Search
Log in
Register
Teams
Teams
Fan Sites
Forums
Shows
College
College Football News
College Football Player Rankings
College Football Rankings
College Football Playoff
College Basketball News
Women's Sports
NIL
NIL News
NIL Valuation
NIL Deals
NIL Deal Tracker
Sports Business
Transfer Portal
Transfer Portal News
NCAA Transfer Portal
Transfer Portal Rankings
Transfer Portal Team Rankings
Recruiting
Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Database
Team Rankings
Player Rankings
Industry Comparison
Commitments
Recruiting Prediction Machine
High School
High School News
Schools
Rankings
Scores
Draft
NFL Draft
NFL Draft News
Draft By Stars
College Draft History
College Draft Totals
NBA Draft
NBA Draft News
Pro
NFL
NASCAR
NBA
Culture
Sports Betting
About
About
On3 App
Advertise
Press
FAQ
Contact
Get a profile. Be recruited.
New posts
Menu
Install the app
Install
On3:
Tracking college football’s highest-paid wide receivers
On3:
Nearly 50 years after Herschel Walker's debut, the Georgia-Tennessee rivalry still endures
On3:
QB Ryan Staub emerges at Colorado and what that says about Deion Sanders
On3:
Facing a must-win gauntlet, Florida's Billy Napier doubles down
Auburn:
Towns McGough injury update: Hugh Freeze shares where Auburn kicker stands in recovery
Reply to thread
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
ACC a better fit than Big 12?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="topdecktiger" data-source="post: 129591278" data-attributes="member: 1459051"><p>No, your 24 million number is not correct. Post the source for your information.</p><p></p><p>You are assuming cable providers won't pay for an ACC network. You can't make that assumption. That's just your opinion, not backed up by any facts.</p><p></p><p>You act like the $600k is a bad thing. That's just one state. There would be 14 other state, plus any out of footprint subscribers. Even if the ACC only got $100,000 in the other 14 states, that would still put them up to $2 million per team.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>They haven't moved the drop dead date. The initial target was 2016-17. That was the target from day one. It's only been moved once, which was posted at the end of last year.</p><p></p><p>Your own quote proves you wrong. It was published on April 2013, and said the SEC required its Tier 3 right in "recent weeks." Well, "recent weeks" from April 2013 would still be in 2013. The SEC network launched in 2014. So no, they didn't reacquire the right more than a year out. By your own source, they got the Tier 3 rights in 2013, and launched the network in 2014.</p><p></p><p>That said, you are talking about Tier 3 rights, not syndication rights. Here is another quote from the same article. It says:</p><p></p><p><em>Meanwhile, ESPN is <u><strong>in the process</strong></u> of regaining its syndicated rights from Comcast SportsNet and Fox Sports Net. Both RSNs currently buy SEC games from ESPN.</em></p><p></p><p>See, ESPN had not yet repurchased the syndication rights in April of 2013. "In the process" means they hadn't completed the process. So we are only 1 year out from the launch of the SEC Network, and ESPN <strong><em><u>still</u></em></strong> hadn't repurchased the syndication packages. You were wrong, and it's clearly proven.</p><p><a href="http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/04/15/Media/SEC.aspx">http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/04/15/Media/SEC.aspx</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>ESPN doesn't get <strong><em><u>ANY</u></em></strong> subscription fees now. That's what you don't get. They get zero now, so anything they get with a network would be 100% more than they get now. The only money ESPN gets now from its ACC programming is what it gets by selling advertising during ACC games (plus the Raycom syndication). By putting games on a conference network, they still get advertising revenue from the ACC games, PLUS subscription fees, PLUS advertising revenue from programming they replace ACC games with on the other channels.</p><p></p><p>Yeah, I do know ESPN will own 100% of the network. The ACC can't own any of the network because they don't own any of the content. That's just like the SEC. ESPN owns 100% of the SEC network, because they own 100% of the content. There have been plenty of reports that an ACC network would be set up like the SEC network. Here is just one example. I can give you more.</p><p></p><p><em>Observers like ESPN ACC reporter David Hale </em><a href="http://www.wralsportsfan.com/buzzsportradio/audio/15697628/"><u><em>told Buzz Sports Radio</em></u></a><em> in Raleigh, NC that he expected an ACC cable network to be more like the ESPN-run Longhorn and SEC Networks.</em></p><p><em><a href="http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/is-an-acc-network-getting-any-closer-maybe.html">http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/is-an-acc-network-getting-any-closer-maybe.html</a></em></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, you don't understand. ESPN would not be paying twice for the rights. You can't keep saying that, because it's not accurate. The ACC would only get a share of the subscription fees. Subscription fees and rights fees are two completely different things. You can't keep saying they are the same thing, because they aren't.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, you are wrong. 