ADVERTISEMENT

Negative Expansion News

ESPN is losing income fast, and everyone knows the next round of TV money could go lower in part because ESPN overpaid. ESPN has been the driving force in charge behind closed doors. Im always careful to read anti Big 12 stories from ESPN because the Big 12 continues hurt there idea of not having four 16 team conferences. Just yesterday UST Today did a story on how the Big 12's income continues to out perform the ACC by a wide margin even when they win National Titles. Note, ESPN didn't write that story. Also, not sure ESPN was really supportive of Big 12 expanding. Bottom line, some of these stories are political in nature.

I don't disagree that ESPN is losing income. However, they are still making a net profit, and a pretty large net profit at that.

This idea that ESPN overpaid for rights isn't really true. ESPN pays the exact same as Fox for the Big 12, Big Ten and Pac 12. Hard to call that overpaying when a competitor is paying the same amount. That would indicate it's just the market value for the product.

This idea about 4 super conferences is also a myth. Neither ESPN or the conferences are trying to get to that number. Fans just repeat it over and over, because it looks neat on paper.

You also aren't accurate about the USA Today story. It didn't mention the Big 12. It mentioned how the ACC's revenue for FY2016 (i.e. last year, not this year) was lower than FY2015. Mainly, that's because the ACC didn't have the Orange Bowl last year (whil the Big 12 had the Sugar Bowl). This year (FY2017) they will have Orange Bowl payout.
 
ESPN is losing income fast, and everyone knows the next round of TV money could go lower in part because ESPN overpaid. ESPN has been the driving force in charge behind closed doors. Im always careful to read anti Big 12 stories from ESPN because the Big 12 continues hurt there idea of not having four 16 team conferences. Just yesterday UST Today did a story on how the Big 12's income continues to out perform the ACC by a wide margin even when they win National Titles. Note, ESPN didn't write that story. Also, not sure ESPN was really supportive of Big 12 expanding. Bottom line, some of these stories are political in nature.



Typical! "ESPN is losing income fast" haha! ESPN made Billions last year. That's BILLIONS as in around 5 billion. Broadcasting partner HA took 20% and the rest landed in the lap of ESPN. You're right that ESPN was not for expansion because it would have cost them millions contractually. So the back room deal, admittedly not 100% sourced on this but was his feel with some knowledge of the negotiations, Texas and Oklahoma shuts expansion down for future revenue considerations. Texas and LHN was obvious. Oklahoma not sure their motivation. Shutting GOR extension down was probably the beginning of the end for Big 12. We'll know by 2023 but if something positive isn't done with Big12 GOR by 20-21 Big12 is done. ESPN will not be there for them.
 
How much more will we see CBS in college football like we do in basketball?
 
Typical! "ESPN is losing income fast" haha! ESPN made Billions last year. That's BILLIONS as in around 5 billion. Broadcasting partner HA took 20% and the rest landed in the lap of ESPN. You're right that ESPN was not for expansion because it would have cost them millions contractually. So the back room deal, admittedly not 100% sourced on this but was his feel with some knowledge of the negotiations, Texas and Oklahoma shuts expansion down for future revenue considerations. Texas and LHN was obvious. Oklahoma not sure their motivation. Shutting GOR extension down was probably the beginning of the end for Big 12. We'll know by 2023 but if something positive isn't done with Big12 GOR by 20-21 Big12 is done. ESPN will not be there for them.
I didn't say ESPN was losing money I said they are losing income. Translation: a NYSE stock needs to increase income every year in order to drive stock value(go read up on Disney stock and ESPN is mentioned). Now, considering the general public is unplugging from cable and going to internet this continues to be the problem with ESPN income. ESPN are the guys that keeps all this conference moving talk alive, and they are doing it for a reason(they don't really like the Big 12). Bottom line, ESPN got us into the Big 12 only after Jay Rockefeller told them they would be put on the stand in Washington. ESPN, several former BIG EAST members, and The ACC at the time hoped we were left out in the cold, Good news is many of the people running those schools are now gone, but don't forget how we have been treated.
 
I don't disagree that ESPN is losing income. However, they are still making a net profit, and a pretty large net profit at that.

This idea that ESPN overpaid for rights isn't really true. ESPN pays the exact same as Fox for the Big 12, Big Ten and Pac 12. Hard to call that overpaying when a competitor is paying the same amount. That would indicate it's just the market value for the product.

This idea about 4 super conferences is also a myth. Neither ESPN or the conferences are trying to get to that number. Fans just repeat it over and over, because it looks neat on paper.

You also aren't accurate about the USA Today story. It didn't mention the Big 12. It mentioned how the ACC's revenue for FY2016 (i.e. last year, not this year) was lower than FY2015. Mainly, that's because the ACC didn't have the Orange Bowl last year (whil the Big 12 had the Sugar Bowl). This year (FY2017) they will have Orange Bowl payout.
They overpaid now that people are unplugging.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rootmaster
ESPN is in deeper then most with college football so they are taking the bigger hit

No they aren't. ESPN's biggest contracts, by far, are with the NFL and NBA. That's where most of their money is going, not college football.

