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="Buckaineer" data-source="post: 129593819" data-attributes="member: 1428007"><p>"topdecktigerAgain, 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><span style="color: #0000b3"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: I stated initially and repeatedly ESPN has to control the rights. The ACC has to BUY THEM because ESPN has already paid for them and already makes money off of those rights and doesn't pay the ACC a dime for them btw.</span></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><span style="color: #0000b3"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: ESPN owns the rights to the content they've bought from the ACC. They aren't paying twice for the same product and they aren't paying a third time for it to pay the ACC after they've bought it back from Raycom either. The SEC bought back tier 3 rights and added schools in order to have content for a channel. The ACC isn't expanding--and the rights they need have been sublicensed to FOX and Raycom. If ESPN buys them back the ACC isn't owed anything.</span></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><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">B: I just posted a link showing the CLAIM of $45 million was MADE UP by an ACC source and yet you still refuse to admit it? WOW.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">Here it is once again: </span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">excerpt:</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"><strong>Wes Durham, play-by-play announcer for the ACC </strong>on FOX Sports Net, brought up <a href="https://twitter.com/lvillesprtslive/status/708722339593248773">a specific clause in ESPN's contract that would pay the ACC $45 million on July 1</a> in a recent interview with a Louisville radio station. However, Durham quickly walked back specific dates and dollar amounts.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3"><strong>"I mistakenly used the word 'reported,' when I should have used the word 'speculated,'</strong> when discussing a possible annual fee to the ACC from ESPN," said Durham. "The numbers and timeline had not been reported, but had been discussed in other circles. I shouldn't have assigned a monetary figure or deadline to my comments."</span></p><p></p><p>Read more at <a href="http://www.wralsportsfan.com/acc-commish-vague-on-future-of-dedicated-espn-channel/15584633/#MRersQ3vGxxjwF6u.99">http://www.wralsportsfan.com/acc-co...ed-espn-channel/15584633/#MRersQ3vGxxjwF6u.99</a></p><p><a href="http://www.wralsportsfan.com/acc-commish-vague-on-future-of-dedicated-espn-channel/15584633/#MRersQ3vGxxjwF6u.99"></a></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">As to your "links"? All ACC sourced and nothing but ACC sourced. Anyone referencing states it was ACC sources that said it or "anonymous" sources. Durham clearly stated the $45 mil was for July 1 and ......that didnt happen. And the link I posted which you reference as I mentioned claims the ACC schools will each get more than a $2 million average more per year (according to anonymous source) for 10 years--WAAY more than the $45 mil you and Durham claim now.</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Buckaineer, post: 129593819, member: 1428007"] "topdecktigerAgain, 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: [COLOR=#0000b3] B: I stated initially and repeatedly ESPN has to control the rights. The ACC has to BUY THEM because ESPN has already paid for them and already makes money off of those rights and doesn't pay the ACC a dime for them btw.[/COLOR] [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. [COLOR=#0000b3] B: ESPN owns the rights to the content they've bought from the ACC. They aren't paying twice for the same product and they aren't paying a third time for it to pay the ACC after they've bought it back from Raycom either. The SEC bought back tier 3 rights and added schools in order to have content for a channel. The ACC isn't expanding--and the rights they need have been sublicensed to FOX and Raycom. If ESPN buys them back the ACC isn't owed anything.[/COLOR] 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. [COLOR=#0000b3]B: I just posted a link showing the CLAIM of $45 million was MADE UP by an ACC source and yet you still refuse to admit it? WOW. Here it is once again: excerpt: [B]Wes Durham, play-by-play announcer for the ACC [/B]on FOX Sports Net, brought up [URL='https://twitter.com/lvillesprtslive/status/708722339593248773']a specific clause in ESPN's contract that would pay the ACC $45 million on July 1[/URL] in a recent interview with a Louisville radio station. However, Durham quickly walked back specific dates and dollar amounts. [B]"I mistakenly used the word 'reported,' when I should have used the word 'speculated,'[/B] when discussing a possible annual fee to the ACC from ESPN," said Durham. "The numbers and timeline had not been reported, but had been discussed in other circles. I shouldn't have assigned a monetary figure or deadline to my comments."[/COLOR] Read more at [URL='http://www.wralsportsfan.com/acc-commish-vague-on-future-of-dedicated-espn-channel/15584633/#MRersQ3vGxxjwF6u.99']http://www.wralsportsfan.com/acc-co...ed-espn-channel/15584633/#MRersQ3vGxxjwF6u.99 [/URL] [COLOR=#0000b3]As to your "links"? All ACC sourced and nothing but ACC sourced. Anyone referencing states it was ACC sources that said it or "anonymous" sources. Durham clearly stated the $45 mil was for July 1 and ......that didnt happen. And the link I posted which you reference as I mentioned claims the ACC schools will each get more than a $2 million average more per year (according to anonymous source) for 10 years--WAAY more than the $45 mil you and Durham claim now.[/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Post reply
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
ACC a better fit than Big 12?
Top
Bottom