I'm not sure where this expansion talk ends up and while there are advantages to being in the Big 12, there are certainly disadvantages as well. It is my opinion that the Big 12 will have to add a couple more teams to remain viable in the future. A 9 team conference is simply too vulnerable. As for your statement about losing to ECU, that is not near as damaging as losing to a team like Kansas that had not one a conference game in many years. ECU would beat Kansas 10 our of 10 times.
Expansion
- Thread starter Buckaineer
- Start date
BIG12 expansion might be delayed
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/sports/bohls-big-12-action-could-be-delayed-perrin-era-co/nqmC5/
There are two real possible reasons.
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/sports/bohls-big-12-action-could-be-delayed-perrin-era-co/nqmC5/
There are two real possible reasons.
- Texas says no to giving up LHN. While I think this is stupid I do believe this is what is taking place
- The thought BIG12 might be able to land Clemson and FSU. Given the GOR, this is a very long shot unless the terms of the GOR were signed based on ACCN, which is being delayed again (I say postponed until 2028)
A decision will likely be made this summer.It may take two years to add members, but we will know who they are.
Without Texas giving up LHN, there won't be a BIG12N. Without a BIG12N there will be no expansion. I am concerned without expansion and BIG12 network, the BIG12 as a power 5 conference is history within 10 years.
The battle of survival will come down between the ACC and the BIG12 with the 1st conference developing a network the winner. Clearly the BIG12 is in a much better position. The only major obsolesce right now is the Texas and the LHN.
There aren't any delays in the BIG 12 process--Bohl's doesn't even say there are--he says there "could be".
The conference will disseminate detailed facts and figures from consultants in their May and June meetings and then debate, discussion and conclusions will follow sometime over the summer straight from Boren and Bowlsby.
Nothing has changed.
The thing that people locked into the "either ACC or BIG 12 will survive" theme forget is that if the BIG 12 is in trouble because its in trouble financially compared to the SEC and Big Ten, then so is the ACC--even moreso--and the Pac 12 is also in trouble.
If the BIG 12 goes away, so does the ACC and maybe even the Pac 12--their members are more vulnerable than the BIG 12 because they make less money per member.
Notre Dame falls into the equation as well--because what they do will drive what others do--i.e. if they joined the Big Ten then there's one less spot in a major for someone else.
Disagree.
The current Kansas and ECU teams would be 10 for 10 for ECU. Kansas sucks as bad as it can right now in football and there is absolutely no sign that it will get any better. They have no people, no vision and it would seem, no desire to be better in football. ECU has all of that.
f
Both the ACC and BIG12 are going to be at a major disadvantage, and that won't change without a network for either conference. The ACCN has two issues
- ESPN already owns all their rights and they have no reason to create a network which will cost them 10's of millions with a good chance of loosing money for the foreseeable future
- The ACC market is an overlay of the BIG and the SEC, both of which have created new networks that cable companies had to pick up. These cable companies aren't likely to agree to adding additional cost to their dwindling cord cutting customer base
The 1st one to get a network puts the other conference even further behind nationally making it vulnerable for poaching by the other P4.
A BIG12 is light years ahead of its current position if it can add teams like FSU and Clemson. Likewise the ACC would get a huge boast if they could add teams like Texas, OU, KU, and or OSU. Again I full believe the conference that does not get a network is doomed to a lower status.
This part simply isn't accurate. ESPN will have to own the content to start a network either way. Whether they own it now or have to acquire it later doesn't matter. A network isn't going to cost 10s of millions of dollars. As I pointed out before, it would be logical for ESPN to simply run the network out of ESPN Events in Charlotte, which is exactly what they already do with SECN. ESPN is also going to have to increase the contract if it doesn't start a network, so unless a network brings in less revenue than the increase, it would make more sense to create the network.
Not that well versed on the ACC contract with ESPN, and I do not have a copy of their network contract or even their GOR. I will have to defer to others who do.
You don't have to be well versed on the contract. Unless a conference goes it alone (a la the Pac 12), the broadcasting partner has to own the rights of the games to put them on the network. Fox had to buy the rights to start BTN, and ESPN had to buy the rights to start SECN. The exact same thing would have to take place to start an ACCN, but ESPN already owns those rights, so that step is already taken care of.