Also, ESPN isn't taking the "biggest hit." Everybody's revenue was down around 3-5% from last year. FS1 losing 3% hurts them just as bad as ESPN losing 3%. The effect on each company is the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pitt4Life34
No they aren't. ESPN's biggest contracts, by far, are with the NFL and NBA. That's where most of their money is going, not college football.

Also, ESPN isn't taking the "biggest hit." Everybody's revenue was down around 3-5% from last year. FS1 losing 3% hurts them just as bad as ESPN losing 3%. The effect on each company is the same.
ESPN has more college sports then any other network. The Big10 Network, ACC Network, and SEC Network plus the hoops and Football deals and the Championship Playoffs. Fox's 3% lose is less then ESPN's 3% lose. Didn't ESPN just do some massive layoffs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rootmaster
ESPN has more college sports then any other network. The Big10 Network, ACC Network, and SEC Network plus the hoops and Football deals and the Championship Playoffs. Fox's 3% lose is less then ESPN's 3% lose. Didn't ESPN just do some massive layoffs?

Incorrect. ESPN does not have the Big Ten network. Fox does. It's split up like this:

Big 12 - ESPN & Fox
Pac 12 - ESPN & Fox
Big Ten - ESPN & Fox

Then you have:

Big Ten Network - Fox
SEC & Network - ESPN
ACC & Network - ESPN

Fox having the Big Ten network and ESPN having the SEC are sort of a wash. The main difference is ESPN having the ACC, to which Fox has no equivalent.

3% is 3%. No difference. I understand what you are saying, that ESPN's 3% is more absolute dollars. What you don't understand is, ESPN also has more money that Fox. So, even though ESPN's loss is bigger in absolute dollars, the effect that loss has on ESPN is no different that the effect of Fox's loss. A 3% loss in revenue hurts both networks equally.

Yes, ESPN did lay off a lot of employees. However, Fox also did as well. That's my point. Fox cannot deal with their 3% loss any better than ESPN can deal with its 3% loss.
 
all sports programming channels are in trouble. get ready for individual school streaming within ten years.
 
I didn't say ESPN was losing money I said they are losing income. Translation: a NYSE stock needs to increase income every year in order to drive stock value(go read up on Disney stock and ESPN is mentioned). Now, considering the general public is unplugging from cable and going to internet this continues to be the problem with ESPN income. ESPN are the guys that keeps all this conference moving talk alive, and they are doing it for a reason(they don't really like the Big 12). Bottom line, ESPN got us into the Big 12 only after Jay Rockefeller told them they would be put on the stand in Washington. ESPN, several former BIG EAST members, and The ACC at the time hoped we were left out in the cold, Good news is many of the people running those schools are now gone, but don't forget how we have been treated.


They made $5 billion. Call it income or whatever you choose. Thanks for the stock appreciation lesson LOL. You left out at least 4 other factors that drives a equity position but no biggie. Divesting and investing by public companies is an entirely different discussion. Your Rockefeller perspective is downright silly. Your anti WVU conspiracy is even more silly. Get over your little brother syndrome. You seem ridiculously immature.
 
Incorrect. ESPN does not have the Big Ten network. Fox does. It's split up like this:

Big 12 - ESPN & Fox
Pac 12 - ESPN & Fox
Big Ten - ESPN & Fox

Then you have:

Big Ten Network - Fox
SEC & Network - ESPN
ACC & Network - ESPN

Fox having the Big Ten network and ESPN having the SEC are sort of a wash. The main difference is ESPN having the ACC, to which Fox has no equivalent.

3% is 3%. No difference. I understand what you are saying, that ESPN's 3% is more absolute dollars. What you don't understand is, ESPN also has more money that Fox. So, even though ESPN's loss is bigger in absolute dollars, the effect that loss has on ESPN is no different that the effect of Fox's loss. A 3% loss in revenue hurts both networks equally.

Yes, ESPN did lay off a lot of employees. However, Fox also did as well. That's my point. Fox cannot deal with their 3% loss any better than ESPN can deal with its 3% loss.
I think you kinda proved my point with you seeing ESPN's name more then Fox, then add in they televise most of the bowl games, and the playoff system.
 
They made $5 billion. Call it income or whatever you choose. Thanks for the stock appreciation lesson LOL. You left out at least 4 other factors that drives a equity position but no biggie. Divesting and investing by public companies is an entirely different discussion. Your Rockefeller perspective is downright silly. Your anti WVU conspiracy is even more silly. Get over your little brother syndrome. You seem ridiculously immature.
Why the hate? Why does this seem anti WVU? The Big 12 is not just an ESPN league. Im a WVU season ticket holder. I worked for a WVU BOG member when conference changes was going down. I was told about Jay. Mitch McConnell got U of L in the ACC.
 
Last edited:
espnlayoff_0.gif


20ib90j.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: AllEers6
I think you kinda proved my point with you seeing ESPN's name more then Fox, then add in they televise most of the bowl games, and the playoff system.

No, I didn't. You see ESPN's name more than Fox just because ESPN is more prominent that Fox. Put it this way, however much ESPN gets hurt, Fox is hurt the same proportionally.

