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:
Tennessee RB DeSean Bishop bet on himself and now faces tough test against Georgia
On3:
True Freshman Standouts from Week 2 of College Football
On3:
Unfiltered Takes after Week 2: John Mateer, Billy Napier, Oregon & much more
On3:
College Football Bowl Projections Week 3: Full list of matchups, playoff predictions
On3:
On3 Heisman Trophy Poll: Top 10 player rankings after Week 2
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="Buckaineer" data-source="post: 129592870" data-attributes="member: 1428007"><p>topdecktigerNo, they are accurate. You claimed that the numbers were including Maryland, and they weren't. The numbers you posted don't include satellite customers, so therefore yours are inaccurate, because they don't include that potential list of subscribers.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: I've proven your numbers innacurate. You claimed there are 43 plus mil tv households when in reality there are only 37 million. You claimed huge numbers for ACC potential pay subscribers when there are only 24 million actually in the footprint (cable)</span></p><p></p><p>I already did that. I posted a link that showed the total number of satellite/cable subscribers in the ACC footprint.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: The only thing I've seen posted by you had erroneous figures on it. Post the actual numbers from the industry</span></p><p></p><p>100% incorrect. I never "imagined all those subscribers would be forced to pay for an ACC network." Simply not true. For example, when I gave you that example about New York, I only estimated 25% of the subscribers getting the network. 25% of a market is not an unreasonable number at all. And again, my numbers are not too high. As I pointed out, you haven't factored in satellite subscribers, which is a major error on your part.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: Post the accurate satellite numbers and we'll combine those with the accurate cable tv households. Still waiting.</span></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, I've said 2016-2017 was the target date all along. I didn't say otherwise. I didn't spin at all. I correctly pointed out to you that the SEC only bough back their rights in 2013, and the network bought back the rights in 2014. That's a year earlier. Now you are trying to save face by clinging to a few extra months. Did the SEC buy back the rights 2 years before the network launched? Answer, no. It was 1 year.</p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: You've said 2016-17 in about the last year--before that? NO. The ACC has had MULTIPLE launch periods none of which panned out. You are the one that needs to "save face" because nothing you've purported is true.</span></p><p></p><p>You also ignored the point I made that the SEC was in talks with ESPN about forming a network as early as 2008, yet didn't get the network until 2014.</p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: What does that have to do with anything? You ignored that question--I assume your trying to deflect here?</span></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ok, here's a <a href="http://www.tigernet.com/update/player/Report-ESPN-delay-ACC-Network-20907">link</a>. It says:</p><p></p><p><em>ESPN and the ACC conference have been in works to launch an ACC Network <strong><u>starting in 2017</u></strong>, but it appears that it will take longer for the TV network to come to fruition.</em></p><p></p><p>Well, there you go. Here is a link that specifically states the network wasn't going to launch until 2017 to begin with. You asked for it, you got it.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: That is a link from 2015. I already posted a link that showed the ACC had been trying to get a network going long before that. There are articles from 2010 on where the ACC is talking about getting a network. They didn't make it about 2016-2017 until last year--and still to date nothing has transpired towards that of any significance.</span></p><p></p><p></p><p>No they can't. They can't start a network without the ACC. Having rights to games and rights to the ACC name and network are two completely separate things.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: Reread what I wrote. I stated clearly ESPN has NO INTENTION of starting an ACC network with content they've already paid for.</span></p><p></p><p>I have told you multiple times that the ACC has to get back the syndication packages from Raycom and Fox to start a network. I've said that I don't know how many times, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. I have no idea why you are arguing about I point that I have already made myself.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: B.S. At the start of these incredibly long posts you denied again and again until you couldn't anymore. Dont pretend you were saying that from the start.