Regarding the costs, it's simply not going to cost as much as the other poster says, no matter how much he believes it. Clearly, ESPN would run the network out of ESPN Events, just like the SECN. It would be asinine not to. Point being, there aren't going to be "ten of millions" of start up costs when you are using pre-existing facilities. The success or failure of a network is going to depend entirely on how much carriage it can achieve.
I have no argument with what you are saying. But if an ACCN is viable for ESPN under the current conditions, what are they waiting for? If it's not likely to be profitable right now in competition with the SECN and B1GN, will it be next year? I'm not picking an argument, just asking.
Well, I've tried to answer this multiple times. The biggest thing is, ESPN got read the riot act from Disney last year about expenses. So ESPN isn't going to greenlight anything until they are about as sure as possible that it won't lose money.
To that point, it will ultimately come down to carriage. Of the four networks launched so far (BTN, SECN, PacN, LHN) only the SECN was profitable right off the bat. The other three took at least a couple of years to turn a profit. That's because it took them some time to get enough carriage to be profitable. I posted the link in another thread where Georgia Tech's president said that ESPN wanted to assure carriage before launching the network. That could mean the ACC simply can't get enough carriage. Or, it could mean that ESPN simply wants to negotiate carriage deals first, before actually forming the network, and therefore not have to go through the "growing pains" for the first few years. That's not an unreasonable course of action.
One other issue could be the syndication contracts. There are several years left on them, so ESPN might prefer to wait until they expire or become reduced.
That said, it still may not be that the ACC gets a network. It may turn out that it won't get enough subscribers. My only issue is that you assume that since it doesn't have one now, that this means there won't be enough subscribers. That's not a reasonable assumption, given the issues I listed above, and that 2017 had always been the target date from the beginning.
The rights to multiple ACC games have been subleased to Raycom who then transferred many to FOX. Those rights would have to be bought back and that's the only way the ACC would have enough content for a new network.
Why is FOX going to sell those rights back to their primary competitor and then have no eastern product? or Raycom which is run by Swoffords son and would go out of business if it lost those rights?
Even if the ACC got a network and could somehow deliver $5 million per member like the SEC did--they'll still be millions behind the SEC and Big Ten and vulnerable.
For the BIG 12, a network is going to add $4 to $6 million per school and a CCG will add another $2-$3 million per school and that will allow the schools to stay with their peer conferences the SEC and Big 10.
ECU isn't always good--in fact they've had many many years where they weren't very good themselves and lost to bad teams.
Kansas conversely plays in a very tough conference, has knocked off some better schools and played very tough at times despite losing. They've had a bad few years but it wasn't that long ago they were beating the ACC champion VT Hokies in the Orange Bowl. There is a BIG difference in playing Rice, Tulsa and Southern Miss level teams most weeks and facing Kansas' schedule of the OU's, Baylor's, TCU's, OSU's and so forth and so on week in and out.
This is another example of you not knowing all the facts before you speak. I already know about the syndication rights. What you don't know is, both the Big Ten and SEC had to buy back syndication packages before they created their networks. For example, this is an article about ESPN acquiring the rights for the SECN:
ESPN is in the process of regaining its syndicated rights from Comcast SportsNet and Fox Sports Net. Both RSNs currently buy SEC games from ESPN.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/04/15/Media/SEC.aspx
As you see, Fox had a syndication deal for SEC games. So, I'll turn your question around on you. Why did Fox sell back SEC games to their primary competitor? In fact, Fox sold back SEC games to their competitor, specifically so their competitor could create a channel to compete with Fox's BTN. So why would they do that? When you answer those questions, you will know why they will sell back the ACC games.
Raycom is an easy answer. They will go out of business either way. If Raycom plays hardball, and prevents the ACC from getting a network, then the ACC will just ask ESPN to use another syndicator when the Raycom contract runs out. ESPN will do it, because they have no loyalty to Raycom. They only used Raycom because the ACC specifically asked them to. ESPN would just as easily syndicate with Fox or Comcast, just like they used to do with the SEC
OK I will add a real post to this. The ACC had ESPN looking out for it and had money to burn, and they could afford to shelter it from its obvious last spot as a P5 conference.
ESPN no longer is in that position. If this comes down to who has a network first, then the B12 will win because ESPN simply can't afford to just throw money at the ACC.
