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:
Facing a must-win gauntlet, Florida's Billy Napier doubles down
On3:
Tennessee RB DeSean Bishop bet on himself and now faces tough test against Georgia
On3:
College Football Bowl Projections Week 3: Full list of matchups, playoff predictions
On3:
True Freshman Standouts from Week 2 of College Football
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="topdecktiger" data-source="post: 129592914" data-attributes="member: 1459051"><p>No, you haven't proven anything inaccurate, except your own statements. <a href="http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1147299/maryland-acc-brief-exhibit-a.pdf">Here is the link again, on page 21</a>. The ACC footprint has 43 million total households with televisions. Of those, 38 million have cable or satellite. I said that clearly the first time. What you inaccurately do is try to limit the discussion to only cable households. That's simply not accurate, because you HAVE to count satellite subscribers as well. It's actually a reasonable figure. You have 24 million with just cable, out of 38 million total. That leaves 14 million satellite subscribers. 14 million satellite customers in MA, NY, PA, IN, VA, NC, KY, SC, GA, and FL is a reasonable figure.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The numbers I posted were sourced from Neilson. The figures are accurate, and sourced. You just don't like them. You don't get to throw out a number just because you don't like it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I did post accurate numbers. 38 million homes with cable or satellite. You are the one that inaccurately tried to claim only cable subscribers. The burden of proof is on you, not me.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>LOL. You're grasping at straws now. I've said all along 2016-2017 was the target date.</p><p></p><p>The ACC has not had multiple launch periods. Post just one. (Remember, <strong><em><u>launch periods</u></em></strong>.)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Here's what that has to do with it. You are claiming that the fact that there have been no reports about the ACC repurchasing the syndication rights means they aren't working on a network. What I was pointing out is that the SEC started talking with ESPN about a network all the way back in 2008. They didn't end up repurchasing the rights until 2013. Ok, well that shows you there is going to be a long period of time between the ACC and ESPN talking about a network, and then actually repurchasing the rights. You are assuming that the lack of reports about repurchasing the rights means nothing is going on. This is inaccurate. ESPN isn't going to repurchase the rights until the decide to form a network, just like they did with the SEC.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>"Talking about getting a network" is not the same as a launch date. As I pointed out, the SEC was "talking about getting a network" in 2008, but didn't get one until 2014.</p><p></p><p>You are incorrect to say the ACC didn't make the target date 2016-2017 until last year. Here is an article from May 2013:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/05/20/Media/ACC-net.aspx"><em>Industry insiders say there is not a rush to put together an ACC channel, and that it likely would be 2016 or 2017 before one would launch, if then.</em></a></p><p></p><p>See, 3 years ago, the launch date was 2016-2017. So no, they didn't just start saying that until last year. You are simply wrong, and it's easily provable.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's not what I was telling you. With the network, the ACC don't get paid for the content. They strictly get paid for the subscribers.</p><p></p><p>By the way, ESPN has already paid for all of the ACC's content, including the Raycom and Fox games.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope, I didn't deny it at all. I've said it the whole time.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I know that. The point is, the subscriptions are not for rights to the games. You keep trying to say the subscription fees are for the rights, and they aren't. The subscription fees don't have anything to do with the rights. So in other words, ESPN is not paying twice for content by giving the ACC subscription fees.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, that's incorrect. When you say "<em>In order for the ACC to get money from it they will have to OWN it and resell it,</em>" that's 100% inaccurate. The ACC doesn't have to own or resell any rights to make money from a network. They make money from the subscription fees, which doesn't require them to own or resell an content. You simply don't understand that subscription fees have nothing to do with content.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope, you're wrong. I said that the $25 million was an average. You can go back and look earlier posts, and I said that. The SEC gets $25 million from their TV contract, and get an additional $5 million from SECN revenue. I clearly indicated the $25 million is an average, and I showed you where I got that number in the link. You even said yourself that the TV contracts increase over time. Ok, well 2015 was the first year for the SEC under the new contract, so obviously the $20 million they got is going to increase, and is not the average.