Why the hate? Why does this seem anti WVU? The Big 12 is not just an ESPN league. Im a WVU season ticket holder. I worked for a WVU BOG member when conference changes was going down. I was told about Jay. Mitch McConnell got U of L in the ACC.

The other poster isn't directing hate at you. He's arguing with you because you are putting forth notions that are demonstrably false.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pitt4Life34
No, I didn't. You see ESPN's name more than Fox just because ESPN is more prominent that Fox. Put it this way, however much ESPN gets hurt, Fox is hurt the same proportionally.



The other poster isn't directing hate at you. He's arguing with you because you are putting forth notions that are demonstrably false.

How does he (or you) know my facts are not correct? I was told from a BOG member Jay and Mitch played a huge role in teams ending up in certain places.

How many bowl games does Fox cover? How many bowl games does ESPN cover? Who has the National Playoffs under contract? Come on man, your point of view does not pass the smell test, but it does not matter what I think because in some odd way you think me not liking ESPN, their politics, or coverage of college football is anti WVU. LOL! OK!

Have a good one!
 
Why the hate? Why does this seem anti WVU? The Big 12 is not just an ESPN league. Im a WVU season ticket holder. I worked for a WVU BOG member when conference changes was going down. I was told about Jay. Mitch McConnell got U of L in the ACC.


Hate? LOL! Not at all! Show me a post that I hate on WVU. You can't! I go to more WVU events and give more money than most of you and the other Big12 homertards combined. If what you post is true then you know exactly what I'm posting is accurate. I hope the Big12 implodes and WVU ends up in the ACC or SEC. How's that hating on WVU? Some of you guys are pathetic. Not necessarily you but some.
 
How does he (or you) know my facts are not correct? I was told from a BOG member Jay and Mitch played a huge role in teams ending up in certain places.

How many bowl games does Fox cover? How many bowl games does ESPN cover? Who has the National Playoffs under contract? Come on man, your point of view does not pass the smell test, but it does not matter what I think because in some odd way you think me not liking ESPN, their politics, or coverage of college football is anti WVU. LOL! OK!

Have a good one!

Because the facts are out in the open. ESPN did not conspire against West Virginia. That is simply foolishness. The ACC expanded with Pittsburgh and Syracuse because those teams brought in most value to the conference, via media markets. ESPN did not sit around and say, "Let's screw West Virginia!" It was strictly a business decision. Of the teams available to the ACC, Pittsburgh and Syracuse offered the best combination of name recognition and media markets. That package brought the ACC the most money, so that's why they chose those schools.

The reason Louisville and West Virginia got into their conferences also had nothing to do with conspiratorial back-door politics. With the Big 12, both Fox AND ESPN were going to reduce the TV contract if the Big 12 didn't maintain 10 teams. Market wasn't much of a factor, since the Big 12 was only replacing schools, not expanding. West Virginia was the most prominent team available to the Big 12, so that's why they were chosen, along with TCU. Same thing for Louisville. The ACC was simply replacing Maryland, so Louisville was the most prestigious team available. It's no more complicated than that.

How many bowl games ESPN covers vs. Fox is completely irrelevant to the discussion. You simply don't understand what I'm saying, and you are too worried about arguing with me to stop and understand my point.

ESPN is not overpaying for its college content. They are simply paying the market rate. That's why I gave you the comparison with the Big 12, Pac 12, and Big Ten. ESPN pays the same rate for the Big 12 as Fox. ESPN pays the same rate for the Pac 12 as Fox. ESPN pays the same rate for the Big Ten as Fox. You are claiming ESPN overpays for college sports, and that's patently false, because they pay the SAME RATE as their competitor.

Now, you are trying to amend your argument to say that ESPN has additional content than Fox, i.e. bowl games and CFP. Well, that's not evidence of overpaying. If Fox had the CFP instead of ESPN, Fox would be paying the same rate for it as ESPN does now. If Fox had all the bowl games instead of ESPN, Fox would be paying the same rate for them as ESPN does now. More content is not the same thing as overpaying. The reason ESPN has more content than Fox is because ESPN has more money to spend in the first place. But again, having more content is not the same thing as overpaying. When we compare similar content, ESPN and Fox are paying the same price.

My problem with you and other posters is that you keep asserting this false notion that this is an ESPN problem. It's an industry wide problem. Fox and the other networks are having the exact same problems as ESPN. Fox is just having those problems on a smaller scale because they are smaller to begin with.

I'm also not saying you are anti West Virginia. I'm saying you believe too much in conspiracy theories and narratives, and are not looking at the actual facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pitt4Life34
Someone needs to file a missing persons report on the great Buckaineer. Expansion and tv contracts have been discussed and he's nowhere to be found. Someone should check on his welfare.
 
Someone needs to file a missing persons report on the great Buckaineer. Expansion and tv contracts have been discussed and he's nowhere to be found. Someone should check on his welfare.[/


He may be done for good! The beating he took defending the underachieving Big12 during the NCAA hoop tournament was more than any man could take.