ESPN no longer is in that position. If this comes down to who has a network first, then the B12 will win because ESPN simply can't afford to just throw money at the ACC.
2017 is no longer the target date. Some date past 2017 is the new target according to the article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution via the AD from Georgia Tech. He implies it will be a few years late at best. That is 2020. If the request to delay was as stated by the GT AD then that means the penalty money if there was no ACCN could also be delayed. For those with any business sense understands that is called stringing along the foolish buyer. There will be no penalty payment and there will be no ACCN and when that is realized, the ACC will implode.
Wishful thinking on your part. The ACC simply isn't imploding. You tried to claim that when Clemson and Florida ST were supposedly coming to the Big 12, and it didn't happen. You tried to claim that when Virginia and North Carolina were supposedly going to the Big Ten, and it didn't happen. You keep claiming the ACC will implode....and yet it never happens.
I am calling a trend based on many factors. It is you that come here to spout wishful thinking.
You have a serious issue with reading comprehension as well. I do claim that Virginia, UNC are not long for the ACC. Just when that is I have not said. I have said that it will be when the Big Ten and the SEC decide to add to their membership. The ACC has the target on them, both the Big Ten and the SEC have said so. The Big Ten has already taken one school. Those are trends. FSU/Clemson and GT conferred with the Big-12 in the past and there are those that believe such communications did not totally die. Now that the ACCN concept has been kicked to the curb, those school have to ask themselves where will they make up the money they are losing as the 5th compensated conference out of 5.
I call my conclusions analysis. I based them on them interviews and events. You are doing everything you can to spin, spin, spin because you hate where this is all going. Sucks to be you.
Its you that doesn't do research or know anything about these issues.
Just because the SEC did something, doesn't mean the ACC can or will:
excerpt:
John Ourand in Sports Business Journal reports that due to syndicated rights issues with Fox Sports Net and Raycom, we may not see an all-cable ACC Network unless they sell back their games to ESPN. In 2010 when ESPN and the ACC neogiated their deal, Raycom was sold a package of live football and men's basketball games. In turn, Raycom sublicensed a package of football and basketball games to Fox Sports Net which syndicates them to affiliates in ACC territory. These deals expire in 2027 and it appears neither Raycom nor Fox Sports Net are willing to let them go.
In order to successfully launch an ACC Network, ESPN would need Raycom's and Fox Sports Net's packages. With the SEC, ESPN owned the syndicated rights and was able to convince the individual teams to sell back their local TV rights to launch the SEC Network. However, the ACC is a bit more complicated. In fact when ESPN negotiated its deal with the league, ACC officials requested that ESPN partner with Raycom on TV rights. Now with the league hoping to launch its own network, it finds that partnership is the monkey wrench blocking the path of getting a new deal done.
http://awfulannouncing.com/2013/so-about-that-acc-network.html
Here's another article from Sports Business Journal on the ACC network situation:
excerpt:
ACC network may stall over rights issues
By Michael Smith & John Ourand, Staff Writers
Published May 20, 2013
The main roadblock is rights. When it signed its ACC deal in 2010, ESPN and Charlotte-based Raycom Sports cut a deal that grants Raycom the ACC’s digital and corporate sponsorship rights, plus a heavy dose of live football and basketball games. Through a sublicensing agreement, Raycom owns the rights to 31 live football games and 60 live men’s basketball games.
Even if the conference is able to buy back those rights from Raycom, a second roadblock remains. Raycom sublicensed 17 of those football games and 25 of those basketball games to Fox, which carries the games on its regional sports networks throughout the ACC footprint. Live local sports programming is important to Fox’s RSNs, and they are not likely to give up those games cheaply.
The games that stay with Raycom make up the ACC’s long-running syndicated package that is distributed to more than 50 million households on over-the-air networks, and reaches 25 of the top 50 U.S. TV markets.
Those deals extend through 2027.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/05/20/Media/ACC-net.aspx
It’s unlikely that ESPN will try to launch a channel without those rights.
excerpt:
ACC network may stall over rights issues
By Michael Smith & John Ourand, Staff Writers
Published May 20, 2013
The main roadblock is rights. When it signed its ACC deal in 2010, ESPN and Charlotte-based Raycom Sports cut a deal that grants Raycom the ACC’s digital and corporate sponsorship rights, plus a heavy dose of live football and basketball games. Through a sublicensing agreement, Raycom owns the rights to 31 live football games and 60 live men’s basketball games.
