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: 129604132" data-attributes="member: 1459051"><p>This is not anything like what you have been saying before. This is you backtracking. You said before that the ACC had to own rights to get paid. Now you are saying that ESPN will own all the rights (which is what I've been saying all along), and ESPN will buy back the Raycom rights (what I've said all along). That's not what you were saying before this announcement.</p><p></p><p>Going to a 9 game schedule doesn't add more inventory. It reduces it. As of now, the ACC plays a total of 112 football games. With a 9 game schedule, that gets reduced to a total of 105 football games.</p><p></p><p>Here are plenty of quotes that prove you are backtracking on the issue of the rights.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So, let me sum this up in a few points.</p><p></p><p>-You said the entire purpose of a network is to televise inventory that isn't already being monetized. Well, all the ACC's inventory is currently monetized. Even the Raycom games are monetized. So, ESPN is doing exactly what you said they wouldn't do. They are moving rights that the already monetized to the ACC network.</p><p></p><p>-Your basic premise has been this: "<em>If the conference and ESPN create an ACC channel, the ACC will give or sell the content they've bought back back to ESPN and then ESPN will give them money to put those on a channel." </em>And this<em>: <strong><u> "</u></strong>If they buy back rights, they can then sell these back to ESPN for VOILA! Subscription fees from ESPN."</em> Ok, so here is what you have been saying:</p><p></p><p>1. ESPN repurchases the rights from Raycom</p><p>2. ESPN sells those rights back to the ACC.</p><p>3. The ACC sells those rights back to ESPN.</p><p></p><p>Well, that makes no sense. It is redundant for ESPN to sell the rights to the ACC, and then have the ACC turn around and sell the rights to them. ESPN had the rights back as soon as they bought them from Raycom. So, the next two steps are redundant. The money ESPN gets from selling those rights to the ACC, they turn right around and give it back when they buy those rights from the ACC, according to your theory. Not only is that nonsense, it contradicts what you are saying now. Now, you are claiming that ESPN (not the ACC) will buy back the Raycom rights, and they will just take that expense off the top of the ACC's payout from the network. You are correct that this is how it is going to work, but that's not what you were saying before, and the quotes I've posted here prove it.</p><p></p><p>-You have been making a big issue about ESPN "paying twice" for rights. Well, here's something you haven't figured out. ESPN <strong><em><u>already is</u></em></strong> paying twice for the rights. ESPN is <strong><em><u>already</u></em></strong> paying the ACC for the Raycom games. ESPN bought those games from the ACC back in 2010, when the original contract was signed. So, the ACC has been (and will be) getting paid every year for those rights. ESPN resold those rights to Raycom, and the ACC didn't get that money, but the ACC is still getting paid by ESPN for the rights to those games via the TV contract.</p><p></p><p>Now, ESPN has repurchased the rights from Raycom. Let's say Raycom was paying ESPN $50 million a year for those rights (just to make up a number). Now, as you said, ESPN will take that expense off the top of what it pays the ACC from the network. However, that's just cancelling out the buyback cost from Raycom. That's still not accounting for what the ACC gets paid for those rights in the broadcast contract. Here's the key, after that expense is paid off, it will no longer be taken off the top, and the ACC will start getting their full share from the network. Ok, so for the Raycom games, the ACC will be getting paid from the network AND getting paid from the broadcast contract. According to you, that's being paid twice. However, as I said, that's not being paid twice, because the subscription fees are not the same as rights fees.</p><p></p><p>-Before you argue with this, you have to consider this fact. The ACC network is going to show more than just games that were on Raycom. It will also be showing games ESPN was already televising on its platforms. Now, ESPN is already paying the ACC for rights to those games. When they get shifted over to the network, according to you, ESPN is paying the ACC twice for those games. Under your theory, the only solution is either for the ACC to buy back those games also, or for ESPN to take a cut out of the network payouts, like with the Raycom games. Problem is, there is no time limit for that, so according to your theory, ESPN would never pay the ACC that percentage of the subscription feel. Well, that doesn't even happen with the SEC, so it's plainly not going to happen with the ACC either. It all comes back to the point I've been making all along. Subscription fees and rights fees are not the same thing. Paying the ACC subscription fees from the network is not paying twice for content.