Time for the missing man formation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ColoradoMountaineer
Because the facts are out in the open. ESPN did not conspire against West Virginia. That is simply foolishness. The ACC expanded with Pittsburgh and Syracuse because those teams brought in most value to the conference, via media markets. ESPN did not sit around and say, "Let's screw West Virginia!" It was strictly a business decision. Of the teams available to the ACC, Pittsburgh and Syracuse offered the best combination of name recognition and media markets. That package brought the ACC the most money, so that's why they chose those schools.

The reason Louisville and West Virginia got into their conferences also had nothing to do with conspiratorial back-door politics. With the Big 12, both Fox AND ESPN were going to reduce the TV contract if the Big 12 didn't maintain 10 teams. Market wasn't much of a factor, since the Big 12 was only replacing schools, not expanding. West Virginia was the most prominent team available to the Big 12, so that's why they were chosen, along with TCU. Same thing for Louisville. The ACC was simply replacing Maryland, so Louisville was the most prestigious team available. It's no more complicated than that.

How many bowl games ESPN covers vs. Fox is completely irrelevant to the discussion. You simply don't understand what I'm saying, and you are too worried about arguing with me to stop and understand my point.

ESPN is not overpaying for its college content. They are simply paying the market rate. That's why I gave you the comparison with the Big 12, Pac 12, and Big Ten. ESPN pays the same rate for the Big 12 as Fox. ESPN pays the same rate for the Pac 12 as Fox. ESPN pays the same rate for the Big Ten as Fox. You are claiming ESPN overpays for college sports, and that's patently false, because they pay the SAME RATE as their competitor.

Now, you are trying to amend your argument to say that ESPN has additional content than Fox, i.e. bowl games and CFP. Well, that's not evidence of overpaying. If Fox had the CFP instead of ESPN, Fox would be paying the same rate for it as ESPN does now. If Fox had all the bowl games instead of ESPN, Fox would be paying the same rate for them as ESPN does now. More content is not the same thing as overpaying. The reason ESPN has more content than Fox is because ESPN has more money to spend in the first place. But again, having more content is not the same thing as overpaying. When we compare similar content, ESPN and Fox are paying the same price.

My problem with you and other posters is that you keep asserting this false notion that this is an ESPN problem. It's an industry wide problem. Fox and the other networks are having the exact same problems as ESPN. Fox is just having those problems on a smaller scale because they are smaller to begin with.

I'm also not saying you are anti West Virginia. I'm saying you believe too much in conspiracy theories and narratives, and are not looking at the actual facts.
Do you remember the first Big East shake up in early 2000's? It was all politics and back room deals. You do realize Big East basketball is not with ESPN for a reason. Correct? Because ESPN screwed the Big East and wanted it gone. At the time the ACC thought with one less league their TV revenue would increase with less competition, and you remember the Virginia Legislature wouldn't let UVA vote unless VT was included? I assume you remember how BC, Syracuse, Miami, and the North Caroline schools wanted WVU left in the cold correct? So in the last round lots of pressure was put on again to include those being left out(remember less schools included the more money for others) and schools like WVU used every resource they had including a powerful U. S Senator that Chaired the Commerce Committee. The problem was Mitch McConnell then tried to get U of L into the Big 12 (which appeared to be the final slot in the last round of conference movement) but his involvement got them into the ACC. The two final schools to get a home was WVU and U of L.
 
Last edited:
Because the facts are out in the open. ESPN did not conspire against West Virginia. That is simply foolishness. The ACC expanded with Pittsburgh and Syracuse because those teams brought in most value to the conference, via media markets. ESPN did not sit around and say, "Let's screw West Virginia!" It was strictly a business decision. Of the teams available to the ACC, Pittsburgh and Syracuse offered the best combination of name recognition and media markets. That package brought the ACC the most money, so that's why they chose those schools.

The reason Louisville and West Virginia got into their conferences also had nothing to do with conspiratorial back-door politics. With the Big 12, both Fox AND ESPN were going to reduce the TV contract if the Big 12 didn't maintain 10 teams. Market wasn't much of a factor, since the Big 12 was only replacing schools, not expanding. West Virginia was the most prominent team available to the Big 12, so that's why they were chosen, along with TCU. Same thing for Louisville. The ACC was simply replacing Maryland, so Louisville was the most prestigious team available. It's no more complicated than that.

How many bowl games ESPN covers vs. Fox is completely irrelevant to the discussion. You simply don't understand what I'm saying, and you are too worried about arguing with me to stop and understand my point.

ESPN is not overpaying for its college content. They are simply paying the market rate. That's why I gave you the comparison with the Big 12, Pac 12, and Big Ten. ESPN pays the same rate for the Big 12 as Fox. ESPN pays the same rate for the Pac 12 as Fox. ESPN pays the same rate for the Big Ten as Fox. You are claiming ESPN overpays for college sports, and that's patently false, because they pay the SAME RATE as their competitor.

