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:
College Football Bowl Projections Week 3: Full list of matchups, playoff predictions
On3:
Brent Venables' OU overhaul produces big win over Michigan, but what comes next is most important
On3:
Florida's mistakes against USF weren't 'uncharacteristic,' they were emblematic of the Billy Napier era
On3:
College Football Playoff Prediction: Welcome to Oklahoma, Iowa State and USF
On3:
AP Poll Top 25: College Football Rankings see shake up 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: 129593600" data-attributes="member: 1459051"><p>No, I posted numbers that were taken from Neilson. You are the one who is falsely trying to exclude satellite homes.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And that's the problem. The only "launch date" you have been able to find is 2016, which is what I said. The only launch date ever announced was the 2016-2017 date, and that's all you have posted. Your other post did not say 2010 was a launch date. It only said the ACC "considered" a network. 2010 was ever announced as a launch date.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>ESPN would have to buy back the syndication rights from Raycom to start an ACC network. It can't happen otherwise.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope. You are simply wrong. The article is 100% clear. It says:</p><p><a href="http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/04/15/Media/SEC.aspx">Meanwhile, ESPN is in the process of regaining its syndicated rights from Comcast SportsNet and Fox Sports Net. Both RSNs currently buy SEC games from ESPN.</a></p><p>It says it right there plain as day. ESPN repurchased the syndication packages directly from Comcast and Fox. The SEC did not buy back those rights. You are confusing the Tier 3 rights with the syndication rights. Comcast and Fox did not have any Tier 3 rights. The Tier 3 rights were with IMG and Learfield. That's what the SEC repurchased. The SEC did not repurchase anything from Comcast or Fox. Again, the article clearly says that it was ESPN that purchased the rights from Comcast and Fox, not the SEC.</p><p></p><p>Notice here how it says both Comcast and Fox buy SEC games "<strong><em><u>from ESPN</u></em></strong>." You get that? Comcast and Fox by the games <strong><em><u>from ESPN</u></em></strong>. So tell me this smartass, if ESPN didn't already own those games, then how could Comcast and Fox buy them<strong><em><u> from ESPN</u></em></strong>?</p><p></p><p>That brings up another point. ESPN had to already own those games to sell them to Comcast and Fox. So tell me, why would ESPN repurchase those games they already own? You keep saying ESPN won't do that, but right here is proof they just did it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, ESPN paid the SEC from profits from subscription fees and advertising. ESPN doesn't get any rights fees for the rights. ESPN gets money from subscriptions. Subscription fees are not rights fees. They are two different things.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, ESPN can't do as they please. They cannot create an ACC network without the ACC's consent. It's illegal. It's also illegal for ESPN to make an ACC network and call it something else.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>ESPN isn't giving the ACC any money for the Raycom rights. Subscription fees are not for broadcast rights. It doesn't matter how many times you say it. It's not true.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope. I just posted this earlier. <a href="http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/04/15/Media/SEC.aspx">Meanwhile, ESPN is in the process of regaining its syndicated rights from Comcast SportsNet and Fox Sports Net. Both RSNs currently buy SEC games from ESPN</a>. There is no way you can change the meaning of that sentence. ESPN bought the syndication rights back from Comcast and Fox. The SEC didn't do it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, under the new contract, the SEC gets $25 million a year, just for TV. That's the average amount they get. I even posted the link which says that.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/01/16/sec-conference-money-increases/1836389/">SEC television arrangements</a></p><p><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/01/16/sec-conference-money-increases/1836389/"></a></p><p><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/01/16/sec-conference-money-increases/1836389/">ESPN and CBS contracts: $21.4 million per school ($300 million total)</a></p><p><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/01/16/sec-conference-money-increases/1836389/"></a></p><p><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/01/16/sec-conference-money-increases/1836389/">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. While the <strong><em>annual <u>average</u> would be $25 million per school</em></strong>, the deal likely would pay the school less in the early years, more in the later years</a>.</p><p></p><p>See, I showed you where I got the number, and it's an average. So to say I tried to lie is not accurate. The source where I got the number from said it was an average, so it makes logical sense I've been saying it was an average, since that what my source says. You are acting like if I don't use the qualifier "average" every single time, that I'm changing my position. It's clear that I've been using $25 million as an average.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope, not true. There is no pecking order within ESPN. Between CBS and ESPN, yes. Within ESPN, not. Yet, again I quote from the same article.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/04/15/Media/SEC.aspx">Those live games will move to ESPN for the conference channel, which is an important development because it means that ESPN will control the entire inventory of SEC football games, with the exception of CBS’s single game each week. <strong>That <u>gives ESPN a lot of flexibility</u> to use specific games in markets where it’s having trouble gaining distribution. If, for example, one of Louisiana’s biggest distributors, Cox, is holding out and not agreeing to carry the channel, it will be easier for ESPN to place more LSU games on it to help it gain more leverage in those negotiations</strong></a><strong>.