100% wrong. ESPN does, DOES, show inventory on the SEC network which it already owned. This is a flat out lie on your part. For example, last year, Florida vs. Kentucky and South Carolina vs. Kentucky were broadcasted on the SECN. Those are games ESPN <em><strong><u>already owned</u></strong></em>. The games added by expansion and Tier 3 make up only a small portion of the games actually broadcasted on SECN. By your logic, ESPN "paid twice" for Florida vs. Kentucky and South Carolina vs. Kentucky.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's not a key point at all. It just illustrated your lack of understanding of TV contracts. When ESPN repurchased the SEC's syndication packages from Comcast and Fox, the SEC didn't get any of that money either. The only money the SEC gets from the SEC network is the subscriptions fees, and that was still enough for $5 million per team.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There actually is incentive. They are going out of business either way. Better to get a golden parachute now that nothing later on.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="topdecktiger, post: 129591278, member: 1459051"] No, your 24 million number is not correct. Post the source for your information. You are assuming cable providers won't pay for an ACC network. You can't make that assumption. That's just your opinion, not backed up by any facts. You act like the $600k is a bad thing. That's just one state. There would be 14 other state, plus any out of footprint subscribers. Even if the ACC only got $100,000 in the other 14 states, that would still put them up to $2 million per team. They haven't moved the drop dead date. The initial target was 2016-17. That was the target from day one. It's only been moved once, which was posted at the end of last year. Your own quote proves you wrong. It was published on April 2013, and said the SEC required its Tier 3 right in "recent weeks." Well, "recent weeks" from April 2013 would still be in 2013. The SEC network launched in 2014. So no, they didn't reacquire the right more than a year out. By your own source, they got the Tier 3 rights in 2013, and launched the network in 2014. That said, you are talking about Tier 3 rights, not syndication rights. Here is another quote from the same article. It says: [I]Meanwhile, ESPN is [U][B]in the process[/B][/U] of regaining its syndicated rights from Comcast SportsNet and Fox Sports Net. Both RSNs currently buy SEC games from ESPN.[/I] See, ESPN had not yet repurchased the syndication rights in April of 2013. "In the process" means they hadn't completed the process. So we are only 1 year out from the launch of the SEC Network, and ESPN [B][I][U]still[/U][/I][/B] hadn't repurchased the syndication packages. You were wrong, and it's clearly proven. [URL]http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/04/15/Media/SEC.aspx[/URL] ESPN doesn't get [B][I][U]ANY[/U][/I][/B] subscription fees now. That's what you don't get. They get zero now, so anything they get with a network would be 100% more than they get now. The only money ESPN gets now from its ACC programming is what it gets by selling advertising during ACC games (plus the Raycom syndication). By putting games on a conference network, they still get advertising revenue from the ACC games, PLUS subscription fees, PLUS advertising revenue from programming they replace ACC games with on the other channels. Yeah, I do know ESPN will own 100% of the network. The ACC can't own any of the network because they don't own any of the content. That's just like the SEC. ESPN owns 100% of the SEC network, because they own 100% of the content. There have been plenty of reports that an ACC network would be set up like the SEC network. Here is just one example. I can give you more. [I]Observers like ESPN ACC reporter David Hale [/I][URL='http://www.wralsportsfan.com/buzzsportradio/audio/15697628/'][U][I]told Buzz Sports Radio[/I][/U][/URL][I] in Raleigh, NC that he expected an ACC cable network to be more like the ESPN-run Longhorn and SEC Networks. [URL]http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/is-an-acc-network-getting-any-closer-maybe.html[/URL][/I] No, you don't understand. ESPN would not be paying twice for the rights. You can't keep saying that, because it's not accurate. The ACC would only get a share of the subscription fees. Subscription fees and rights fees are two completely different things. You can't keep saying they are the same thing, because they aren't. No, you are wrong. 100% wrong. ESPN does, DOES, show inventory on the SEC network which it already owned. This is a flat out lie on your part. For example, last year, Florida vs. Kentucky and South Carolina vs. Kentucky were broadcasted on the SECN. Those are games ESPN [I][B][U]already owned[/U][/B][/I]. The games added by expansion and Tier 3 make up only a small portion of the games actually broadcasted on SECN. By your logic, ESPN "paid twice" for Florida vs. Kentucky and South Carolina vs. Kentucky. That's not a key point at all. It just illustrated your lack of understanding of TV contracts. When ESPN repurchased the SEC's syndication packages from Comcast and Fox, the SEC didn't get any of that money either. The only money the SEC gets from the SEC network is the subscriptions fees, and that was still enough for $5 million per team. There actually is incentive. They are going out of business either way. Better to get a golden parachute now that nothing later on. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Post reply
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
ACC a better fit than Big 12?
Top
Bottom