Now, you are trying to amend your argument to say that ESPN has additional content than Fox, i.e. bowl games and CFP. Well, that's not evidence of overpaying. If Fox had the CFP instead of ESPN, Fox would be paying the same rate for it as ESPN does now. If Fox had all the bowl games instead of ESPN, Fox would be paying the same rate for them as ESPN does now. More content is not the same thing as overpaying. The reason ESPN has more content than Fox is because ESPN has more money to spend in the first place. But again, having more content is not the same thing as overpaying. When we compare similar content, ESPN and Fox are paying the same price.

My problem with you and other posters is that you keep asserting this false notion that this is an ESPN problem. It's an industry wide problem. Fox and the other networks are having the exact same problems as ESPN. Fox is just having those problems on a smaller scale because they are smaller to begin with.

I'm also not saying you are anti West Virginia. I'm saying you believe too much in conspiracy theories and narratives, and are not looking at the actual facts.


BTW, if business decision making was used during the last round of conference shake up then why is WVU not in the ACC? Strong southern alumni base, good TV ratings, quality football and basketball programs, and loyal fans that travel is the core assets to the WVU brand. Why? Politics.

Do I like where we are in the Big 12? Yes, but don't give me this crap that politics and back rooms deals didn't have an impact because if so we would be in the ACC. Remember, WVU and Pitt agreed to stay together until they cut a deal with the ACC behind our backs.
 
Do you remember the first Big East shake up in early 2000's? It was all politics and back room deals. You do realize Big East basketball is not with ESPN for a reason. Correct? Because ESPN screwed the Big East and wanted it gone. At the time the ACC thought with one less league their TV revenue would increase with less competition, and you remember the Virginia Legislature wouldn't let UVA vote unless VT was included? I assume you remember how BC, Syracuse, Miami, and the North Caroline schools wanted WVU left in the cold correct? So in the last round lots of pressure was put on again to include those being left out(remember less schools included the more money for others) and schools like WVU used every resource they had including a powerful U. S Senator that Chaired the Commerce Committee. The problem was Mitch McConnell then tried to get U of L into the Big 12 (which appeared to be the final slot in the last round of conference movement) but his involvement got them into the ACC. The two final schools to get a home was WVU and U of L.

No, what you are saying is 100% wrong. When the ACC expanded back in 2003, it was not because they wanted to screw West Virginia, and it was not because ESPN wanted to get rid of the Big East. That is factually incorrect.

First of all, I can completely obliterate your argument that ESPN didn't want the Big East. Back in 2011, ESPN offered the Big East a new contract, which paid each school about $12 million a year. That was an increase from $3.12 million from the old contract. The Big East turned down ESPN's offer.

Ok, so let's compare your theory to the facts. You claim back in 2003, ESPN wanted to get rid of the Big East, so they encouraged Miami and co. to leave for the ACC. Well, from 2003 to 2011, ESPN still had the Big East. That's 8 years. So, you claim ESPN wanted to get rid of the Big East, yet ESPN kept them for 8 years. Then, ESPN offered a new contract to the Big East, which was 4 times larger than the old contract. Well, square that with your theory. ESPN kept the Big East for 8 years. Then, ESPN offered a new contract which was 4 times larger than the old one. But yeah, somehow that's proof ESPN wanted to get rid of the Big East. Sorry, the facts just destroy your theory completely.

Now, let me address your other points. The situation with Virginia wasn't behind closed doors. It was completely out in the open. The state wouldn't allow Virginia to vote for expansion unless Virginia Tech was included. That wasn't conspiracy. They simply wanted to protect an instate institution. Nothing more complicated than that.

Miami, Boston College, Syracuse, and North Carolina did not want West Virginia left out in the cold. That is completely made up. First of all, you have no proof of that whatsoever. None at all. There is nothing you can link to that will support you point. Aside from that, you have a couple more problems. For one, Syracuse was never in a position to oppose West Virginia. The only team added when Syracuse was part of the ACC was Louisville. By that time, West Virginia was already in the Big 12. North Carolina has been against expansion, period. It had nothing to do with West Virginia. The simply didn't want to expand with anyone.

Mitch McConnell didn't get Louisville into the ACC. Louisville was the target from the beginning. There simply wasn't a competitor for Louisville getting into the ACC.
You aren't entitled to make up your own facts.

BTW, if business decision making was used during the last round of conference shake up then why is WVU not in the ACC? Strong southern alumni base, good TV ratings, quality football and basketball programs, and loyal fans that travel is the core assets to the WVU brand. Why? Politics.

Do I like where we are in the Big 12? Yes, but don't give me this crap that politics and back rooms deals didn't have an impact because if so we would be in the ACC. Remember, WVU and Pitt agreed to stay together until they cut a deal with the ACC behind our backs.

West Virginia wasn't taken because the assets you mentioned are not what was valued by the networks. The schools taken in expansion were schools that could deliver big media markets. Look at the Big Ten. They took lousy programs in Rutgers and Maryland, but those schools could deliver big media markets. Colorado was terrible when the Pac 12 took them, but it was because Colorado could deliver a big media market. Missouri and Texas A&M were mediocre programs in the Big 12, but the SEC took them, because they delivered big media markets. Well, that's the same reason the ACC took Pittsburgh and Syracuse. Those schools delivered big media markets. If TV ratings and big fan bases were what mattered, the SEC would have taken Florida ST, not Missouri. However, you see who they took. That's because media markets were what brought the most money.

