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 Network?
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: 129599804" data-attributes="member: 1459051"><p>Nope. Nothing I said was a lie. I can directly quote you to prove my point:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Like I said, ESPN must disagree with you.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yep, that fits right in to what I said about you claiming they wouldn't get enough subscribers to start a network.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well no, they get a full fledged cable channel in 2019. This one was wrong too.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is you again saying they wouldn't get enough subscribers. Again, ESPN obviously doesn't agree with you, since they are launching the network.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Tell ESPN.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And this isn't you saying the ACC won't get enough subscribers for a network? Please, that's exactly what you were saying.</p><p></p><p>Now, about Raycom and Fox not selling:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>"Nowhere close to happening."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>He must have gotten a new job.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, they must be, since you said the ACC can't start a network without the rights from Raycom. Which leads to this point:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, this is interesting. Raycom owns all the rights necessary to create an ACC network. So you were saying that two weeks ago, and now you're saying ESPN might use "repeats" or sports people aren't watching. Oh, really? I thought they couldn't create a network without the Raycom rights. Now, ESPN can use "repeats" to create a network?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sooooo.....ESPN already owns the rights to "repeats" and "sports that nobody watches." So ESPN is going to pay the ACC for something they already own? I though you said that wouldn't happen?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But they have intentions to start a network with "repeats" that the already own?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Which brings us to this. The ACC must have content to put on the network. So "repeats" is content now?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And yet........</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sooooooooo, if they don't have the rights back, ESPN will show "repeats?" Sounds rather far fetched. Sounds more like ESPN is confident they will get back those rights.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is another point. Explain to me what rights the ACC bought back from ESPN. The only thing that happened was that ESPN extended the contract until 2036. No mention of rights that the ACC bought back and sold to ESPN.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, the ACC hasn't bought back any rights, and they have a channel, so.....</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Still think ESPN will put the Raycom rights on an "existing platform" or create "ESPN Ocho?" Actually, you might be right about that part, because the ACC won't have room for Raycom games, being that they to be filled up with "repeats."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well. they didn't have to do that, obviously.</p><p></p><p>Now for fun, let's look at some of your other predictions:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure about that?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Maybe?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Epic fail.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Epic fail.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Epic fail.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Epic fail, again.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Epic fail. (GoR until 2036.)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Hilarious fail.</p><p></p><p>So yeah, I'm not lying.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="topdecktiger, post: 129599804, member: 1459051"] Nope. Nothing I said was a lie. I can directly quote you to prove my point: Like I said, ESPN must disagree with you. Yep, that fits right in to what I said about you claiming they wouldn't get enough subscribers to start a network. Well no, they get a full fledged cable channel in 2019. This one was wrong too. This is you again saying they wouldn't get enough subscribers. Again, ESPN obviously doesn't agree with you, since they are launching the network. Tell ESPN. And this isn't you saying the ACC won't get enough subscribers for a network? Please, that's exactly what you were saying. Now, about Raycom and Fox not selling: "Nowhere close to happening." He must have gotten a new job. Well, they must be, since you said the ACC can't start a network without the rights from Raycom. Which leads to this point: Well, this is interesting. Raycom owns all the rights necessary to create an ACC network. So you were saying that two weeks ago, and now you're saying ESPN might use "repeats" or sports people aren't watching. Oh, really? I thought they couldn't create a network without the Raycom rights. Now, ESPN can use "repeats" to create a network? Sooooo.....ESPN already owns the rights to "repeats" and "sports that nobody watches." So ESPN is going to pay the ACC for something they already own? I though you said that wouldn't happen? But they have intentions to start a network with "repeats" that the already own? Which brings us to this. The ACC must have content to put on the network. So "repeats" is content now? And yet........ Sooooooooo, if they don't have the rights back, ESPN will show "repeats?" Sounds rather far fetched. Sounds more like ESPN is confident they will get back those rights. This is another point. Explain to me what rights the ACC bought back from ESPN. The only thing that happened was that ESPN extended the contract until 2036. No mention of rights that the ACC bought back and sold to ESPN. Well, the ACC hasn't bought back any rights, and they have a channel, so..... Still think ESPN will put the Raycom rights on an "existing platform" or create "ESPN Ocho?" Actually, you might be right about that part, because the ACC won't have room for Raycom games, being that they to be filled up with "repeats." Well. they didn't have to do that, obviously. Now for fun, let's look at some of your other predictions: Sure about that? Maybe? Epic fail. Epic fail. Epic fail. Epic fail, again. Epic fail. (GoR until 2036.) Hilarious fail. So yeah, I'm not lying. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Post reply
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
ACC Network?
Top
Bottom