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: 129593164" data-attributes="member: 1428007"><p>topdecktiger</p><p>No, the link I provided is not incorrect. The numbers I provided you came from Neilson as well. I will certainly say you didn't do something, because you didn't. You did not provide the number of satellite subscribers. I did.</p><p></p><p>Yes, the numbers are correct. They are from Neilson. It clearly said that in the graphic.</p><p></p><p>Yes, there are 43 million total TV homes. There are 38 million homes with either cable or satellite. The burden of proof is not on me at all. I provided with a link to figures that were take from Neilson.</p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: You posted a link from the ACC with erroneous or OLD numbers and claimed more pay tv subscribers in ACC areas than there are total tv households. I posted the current numbers. <a href="https://www.tvb.org/Portals/0/media/file/PoliticalMedia/Cable_UEs_by_State.pdf">Here they are again</a> for anyone that wants to check . There are only 37 million tv homes in states with ACC schools, NOT 43 million. You've never posted the correct number of satellite homes in states ACC schools reside in and I even gave you the current industry link <a href="http://www.tvb.org/default.aspx">where the information is obtainable. </a> You are lying about information--but anyone actually associated with the information has to use REAL information--they aren't creating or getting anything out of lies.</span></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, there has never been an "announcement date" other than 2016-2017. You have not provided a link showing the ACC announced a date.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: The ACC has announced they were looking at creating a network since before 2010. I've posted a link that proves that and there are others on the internet.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">Here's one that claimed 2016 is the goal:</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">excerpt:</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"><span style="color: #b30000"><a href="https://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1727596">In an article published to Florida State’s Rivals.com website last week</a>, school president John Thrasher said an ACC Network, similar to what the Southeastern Conference launched last August, “is a viable thing.”</span></span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"><span style="color: #b30000">He went on to say, “Whether we can get it up and running by 2016, I don't know. <strong>But that's the goal."<a href="http://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/morning-kickoff/2015/01/26/acc-president-goal-tv-network/22343755/">http://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/morning-kickoff/2015/01/26/acc-president-goal-tv-network/22343755/</a></strong></span></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">Multiple yearly updates have been made on the supposedly "coming" ACC network. You saying they didn't is simply another lie. It doesn't matter--to date the ACC has neither bought back any rights, or even announced that they intend to have a network. Swoffords latest vague statements imply they'll continue to discuss discussing one while you claim the "launch date was always 2016-2017. Hate to break it to you but.... Its July 2016 NOW.</span></p><p></p><p>The ACC is not getting a subscriber fee for the content. ESPN can't start an ACC Network without compensating the ACC. Even though ESPN owns all the ACC's games, they still can't create and "ACC Network" without paying the ACC. The rights to the games themselves and the rights to a network, the ACC name, etc. are completely different things.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: ESPN owns all of the ACCs content. All of it. Bought the rights--sublicensed some. If they get the sublicensed back, they aren't paying the ACC a dime for those rights. They can do whatever they want with those rights. If they want to put them on tv somewhere they can create a channel and put them on tv, or the internet or whereever. it doesn't need to be called "ACC" anything. It could be ESPN OCHO. but it doesn't matter because ESPN makes money through sublicensing that content and has no reason to buy it back. The ACC must have it to have an ACC network or buy back some of the rights they sold to ESPN in the first place.</span></p><p></p><p>The ACC doesn't sell anything for subscription fees. You simply do not understand that the rights to a network itself and the rights to individual games are not the same thing. The ACC doesn't provide content for the network. ESPN does. The ACC is providing ESPN the right to create a network with the ACC name. Otherwise, ESPN can't do it. The only thing ESPN could do is show the games on its other channels, which is already happening.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: AGAIN. ESPN is not paying the ACC twice for something they own outright. In the Big Ten and SEC the CONFERENCES bought back the rights, not ESPN. As an example of this---</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">From Sports Business Daily Published April 12, 2013</span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"><strong>The Southeastern Conference</strong> has completed the buy-back of its TV, digital and sponsorship rights from third parties, clearing the final hurdles to launch its TV channel with ESPN next year.