You're incorrect about the $100 million start up cost. You don't have any documented source for that figure. You're just going off what some friend who "knows people" at NC State told you. That's just as bad as all this stuff that certain other posters keep saying. Point out to me where exactly this humongous cost is coming from. ESPN already has the studios in place. They don't have to pay extra for that. ESPN already has the equipment in place. They don't have to pay extra for that. Most of the ACC games, ESPN already televises in the first place. They would be spending money to produce those games either way. It would literally be no different that ESPN switching a game from ABC to ESPN2.
Your next comment is one of the whole problems with this expansion discussion. You have this binary, either/or thinking. You assume that just because I disagree with you on one point, I hold a certain overall view. No, I don't think the ACC network is a shoe in by any means. There is a legitimate concern as to whether the ACC would bring in enough subscription fees to make it worthwhile for ESPN. For example, ESPN gets $50 million a year from Raycom. ESPN would have to give up that contract to for a network. So right there, a network would have to bring in at least $50 million a year to make it worthwhile for ESPN . Will it make that much? That's the question.
One thing I think works in the ACC's favor is that ESPN has to pay the ACC $45 million a year extra if there isn't a network. That's $45 million extra for nothing in return. With a network, ESPN would be getting something in return (revenue from the network), if the network turned a profit.
The bottom line, you are right that it's debatable whether or not the ACC would get a network. You are wrong on your reasoning why.
Hmmmm! One guy here knows what he's talking about and the other guy uses his eye test to move on down the road.