable channel in 2019. This one was wrong too.
This is you again saying they wouldn't get enough subscribers. Again, ESPN obviously doesn't agree with you, since they are launching the network.
Tell ESPN.
And this isn't you saying the ACC won't get enough subscribers for a network? Please, that's exactly what you were saying.
Now, about Raycom and Fox not selling:
"Nowhere close to happening."
He must have gotten a new job.
Well, they must be, since you said the ACC can't start a network without the rights from Raycom. Which leads to this point:
Well, this is interesting. Raycom owns all the rights necessary to create an ACC network. So you were saying that two weeks ago, and now you're saying ESPN might use "repeats" or sports people aren't watching. Oh, really? I thought they couldn't create a network without the Raycom rights. Now, ESPN can use "repeats" to create a network?
Sooooo.....ESPN already owns the rights to "repeats" and "sports that nobody watches." So ESPN is going to pay the ACC for something they already own? I though you said that wouldn't happen?
But they have intentions to start a network with "repeats" that the already own?
Which brings us to this. The ACC must have content to put on the network. So "repeats" is content now?
And yet........
Sooooooooo, if they don't have the rights back, ESPN will show "repeats?" Sounds rather far fetched. Sounds more like ESPN is confident they will get back those rights.
This is another point. Explain to me what rights the ACC bought back from ESPN. The only thing that happened was that ESPN extended the contract until 2036. No mention of rights that the ACC bought back and sold to ESPN.
Well, the ACC hasn't bought back any rights, and they have a channel, so.....
Still think ESPN will put the Raycom rights on an "existing platform" or create "ESPN Ocho?" Actually, you might be right about that part, because the ACC won't have room for Raycom games, being that they to be filled up with "repeats."
Well. they didn't have to do that, obviously.
Now for fun, let's look at some of your other predictions:
Sure about that?
Maybe?
Epic fail.
Epic fail.
Epic fail.
Epic fail, again.
Epic fail. (GoR until 2036.)
Hilarious fail.
So yeah, I'm not lying.
Go ahead and directly quote me TD LIAR. I'll be waiting. I haven't said what you claim I did.
The details should be out tomorrow I'd expect. Looking forward to some explanations there, and you'll still be lying.
Not sure why its so important to you to claim I've said things I never did. The problem seems to be your comprehension of things said.
The details should be out tomorrow I'd expect. Looking forward to some explanations there, and you'll still be lying.
Not sure why its so important to you to claim I've said things I never did. The problem seems to be your comprehension of things said.
This is the only post I ever made about the ACC network. Sounds like the network just announced for the ACC is not going to be a traditional network. Is the Big12 going to continue to let each school market their digital content or are they going to do something with the full weight of the conference behind it? I don't think either Texas or Oklahoma are going to do anything to benefit the conference at this point, so I am not optimistic. The other 8 teams are followers, not leaders.
I did quote you directly. \
No, the problem is you were just flat out wrong and you won't admit it. It's there in black and white.
Yes it is. They are getting a full-fledged channel in 2019. While the linear network will launch by 2019, the ACC Network's digital channel will start this fall, sources said.
It's a regular channel, just like the BTN or SECN.
By the way, we know the answer to this now. When the linear channel launches in '19, it will carry at least 400 events, including 40 football and 150 men’s and women’s basketball games each year. So much for the idea of repeats.
Well good for the ACC then. This and the extended GOR are probably all that is needed to keep the ACC intact and safe from the Big10 and the SEC for decades. Maybe there is still a small opening for WVU in the SEC after all - Oklahoma and WVU wouldn't be completely farfetched.
If the doomsday scenario happened, I would suspect West Virginia would end up in either conference. From the SEC's perspective, none of the other schools really have better markets (aside from maybe Oklahoma). The already have one Texas team, so another wouldn't be a new market either. Of course, the doomsday scenario isn't going to happen, so it's not really a problem.
Once again lying about what I've stated.