</span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"><span style="color: #0000b3">and that is EXACTLY what the Atlantic Coast Conference will have to do in order to have an ACC channel. They have not begun this process. No matter how many times you pretend that isn't true it still will be and the ACC knows this too. </span></span></p><p></p><p>No, the subscription fees are not payment for the rights to the games.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: What are the subscription fees for then? Out of the kindness of ESPNs heart donations to the ACC?</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">The games are CONTENT as I said. Something has to be on an ACC channel. If the conference and ESPN create an ACC channel, the ACC will give or sell the content they've bought back back to ESPN and then ESPN will give them money to put those on a channel. I don't care how you try to spin it or what specific wording is used to describe it--that is what will happen. It isn't going to be ESPN giving the ACC money for NOTHING as you seem to think. Stop spinning.</span></p><p></p><p>The aren't giving ESPN subscription fees for a product they already own. ESPN <strong><em><u>cannot</u></em></strong> start an ACC network without compensating the ACC. ESPN only has the rights to the games themselves. ESPN <strong><em><u>does not </u></em></strong>have the rights to a network.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: Did ESPN create ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU and so forth? ESPN can create channels and put content they own on those channels. It doesn't have to be called "ACC network". Unfortunately for your misguided thought ESPN has no known incentive to end sublicensing agreements with Raycom to do anything with all of that content. There won't be an ACC channel if the ACC doesn't get those rights back and roll them back over to ESPN.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">As evidence of this-here is what happened in the SEC:</span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"><span style="color: #0000b3">From Sports Business Daily Published April 12, 2013</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"><span style="color: #b30000"><strong>The Southeastern Conference</strong> has completed the buy-back of its TV, digital and sponsorship rights from third parties, clearing the final hurdles to launch its TV channel with ESPN next year........</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"><span style="color: #b30000"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"><strong>The conference </strong>also gained control of its digital and sponsorship rights that will be rolled over to ESPN as well. That will enable ESPN to have TV, digital and sponsorship rights for the conference under one umbrella.</span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">That is exactly what I stated and you continue to deny the ACC will need to do.</span></p><p></p><p>Before expansion, the SEC got $20 million a year. Now, they get $25 million a year. I clearly indicated that the numbers were averages. You just left out that part because YOU were twisting words and lying.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: Again on the new SEC deal</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">From Forbes May 2013:</span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000">The new deal begins in 2014 and is an extension of their current 2.25 billion, 15-year contract..... financial terms have not been publicly revealed....</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">or this from the New York Times May 2013</span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000">The long-anticipated 20-year SEC Network deal, announced at a news conference in Atlanta, was a 10-year extension of ESPN’s existing SEC deal. The original contract, signed in 2008, guaranteed the SEC $2.25 billion over 15 years.</span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000">The extension will provide a significant financial boost to the conference, but the figures were not disclosed.</span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"><span style="color: #0000b3">and once again straight from your own words:</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"><span style="color: #0000b3"><span style="color: #663300">Topdecktiger QUOTE "The $25 million is just for the TV contract. It's not for CFP, NCAA, or anything like that."</span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"><span style="color: #0000b3">hmmm don't see any "clear indication of anything but exactly what you state there bud. Stop lying.</span></span></p><p></p><p>Sorry, that's you being dishonest. You can go back and look at every post I made, and nowhere will you find where I said, "Missouri and A&M were not on ESPN networks." I said the opposite. The games with A&M and Missouri were already being televised by ESPN prior to the network, so that's not new inventory. The Tier 3 rights were the only new inventory. That's only 14 games (similar to the Big 12). The SEC network shows 45 games a year. Tier 3 isn't nearly enough content to fill up the network. It's also not enough content to account for the money the SEC gets, if you are sticking to your claim that subscription fees are for content.