Expansion not dead
- Thread starter Mountaineer Steve
- Start date
Maybe you should stop reading Buck's articles.
Really though...I did not listen to the Big 12 media thingy so I have no perspective on what/how was said.
I was listening to the coverage on XM and they reported no expansion . Maybe they called it wrong, but there is no update on the Big12 site; which is the worst sports app out there. F" expansion, get a good app!
Yea.. ...everything I'm seeing says the conference is moving to the next stage without actually committing to expansion.
Don't' know what you are reading, but I am listening to press conference right now
Good news.. misunderstood the report I heard I guess.
Sorry about that, Chief!
(Remember that reference? )
Sorry about that, Chief!
(Remember that reference? )
Bowlsby: "We're looking for members that will grow over time as we grow, bring stability and have a high top end."
For Big 12 expansion, it's not about large markets per se. It's really about where they can find solid market *share*.
Leaves Houston out. B12 has that market share already.
FL, Carolinas, TN possible East Coast markets. UT, NM, CO in the SW and Plains.
You just made Buckaineer and his Directional Metro school with 10,000 commuters happy.
I don't know... ...without a conference network in the mix market share becomes a diff animal. It goes from a bigger footprint to actual tv's being watched.
Que? I'm not familiar with Buckaineer 's preferences. That's a lot of territory with multiple schools to approach. There might be one or two "big" schools in one of those states that's unhappy with the current state of affairs.
On whether fresh news of an ACC network played a role in Big 12’s vote to evaluate expansion, Boren said, “Of course. … It indicates we live in a fast-changing world
Per the press conference, Network could still be in play. There could be a digital network and even liner channel. Bowlsby said BIG12 wants to be on the leading edge of technology advancements.
On whether fresh news of an ACC network played a role in Big 12’s vote to evaluate expansion, Boren said, “Of course. … It indicates we live in a fast-changing world
Good points... ...but digital means subscribers (that actually want what's offered) instead of local cable including the fees and channels in a bundle even if you don't want them (aka SEC network).
Add, Florida State, Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech, Louisville and BYU and call it a day.
Of course, that does validate something Buckaineer said. Last month, Bowlsby said the TV partners informed them the market didn't support a conference network. Now the network is back in play, supposedly. The market didn't change that fast. ESPN obviously knew the ACC network was coming. They didn't just dream it up last week. The whole thing really doesn't make sense.
I agree, The only good thing about this is the ability to charge premium fee for direct offering. I would pay at least $10 a month for the service
Last edited:
It did not support a network (as in linear ) channel as we know it. ESPN and ACC have been working on a network for 4+ years and the linear channel still won't be active until at least 2019. We still don't know all the details of the ACCN and have no idea what the ACC had to contribute to get it off the ground and what profit is expected. I expect the ACC to sit on information if the $$ are not as favorable as they would hope
So, how did the market change in a month? That just doesn't make sense. Especially given that Bowlsby (or Boren. I can't keep track of which said what) said ESPN and Fox weren't interested in starting another network. In other words, what I'm getting at is, I don't know if they are considering expanding because they suddenly found some new numbers, or if they are just purely reacting to the ACC announcement.
For some reason, you have this idea that the ACC had to contribute more money then the other leagues did to start their networks. That's not based on anything. There aren't any extra expenses for the ACC than the SEC or Big Ten. I remember in another thread, you said you heard the startup costs would be around $125 million. Well, why would the ACC's startup be more than the SEC or Big Ten? There isn't really a logical basis for that, other than just wanting to believe it.
One thing that is clear. Oklahoma needs to decide who speaks for them and tape the mouths shut of everyone else. Who knows now what they mean by network? Are they talking digital network? I can't believe that the LHN is back in play. Release the clowns.
First, while the linear channel is at least 3 years away, I was wrong and thinking it was not coming. I knew a digital network (direct sale) was in the works, which if I am not mistaken starts next year.
Nothing has changed, the market place for a linear network is still soft, and will continue to lose shares and is why the digital network is so important for the future. Also ESPN and the ACC have been working on this for 4 years, so the process was much further along than any talks with BIG12.
However, ESPN has its work cut out for them to a make convince cable companies to add this network on top of BIG and SEC and is probably why they are wanting three years.
As per cost to the ACC we won't know what it is until full details of the agreement is released (if ever). I will hold judgement on the network until these terms are fully released. It could turn out to be a great deal for the ACC , it can turn into the PAC12N, or somewhere in between.
Have to admit and assuming all schools sign extended GOR, the ACC has set itself nicely.
See, that's what I don't get. If you are saying the ACC network will have trouble gaining traction, and just last month the market didn't support a Big 12 network, how is it that now a Big 12 network is all of a sudden viable again? The same teams that were available last month are available now. I understand that the ACC worked on it for about 5 years. That still doesn't explain why last month Boren/Bowlsby was saying there wasn't a market for a network, and now all of a sudden there is. Plus, I don't see that ESPN and Fox did an about face and all of a sudden decided to jack up the regular TV contract. Again, they knew all the teams in play last month. How did the numbers all of a sudden change? In other words, here's my opinion. After reading all the comments, it sounds like the actual numbers haven't changed. It just sounds like the Big 12 figured they had to do something (for whatever reason).
I still don't see where you are coming up with this idea that the ACC's startup costs are going to be higher than anyone else's. What exactly would account for that? They won't have to buy more cameras, hire more announcers, build more studios, or buy more rights than any other conferences. There just isn't anything to account for the ACC having higher startup expenses than any of the other leagues.
This is the last time I will answer your fVcking ACC in question, in this thread is about BIG12 expansion. There are currently two threads on this board talking ACC, so if you want to discuss that, I suggest you move it over there.
As for your question and as I stated, I will hold judgement on how great or Sh1ty, the ACCN is once the details are released. So far, all we know is there is a network planned. It will start with a digital version followed by linear channel in three years. Nothing has been sold or started yet. No details have been released. I still believe there are significant costs and nothing that has been released has changed that.
Basically the Big 12 realized that if ESPN is actually going forward with an ACC Network that we could basically add any schools (shitty or not) and get equal offers.
Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, and probably now Baylor will vote against it.
God Bless Texas!
Save us from this crap.
Keep the murderers row schedule as long as we can.
God Bless Texas!
Save us from this crap.
Keep the murderers row schedule as long as we can.
In some respects but he was clear there are options for a digital, and possibly linear channel.