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You said:</p><p></p><p><em>The SEC may have gotten pro rata shares for adding A&M and Missouri (not reported but their pay was close to other SEC members once added, so probably). <strong> What they added however, was inventory--inventory that <u>was not on ESPN</u> or other platforms under SEC contracts <u>UNTIL they started the network.</u></strong></em></p><p></p><p>You clearly said that A&M and Missouri added inventory that <strong><u>was not on ESPN</u></strong> until they started the network. False. A&M and Missouri joined the SEC in 2012, and thus were on ESPN for 2 years before the network started.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, you are still not correct. The article I linked has $20 million just in TV money. The rest of the things like CFP were in addition to that.</p><p></p><p>To your other point, it clearly has something to do with an ACC network, and I already explained. You are just being so damned stubborn and argumentative that you won't <strong><u><em>listen</em></u></strong> to what I'm telling you. This is the point I'm making. The SEC was getting $20 million a year <strong><em><u>average</u></em></strong> from their previous contract with ESPN & CBS. Now, they get $25 million a year <strong><em><u>average</u></em></strong> from the contract with ESPN and CBS. <strong><em><u>Additionally</u></em></strong>, they get $5 million a year from the SECN subscription fees.</p><p></p><p>Here is what that means. The $5 million the SEC gets from subscription fees <strong><u><em>is not</em></u></strong> due to rights or added inventory. That's strictly from subscribers to the network. The increase for the additional rights and inventory came <strong><em><u>in the regular contract</u></em></strong>. By your logic, if the subscription fees were for rights and inventory, then the regular television contract would not have gone up, because that would mean ESPN was paying twice for the same rights. However, subscription fees are not for rights or inventory. That's why ESPN has to bump up the regular contract, in addition to paying the SEC the subscription revenue.</p><p></p><p>Now my point is, the ACC is not going to get an increase in the <strong><em><u>regular contract</u></em></strong>. The only money the ACC would get is from subscription fees. They would not get the boost in the regular contract like the SEC did. So the point is, paying the ACC subscription fees from the network is not paying twice for content. ESPN would only be paying twice for content if they increased the ACC's contract, in addition to the subscription fees.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope, wrong. <a href="http://wvmetronews.com/2015/05/29/big-12-payout-climbs-to-record-252-million/">West Virginia got $23 million and TCU got $24 million</a>. The Big 12 distributed a total of $252 million. That works out to $25 million per team. The other schools just got a little bit more because West Virginia and TCU got partial shares. <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2016/05/27/atlantic-coast-conference-total-revenue-increases-100-million/85035766/">The ACC had $403 million in total revenue</a>. Notre Dame got $6.2, which takes it down to $396.8. Divide that 15 ways (accounting for the league office) and the ACC average was $26.4 million.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="topdecktiger, post: 129592914, member: 1459051"] No, you haven't proven anything inaccurate, except your own statements. [URL='http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1147299/maryland-acc-brief-exhibit-a.pdf']Here is the link again, on page 21[/URL]. The ACC footprint has 43 million total households with televisions. Of those, 38 million have cable or satellite. I said that clearly the first time. What you inaccurately do is try to limit the discussion to only cable households. That's simply not accurate, because you HAVE to count satellite subscribers as well. It's actually a reasonable figure. You have 24 million with just cable, out of 38 million total. That leaves 14 million satellite subscribers. 14 million satellite customers in MA, NY, PA, IN, VA, NC, KY, SC, GA, and FL is a reasonable figure. The numbers I posted were sourced from Neilson. The figures are accurate, and sourced. You just don't like them. You don't get to throw out a number just because you don't like it. I did post accurate numbers. 38 million homes with cable or satellite. You are the one that inaccurately tried to claim only cable subscribers. The burden of proof is on you, not me. LOL. You're grasping at straws now. I've said all along 2016-2017 was the target date. The ACC has not had multiple launch periods. Post just one. (Remember, [B][I][U]launch periods[/U][/I][/B].) Here's what that has to do with it. You are claiming that the fact that there have been no reports about the ACC repurchasing the syndication rights means they aren't working on a network. What I was pointing out is that the SEC started talking with ESPN about a network all the way back in 2008. They didn't end up repurchasing the rights until 2013. Ok, well that shows you there is going to be a long period of time between the ACC and ESPN talking about a network, and then actually repurchasing the rights. You are assuming that the lack of reports about repurchasing the rights means nothing is going on. This is inaccurate. ESPN isn't going to repurchase the rights until the decide to form a network, just like they did with the SEC. "Talking about getting a network" is not the same as a launch date. As I pointed out, the SEC was "talking about getting a network" in 2008, but didn't get one until 2014. You are incorrect to say the ACC didn't make the target date 2016-2017 until last year. Here is an article from May 2013: [URL='http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/05/20/Media/ACC-net.aspx'][I]Industry insiders say there is not a rush to put together an ACC channel, and that it likely would be 2016 or 2017 before one would launch, if then.