Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Buckaineer" data-source="post: 129593886" data-attributes="member: 1428007">Its pretty clear that this is where the $45 million originated from --and the source that made the claim says right there that he should have said &quot;speculated&quot;.&nbsp; Speculated by definition means to form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.&nbsp; ACC people have conjectured about this increase but I believe what they have done is mistaken &quot;look ins&quot; that Swofford announced when describing the last tv deal from 2012--saying that the conference would have look ins and could get increases from look ins to get more revenues if they aren't able to get more revenues via a network.&nbsp; &quot;Look ins&quot; aren't a guarantee of revenue and pretty much all conferences have them.When asked specifically about the $45 million recently--Swofford declined comment and the reported July 1 date from the source has come and gone as we can all see.&nbsp; I've also shown that previously the ACC was claiming a much higher &quot;guarantee&quot; figure.I would not agree that the $45 million not being real means for certain the ACC couldn't get a network.&nbsp; That isn't really related--the $45 million or whatever figure was for nothing in return to ESPN according to these people.&nbsp; If ESPN feels a network will make them money then they could back one if the ACC provides the necessary content to put on such a network via buy backs of rights.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Buckaineer, post: 129593886, member: 1428007"] Its pretty clear that this is where the $45 million originated from --and the source that made the claim says right there that he should have said "speculated". Speculated by definition means to form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence. ACC people have conjectured about this increase but I believe what they have done is mistaken "look ins" that Swofford announced when describing the last tv deal from 2012--saying that the conference would have look ins and could get increases from look ins to get more revenues if they aren't able to get more revenues via a network. "Look ins" aren't a guarantee of revenue and pretty much all conferences have them. When asked specifically about the $45 million recently--Swofford declined comment and the reported July 1 date from the source has come and gone as we can all see. I've also shown that previously the ACC was claiming a much higher "guarantee" figure. I would not agree that the $45 million not being real means for certain the ACC couldn't get a network. That isn't really related--the $45 million or whatever figure was for nothing in return to ESPN according to these people. If ESPN feels a network will make them money then they could back one if the ACC provides the necessary content to put on such a network via buy backs of rights. [/QUOTE]

Name