</p><p><em></em></p><p><em></em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="topdecktiger, post: 129604132, member: 1459051"] This is not anything like what you have been saying before. This is you backtracking. You said before that the ACC had to own rights to get paid. Now you are saying that ESPN will own all the rights (which is what I've been saying all along), and ESPN will buy back the Raycom rights (what I've said all along). That's not what you were saying before this announcement. Going to a 9 game schedule doesn't add more inventory. It reduces it. As of now, the ACC plays a total of 112 football games. With a 9 game schedule, that gets reduced to a total of 105 football games. Here are plenty of quotes that prove you are backtracking on the issue of the rights. So, let me sum this up in a few points. -You said the entire purpose of a network is to televise inventory that isn't already being monetized. Well, all the ACC's inventory is currently monetized. Even the Raycom games are monetized. So, ESPN is doing exactly what you said they wouldn't do. They are moving rights that the already monetized to the ACC network. -Your basic premise has been this: "[I]If the conference and ESPN create an ACC channel, the ACC will give or sell the content they've bought back back to ESPN and then ESPN will give them money to put those on a channel." [/I]And this[I]: [B][U] "[/U][/B]If they buy back rights, they can then sell these back to ESPN for VOILA! Subscription fees from ESPN."[/I] Ok, so here is what you have been saying: 1. ESPN repurchases the rights from Raycom 2. ESPN sells those rights back to the ACC. 3. The ACC sells those rights back to ESPN. Well, that makes no sense. It is redundant for ESPN to sell the rights to the ACC, and then have the ACC turn around and sell the rights to them. ESPN had the rights back as soon as they bought them from Raycom. So, the next two steps are redundant. The money ESPN gets from selling those rights to the ACC, they turn right around and give it back when they buy those rights from the ACC, according to your theory. Not only is that nonsense, it contradicts what you are saying now. Now, you are claiming that ESPN (not the ACC) will buy back the Raycom rights, and they will just take that expense off the top of the ACC's payout from the network. You are correct that this is how it is going to work, but that's not what you were saying before, and the quotes I've posted here prove it. -You have been making a big issue about ESPN "paying twice" for rights. Well, here's something you haven't figured out. ESPN [B][I][U]already is[/U][/I][/B] paying twice for the rights. ESPN is [B][I][U]already[/U][/I][/B] paying the ACC for the Raycom games. ESPN bought those games from the ACC back in 2010, when the original contract was signed. So, the ACC has been (and will be) getting paid every year for those rights. ESPN resold those rights to Raycom, and the ACC didn't get that money, but the ACC is still getting paid by ESPN for the rights to those games via the TV contract. Now, ESPN has repurchased the rights from Raycom. Let's say Raycom was paying ESPN $50 million a year for those rights (just to make up a number). Now, as you said, ESPN will take that expense off the top of what it pays the ACC from the network. However, that's just cancelling out the buyback cost from Raycom. That's still not accounting for what the ACC gets paid for those rights in the broadcast contract. Here's the key, after that expense is paid off, it will no longer be taken off the top, and the ACC will start getting their full share from the network. Ok, so for the Raycom games, the ACC will be getting paid from the network AND getting paid from the broadcast contract. According to you, that's being paid twice. However, as I said, that's not being paid twice, because the subscription fees are not the same as rights fees. -Before you argue with this, you have to consider this fact. The ACC network is going to show more than just games that were on Raycom. It will also be showing games ESPN was already televising on its platforms. Now, ESPN is already paying the ACC for rights to those games. When they get shifted over to the network, according to you, ESPN is paying the ACC twice for those games. Under your theory, the only solution is either for the ACC to buy back those games also, or for ESPN to take a cut out of the network payouts, like with the Raycom games. Problem is, there is no time limit for that, so according to your theory, ESPN would never pay the ACC that percentage of the subscription feel. Well, that doesn't even happen with the SEC, so it's plainly not going to happen with the ACC either. It all comes back to the point I've been making all along. Subscription fees and rights fees are not the same thing. Paying the ACC subscription fees from the network is not paying twice for content. [I] [/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Post reply
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
ACC Network?
Top
Bottom