Even if the conference is able to buy back those rights from Raycom, a second roadblock remains. Raycom sublicensed 17 of those football games and 25 of those basketball games to Fox, which carries the games on its regional sports networks throughout the ACC footprint. Live local sports programming is important to Fox’s RSNs, and they are not likely to give up those games cheaply.
The games that stay with Raycom make up the ACC’s long-running syndicated package that is distributed to more than 50 million households on over-the-air networks, and reaches 25 of the top 50 U.S. TV markets.
Those deals extend through 2027.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/05/20/Media/ACC-net.aspx
It’s unlikely that ESPN will try to launch a channel without those rights.
I'm not spinning at all. Your "analysis" so far as a success rate of 0. Your "analysis" isn't based on events, because the "events" you mention haven't even happened.
Sorry, wrong again. ESPN had a syndication contract with both Fox and Comcast for SEC games. Those rights had to be repurchased. That's simply a fact.
You still flapping your lips? You have been wrong on every point, you have no meaningful reading comprehension, your ability to connect relevant facts is non-existent and your attempt to bait others is very weak. But, I can say, you are probably well-regarded in the ACC cadre, sort of like the tallest midget - sorry - mental midget. Besides, I have it on good authority you have severe body odor. Must be the rub down you give yourself, being your own greatest fan and all that. Still, sucks to be you.
The facts are there for everyone to read. You are delusional.
One thing is obvious, the ACCN is in trouble. You can spin it any way you want, but it is not in the foreseeable future. As for the Big 12 Network, who knows? Time and Texas will tell.
Blog from a writer that gets it:
The national media are also catching up to the idea that Big 12 expansion is likely coming.
The national media are also catching up to the idea that Big 12 expansion is likely coming.
Yep, the facts are there, and the fact is, ESPN had to buy out syndication contracts with Fox and Comcast.
Personal attacks just show that your argument can't stand on its own. I've pointed several instances where you were wrong, and you just ignore them, rather than try to explain them.
I'm not wrong in this case. ESPN had syndication contracts for SEC games that had to be repurchased, from both Fox and Comcast. Again, here is the link.
ESPN is in the process of regaining its syndicated rights from Comcast SportsNet and Fox Sports Net. Both RSNs currently buy SEC games from ESPN.http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/04/15/Media/SEC.aspx
Sorry, it's just a fact. ESPN had syndication contracts with Fox and Comcast for SEC games. Those contracts had to be bought out before ESPN could start the SECN. That simply can't be argued.
Continually talking about something that happened for the SEC doesn't mean it will happen for the ACC.
The experts agree its very unlikely FOX is going to sell back rights for the ACC and that doesn't even address if Raycom would try to get them back so that the ACC schools could buy them back.
With the SEC, ESPN had syndicated those rights, not Raycom. Its a completely different situation.
The experts agree its very unlikely FOX is going to sell back rights for the ACC and that doesn't even address if Raycom would try to get them back so that the ACC schools could buy them back.
With the SEC, ESPN had syndicated those rights, not Raycom. Its a completely different situation.
You just don't get it do you? No matter what you say it is wrong. You are swaying no opinions here and no one on this board wakes up each morning with the thought on their mind that they must rush to this board to read your latest dribble of insanity. You have no value. Right or wrong has no meaning to you. No one here owes you anything and if this bothers you, leave. Your exit is at least something that would bring some comfort to the folks of this board because trust me, nothing you say has any impact. You got it yet, bozo?
Below is the longest novel ever written somehow I think this thread will surpass it
1. Artamène/Cyrus the Great
1. Artamène/Cyrus the Great
Last edited:
Below is the longest novel ever written somehow I think this thread will surpass it
1. Artamène/Cyrus the Great
Yeah, I memorized that! And then wondered why.
. its foolish to expand to "just expand" and to expand just because the other power 5 conferences expanded
into this necessary mess...
larger isn't necessarily better...might be more boring for the TV audience
example;
b12 abused itself by playing additional conference bball tournament, then followed by NCAAs...
same will happen in football, w an uneccessary conference championship game..
i recently attended, a few ACC bball games, and all those teams added zero value to the ACC, at this time.
