New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="topdecktiger" data-source="post: 129591331" data-attributes="member: 1459051">Here are the numbers. Page 21. In the ACC footprint, there are 43.3 million homes with televisions. Of those, 38.4 million are "wired," meaning they have either cable or satellite. The figures you posted are only for cable households. It doesn't include satellite homes, who are also potential subscribers. The Big Ten, SEC, Pac 12, and LHN all have their channels available with satellite providers as well as cable. You have to count both.<a href="http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1147299/maryland-acc-brief-exhibit-a.pdf">http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1147299/maryland-acc-brief-exhibit-a.pdf</a>They would get some subscribers. Even the SEC doesn't have 100% subscriptions in every state. You can't assume that the ACC would get zero carriage in any one particular state or city. That's just your opinion not backed up by any facts. You can't use that as a defense of your position.I wasn't pegging on a $2 million figure. I was just showing you what it would add up to even if you took a lowball figure. For example, the SEC has 11 home states. They made $5 million per school. Divided by 11 states, that means the SEC schools average $455,000 per state. Yet you are trying to say $600,000 would be bad. That was my point.Nope, they haven't. That's again you just making up something.Actually no, the SEC network went on the air before August of 2014. They just showed the first football game in August. Even with that said, it's hilarious that you would act like 3 months proves your point. It proves my point. The SEC didn't buy back Tier 3 rights until 2013, and the network started in 2014. That's not "well over" a year.I didn't ignore it. You are just splitting hair because it wasn't literally12 exact months. The rights weren't repurchased until 2013, and the network went on air in 2014. The ACC was looking at 2017 as the original launch date. It's now been pushed back, so that's at least 2018. So, if we go by the SEC timeline, then the ACC wouldn't be due to buy back the rights until April of 2017 in the first place.And that's because the network was launching the next year. We already know the ACC isn't launching a network next year, therefore no reason to buy back the rights beforehand.Nope, not what I said. ESPN would still get a subscription fee to the regular channels even if they didn't have any ACC content. For example, ESPN itself gets $7.00 per subscriber. If they didn't have a single ACC game, ESPN would still get $7.00 per subscriber from its main channel.They wouldn't be.#4 does not happen. This is your lack of understanding of how the contracts work. Subscription fees and rights fees are completely different things. ESPN would not be paying the ACC twice for the rights fees. If ESPN and the ACC split the revenue from a network that's only subscription fees. Texas does the same thing with the LHN. IMG already owned all the Tier 3 rights for Texas. They pay about $10 million a year for those. However, IMG pays Texas an additional $15 million from the LHN (via ESPN). That's not because IMG is "paying twice" for the rights. The $15 million is not for the rights. The $15 million is strictly from revenue generated from the LHN. That's completely different from the broadcast rights.Here's what you don't get. The $5 million each school got from the SECN was not for rights to those new games. That $5 million was strictly from subscription revenue. The additional rights are paid out of the regular broadcast contract with ESPN. All the rights for the SEC (excluding the one CBS game) are in one big pot. ESPN pays for them in a lump sum every year. From the network, the SEC's payout doesn't have anything to do with the number of games.Here is where you are going wrong. Prior to the network, the SEC's regular TV contract with ESPN paid out $20 million per team (average). Now, (after expansion) their contract pays out $25 million per team. Additionally, they get $5 million from the SECN in subscription revenue.Now here is how it would work with the ACC. The ACC's contract with ESPN pays out about $18 million per school (average). IF, IF,  the ACC got a network, they would still only get the same $18 million payout for the rights. Then they would get $__ million from subscription fees. You see the difference? The SEC got a boost to their contract AND subscription fees from the network. The ACC would only get a subscription fee from the network, but not a contract boost. That's because ESPN already owns the rights.Now one other point about this. The ACC would have additional inventory. They would have the ~35 games that are currently syndicated with Fox and ESPN. (If they can't buy out the syndication packages, then the whole network is a moot point.) The difference is, they would not get paid any extra for these 35 games, because they are already getting paid out of their regular contract, as I just showed. Again, that's the difference. The SEC got a contract boost AND subscription fees. The ACC would only get subscription fees.Incorrect. There are 133 million homes in the U.S. The SEC is in roughly 69 million. That's barely 50%, not 69%. The thing is, the ACC doesn't have to get in that many homes. Nobody said they have to match the SEC. Here's how to look at it. The SEC makes $546 million a year in revenue. If the ACC only made half that, ESPN would clear $100 million a year, and that's taking into account operating costs and being generous and splitting 50/50 with the ACC. Now, would the ACC even make that much? I don't know. I'm just showing you that the bar is not nearly has high as you are claiming to make a network viable.</blockquote>

Name

Top Bottom