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:
AP Poll Top 25: College Football Rankings see shake up after Week 2
On3:
College Football Playoff Prediction: Welcome to Oklahoma, Iowa State and USF
On3:
Brent Venables' OU overhaul produces big win over Michigan, but what comes next is most important
On3:
Wasserman's College Football Top 10 Ranking: Oklahoma enters the mix
On3:
Florida's mistakes against USF weren't 'uncharacteristic,' they were emblematic of the Billy Napier era
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: 129603864" data-attributes="member: 1459051"><p>No, I'm not mistaken at all. See, now this is not theoretical anymore. It's already happened, so you can't keep arguing when the actual outcome has proven you wrong.</p><p></p><p>I'll tell you this until you get it through your thick head. ESPN is not paying twice for rights. The ACC will get paid with profits from the network, exactly like you just mentioned happens with the SEC. Profits from the network are not fees for rights. Rights fees and profits from subscription fees are completely different.</p><p></p><p>Here is what you don't get. The ACC and SEC have exactly the same amount of inventory. Each conference has 14 schools, which is a total of 112 football games per year. (CBS owns a few of the SEC's games, plus a few games are OOC road games for each conference, but that doesn't matter for this comparison purposes.) ESPN owns all the ACC's rights, so that 112 total games, so that's 112 games of total inventory ESPN has available. (Again, not counting some road OOC games.) The point is, the SEC's expansion didn't give them any more inventory than the ACC has. Both leagues have the exact number of games. In fact, the ACC actually has a few extra games for their network, because of the SEC's deal with CBS.</p><p></p><p>Now this gets to the point that you keep dodging, and you dodge it because it completely undermines your argument. Since ESPN owns <strong><em><u>all</u></em></strong> the ACC's rights, there is nothing for ESPN to put on the network that won't result in the ACC being "paid twice." Even the Raycom games are owned by ESPN, not the ACC. So by your logic, the ACC can't get paid, since ESPN already owns all of the games. Well, obviously that's not true. The ACC <strong><em><u>is</u></em></strong> going to get paid. That money has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is the subscription fees. Again, no matter how much you argue against it, subscription fees and rights fees are not the same thing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="topdecktiger, post: 129603864, member: 1459051"] No, I'm not mistaken at all. See, now this is not theoretical anymore. It's already happened, so you can't keep arguing when the actual outcome has proven you wrong. I'll tell you this until you get it through your thick head. ESPN is not paying twice for rights. The ACC will get paid with profits from the network, exactly like you just mentioned happens with the SEC. Profits from the network are not fees for rights. Rights fees and profits from subscription fees are completely different. Here is what you don't get. The ACC and SEC have exactly the same amount of inventory. Each conference has 14 schools, which is a total of 112 football games per year. (CBS owns a few of the SEC's games, plus a few games are OOC road games for each conference, but that doesn't matter for this comparison purposes.) ESPN owns all the ACC's rights, so that 112 total games, so that's 112 games of total inventory ESPN has available. (Again, not counting some road OOC games.) The point is, the SEC's expansion didn't give them any more inventory than the ACC has. Both leagues have the exact number of games. In fact, the ACC actually has a few extra games for their network, because of the SEC's deal with CBS. Now this gets to the point that you keep dodging, and you dodge it because it completely undermines your argument. Since ESPN owns [B][I][U]all[/U][/I][/B] the ACC's rights, there is nothing for ESPN to put on the network that won't result in the ACC being "paid twice." Even the Raycom games are owned by ESPN, not the ACC. So by your logic, the ACC can't get paid, since ESPN already owns all of the games. Well, obviously that's not true. The ACC [B][I][U]is[/U][/I][/B] going to get paid. That money has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is the subscription fees. Again, no matter how much you argue against it, subscription fees and rights fees are not the same thing. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Post reply
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
ACC Network?
Top
Bottom