B: ESPN signed a deal with the SEC in 2013 which created the SEC network. Their previous deal did not include either the inventory from SEC schools tier 3 deals, or the inventory Missouri and Texas A&M brought to the table. With that new inventory, ESPN is able to have enough to keep a certain amount of SEC product on their networks, and still put a certain amount of product on the SEC network. That is how it is done.
Here's a quote from ESPN's John Skipper from 2013
"We have between six and 13 more games to pick from each week," ESPN President John Skipper said.
It doesn't matter if its "in two separate piles" or not--the point is that there is now inventory there to put on their network that did NOT exist prior to that. The 45 games are NOT from their pre existing agreements.
Yes, part of the 45 games ARE from the pre existing agreement. There are only a limited number of games that the SEC got back. The SEC schools each had one Tier 3 games, plus the games from Missouri and Texas A&M. That’s not 45 games. Some of those 45 games had to come from the pre existing games already under contract by ESPN.
B: No its not exactly how the SEC network works right now. You are getting caught up in selections. Selections isn't the issue --it is INVENTORY. The additional game inventory of the ACC is with Raycom and FOX now-NOT ESPN. So if ESPN takes a game off of their networks and moves it to the ACCN--they now have a hole in their schedule where that ACC game was on one of their platforms. With the SEC there is NO hole, because there is more than enough inventory to put on all the games they can on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU etc. With the ACC--unless the rights come back from Raycom--that eliminates a game ESPN had to put on those platforms that they must fill with someone else's product--AND they are moving said game to point A to point B with no gain--and probably a financial loss since it will be distributed to fewer homes on an ACC network.
I’m not getting caught up in selections. You are making assumptions about my points, and not listening to what I actually say. This is why no one can have a reasonable conversation with you, because you don’t listen, and just make up whatever you believe the other person said.
I have never said the ACC will start up a network without buying back the rights to Raycom. I never said that. Go look through any post I ever made and you won’t find where I said that. What I HAVE said is that the ACC can buy back the syndication rights. The problem here is, you try to make the Racyom syndication deal into more than it is. ESPN has always syndicated games. That’s nothing new. ESPN syndicated SEC games with Comcast and Fox up until 2014, when ESPN repurchased those games for the SECN. What I’m telling you is, ESPN can repurchase the ACC games from Raycom and Fox for a network as well. Again, Raycom and Fox are just syndication contracts, like ESPN had for SEC games. There is nothing special about the Raycom contract. You keep trying to say that it is, but it simply isn’t.
B: Yes, they'll charge a subscription fee for an ACC network--but now they've taken games they were monetizing OFF their primary platforms and moved them to fewer viewers(and payers) on an ACC network. Where does the money that they made for those games on ESPN2, ESPNU, and ESPN News go? That's right-it doesn't exist for ESPN anymore. They SHIFTED inventory with your premise, they havent ADDED anything. And now, ESPN must fill all the holes created on ESPN2, ESPNU, and ESPN News with someone else's inventory that THEY MUST PAY FOR. Which means ESPN loses money.
This is the same thing that happens already with the SECN. Let’s take a game like Florida vs. Kentucky. In years past, that’s a game ESPN would have put on, say ESPN2. Now, that game gets moved over to SECN. Something has to replace that game on ESPN2.
B: It's not false at all. ESPN does not already have more ACC inventory than they can broadcast. Everything they didn't want or didn't have space for they licensed to Raycom. If you are claiming otherwise lets look it up. Tell us--what 30 plus football games from the ACC did ESPN NOT put on one of their platforms or was not on the Raycom or FOX package? Can't wait for this answer.
I’m talking about overall inventory, not ACC inventory. ESPN has contracts with all the FBS conferences & independents (except for Notre Dame). If they take an ACC game of ESPN2, they still have games from these other conference,
which they don’t currently broadcast, they can use to fill the slots. That was what I was talking about. See, this is another example of you assuming you know what someone else was talking, when in fact you were mistaken about what they meant. This is why you should think before you shoot off your mouth.
B: So you are claiming that ESPN hasn't sold the rights to 31 football games and 60 men's basketball games to Raycom who then sublicensed some of those to FOX? You are actually claiming this? WOW.
You don't understand inventory so you shouldn't discuss it. The ACC only has a certain number of games available to put on tv. Right now all of their games are on one of the ESPN platforms or the Raycom sindicated package or a FOX rsn. There is NO additional inventory. If ESPN takes a game from ESPN or ESPN2 or ESPNU or wherever, and instead puts it on the ACC network--then they have created a hole on ESPN2 or ESPN2 or ESPNU. They won't have made any money off of that and in fact will probably LOSE money since now they must fill that network slot with someone else's inventory they must pay another conference for.
The ONLY way the ACC is getting a network is if they get back the inventory from Raycom and FOX and no one is negotiating any such thing. Dan Radakovich -Clemson's AD said they hope they get a really good update about an ACC network in their spring meetings and there is a sense of urgency in the conference as they worry about falling behind other conferences. Doesn't sound like much in the works still.
No, I did not claim that, and never have. Again, this is why you don’t assume things. You actually
listen to what the other person is saying.
Here is the problem. You think the ACC (actually, it would be ESPN) can’t buy back the syndication rights. That’s simply not true. It’s common for networks to buy back syndication packages, not just in sports, but in TV in general. As I have told you numerous times, both the Big Ten and SEC had to buy back syndication packages to start their respective networks. In fact, the SEC (again, actually ESPN) had to buy back the syndication package from Fox. On top of that, both the SEC and Big Ten had to buy back Tier 3 rights
in addition to the syndication packages. The ACC doesn’t have to do that. ESPN already has the ACC’s Tier 3 rights, so they don’t have to buy back those. The only thing the ACC has to buy back is the syndication package.
Regarding Radakovich’s comments, here is what he said. He was asked, “Does ESPN have a deadline when it comes to creating an ACC Network. In his answer, he said:
I know there is a lot of work going on within the league office and our consultant is actually handling the negotiations.
http://theclemsoninsider.com/2016/04/28/acc-network-picking-up-steam/
Here is my point. You said there wasn’t a play to buy back the syndication rights. Well, Radakovich plainly said the ACC has a consulting firm negotiating for an ACC network. So yeah, they are trying to buy back the syndication rights.