</span></p><p></p><p>That's correct. I already said that. What I told you is that subscription fees have nothing to do with broadcast rights. The Big Ten gets two payments from its network, payment for the rights to the games <strong><u>AND</u></strong> subscription fees from the network. The SEC gets two payments from its network, payment for the rights to the games <strong><u>AND</u></strong> a subscription fee from the network.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: The Big Ten gets subscription fees and advertising fees based on agreements with the majority owner FOX from the BTN. The SEC likely gets the same from ESPN.</span></p><p></p><p>For some reason, you don't understand the point I'm making, and I think it's got to do with this Raycom business. He is what I'm telling you. It's true, that the syndication packages with Raycom and Fox have to be repurchased before a network can be started. What I'm telling you is, <strong>the ACC <u>will not</u> get any money when those rights are repurchased</strong>. What would happen is, ESPN would actually repurchase those rights directly from Raycom and Fox. (Then the ACC would have to reimburse ESPN for that purchase.) Then, the only money the ACC would get would be subscription fees from the network. ESPN would not pay the ACC anything for the rights themselves that come back from Raycom and Fox.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: You've completely twisted what you said before--obviously now you understand that ESPN won't pay the ACC twice for content they own and the ACC must get content back in order to start a network. What you don't understand STILL is that the ACC is going to have to purchase those rights, or at least a portion from ESPN in order to get a network going or the ACC won't get any money at all from ESPN from that content. ESPN already paid for it once and have or are getting money from Raycom (who gets money from FOX) for that inventory. In order for the ACC to get money from it they will have to OWN it and resell it.</span></p><p></p><p>You didn't read the whole article. <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/01/16/sec-conference-money-increases/1836389/">It says</a>:</p><p></p><p><em>SEC television arrangements</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>ESPN and CBS contracts: $21.4 million per school ($300 million total)</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>Estimated to be worth $5.25 billion if new 15-year deals replace the 15-year deals that began with the 2009-10 school year. <strong>While the <u>annual average would be $25 million per school</u>, the deal likely would pay the school less in the early years, more in the later years.</strong></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>SEC Network: $1.5 million per school ($21 million total)</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>A dedicated conference network is projected to have extremely good distribution among cable and satellite TV providers, especially in states where the conference has schools. It also may be attractive nationally.</em></p><p></p><p>If you had paid careful attention to the article, it was estimating what the SEC would specifically make in 2014-2015. The <strong><u>average</u></strong> is $25 million, but the specific payment in 2014-2015 would only be $21 million. You didn't pay attention to that part.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: I stand by what I stated and showed you that in fact the tv portion from ESPN and CBS was around $20 million while you stated clearly that they got $25 million from tv. I said it was from an average.</span></p><p></p><p>Actually no. Missouri and A&M joined the SEC in 2012, and the network didn't start until 2014. So yeah, that additional inventory <strong><u><em>WAS</em></u></strong> on other platforms before the network started.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: ? Are you claiming that Missouri and A&M weren't on ESPN until 2014--better tell Johnny Manziel that. I already stated that for a couple of years much of the additional content was on tier 3 outlets before the SECn started. You are repeating what I stated.</span></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes it is. They went from <a href="http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/sec-announces-209-million-average-payout-per-school/">$20.9 million</a> in 2014 to <a href="http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/05/sec_schools_to_each_reportedly.html">$31.2 million</a> in 2015. That's a $10.3 million difference. Some of that's got to do with the CFP, but not the whole $10.3 million increase. Also keep in mind, the contracts are on a graduated scale. In 2015, the payouts from the TV contract would be less than the lifetime average. Since the contract runs through 2034, the SEC's payouts won't hit their average until around 2023-2024.</p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: I broke down the extra money and in fact your article breaks it down--things such as CFP, NCAA money, championship games in football and basketball etc. and the SEC network. As to the average I pointed that out--but again none of this has anything to do with an ACC network.