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: 129593815" data-attributes="member: 1459051"><p>Again, this is from the same link you posted:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/05/20/Media/ACC-net.aspx">The biggest problem so far is a rights issue. ESPN needs to control the conference’s syndicated rights to launch a channel. But those rights are tied up until 2027 through deals with Raycom and Fox Sports Net.</a></p><p></p><p>Sorry, you can't get around that. ESPN, not the ACC, has to control those rights. We already have precedent for this with the SEC:</p><p></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></p><p>ESPN repurchased the SEC's syndication package, the same way they would repurchase the ACC's syndication package. You are already wrong when you said the SEC repurchased those rights. Your own link said it was ESPN, not that SEC, that repurchased the rights.</p><p></p><p>You are also wrong about the ACC "making up" the $45 million.</p><p><a href="http://www.thestate.com/sports/college/acc/clemson-university/article76562347.html">There have been several reports in the media over the past few months that there is a clause in the league’s current deal with ESPN where the network would have to pay the ACC $45 million if there is not an agreement in place by July 1.</a></p><p></p><p><em><a href="http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/is-it-too-late-for-the-acc-to-start-its-own-tv-network.html">“ESPN has a clause in their contract that if they do not offer a network by July 1 of 2016, they owe the ACC – reportedly I should say – a clause in the contract that requires ESPN to pay the ACC $45 million a year to be divided among its schools,” Durham told Louisville Sports Live.</a></em></p><p><em></em></p><p>See, I can quote multiple reports about the $45 million. You on the other hand, can't quote anything. You said "ACC people are making it up." Ok, prove that. Prove ACC people are making it up. You can't. You said "ESPN doesn't owe the ACC anything and didn't make any guarantees of anything." Again, prove that. Your word is not proof. You don't have any evidence to refute the reports. You can't post any link that says, "ESPN doesn't owe the ACC anything for not starting a network," or, "ACC people made up the $45 million." Hell, even the source you previously quoted said, "<em>ESPN, if it says no to a channel, would increase its compensation to the ACC, pushing the per-school average to close to $20 million.</em><em>" </em><strong>Your own source </strong>ven said ESPN owes the ACC money if they don't start a network. So again, show me one link that says ESPN doesn't owe the ACC anything. I've given you three links that show ESPN <strong><em><u>does</u></em></strong> owe the ACC something. You have no facts to back up your statement.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="topdecktiger, post: 129593815, member: 1459051"] Again, this is from the same link you posted: [URL='http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/05/20/Media/ACC-net.aspx']The biggest problem so far is a rights issue. ESPN needs to control the conference’s syndicated rights to launch a channel. But those rights are tied up until 2027 through deals with Raycom and Fox Sports Net.[/URL] Sorry, you can't get around that. ESPN, not the ACC, has to control those rights. We already have precedent for this with the SEC: [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] ESPN repurchased the SEC's syndication package, the same way they would repurchase the ACC's syndication package. You are already wrong when you said the SEC repurchased those rights. Your own link said it was ESPN, not that SEC, that repurchased the rights. You are also wrong about the ACC "making up" the $45 million. [URL='http://www.thestate.com/sports/college/acc/clemson-university/article76562347.html']There have been several reports in the media over the past few months that there is a clause in the league’s current deal with ESPN where the network would have to pay the ACC $45 million if there is not an agreement in place by July 1.[/URL] [I][URL='http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/is-it-too-late-for-the-acc-to-start-its-own-tv-network.html']“ESPN has a clause in their contract that if they do not offer a network by July 1 of 2016, they owe the ACC – reportedly I should say – a clause in the contract that requires ESPN to pay the ACC $45 million a year to be divided among its schools,” Durham told Louisville Sports Live.[/URL] [/I] See, I can quote multiple reports about the $45 million. You on the other hand, can't quote anything. You said "ACC people are making it up." Ok, prove that. Prove ACC people are making it up. You can't. You said "ESPN doesn't owe the ACC anything and didn't make any guarantees of anything." Again, prove that. Your word is not proof. You don't have any evidence to refute the reports. You can't post any link that says, "ESPN doesn't owe the ACC anything for not starting a network," or, "ACC people made up the $45 million." Hell, even the source you previously quoted said, "[URL='http://ESPN, if it says no to a channel, would increase its compensation to the ACC, pushing the per-school average to close to $20 million.'][I]ESPN, if it says no to a channel, would increase its compensation to the ACC, pushing the per-school average to close to $20 million.[/I][/URL][I]" [/I][B]Your own source [/B]ven said ESPN owes the ACC money if they don't start a network. So again, show me one link that says ESPN doesn't owe the ACC anything. I've given you three links that show ESPN [B][I][U]does[/U][/I][/B] owe the ACC something. You have no facts to back up your statement. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Post reply
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
ACC a better fit than Big 12?
Top
Bottom