[/I][/URL] See, 3 years ago, the launch date was 2016-2017. So no, they didn't just start saying that until last year. You are simply wrong, and it's easily provable. That's not what I was telling you. With the network, the ACC don't get paid for the content. They strictly get paid for the subscribers. By the way, ESPN has already paid for all of the ACC's content, including the Raycom and Fox games. Nope, I didn't deny it at all. I've said it the whole time. I know that. The point is, the subscriptions are not for rights to the games. You keep trying to say the subscription fees are for the rights, and they aren't. The subscription fees don't have anything to do with the rights. So in other words, ESPN is not paying twice for content by giving the ACC subscription fees. No, that's incorrect. When you say "[I]In order for the ACC to get money from it they will have to OWN it and resell it,[/I]" that's 100% inaccurate. The ACC doesn't have to own or resell any rights to make money from a network. They make money from the subscription fees, which doesn't require them to own or resell an content. You simply don't understand that subscription fees have nothing to do with content. Nope, you're wrong. I said that the $25 million was an average. You can go back and look earlier posts, and I said that. The SEC gets $25 million from their TV contract, and get an additional $5 million from SECN revenue. I clearly indicated the $25 million is an average, and I showed you where I got that number in the link. You even said yourself that the TV contracts increase over time. Ok, well 2015 was the first year for the SEC under the new contract, so obviously the $20 million they got is going to increase, and is not the average. You said: [I]The SEC may have gotten pro rata shares for adding A&M and Missouri (not reported but their pay was close to other SEC members once added, so probably). [B] What they added however, was inventory--inventory that [U]was not on ESPN[/U] or other platforms under SEC contracts [U]UNTIL they started the network.[/U][/B][/I] You clearly said that A&M and Missouri added inventory that [B][U]was not on ESPN[/U][/B] until they started the network. False. A&M and Missouri joined the SEC in 2012, and thus were on ESPN for 2 years before the network started. No, you are still not correct. The article I linked has $20 million just in TV money. The rest of the things like CFP were in addition to that. To your other point, it clearly has something to do with an ACC network, and I already explained. You are just being so damned stubborn and argumentative that you won't [B][U][I]listen[/I][/U][/B] to what I'm telling you. This is the point I'm making. The SEC was getting $20 million a year [B][I][U]average[/U][/I][/B] from their previous contract with ESPN & CBS. Now, they get $25 million a year [B][I][U]average[/U][/I][/B] from the contract with ESPN and CBS. [B][I][U]Additionally[/U][/I][/B], they get $5 million a year from the SECN subscription fees. Here is what that means. The $5 million the SEC gets from subscription fees [B][U][I]is not[/I][/U][/B] due to rights or added inventory. That's strictly from subscribers to the network. The increase for the additional rights and inventory came [B][I][U]in the regular contract[/U][/I][/B]. By your logic, if the subscription fees were for rights and inventory, then the regular television contract would not have gone up, because that would mean ESPN was paying twice for the same rights. However, subscription fees are not for rights or inventory. That's why ESPN has to bump up the regular contract, in addition to paying the SEC the subscription revenue. Now my point is, the ACC is not going to get an increase in the [B][I][U]regular contract[/U][/I][/B]. The only money the ACC would get is from subscription fees. They would not get the boost in the regular contract like the SEC did. So the point is, paying the ACC subscription fees from the network is not paying twice for content. ESPN would only be paying twice for content if they increased the ACC's contract, in addition to the subscription fees. Nope, wrong. [URL='http://wvmetronews.com/2015/05/29/big-12-payout-climbs-to-record-252-million/']West Virginia got $23 million and TCU got $24 million[/URL]. The Big 12 distributed a total of $252 million. That works out to $25 million per team. The other schools just got a little bit more because West Virginia and TCU got partial shares. [URL='http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2016/05/27/atlantic-coast-conference-total-revenue-increases-100-million/85035766/']The ACC had $403 million in total revenue[/URL]. Notre Dame got $6.2, which takes it down to $396.8. Divide that 15 ways (accounting for the league office) and the ACC average was $26.4 million. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Post reply
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
ACC a better fit than Big 12?
Top
Bottom