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: I am not dishonest, but as usual you are. Here's a quote of what I stated:</span> <span style="color: #b30000">B:</span> <span style="color: #b30000">"That allowed them (SEC) to have enough inventory to monetize. .......--the money for it prior to 2014 was coming from tier 3 contracts." <span style="color: #0000b3">To which you for some reason responded oddly </span><span style="color: #006600">T: "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><em>WAS</em></strong> on other platforms before the network started.</span>"</span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"><span style="color: #0000b3">You repeated what I had just told you as though you were telling me--to spin it.</span></span></p><p></p><p>The $5 million subscription fee is not for inventory. I don't care how many times you insist on this, it isn't true.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: So you want to ignore the truth and play make believe? IDK what you've dreamed up in your head, but the SEC recieves profits from the SEC network which is because their content is on the network. ESPN isn't just giving them free money for nothing as you seem to think.</span></p><p></p><p>This is what you don't get. YOu said:</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #5900b3">So that means ESPN owns those rights still and sublicences those rights. If Raycom gets back the FOX games and ESPN attains those rights back from Raycom--WHO owns those rights still? ESPN. Not the ACC. </span></p><p></p><p>The ACC doesn't have to own those rights. ESPN has to own them to put them on the network. This is EXACTLY how the SEC network functions now. ESPN owns all the rights to those games, not the SEC. The ACC doesn't have to get back those rights.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: Something I don't get? I get it exactly, its YOU that has a comprehension problem. AGAIN ---</span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"><span style="color: #0000b3">From Sports Business Daily Published April 12, 2013</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"><span style="color: #b30000"><strong>The Southeastern Conference</strong> has completed the buy-back of its TV, digital and sponsorship rights from third parties, clearing the final hurdles to launch its TV channel with ESPN next year........</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"><span style="color: #b30000"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"><strong>The conference </strong>also gained control of its digital and sponsorship rights that will be rolled over to ESPN as well. That will enable ESPN to have TV, digital and sponsorship rights for the conference under one umbrella.</span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"><span style="color: #0000b3">and that is about as clearly as it can be made to you. If you can't understand that then you may need some special counseling or something. That is the way it will work for the ACC or anyone. ESPN is NOT going to reacquire the rights and give the ACC money for product ESPN owns and they aren't going to create an ACC network and give the ACC money unless the ACC buys back rights and provides the inventory for such a channel.</span></span></p><p></p><p>Here is something else you don't get. When ESPN repurchased the SECs syndication package from Comcast and Fox, the SEC never got back those rights. Those rights went straight from ESPN to the SECN. The sec never got them back.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: ESPN didn't repurchase the rights--the SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE did. </span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">AGAIN for the comprehensively impaired---</span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"><span style="color: #0000b3">From Sports Business Daily Published April 12, 2013</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"><span style="color: #b30000"><strong>The Southeastern Conference</strong> has completed the buy-back of its TV, digital and sponsorship rights from third parties, clearing the final hurdles to launch its TV channel with ESPN next year........</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"><span style="color: #b30000"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"><strong>The conference </strong>also gained control of its digital and sponsorship rights that will be rolled over to ESPN as well. That will enable ESPN to have TV, digital and sponsorship rights for the conference under one umbrella.</span></p><p></p><p>The average for the Big 12 was $25.2 million. You have to count West Virginia and TCU fort he average. You can't just count 8 schools and not the other two. The ACC had schools that got $27 million as well, such as Florida St and Georgia TEch. That's why you have to take an average. You are also not correct when you try to limit the Big12's Tier 3 figures to just TV. For most of the schools, the TV rights are <strong><em><u>included</u></em></strong> in their total Tier 3 package. TExas and Oklahoma aren't because they have their own networks, but that's not true for the rest of them.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: I'm not the one misrepresenting BIG 12 numbers. I haven't left out anything. This article again, from one of the BIG 12s TV partners who PAY the money, spells out what the BIG 12 schools were paid.