I'm one of the few here that said the ACC may still get a channel. I stated that the territory you claimed was overstated, that the numbers you gave for cable subscribers and pay tv subscribers was incorrect based on the real info from Neilsen, and that Raycom and FOX own content that will be required for a tv network.
Articles are referencing the Raycom product, the digital network starting soon will have Olympic events on it for three years-no reference to additional revenues for the ACC yet there, and it won't be until 2019 that the ACC can get a linear network with 40 football games. Raycom/FOX= the rights to 31 live football games and 60 live men’s basketball games. Haven't seen a report of purchase of those rights.
I'm a little rough around the edges and at times I share my opinions in a confrontational manner...so yes, there are some people on the forums that don't like me. I doubt most of those same people think I'm a moron though (although they may use this op to take an easy shot at me).
You on the other hand don't garnish must respect from pretty much any valued posters. Why? ....because your opinions are almost always logically flawed if not accidentally comical. When you can't put together a coherent post you simply reply with a grade school insult similar to, 'Resident moron'. Impressive.
I'm not lying about a damn thing. You said all this stuff, and now you don't want to admit you were wrong. You said:
You were dead wrong here. The ACC is getting a cable channel, just like the SEC and Big Ten.
Yeah, you were all over the ACC getting a network. Right.
This is another thing. This if from Sports Business Daily, and you quoted them extensively, so you can't say they're wrong. ACC games that appear on ESPN3 will move to the digital ACC Network Plus. Remember how you swore up and down ESPN wasn't paying for content they already own? Well, ESPN already owned the content that's being switched from ESPN3 to the network. So, that blows your theory to hell. Of course, as I told you, the payment from the network is not for content, but for subscribers, so ESPN isn't paying twice for it.
That leads to the point you made about Raycom. Where do you think the 40 games are coming from? The ACC has a total of 112 games. A few of those are OOC road games, so let's say that ends up being around 100 home games. 35 of the games go to Raycom, so that leaves ~65 games. Take out the 40 for the network, and that leaves ~15 games for the rest of ESPN's platforms. So is that what they're doing? ESPN is only going to have 15 games? You told me yourself the ACC wouldn't get a network unless they got back the rights from Raycom. Well, the ACC has a network, so what's the conclusion?
By the way, you are overlooking the fact that Raycom also owned the ACC's digital rights. The ACC's digital network starts next month. Well, that means ESPN has to have bought back the digital rights from Raycom. But I know, since there wasn't a press release about it, it couldn't have happened. Never mind all the legal implications. Because it wasn't mentioned in a press release, it obviously couldn't have happened.
For same strange reason I imagine topdecker posting this while listening to 'Damn it feels good to be a gangsta' in the back ground.
Notice there is 0 mention of costs/revenue.
You have serious issues.
You can't post any quote of mine in relation to anything you are saying because what you say is a complete and total mischaracterization of everything I said.
No, you and your few buddies who think you represent the entire Mountaineer nation are morons.
All of the crap all of you have spewed in your ridiculous attempts to smear me have been 100% incorrect and you are so ignorant and vile you still won't admit it.
Thankfully the BIG 12 is FINALLY starting to. Not there yet--they've got to actually take the action they are talking about.
Well, here you go. Raycom Sports, the league's regional television distributor, will continue to carry games until 2019. There's your answer. But yeah, Raycom wasn't going to sell, remember?
Yet more clarification on some of the issues that were argued:
Skipper also noted ESPN will fully own the ACC Network, just as it does with the SEC Network. The ACC will get a new dedicated channel that's taken to the market for distributors, meaning it won't be a current ESPN-branded channel that changes into the ACC Network, Skipper said.
So, yes as I said, ESPN will own 100% of the network. That leads into the next point.
Might there be a day when a Duke-North Carolina basketball game is on the ACC Network in order to drive distribution? ESPN owns all of the ACC's rights so it's certainly possible. When ESPN2 was trying to get off the ground in 1998, the network aired Duke-North Carolina and set a viewership record at the time for the channel.