ESPN forces some bad decisions and dismantling the big East and forcing large conferences is a dumb business model, from a competitive perspective. ...and economic perspective...
if ESPN wants to grant more money to the tune of 30mill per year per school, then it will happen. ..
but play will be watered down...
more games isn't better just because the NFL can't play more games
especially if Cincy and UCONN are the two perspective teams for b12
into this necessary mess...
larger isn't necessarily better...might be more boring for the TV audience
example;
b12 abused itself by playing additional conference bball tournament, then followed by NCAAs...
same will happen in football, w an uneccessary conference championship game..
i recently attended, a few ACC bball games, and all those teams added zero value to the ACC, at this time.
ESPN forces some bad decisions and dismantling the big East and forcing large conferences is a dumb business model, from a competitive perspective. ...and economic perspective...
if ESPN wants to grant more money to the tune of 30mill per year per school, then it will happen. ..
but play will be watered down...
more games isn't better just because the NFL can't play more games
especially if Cincy and UCONN are the two perspective teams for b12
The BIG 12 has to look at the system that exists and that is going to exist rather than try to pretend things will be as they want them to be and base their decisionmaking on that.
In the real world having lots of revenue is important to having athletic success because it allows you to get and retain the best coaching, to recruit better, and to build and update facilities as needed for your fans and recruits. Revenue for athletics comes from tv networks either broadcast, your own or both and without those being at high numbers its difficult to compete at the highest levels. If you don't get positive exposure over a wide an area as possible, you aren't going to attract the best recruits, you aren't going to be as successful on the field, you aren't going to get good tv ratings and if you don't get good tv ratings, the tv partners aren't going to pay you lots of money in comparison to others.
In the real world schools are rewarded by number of wins and games played, not that everyone in a conference played each other.
In the real world schedule strength is determined by the schools you played and beat that were ranked--and common sense as well as data shows that if you have more teams in your conference, more teams can finish (and usually do finish) with more wins. Teams with more wins=more highly ranked teams. More highly ranked teams = the opinion of better sos. Playing everyone each year in conference?= someone is going to lose and its very difficult to not have a loss.
In the real world not making the playoffs is a huge deal, and being disadvantaged to every other conference in that category is not ok.
In the real world there are lots of reasons to expand and start a conference network and play a CCG and none of them have to do with the name of a school or school you might expand with, but all the value in various categories adding those schools will bring you.
In the real world having lots of revenue is important to having athletic success because it allows you to get and retain the best coaching, to recruit better, and to build and update facilities as needed for your fans and recruits. Revenue for athletics comes from tv networks either broadcast, your own or both and without those being at high numbers its difficult to compete at the highest levels. If you don't get positive exposure over a wide an area as possible, you aren't going to attract the best recruits, you aren't going to be as successful on the field, you aren't going to get good tv ratings and if you don't get good tv ratings, the tv partners aren't going to pay you lots of money in comparison to others.
In the real world schools are rewarded by number of wins and games played, not that everyone in a conference played each other.
In the real world schedule strength is determined by the schools you played and beat that were ranked--and common sense as well as data shows that if you have more teams in your conference, more teams can finish (and usually do finish) with more wins. Teams with more wins=more highly ranked teams. More highly ranked teams = the opinion of better sos. Playing everyone each year in conference?= someone is going to lose and its very difficult to not have a loss.
In the real world not making the playoffs is a huge deal, and being disadvantaged to every other conference in that category is not ok.
In the real world there are lots of reasons to expand and start a conference network and play a CCG and none of them have to do with the name of a school or school you might expand with, but all the value in various categories adding those schools will bring you.
I can't disagree with what he is saying, he just needs to keep his like Boren, he needs to keep his BIG mouth shut and allow the powers work this out behind the scenes. The only thing this type of open air garbage does is divide the conference and make it look week and vulnerable.
This isn't about expanding for expansion sake but the ability to keep up with the money being and to be generated by the SEC and BIG network. Without a network the BIG12 is doomed to fall further and further behind not only financially, but from less exposure.
Without expanding there is not enough content or geographic region to make it worthwhile and profitable.