</span></p><p></p><p></p><p>Actually to this point, the ACC is slightly ahead. In 2015, the ACC paid out an average of <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2016/05/27/atlantic-coast-conference-total-revenue-increases-100-million/85035766/">$26 million </a>per school, and the Big 12 paid out an average of <a href="http://www.expressnews.com/sports/college_sports/big_12/article/Big-12-s-record-per-team-payouts-still-can-t-6295630.php">$25 million</a>.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: The lowest paid BIG 12 member got $25.3 million from the conference and another $4 million from tier 3 tv so no, the ACC was not ahead. Plus $3 million per ACC school came from the Maryland settlement.</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Buckaineer, post: 129592870, member: 1428007"] topdecktigerNo, they are accurate. You claimed that the numbers were including Maryland, and they weren't. The numbers you posted don't include satellite customers, so therefore yours are inaccurate, because they don't include that potential list of subscribers. [COLOR=#0000b3]B: I've proven your numbers innacurate. You claimed there are 43 plus mil tv households when in reality there are only 37 million. You claimed huge numbers for ACC potential pay subscribers when there are only 24 million actually in the footprint (cable)[/COLOR] I already did that. I posted a link that showed the total number of satellite/cable subscribers in the ACC footprint. [COLOR=#0000b3]B: The only thing I've seen posted by you had erroneous figures on it. Post the actual numbers from the industry[/COLOR] 100% incorrect. I never "imagined all those subscribers would be forced to pay for an ACC network." Simply not true. For example, when I gave you that example about New York, I only estimated 25% of the subscribers getting the network. 25% of a market is not an unreasonable number at all. And again, my numbers are not too high. As I pointed out, you haven't factored in satellite subscribers, which is a major error on your part. [COLOR=#0000b3]B: Post the accurate satellite numbers and we'll combine those with the accurate cable tv households. Still waiting.[/COLOR] No, I've said 2016-2017 was the target date all along. I didn't say otherwise. I didn't spin at all. I correctly pointed out to you that the SEC only bough back their rights in 2013, and the network bought back the rights in 2014. That's a year earlier. Now you are trying to save face by clinging to a few extra months. Did the SEC buy back the rights 2 years before the network launched? Answer, no. It was 1 year. [COLOR=#0000b3] B: You've said 2016-17 in about the last year--before that? NO. The ACC has had MULTIPLE launch periods none of which panned out. You are the one that needs to "save face" because nothing you've purported is true.[/COLOR] You also ignored the point I made that the SEC was in talks with ESPN about forming a network as early as 2008, yet didn't get the network until 2014. [COLOR=#0000b3] B: What does that have to do with anything? You ignored that question--I assume your trying to deflect here?[/COLOR] Ok, here's a [URL='http://www.tigernet.com/update/player/Report-ESPN-delay-ACC-Network-20907']link[/URL]. It says: [I]ESPN and the ACC conference have been in works to launch an ACC Network [B][U]starting in 2017[/U][/B], but it appears that it will take longer for the TV network to come to fruition.[/I] Well, there you go. Here is a link that specifically states the network wasn't going to launch until 2017 to begin with. You asked for it, you got it. [COLOR=#0000b3]B: That is a link from 2015. I already posted a link that showed the ACC had been trying to get a network going long before that. There are articles from 2010 on where the ACC is talking about getting a network. They didn't make it about 2016-2017 until last year--and still to date nothing has transpired towards that of any significance.[/COLOR] No they can't. They can't start a network without the ACC. Having rights to games and rights to the ACC name and network are two completely separate things. [COLOR=#0000b3]B: Reread what I wrote. I stated clearly ESPN has NO INTENTION of starting an ACC network with content they've already paid for.[/COLOR] I have told you multiple times that the ACC has to get back the syndication packages from Raycom and Fox to start a network. I've said that I don't know how many times, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. I have no idea why you are arguing about I point that I have already made myself. [COLOR=#0000b3]B: B.S. At the start of these incredibly long posts you denied again and again until you couldn't anymore. Dont pretend you were saying that from the start.[/COLOR] That's correct. I already said that. What I told you is that subscription fees have nothing to do with broadcast rights. The Big Ten gets two payments from its network, payment for the rights to the games [B][U]AND[/U][/B] subscription fees from the network. The SEC gets two payments from its network, payment for the rights to the games [B][U]AND[/U][/B] a subscription fee from the network. [COLOR=#0000b3]B: The Big Ten gets subscription fees and advertising fees based on agreements with the majority owner FOX from the BTN. The SEC likely gets the same from ESPN.