As I also said, ESPN owns all of the ACC's rights. There it is, right there. ESPN owns all of the ACC's rights, yet the ACC has a network. The ACC has a network, and will get paid for it. So according to the above theory, ESPN is "paying twice" for rights they already own. Not so, because as I pointed out, the payments from the network are for subscriptions, not for content.
Skipper also noted ESPN will fully own the ACC Network, just as it does with the SEC Network. The ACC will get a new dedicated channel that's taken to the market for distributors, meaning it won't be a current ESPN-branded channel that changes into the ACC Network, Skipper said.
So, yes as I said, ESPN will own 100% of the network. That leads into the next point.
Might there be a day when a Duke-North Carolina basketball game is on the ACC Network in order to drive distribution? ESPN owns all of the ACC's rights so it's certainly possible. When ESPN2 was trying to get off the ground in 1998, the network aired Duke-North Carolina and set a viewership record at the time for the channel.
As I also said, ESPN owns all of the ACC's rights. There it is, right there. ESPN owns all of the ACC's rights, yet the ACC has a network. The ACC has a network, and will get paid for it. So according to the above theory, ESPN is "paying twice" for rights they already own. Not so, because as I pointed out, the payments from the network are for subscriptions, not for content.
Face it folks...Buck was right on this...or more right than most. Bottom line is WVU's spot in the P5 just got more precarious. Big 12 has to go to 14, add two closer rivals for WVU, find a way to be the last one in to the conference network gig (sad state of mangement) and extend GOR. Crap comments about adding other P5 schools should end now. This is about WVU's future.
On the Texas board, someone posted one of the paid articles. From what it says, Texas doesn't want to extend the GoR.
I love the elitism. I will buy into too once, once, we get off the win one, lose one treadmill that we have been on for the past four years. lol
Are you slow or something? It's understood by EVERYONE that ESPN owns all ACC rights and I've said it many times.
What you don't seem to understand is ESPN paid for those rights already.
Someone has to buy back rights from Raycom, although more recent articles make it seem as though they will simply let the sublicense expire, whereas previous reports stated the rights were owned though 2027.
If espn already paid for these rights and they did -- then obviously they aren't going to just give the ACC more money for those same rights. Their will be some arrangement under which espn is compensated for paying double for the same rights. They'll take a higher percentage for a long period until paid back.
The PAC 12 is going through this now, one of the reasons their media rights distribution is low.
Further, recent articles pointed out the ACC may play more conference games in order to increase inventory and espn wants them to do this. 7 more football games added to the 31 from Raycom/ fox creates 38 for the network. Still haven't seen financial details or why you think espn is just giving the ACC additional money for the same rights they already own. that makes no sense whatsoever. The ACC will receive less money from a network until espn is compensated or they'll buy them and then transfer to espn
Last edited:
I'm happy for the ACC fans that things are working out. I am sure they will find something new to worry about because all fans are just that way. If we don't have a problem we go with a 'What if?'
As far as the B12 is concerned, not having a conference network is probably rather uniquely more lucrative not only for Texas and Oklahoma but also WVU. Between the IMG deal and reserved advertising by United Bank and Ruby Memorial Hospital, they bring in around $9 million on top of the conference payout. Not $15 million like Texas, but very close to Oklahoma. When the smoke clears and PPV Streaming Video comes out I won't miss a Mountaineer game again.
As far as the B12 is concerned, not having a conference network is probably rather uniquely more lucrative not only for Texas and Oklahoma but also WVU. Between the IMG deal and reserved advertising by United Bank and Ruby Memorial Hospital, they bring in around $9 million on top of the conference payout. Not $15 million like Texas, but very close to Oklahoma. When the smoke clears and PPV Streaming Video comes out I won't miss a Mountaineer game again.