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">excerpt:</span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #b30000">Commissioner Bob Bowlsby announced $252 million in distributable revenue from the 2014-15 school year to close the league's spring business meetings on Friday. </span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000">The league's eight remaining founding members received shares ranging from $25.5 million to $27 million, which varied by participation in various championships. </span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000">TCU received a share of nearly $24 million, about a million more than West Virginia because the Frogs qualified for a CFP access bowl last season. </span></p><p><a href="http://www.foxsports.com/southwest/story/big-12-distributes-252-million-in-annual-revenue-052915">http://www.foxsports.com/southwest/story/big-12-distributes-252-million-in-annual-revenue-052915</a></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">As mentioned BIG 12 schools also recieved tier 3 tv money from about $4 -$15 million. Notice I said TV--not talking about radio and other rights schools in other conferences monetize.....and you've conveniently left out that from the money ACC schools got--Maryland delivered $3 million to each ACC school--a one time shot. They won't ever get that again--unless of course someone else leaves too. </span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Buckaineer, post: 129593164, member: 1428007"] topdecktiger No, the link I provided is not incorrect. The numbers I provided you came from Neilson as well. I will certainly say you didn't do something, because you didn't. You did not provide the number of satellite subscribers. I did. Yes, the numbers are correct. They are from Neilson. It clearly said that in the graphic. Yes, there are 43 million total TV homes. There are 38 million homes with either cable or satellite. The burden of proof is not on me at all. I provided with a link to figures that were take from Neilson. [COLOR=#0000b3]B: You posted a link from the ACC with erroneous or OLD numbers and claimed more pay tv subscribers in ACC areas than there are total tv households. I posted the current numbers. [URL='https://www.tvb.org/Portals/0/media/file/PoliticalMedia/Cable_UEs_by_State.pdf']Here they are again[/URL] for anyone that wants to check . There are only 37 million tv homes in states with ACC schools, NOT 43 million. You've never posted the correct number of satellite homes in states ACC schools reside in and I even gave you the current industry link [URL='http://www.tvb.org/default.aspx']where the information is obtainable. [/URL] You are lying about information--but anyone actually associated with the information has to use REAL information--they aren't creating or getting anything out of lies.[/COLOR] No, there has never been an "announcement date" other than 2016-2017. You have not provided a link showing the ACC announced a date. [COLOR=#0000b3]B: The ACC has announced they were looking at creating a network since before 2010. I've posted a link that proves that and there are others on the internet. Here's one that claimed 2016 is the goal: excerpt: [COLOR=#b30000][URL='https://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1727596']In an article published to Florida State’s Rivals.com website last week[/URL], school president John Thrasher said an ACC Network, similar to what the Southeastern Conference launched last August, “is a viable thing.”[/COLOR][/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000b3][COLOR=#b30000]He went on to say, “Whether we can get it up and running by 2016, I don't know. [B]But that's the goal."[URL]http://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/morning-kickoff/2015/01/26/acc-president-goal-tv-network/22343755/[/URL][/B][/COLOR][/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000b3] Multiple yearly updates have been made on the supposedly "coming" ACC network. You saying they didn't is simply another lie. It doesn't matter--to date the ACC has neither bought back any rights, or even announced that they intend to have a network. Swoffords latest vague statements imply they'll continue to discuss discussing one while you claim the "launch date was always 2016-2017. Hate to break it to you but.... Its July 2016 NOW.[/COLOR] The ACC is not getting a subscriber fee for the content. ESPN can't start an ACC Network without compensating the ACC. Even though ESPN owns all the ACC's games, they still can't create and "ACC Network" without paying the ACC. The rights to the games themselves and the rights to a network, the ACC name, etc. are completely different things. [COLOR=#0000b3]B: ESPN owns all of the ACCs content. All of it. Bought the rights--sublicensed some. If they get the sublicensed back, they aren't paying the ACC a dime for those rights. They can do whatever they want with those rights. If they want to put them on tv somewhere they can create a channel and put them on tv, or the internet or whereever. it doesn't need to be called "ACC" anything. It could be ESPN OCHO. but it doesn't matter because ESPN makes money through sublicensing that content and has no reason to buy it back. The ACC must have it to have an ACC network or buy back some of the rights they sold to ESPN in the first place.