</strong></p><p></p><p>See, ESPN can mix and match games on the different platforms. That's because you are dead wrong in your statement. The additional inventory IS part of the agreement with ESPN. All the SEC's games (minus the CBS game) are in one pot. ESPN can pull from that pot for any platform. There are not any games that are restricted only to the SEC network. Here is another link about the SEC network. It says: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/sports/ncaafootball/sec-will-have-own-tv-network-starting-in-2014.html?_r=0">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.</a> See? The additional inventory is just part of the regular contract. None of the SEC's inventory with ESPN is segregated or restricted only to the SEC network. You are simply wrong about that.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I've posted plenty of new information, a lot just in this post. ESPN would not be paying the ACC twice for those rights. Giving the ACC a cut of the subscription revenue is not paying twice for the rights. It's doesn't matter how much you repeat it, it's not true. As I proved to you, ESPN repurchased the syndication rights from Comcast and Fox. ESPN already owned those rights, and they were just syndicating them with Comcast and Fox.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, ESPN could not create an MLS channel. You are correct that they could put the games on ESPN2 or ESPNNews, but the could not create an MLS channel. You simply don't understand that simply having the broadcast rights to games does not give you the additional rights to create a stand-alone channel. That's what you are missing ESPN2 or ESPNU are not stand-alone channels.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope, all the schools in the Big 12 didn't make more than the ACC schools. As I said, Florida ST and Georgia Tech made $27 million just from the conference payouts. That's not counting their Tier 3 deals with IMG either. Iowa St didn't make more than those two. TCU didn't make more than those two. So no, all the Big 12 did not make more than all the ACC schools.</p><p></p><p>Regarding averages, I am talking about averages. I'm the one that brought it up in the first place. The fact is, in 2015, the Big 12 paid out an average of $25 million per schools, and the ACC paid out an average of $26 million per school. Fact. No way to dispute it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, there is. <a href="http://allsportsdiscussion.com/2016/03/12/acc-due-45-million-if-espn-does-not-offer-the-conference-at-network-by-july-1-2016-ht-lvillesprtslive/">This is just one link</a>. I can post more. If you are going to talk about evidence, post some evidence to back up your claim that content for the SEC network is not included in the regular ESPN contract. Post the evidence.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I never said West Virginia doesn't get anything form TV for Tier 3. This is a blatant lie by you. Here is what I actually said:</p><p></p><p></p><p>Talk about lying, you're the one that doing the lying. West Virginia has one Tier 3 contract. It includes radio and TV. West Virginia does not have a separate TV contract like Oklahoma and Texas. Texas hast <strong><em><u>two</u></em></strong> Tier 3 contracts. One with IMG, <strong><em><u>and</u></em></strong> one with LHN for just TV. Oklahoma has <strong><em><u>two </u></em></strong>contracts, one with IMG <strong><em><u>and</u></em></strong> one with Fox, just for TV. West Virginia doesn't have that. Iowa St doesn't have that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="topdecktiger, post: 129593600, member: 1459051"] No, I posted numbers that were taken from Neilson. You are the one who is falsely trying to exclude satellite homes. And that's the problem. The only "launch date" you have been able to find is 2016, which is what I said. The only launch date ever announced was the 2016-2017 date, and that's all you have posted. Your other post did not say 2010 was a launch date. It only said the ACC "considered" a network. 2010 was ever announced as a launch date. ESPN would have to buy back the syndication rights from Raycom to start an ACC network. It can't happen otherwise. Nope. You are simply wrong. The article is 100% clear. It says: [URL='http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/04/15/Media/SEC.aspx']Meanwhile, ESPN is in the process of regaining its syndicated rights from Comcast SportsNet and Fox Sports Net. Both RSNs currently buy SEC games from ESPN.[/URL] It says it right there plain as day. ESPN repurchased the syndication packages directly from Comcast and Fox. The SEC did not buy back those rights. You are confusing the Tier 3 rights with the syndication rights. Comcast and Fox did not have any Tier 3 rights. The Tier 3 rights were with IMG and Learfield. That's what the SEC repurchased. The SEC did not repurchase anything from Comcast or Fox. Again, the article clearly says that it was ESPN that purchased the rights from Comcast and Fox, not the SEC. Notice here how it says both Comcast and Fox buy SEC games "[B][I][U]from ESPN[/U][/I][/B]." You get that? Comcast and Fox by the games [B][I][U]from ESPN[/U][/I][/B]. So tell me this smartass, if ESPN didn't already own those games, then how could Comcast and Fox buy them[B][I][U] from ESPN[/U][/I][/B]? That brings up another point. ESPN had to already own those games to sell them to Comcast and Fox. So tell me, why would ESPN repurchase those games they already own? You keep saying ESPN won't do that, but right here is proof they just did it. No, ESPN paid the SEC from profits from subscription fees and advertising. ESPN doesn't get any rights