You are just repeating stupid internet rumors, and not dealing with facts.
 
ACC cut a deal with Pitt because the knew it would hurt the Big 12. Same reason they signed on with Louisville. If the Big 12 had gotten UL and Pitt that would have given strength to the Big 12 and made they ACC just a little off. ACC knew if Pitt signed on then ND would make the current deal with the conference.
 
ACC cut a deal with Pitt because the knew it would hurt the Big 12. Same reason they signed on with Louisville. If the Big 12 had gotten UL and Pitt that would have given strength to the Big 12 and made they ACC just a little off. ACC knew if Pitt signed on then ND would make the current deal with the conference.

No, that's simply not true. The Big 12 wasn't even looking to expand when the ACC took Pittsburgh and Syracuse in 2011. In 2012, The ACC had to replace Maryland, that's why they took Louisville. These things you are making up are simply asinine. You can't make up something just because you want to believe it.
 
No, that's simply not true. The Big 12 wasn't even looking to expand when the ACC took Pittsburgh and Syracuse in 2011. In 2012, The ACC had to replace Maryland, that's why they took Louisville. These things you are making up are simply asinine. You can't make up something just because you want to believe it.

Keep thinking that. You will fill better.
 
No, what you are saying is 100% wrong. When the ACC expanded back in 2003, it was not because they wanted to screw West Virginia, and it was not because ESPN wanted to get rid of the Big East. That is factually incorrect.

First of all, I can completely obliterate your argument that ESPN didn't want the Big East. Back in 2011, ESPN offered the Big East a new contract, which paid each school about $12 million a year. That was an increase from $3.12 million from the old contract. The Big East turned down ESPN's offer.

Ok, so let's compare your theory to the facts. You claim back in 2003, ESPN wanted to get rid of the Big East, so they encouraged Miami and co. to leave for the ACC. Well, from 2003 to 2011, ESPN still had the Big East. That's 8 years. So, you claim ESPN wanted to get rid of the Big East, yet ESPN kept them for 8 years. Then, ESPN offered a new contract to the Big East, which was 4 times larger than the old contract. Well, square that with your theory. ESPN kept the Big East for 8 years. Then, ESPN offered a new contract which was 4 times larger than the old one. But yeah, somehow that's proof ESPN wanted to get rid of the Big East. Sorry, the facts just destroy your theory completely.

Now, let me address your other points. The situation with Virginia wasn't behind closed doors. It was completely out in the open. The state wouldn't allow Virginia to vote for expansion unless Virginia Tech was included. That wasn't conspiracy. They simply wanted to protect an instate institution. Nothing more complicated than that.

Miami, Boston College, Syracuse, and North Carolina did not want West Virginia left out in the cold. That is completely made up. First of all, you have no proof of that whatsoever. None at all. There is nothing you can link to that will support you point. Aside from that, you have a couple more problems. For one, Syracuse was never in a position to oppose West Virginia. The only team added when Syracuse was part of the ACC was Louisville. By that time, West Virginia was already in the Big 12. North Carolina has been against expansion, period. It had nothing to do with West Virginia. The simply didn't want to expand with anyone.

Mitch McConnell didn't get Louisville into the ACC. Louisville was the target from the beginning. There simply wasn't a competitor for Louisville getting into the ACC.
You aren't entitled to make up your own facts.



West Virginia wasn't taken because the assets you mentioned are not what was valued by the networks. The schools taken in expansion were schools that could deliver big media markets. Look at the Big Ten. They took lousy programs in Rutgers and Maryland, but those schools could deliver big media markets. Colorado was terrible when the Pac 12 took them, but it was because Colorado could deliver a big media market. Missouri and Texas A&M were mediocre programs in the Big 12, but the SEC took them, because they delivered big media markets. Well, that's the same reason the ACC took Pittsburgh and Syracuse. Those schools delivered big media markets. If TV ratings and big fan bases were what mattered, the SEC would have taken Florida ST, not Missouri. However, you see who they took. That's because media markets were what brought the most money.

You are just repeating stupid internet rumors, and not dealing with facts.

Trust me, The ACC wanted the remaining Big East schools to go away. The ACC ran numbers on getting extra bowls, BCS selections, Championship games and the Northeast TV markets. To do this UConn, Rutgers, WVU, and VT were no longer going to be competing for a BCS birth. Also, the reason Big East Basketball is with Fox is because the remaining Big East admin and AD's saw the dirty pool played on the football side. So, Im not debating this story any longer with you because you just don't know your facts.

Im not sure your love fest with ESPN but during this time frame they were no friend, nor was BC, Syracuse, and the North Carolina schools. They wanted nothing to do with us. BTW, if our TV numbers were so bad that the ACC would not take us then why did the Big 12. Our TV numbers were good enough to get into a conference its just the ACC hated us. So, You can come up with all this mumbo jumbo you want politics played a major role and the longer you talk the more you let us know that you don't remember the facts, or maybe you were 12 years old at the time. So a test for you. Name the AD's at Syracuse, BC, and Miami when the Big East was braking up the first time? Who was the President at Maimi at the time and what happened to all the computers in her office and the AD's before they went to court? Oh, you do know that all ended up in court right?
 