Sorry, the facts of the deal have just contradicted what you said. The Raycom deal is not simply expiring. ESPN is buying out Raycom. The Raycom deal ran through 2027. However, now Raycom will only show games through 2019. The contract isn't expiring. Raycom is simply being bought out by ESPN.
Now, that gets to the next point. ESPN owns ALL the rights to the ACC, including the Raycom games. Even if the ACC goes to 9 conference games, ESPN already owns those rights. ESPN owns every single right for the ACC. So, by your logic, the ACC can't make any money. However, they are going to make money. From USA Today: There are the obvious financial ramifications of adding a conference network. Though no one would discuss specifics, once launched in August 2019, the ACC’s network will likely add between $5 million and $8 million to each school’s budget (and for the next two years, in the run-up to launch, the ACC’s rights deal will increase). So, the estimates so far are around $5 million per school. Also note, the ACC will get an increase payout until the network launches. Well, ESPN has already paid for those rights, and now they just agreed to pay more money. According to you, ESPN is "paying twice" for the rights. Well, they aren't, because of the reason I've been telling you. The subscription fees are not the same thing as the rights fees. The subscription fees don't have anything to do with the rights to the games themselves. Even in that quote, it differentiates between rights fees and subscription fees. Face it, you simply don't understand how the business works. You are wrong, and these developments clearly prove it.
What don't you get? The Big Ten bought back rights. FOX is half owner of the BTN and couldn't have created the channel without those rights. the SEC bought back rights. ESPN FULLY owns That channel and couldn't have created it without those rights n he added inventory from expansion. the PAC is STILL buying rights back. Without those rights and added inventory from expansion- no network. Yet you claim, with 0 supporting evidence that ESPN owns all ACC rights that they bought once- and are going to pay the ACC MORE -or better word- AGAIN for those same rights with NO concessions?
You are mistaken.
First they had the ACC extend their contract through 2036.
Second, they had the schools extend the grant of rights.
ESPN is going to get reimbursed for the rights they buy back one way or another, otherwise again- what incentive do they have to increase the ACCs revenues?
You talk about a questionable imaginary speculative number the ACC will get- but what you leave out is what will ESPN is going to get from this. You pretend they are doing it for free and it's not the way they've ever done business.
Probably they'll take a higher percentage for years until the debt is paid off-- some articles about the SEC network reference that the SEC is paid from the profits- after expenses-- and in this case part of the expenses will be obtaining rights back from Raycom.
No, I'm not mistaken at all. See, now this is not theoretical anymore. It's already happened, so you can't keep arguing when the actual outcome has proven you wrong.
I'll tell you this until you get it through your thick head. ESPN is not paying twice for rights. The ACC will get paid with profits from the network, exactly like you just mentioned happens with the SEC. Profits from the network are not fees for rights. Rights fees and profits from subscription fees are completely different.
Here is what you don't get. The ACC and SEC have exactly the same amount of inventory. Each conference has 14 schools, which is a total of 112 football games per year. (CBS owns a few of the SEC's games, plus a few games are OOC road games for each conference, but that doesn't matter for this comparison purposes.) ESPN owns all the ACC's rights, so that 112 total games, so that's 112 games of total inventory ESPN has available. (Again, not counting some road OOC games.) The point is, the SEC's expansion didn't give them any more inventory than the ACC has. Both leagues have the exact number of games. In fact, the ACC actually has a few extra games for their network, because of the SEC's deal with CBS.
Now this gets to the point that you keep dodging, and you dodge it because it completely undermines your argument. Since ESPN owns all the ACC's rights, there is nothing for ESPN to put on the network that won't result in the ACC being "paid twice." Even the Raycom games are owned by ESPN, not the ACC. So by your logic, the ACC can't get paid, since ESPN already owns all of the games. Well, obviously that's not true. The ACC is going to get paid. That money has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is the subscription fees. Again, no matter how much you argue against it, subscription fees and rights fees are not the same thing.
Similar threads