[/COLOR] For some reason, you don't understand the point I'm making, and I think it's got to do with this Raycom business. He is what I'm telling you. It's true, that the syndication packages with Raycom and Fox have to be repurchased before a network can be started. What I'm telling you is, [B]the ACC [U]will not[/U] get any money when those rights are repurchased[/B]. What would happen is, ESPN would actually repurchase those rights directly from Raycom and Fox. (Then the ACC would have to reimburse ESPN for that purchase.) Then, the only money the ACC would get would be subscription fees from the network. ESPN would not pay the ACC anything for the rights themselves that come back from Raycom and Fox. [COLOR=#0000b3]B: You've completely twisted what you said before--obviously now you understand that ESPN won't pay the ACC twice for content they own and the ACC must get content back in order to start a network. What you don't understand STILL is that the ACC is going to have to purchase those rights, or at least a portion from ESPN in order to get a network going or the ACC won't get any money at all from ESPN from that content. ESPN already paid for it once and have or are getting money from Raycom (who gets money from FOX) for that inventory. In order for the ACC to get money from it they will have to OWN it and resell it.[/COLOR] You didn't read the whole article. [URL='http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/01/16/sec-conference-money-increases/1836389/']It says[/URL]: [I]SEC television arrangements ESPN and CBS contracts: $21.4 million per school ($300 million total) Estimated to be worth $5.25 billion if new 15-year deals replace the 15-year deals that began with the 2009-10 school year. [B]While the [U]annual average would be $25 million per school[/U], the deal likely would pay the school less in the early years, more in the later years.[/B] SEC Network: $1.5 million per school ($21 million total) A dedicated conference network is projected to have extremely good distribution among cable and satellite TV providers, especially in states where the conference has schools. It also may be attractive nationally.[/I] If you had paid careful attention to the article, it was estimating what the SEC would specifically make in 2014-2015. The [B][U]average[/U][/B] is $25 million, but the specific payment in 2014-2015 would only be $21 million. You didn't pay attention to that part. [COLOR=#0000b3]B: I stand by what I stated and showed you that in fact the tv portion from ESPN and CBS was around $20 million while you stated clearly that they got $25 million from tv. I said it was from an average.[/COLOR] Actually no. Missouri and A&M joined the SEC in 2012, and the network didn't start until 2014. So yeah, that additional inventory [B][U][I]WAS[/I][/U][/B] on other platforms before the network started. [COLOR=#0000b3]B: ? Are you claiming that Missouri and A&M weren't on ESPN until 2014--better tell Johnny Manziel that. I already stated that for a couple of years much of the additional content was on tier 3 outlets before the SECn started. You are repeating what I stated.[/COLOR] Yes it is. They went from [URL='http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/sec-announces-209-million-average-payout-per-school/']$20.9 million[/URL] in 2014 to [URL='http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/05/sec_schools_to_each_reportedly.html']$31.2 million[/URL] in 2015. That's a $10.3 million difference. Some of that's got to do with the CFP, but not the whole $10.3 million increase. Also keep in mind, the contracts are on a graduated scale. In 2015, the payouts from the TV contract would be less than the lifetime average. Since the contract runs through 2034, the SEC's payouts won't hit their average until around 2023-2024. [COLOR=#0000b3] B: I broke down the extra money and in fact your article breaks it down--things such as CFP, NCAA money, championship games in football and basketball etc. and the SEC network. As to the average I pointed that out--but again none of this has anything to do with an ACC network.[/COLOR] Actually to this point, the ACC is slightly ahead. In 2015, the ACC paid out an average of [URL='http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2016/05/27/atlantic-coast-conference-total-revenue-increases-100-million/85035766/']$26 million [/URL]per school, and the Big 12 paid out an average of [URL='http://www.expressnews.com/sports/college_sports/big_12/article/Big-12-s-record-per-team-payouts-still-can-t-6295630.php']$25 million[/URL]. [COLOR=#0000b3]B: The lowest paid BIG 12 member got $25.3 million from the conference and another $4 million from tier 3 tv so no, the ACC was not ahead. Plus $3 million per ACC school came from the Maryland settlement.[/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Post reply
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
ACC a better fit than Big 12?
Top
Bottom