Last edited:
Trust me, The ACC wanted the remaining Big East schools to go away. Also, the reason Big East Basketball is with Fox is because the remaining Big East admin and AD's saw the dirty pool played on the football side. So, Im not debating this story any longer with you because you just don't know your facts.

No, I'm not trusting you. Something isn't true just because you say it. Prove your statement. Offer some sort of proof. Your word isn't proof.

Meanwhile, I've offered plenty to back up what I've said. ESPN offered the Big East a new contract, and the Big East turned it down. If ESPN didn't want the Big East, they wouldn't have offered a contract.

The reason you aren't debating me anymore is that you can't prove your assertions. I know my facts, and that's why I'm proving you wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pitt4Life34
No, I'm not trusting you. Something isn't true just because you say it. Prove your statement. Offer some sort of proof. Your word isn't proof.

Meanwhile, I've offered plenty to back up what I've said. ESPN offered the Big East a new contract, and the Big East turned it down. If ESPN didn't want the Big East, they wouldn't have offered a contract.

The reason you aren't debating me anymore is that you can't prove your assertions. I know my facts, and that's why I'm proving you wrong.
They wanted a bid to drive up the price smart guy.

Now go do your research on the first all most BE breakup. How the remaining BE schools sued to be able to stay playing at a high level, and again find out what the President at Miami did to her computers? lol. Straight from the Clintons.
 
No, what you are saying is 100% wrong. When the ACC expanded back in 2003, it was not because they wanted to screw West Virginia, and it was not because ESPN wanted to get rid of the Big East. That is factually incorrect.

First of all, I can completely obliterate your argument that ESPN didn't want the Big East. Back in 2011, ESPN offered the Big East a new contract, which paid each school about $12 million a year. That was an increase from $3.12 million from the old contract. The Big East turned down ESPN's offer.

Ok, so let's compare your theory to the facts. You claim back in 2003, ESPN wanted to get rid of the Big East, so they encouraged Miami and co. to leave for the ACC. Well, from 2003 to 2011, ESPN still had the Big East. That's 8 years. So, you claim ESPN wanted to get rid of the Big East, yet ESPN kept them for 8 years. Then, ESPN offered a new contract to the Big East, which was 4 times larger than the old contract. Well, square that with your theory. ESPN kept the Big East for 8 years. Then, ESPN offered a new contract which was 4 times larger than the old one. But yeah, somehow that's proof ESPN wanted to get rid of the Big East. Sorry, the facts just destroy your theory completely.

Now, let me address your other points. The situation with Virginia wasn't behind closed doors. It was completely out in the open. The state wouldn't allow Virginia to vote for expansion unless Virginia Tech was included. That wasn't conspiracy. They simply wanted to protect an instate institution. Nothing more complicated than that.

Miami, Boston College, Syracuse, and North Carolina did not want West Virginia left out in the cold. That is completely made up. First of all, you have no proof of that whatsoever. None at all. There is nothing you can link to that will support you point. Aside from that, you have a couple more problems. For one, Syracuse was never in a position to oppose West Virginia. The only team added when Syracuse was part of the ACC was Louisville. By that time, West Virginia was already in the Big 12. North Carolina has been against expansion, period. It had nothing to do with West Virginia. The simply didn't want to expand with anyone.

Mitch McConnell didn't get Louisville into the ACC. Louisville was the target from the beginning. There simply wasn't a competitor for Louisville getting into the ACC.
You aren't entitled to make up your own facts.



West Virginia wasn't taken because the assets you mentioned are not what was valued by the networks. The schools taken in expansion were schools that could deliver big media markets. Look at the Big Ten. They took lousy programs in Rutgers and Maryland, but those schools could deliver big media markets. Colorado was terrible when the Pac 12 took them, but it was because Colorado could deliver a big media market. Missouri and Texas A&M were mediocre programs in the Big 12, but the SEC took them, because they delivered big media markets. Well, that's the same reason the ACC took Pittsburgh and Syracuse. Those schools delivered big media markets. If TV ratings and big fan bases were what mattered, the SEC would have taken Florida ST, not Missouri. However, you see who they took. That's because media markets were what brought the most money.

You are just repeating stupid internet rumors, and not dealing with facts.
If we were taken for our TV sets then why did the ACC not take us? Its because the old Big East schools and the NC schools thought we were rednecks. They hated us, and hated more getting beat by us.
 
They wanted a bid to drive up the price smart guy.

Now go do your research on the first all most BE breakup. How the remaining BE schools sued to be able to stay playing at a high level, and again find out what the President at Miami did go her computes? lol. Straight from the Clintons.

You are clueless as to how the contract worked. ESPN offered the Big East a contract that paid $12 million per school. The Big East turned it down. They went to market and fielded offers from other networks. As part of the old contract, ESPN had a 60-day window to match whatever offer the Big East got. Well, the offer NBC gave was $2.3 million per team. So, how did that workout, smart guy?