fees for the rights. ESPN gets money from subscriptions. Subscription fees are not rights fees. They are two different things. No, ESPN can't do as they please. They cannot create an ACC network without the ACC's consent. It's illegal. It's also illegal for ESPN to make an ACC network and call it something else. ESPN isn't giving the ACC any money for the Raycom rights. Subscription fees are not for broadcast rights. It doesn't matter how many times you say it. It's not true. Nope. I just posted this earlier. [URL='http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/04/15/Media/SEC.aspx']Meanwhile, ESPN is in the process of regaining its syndicated rights from Comcast SportsNet and Fox Sports Net. Both RSNs currently buy SEC games from ESPN[/URL]. There is no way you can change the meaning of that sentence. ESPN bought the syndication rights back from Comcast and Fox. The SEC didn't do it. Yes, under the new contract, the SEC gets $25 million a year, just for TV. That's the average amount they get. I even posted the link which says that. [URL='http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/01/16/sec-conference-money-increases/1836389/']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. While the [B][I]annual [U]average[/U] would be $25 million per school[/I][/B], the deal likely would pay the school less in the early years, more in the later years[/URL]. See, I showed you where I got the number, and it's an average. So to say I tried to lie is not accurate. The source where I got the number from said it was an average, so it makes logical sense I've been saying it was an average, since that what my source says. You are acting like if I don't use the qualifier "average" every single time, that I'm changing my position. It's clear that I've been using $25 million as an average. Nope, not true. There is no pecking order within ESPN. Between CBS and ESPN, yes. Within ESPN, not. Yet, again I quote from the same article. [URL='http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/04/15/Media/SEC.aspx']Those live games will move to ESPN for the conference channel, which is an important development because it means that ESPN will control the entire inventory of SEC football games, with the exception of CBS’s single game each week. [B]That [U]gives ESPN a lot of flexibility[/U] to use specific games in markets where it’s having trouble gaining distribution. If, for example, one of Louisiana’s biggest distributors, Cox, is holding out and not agreeing to carry the channel, it will be easier for ESPN to place more LSU games on it to help it gain more leverage in those negotiations[/B][/URL][B].[/B] See, ESPN can mix and match games on the different platforms. That's because you are dead wrong in your statement. The additional inventory IS part of the agreement with ESPN. All the SEC's games (minus the CBS game) are in one pot. ESPN can pull from that pot for any platform. There are not any games that are restricted only to the SEC network. Here is another link about the SEC network. It says: [URL='http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/sports/ncaafootball/sec-will-have-own-tv-network-starting-in-2014.html?_r=0']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.[/URL] See? The additional inventory is just part of the regular contract. None of the SEC's inventory with ESPN is segregated or restricted only to the SEC network. You are simply wrong about that. I've posted plenty of new information, a lot just in this post. ESPN would not be paying the ACC twice for those rights. Giving the ACC a cut of the subscription revenue is not paying twice for the rights. It's doesn't matter how much you repeat it, it's not true. As I proved to you, ESPN repurchased the syndication rights from Comcast and Fox. ESPN already owned those rights, and they were just syndicating them with Comcast and Fox. No, ESPN could not create an MLS channel. You are correct that they could put the games on ESPN2 or ESPNNews, but the could not create an MLS channel. You simply don't understand that simply having the broadcast rights to games does not give you the additional rights to create a stand-alone channel. That's what you are missing ESPN2 or ESPNU are not stand-alone channels. Nope, all the schools in the Big 12 didn't make more than the ACC schools. As I said, Florida ST and Georgia Tech made $27 million just from the conference payouts. That's not counting their Tier 3 deals with IMG either. Iowa St didn't make more than those two. TCU didn't make more than those two. So no, all the Big 12 did not make more than all the ACC schools. Regarding averages, I am talking about averages. I'm the one that brought it up in the first place. The fact is, in 2015, the Big 12 paid out an average of $25 million per schools, and the ACC paid out an average of $26 million per school. Fact. No way to dispute it. Yes, there is. [URL='http://allsportsdiscussion.com/2016/03/12/acc-due-45-million-if-espn-does-not-offer-the-conference-at-network-by-july-1-2016-ht-lvillesprtslive/']This is just one link[/URL]. I can post more. If you are going to talk about evidence, post some evidence to back up your claim that content for the SEC network is not included in the regular ESPN contract. Post the evidence. I never said West Virginia doesn't get anything form TV for Tier 3. This is a blatant lie by you. Here is what I actually said: Talk about lying, you're the one that doing the lying. West Virginia has one Tier 3 contract. It includes radio and TV. West Virginia does not have a separate TV contract like Oklahoma and Texas. Texas hast [B][I][U]two[/U][/I][/B] Tier 3 contracts. One with IMG, [B][I][U]and[/U][/I][/B] one with LHN for just TV. Oklahoma has [B][I][U]two [/U][/I][/B]contracts, one with IMG [B][I][U]and[/U][/I][/B] one with Fox, just for TV. West Virginia doesn't have that. Iowa St doesn't have that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Post reply
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
ACC a better fit than Big 12?
Top
Bottom