[/COLOR] The ACC doesn't sell anything for subscription fees. You simply do not understand that the rights to a network itself and the rights to individual games are not the same thing. The ACC doesn't provide content for the network. ESPN does. The ACC is providing ESPN the right to create a network with the ACC name. Otherwise, ESPN can't do it. The only thing ESPN could do is show the games on its other channels, which is already happening. [COLOR=#0000b3]B: AGAIN. ESPN is not paying the ACC twice for something they own outright. In the Big Ten and SEC the CONFERENCES bought back the rights, not ESPN. As an example of this--- From Sports Business Daily Published April 12, 2013[/COLOR] [COLOR=#b30000][B]The Southeastern Conference[/B] has completed the buy-back of its TV, digital and sponsorship rights from third parties, clearing the final hurdles to launch its TV channel with ESPN next year. [COLOR=#0000b3]and that is EXACTLY what the Atlantic Coast Conference will have to do in order to have an ACC channel. They have not begun this process. No matter how many times you pretend that isn't true it still will be and the ACC knows this too. [/COLOR][/COLOR] No, the subscription fees are not payment for the rights to the games. [COLOR=#0000b3]B: What are the subscription fees for then? Out of the kindness of ESPNs heart donations to the ACC? The games are CONTENT as I said. Something has to be on an ACC channel. If the conference and ESPN create an ACC channel, the ACC will give or sell the content they've bought back back to ESPN and then ESPN will give them money to put those on a channel. I don't care how you try to spin it or what specific wording is used to describe it--that is what will happen. It isn't going to be ESPN giving the ACC money for NOTHING as you seem to think. Stop spinning.[/COLOR] The aren't giving ESPN subscription fees for a product they already own. ESPN [B][I][U]cannot[/U][/I][/B] start an ACC network without compensating the ACC. ESPN only has the rights to the games themselves. ESPN [B][I][U]does not [/U][/I][/B]have the rights to a network. [COLOR=#0000b3]B: Did ESPN create ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU and so forth? ESPN can create channels and put content they own on those channels. It doesn't have to be called "ACC network". Unfortunately for your misguided thought ESPN has no known incentive to end sublicensing agreements with Raycom to do anything with all of that content. There won't be an ACC channel if the ACC doesn't get those rights back and roll them back over to ESPN. As evidence of this-here is what happened in the SEC:[/COLOR] [COLOR=#b30000][COLOR=#0000b3]From Sports Business Daily Published April 12, 2013[/COLOR][/COLOR] [COLOR=#b30000][COLOR=#b30000][B]The Southeastern Conference[/B] has completed the buy-back of its TV, digital and sponsorship rights from third parties, clearing the final hurdles to launch its TV channel with ESPN next year........ [/COLOR] [B]The conference [/B]also gained control of its digital and sponsorship rights that will be rolled over to ESPN as well. That will enable ESPN to have TV, digital and sponsorship rights for the conference under one umbrella.[/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000b3]That is exactly what I stated and you continue to deny the ACC will need to do.[/COLOR] Before expansion, the SEC got $20 million a year. Now, they get $25 million a year. I clearly indicated that the numbers were averages. You just left out that part because YOU were twisting words and lying. [COLOR=#0000b3]B: Again on the new SEC deal From Forbes May 2013:[/COLOR] [COLOR=#b30000]The new deal begins in 2014 and is an extension of their current 2.25 billion, 15-year contract..... financial terms have not been publicly revealed....[/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000b3] or this from the New York Times May 2013[/COLOR] [COLOR=#b30000]The long-anticipated 20-year SEC Network deal, announced at a news conference in Atlanta, was a 10-year extension of ESPN’s existing SEC deal. The original contract, signed in 2008, guaranteed the SEC $2.25 billion over 15 years. The extension will provide a significant financial boost to the conference, but the figures were not disclosed. [COLOR=#0000b3]and once again straight from your own words:[/COLOR][/COLOR] [COLOR=#b30000][COLOR=#0000b3][COLOR=#663300]Topdecktiger QUOTE "The $25 million is just for the TV contract. It's not for CFP, NCAA, or anything like that."[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] [COLOR=#b30000][COLOR=#0000b3]hmmm don't see any "clear indication of anything but exactly what you state there bud. Stop lying.[/COLOR][/COLOR] Sorry, that's you being dishonest. You can go back and look at every post I made, and nowhere will you find where I said, "Missouri and A&M were not on ESPN networks." I said the opposite. The games with A&M and Missouri were already being televised by ESPN prior to the network, so that's not new inventory. The Tier 3 rights were the only new inventory. That's only 14 games (similar to the Big 12). The SEC network shows 45 games a year. Tier 3 isn't nearly enough content to fill up the network. It's also not enough content to account for the money the SEC gets, if you are sticking to your claim that subscription fees are for content. [COLOR=#0000b3]B: I am not dishonest, but as usual you are. Here's a quote of what I stated:[/COLOR] [COLOR=#b30000]B:[/COLOR] [COLOR=#b30000]"That allowed them (SEC) to have enough inventory to monetize. .......--the money for it prior to 2014 was coming from tier 3 contracts." [COLOR=#0000b3]To which you for some reason responded oddly [/COLOR][COLOR=#006600]T: "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][I]WAS[/I][/B] on other platforms before the network started.[/COLOR]"[/COLOR] [COLOR=#b30000] [COLOR=#0000b3]You repeated what I had just told you as though you were telling me--to spin it.[/COLOR][/COLOR] The $5 million subscription fee is not for inventory. I don't care how many times you insist on this, it isn't true. [COLOR=#0000b3]B: So you want to ignore the truth and play make believe? IDK what you've dreamed up in your head, but the SEC recieves profits from the SEC network which is because their content is on the network. ESPN isn't just giving them free money for nothing as you seem to think.[/COLOR] This is what you don't get. YOu said: [COLOR=#5900b3]So that means ESPN owns those rights still and sublicences those rights. If Raycom gets back the FOX games and ESPN attains those rights back from Raycom--WHO owns those rights still? ESPN. Not the ACC. [/COLOR] The ACC doesn't have to own those rights. ESPN has to own them to put them on the network. This is EXACTLY how the SEC network functions now. ESPN owns all the rights to those games, not the SEC. The ACC doesn't have to get back those rights. [COLOR=#0000b3]B: Something I don't get? I get it exactly, its YOU that has a comprehension problem. AGAIN ---[/COLOR] [COLOR=#b30000][COLOR=#0000b3]From Sports Business Daily Published April 12, 2013[/COLOR][/COLOR] [COLOR=#b30000][COLOR=#b30000][B]The Southeastern Conference[/B] has completed the buy-back of its TV, digital and sponsorship rights from third parties, clearing the final hurdles to launch its TV channel with ESPN next year........ [/COLOR] [B]The conference [/B]also gained control of its digital and sponsorship rights that will be rolled over to ESPN as well. That will enable ESPN to have TV, digital and sponsorship rights for the conference under one umbrella. [COLOR=#0000b3]and that is about as clearly as it can be made to you. If you can't understand that then you may need some special counseling or something. That is the way it will work for the ACC or anyone. ESPN is NOT going to reacquire the rights and give the ACC money for product ESPN owns and they aren't going to create an ACC network and give the ACC money unless the ACC buys back rights and provides the inventory for such a channel.[/COLOR][/COLOR] Here is something else you don't get. When ESPN repurchased the SECs syndication package from Comcast and Fox, the SEC never got back those rights. Those rights went straight from ESPN to the SECN. The sec never got them back. [COLOR=#0000b3]B: ESPN didn't repurchase the rights--the SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE did. AGAIN for the comprehensively impaired---[/COLOR] [COLOR=#b30000][COLOR=#0000b3]From Sports Business Daily Published April 12, 2013[/COLOR][/COLOR] [COLOR=#b30000][COLOR=#b30000][B]The Southeastern Conference[/B] has completed the buy-back of its TV, digital and sponsorship rights from third parties, clearing the final hurdles to launch its TV channel with ESPN next year........ [/COLOR] [B]The conference [/B]also gained control of its digital and sponsorship rights that will be rolled over to ESPN as well. That will enable ESPN to have TV, digital and sponsorship rights for the conference under one umbrella.[/COLOR] The average for the Big 12 was $25.2 million. You have to count West Virginia and TCU fort he average. You can't just count 8 schools and not the other two. The ACC had schools that got $27 million as well, such as Florida St and Georgia TEch. That's why you have to take an average. You are also not correct when you try to limit the Big12's Tier 3 figures to just TV. For most of the schools, the TV rights are [B][I][U]included[/U][/I][/B] in their total Tier 3 package. TExas and Oklahoma aren't because they have their own networks, but that's not true for the rest of them. [COLOR=#0000b3]B: I'm not the one misrepresenting BIG 12 numbers. I haven't left out anything. This article again, from one of the BIG 12s TV partners who PAY the money, spells out what the BIG 12 schools were paid. excerpt:[/COLOR] [COLOR=#b30000]Commissioner Bob Bowlsby announced $252 million in distributable revenue from the 2014-15 school year to close the league's spring business meetings on Friday. The league's eight remaining founding members received shares ranging from $25.5 million to $27 million, which varied by participation in various championships. TCU received a share of nearly $24 million, about a million more than West Virginia because the Frogs qualified for a CFP access bowl last season. [/COLOR] [URL]http://www.foxsports.com/southwest/story/big-12-distributes-252-million-in-annual-revenue-052915[/URL] [COLOR=#0000b3]As mentioned BIG 12 schools also recieved tier 3 tv money from about $4 -$15 million. Notice I said TV--not talking about radio and other rights schools in other conferences monetize.....and you've conveniently left out that from the money ACC schools got--Maryland delivered $3 million to each ACC school--a one time shot. They won't ever get that again--unless of course someone else leaves too. [/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Post reply
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
ACC a better fit than Big 12?
Top
Bottom