I've done my research. You haven't. The Big East didn't have to sue anybody to play at a high level. They sued Boston College. That had nothing to do with being able to play at a high level. You are simply making up things.
 
If we were taken for our TV sets then why did the ACC not take us? Its because the old Big East schools and the NC schools thought we were rednecks. They hated us, and hated more getting beat by us.

Because West Virginia wasn't taken for TV sets. West Virginia was not taken in expansion. West Virginia was a replacement. The difference is, in expansion, the TV contract is renegotiated. The Big 12 did not renegotiate its TV contract by taking West Virginia and TCU.

The SEC didn't take West Virginia either. They took Missouri instead. Same reason, bigger media market.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rootmaster
You are clueless as to how the contract worked. ESPN offered the Big East a contract that paid $12 million per school. The Big East turned it down. They went to market and fielded offers from other networks. As part of the old contract, ESPN had a 60-day window to match whatever offer the Big East got. Well, the offer NBC gave was $2.3 million per team. So, how did that workout, smart guy?

I've done my research. You haven't. The Big East didn't have to sue anybody to play at a high level. They sued Boston College. That had nothing to do with being able to play at a high level. You are simply making up things.
You do realize that WVU, Pitt, VT and Rutgers was being left out correct? We had no place to go and very had few options. We were being pushed back to C USA status. They wanted to kill us so they could take our bowls and and TV money. We had to sue to keep from going to C USA.
 
Because West Virginia wasn't taken for TV sets. West Virginia was not taken in expansion. West Virginia was a replacement. The difference is, in expansion, the TV contract is renegotiated. The Big 12 did not renegotiate its TV contract by taking West Virginia and TCU.

The SEC didn't take West Virginia either. They took Missouri instead. Same reason, bigger media market.
yea that all makes sense.
 
You are clueless as to how the contract worked. ESPN offered the Big East a contract that paid $12 million per school. The Big East turned it down. They went to market and fielded offers from other networks. As part of the old contract, ESPN had a 60-day window to match whatever offer the Big East got. Well, the offer NBC gave was $2.3 million per team. So, how did that workout, smart guy?

I've done my research. You haven't. The Big East didn't have to sue anybody to play at a high level. They sued Boston College. That had nothing to do with being able to play at a high level. You are simply making up things.

So if we had to sued to stay alive then it was politics. They wanted us back to non-BCS status. You think this was all friendly business decision making about expansion.
 
You do realize that WVU, Pitt, VT and Rutgers was being left out correct? We had no place to go and very had few options. We were being pushed back to C USA status. They wanted to kill us so they could take our bowls and and TV money. We had to sue to keep from going to C USA.

You need to stop saying "you do realize," because almost everything you say after that is incorrect.

There was no lawsuit filed against ESPN, or anyone else, that had to do with keeping the Big East from playing at a high level. The only lawsuits filed were against Miami and Virginia Tech, and then against Boston College. Those lawsuits were only to recover damages from the departing schools.

The Big East was not being pushed to CUSA status. 1) The Big East did not lose their TV contract. They kept if for 8 years, from 2003 thru 2011. 2) The Big East could not be stripped of BCS status. There was a formula for any conference to achieve BCS status. It was comprised of regular season records and final BCS rankings. If the Big East scored high enough (which they did), they got to keep their BCS status. Nothing ESPN or the ACC could do about that.

The motives you assign to ESPN and the ACC are incorrect, because they didn't happen. They could not happen, based on the nature of the contracts. That's the problem. You don't understand how the contracts work.

yea that all makes sense.

It does, and it's true. Show proof that backs up your claims.

So if we had to sued to stay alive then it was politics. They wanted us back to non-BCS status. You think this was all friendly business decision making about expansion.

The Big East did not have to sue to stay alive. That is simply not true. Post some kind of evidence of these lawsuits. The only ones that took place were against the schools that left. Suing Boston College would in no way affect the Big East's survival.

As I pointed out, no lawsuit could change the BCS status of the Big East. That was determined strictly by a formula. The Big East scored high enough to maintain BCS status, and that's why they kept it until the end.

You talk to me about facts, but you the one getting your facts wrong.
 
Last edited:
BTW, if business decision making was used during the last round of conference shake up then why is WVU not in the ACC? Strong southern alumni base, good TV ratings, quality football and basketball programs, and loyal fans that travel is the core assets to the WVU brand. Why? Politics.

Do I like where we are in the Big 12? Yes, but don't give me this crap that politics and back rooms deals didn't have an impact because if so we would be in the ACC. Remember, WVU and Pitt agreed to stay together until they cut a deal with the ACC behind our backs.


I know it's the elephant in the room but you left out the two main reasons why WVU didn't get into the ACC. That would be the academic concerns and then the WVU perception around ACC country. Listen I want WVU in the ACC as much as anyone on this site. More than most! I hate WVU in the Big12. I get Luck had no choice and did a great job getting WVU financially secure as a player at the table. But I know WVU belongs in the ACC along with their traditional partners. I hope I see it in my lifetime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tubmillpanther
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT