9% of a $167 million budget with a $19 million surplus is not very high priority to me. The payouts have increased every season WVU has been in the Big 12. WVU's share increasing amplifies it, but the Big 12 payouts to all teams has increased. 2013 = $19.8 million 2014 = $21.2 million 2015 = $25.2 million. For 2016, WVU gets a full share.
Gee: Big 12 puts expansion on hold
- Thread starter Mountaineer Steve
- Start date
It's not a high priority to YOU. That's the problem. It's not whether it's a priority to you, but to the schools (i.e. Texas). The thing is, that 9% figure is fairly consistent over time. The Tier 3/LHN is going to be roughly the same percentage that it has been. So, if that 9% or so was important before, 9% or so will hold the same level of importance in the future.
I also didn't say that the Big 12 total payout hasn't increased. What I did say is that the increase is mostly due to the TV contract escalating every year. The TV contract and the LHN are going to both increase every year. The ratio between the two (and thus between the Big 12 payouts) is going to be roughly consistent over time.
One other point. Notice that the jump from 2014 to 15 was significantly bigger than from 2013 to 14. That's because 2015 was the first year of the CFP, which pays out more than the BCS. However, you won't see that same increase every year. That was just a one-time thing. The increases in the future will be much more graduated, similar to the increase from 2013 to 14.
I have no problem with any of that, but my point is the Big 12 is not a bad place to be. I am a WVU fan first and a Big 12 fan second. That makes me a Texas fan when they are playing out of conference. I do my research, I do my math. WVU has a $4 million budget surplus despite all of the spending on facility improvements and additions. I'm a happy fan hoping for a big season in 2016. Just as you are for your favorite team and conference.
I have nothing against Clemson or the ACC nor do I wish them ill will despite the multiple rejection of the Mountaineers as a member. Settle it on the field.
Not sure why an ACC fan is coming on a BIG 12 board desperate to convince people that the BIG 12 has no plans and that there is some unworkable situation for merging the LHN into a BIG 12 network.
On the one hand you have the president of Oklahoma describing in general how the situation would be--the conference will receive an amount from their network which then will be divided up for a time at different levels to the membership in order to compensate the membership as per their existing agreements. After a time which they have not specified publicly, everyone will be equal partners in the venture.
On the other, a poster that is from another conference desperate to see BIG 12 comprehensive changes fail--so he continues to manufacture false reasoning about this or that having to be done--as though that will scare someone or?
The facts are Texas has an LHN deal through the early 2030's, but, if they don't go in on a conference network, in 2025 the makeup of the BIG 12 is going to be different and in fact the membership could all go separate ways. Then the LHN won't be worth anything, because Texas can't take it to another conference. Or they could keep it and lose the $40 plus million the BIG 12 would have paid them out--which after 2025 would have been even more.
As to the rolling over of the LHN into a BIG 12 network, all of the discussion of this other than the general mention of it by Boren --is being discussed BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. The professional analysts the conference has hired to examine the conference network are running all the numbers and details and presenting all the information to the membership including rolling everyones tier 3 deals into the network. The membership will utilize that info to make their decisions. Its already May and the conference has already gone through alot and made some decisions.
They have put off discussion of a 10 team CCG for example.
No one in the public or on message boards will hear about any of the intricate details of any of this until its a done deal one way or the other--because as they should, the conference is keeping all of it under wraps. So-don't be fooled by some OOC poster that knows nothing about the conference or its deals and dealings, but for some reason thinks he'll fool people into believing he knows something. His fantasies have no affect on the conference or its decisions or negotiations.
On the one hand you have the president of Oklahoma describing in general how the situation would be--the conference will receive an amount from their network which then will be divided up for a time at different levels to the membership in order to compensate the membership as per their existing agreements. After a time which they have not specified publicly, everyone will be equal partners in the venture.
On the other, a poster that is from another conference desperate to see BIG 12 comprehensive changes fail--so he continues to manufacture false reasoning about this or that having to be done--as though that will scare someone or?
The facts are Texas has an LHN deal through the early 2030's, but, if they don't go in on a conference network, in 2025 the makeup of the BIG 12 is going to be different and in fact the membership could all go separate ways. Then the LHN won't be worth anything, because Texas can't take it to another conference. Or they could keep it and lose the $40 plus million the BIG 12 would have paid them out--which after 2025 would have been even more.
As to the rolling over of the LHN into a BIG 12 network, all of the discussion of this other than the general mention of it by Boren --is being discussed BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. The professional analysts the conference has hired to examine the conference network are running all the numbers and details and presenting all the information to the membership including rolling everyones tier 3 deals into the network. The membership will utilize that info to make their decisions. Its already May and the conference has already gone through alot and made some decisions.
They have put off discussion of a 10 team CCG for example.
No one in the public or on message boards will hear about any of the intricate details of any of this until its a done deal one way or the other--because as they should, the conference is keeping all of it under wraps. So-don't be fooled by some OOC poster that knows nothing about the conference or its deals and dealings, but for some reason thinks he'll fool people into believing he knows something. His fantasies have no affect on the conference or its decisions or negotiations.
Last edited:
Latest ESPN update:
Steven Russell @JStevenRussell
@jake_trotter any more expansion talk/rumors this week?
8:21 AM - 29 Apr 2016
Trotter: All quiet. That will change dramatically next week when the first of two Big 12 spring meetings are held in Phoenix, where the football coaches and athletic directors will meet. The second meeting will occur in Irving, Texas, in late May, when the presidents will get together. That's when some major decisions could be made.
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/...n-shane-buechele-bill-snyder-dominate-twitter
Steven Russell @JStevenRussell
@jake_trotter any more expansion talk/rumors this week?
8:21 AM - 29 Apr 2016
Trotter: All quiet. That will change dramatically next week when the first of two Big 12 spring meetings are held in Phoenix, where the football coaches and athletic directors will meet. The second meeting will occur in Irving, Texas, in late May, when the presidents will get together. That's when some major decisions could be made.
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/...n-shane-buechele-bill-snyder-dominate-twitter
Interesting article on the upcoming meetings from Memphis' camp:
excerpt:
When the Big 12 holds its annual spring business meetings next month, expansion is likely to be discussed. Memphis possibly will be among those programs mentioned as potential targets. There will be, and have been, other schools seeking moves from Group of Five leagues to the Big 12 and they have been lobbying behind the scenes using any, and all, connections to bolster their campaigns.
http://www.commercialappeal.com/sports/tigers/do-the-math-a-primer-on-possible-big-12-expansion-and-memphis-chances-at-sharing-in-power-5-riches-3-377586501.html
excerpt:
When the Big 12 holds its annual spring business meetings next month, expansion is likely to be discussed. Memphis possibly will be among those programs mentioned as potential targets. There will be, and have been, other schools seeking moves from Group of Five leagues to the Big 12 and they have been lobbying behind the scenes using any, and all, connections to bolster their campaigns.
http://www.commercialappeal.com/sports/tigers/do-the-math-a-primer-on-possible-big-12-expansion-and-memphis-chances-at-sharing-in-power-5-riches-3-377586501.html
And this lies at the root of the problem. I never said the Big 12 is a bad place to be. In fact, I have said the opposite. This business that the Big 12 is somehow in "trouble" is a silly notion. It was to begin with. My point is there is no need to tack on mid-majors like Cincinnati or UConn. That's simply a solution in search of a problem.
I will correct one other point. I don't pull for a conference. That whole notion is silly. For example, when Florida St won the MNC in 2013, that didn't do Clemson any good. It just made it harder for Clemson to win.
I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. You are the one trying to convince people that adding teams like Cincinnati and UConn is somehow going to "save" the Big 12. (Which as I said to the other poster, doesn't need saving in the first place.)
You keep referring to Boren. Boren has only said what he wants, not what is actually going to happen. TCU's athletic director has gone on record saying he favors 10 teams. The point being, Boren's goals are not universal. Not everyone in the Big 12 (as evidenced by the referenced comments) agrees with him. You are trying to turn Boren's statements of opinions into to facts, which is a fallacy.
In addition to that, you are also trying to present your own assumptions as fact. For example, you claim that in 2025, the Big 12 is going to have different membership. That's not a fact at all. You don't have any idea if the Big 12 membership is going to be different in 2025. For one thing, you have no evidence to support the notion that a) any Big 12 teams are actually going to leave, or b) they would even be accepted by another conference in the first place. To paraphrase you, I'm not going to take the word of a random person on the internet.
The bottom line is, you have this idea in your head that I have some sort of "agenda." I don't. I'm just making observations about this conversation. For some reason, you can't accept the notion that is could really be that simple.
I hate to say this, but I agree with almost all of this. The Big12 will meet and sort it out and arrive at their decisions. Hopefully they will ALL realize they have a good thing and not cut off their noses to spite their faces. Now I have to go lie down and hope this passes.
The ACC is just
The ACC fan is here because he/she is scared. The ACC is in a big dung pile. Not only will it cost millions up front to build the ACCN, but they don't have any content to show since ESPN owns it all. In addition, they have to complete state by state with the SEC and BIG for TV dollars.
As bad as LHN is for the BIG12 in general, it could be the saving grace. ESPN has already invested the millions putting the infrastructure together, making it very economical to roll it into the BIG12N. And for the most part the BIG12 footprint does not overlap any other P5 conference. You have to think ESPN would love to turn a losing LHN into a profitable BIG12N
First conference to build a network is the winner, the other will die a slow death. I just hope the $ are to make it worth while to expand and build the B12N.
"At this time, the league does not have plans to move to twelve schools."
Operative words being, "at this time". How bout a week from now? How about two weeks? How about a month?
He put the qualifier on it. Very easily a month from now he could say "upon further review".
To act like this was a case closed statement is moronic, frankly. You don't play your hand if you dont have to.
Last edited:
If you are interested in having a rational discussion, I will address the points you raised.
Address away, I still say last to get a network is done as a power conference
The ACC fan is here because he/she is scared.
Incorrect. Actually, the reason you and some of the other posters argue with me is you are afraid of the Big 12 falling apart and West Virginia being stranded. However, as I have said until I'm blue in the face, that's an irrational fear. The Big 12 isn't going anywhere.
it cost millions up front to build the ACCN,
This is not correct. ESPN already has the ESPN Events facility in Charlotte. They already produce ESPNU and SECN there. ESPN could easily produce the network from there. It wouldn't cost millions because the infrastructure is already in place and is already supported by other channels.
they don't have any content to show since ESPN owns it all.
That's the entire point. ESPN owning all the content is exactly what would have to happen to start a network. The fact that ESPN owns all the content means they can show any game on any platform. They can show a game on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, or an ACC network. The problem would be if ESPN did not own all the content, because then they would have less inventory for a network.
As bad as LHN is for the BIG12 in general, it could be the saving grace. ESPN has already invested the millions putting the infrastructure together, making it very economical to roll it into the BIG12N.
Which is the exact point I made about ESPN Events earlier. The infrastructure is already together, and it's conveniently located, so it would be very economical to run a network out of that pre-existing location.
Here's the point in all this. You and others keep trying to make this into an us vs. them, ACC vs. Big 12. It's not. For example, one can maintain that the ACC won't fall apart, and still believe that the Big 12 will be fine. It's not an either/or. You guys just try to make it into an argument when there isn't one.
You are a bit delusional. There will be 4 Power conference, and the loser will be either BIG12 or ACC.
Why do you think the ACCN keeps getting delayed? Why? Because ESPN owns all the content and they don't want to spend millions to launch a new network. And yes there is a huge cost. If it was so simple and there were no huge upfront cost, ESPN would stop running away as fast as they can run.
If ESPN did own all the content that would not make it economical for them to GIVE IT BACK TO THE ACC.
Not sure how anyone could actually believe it would. ESPN is already monetizing what they ownfor themselves--they most certainly aren't giving it back for free to the ACC so the ACC can make more off of it for an ACCN. Its not as though ESPN is holding back inventory and not using it--everything they still own, they put on tv somewhere whether it be ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU or ESPN News. They aren't giving it back to the ACC for nothing.
The real problem for the ACC though is that Raycom actually has a good chunk of ACC product and FOX got some additional product from Raycom--and the ACC cannot get it back. FOX isn't giving up what they've got and Raycom will be out of business if they give up what they have--so there isn't any inventory to put on an ACC network.
Agree topdeck is afraid--afraid of the success of the BIG 12 and what the adoption of comprehensive changes would mean. He doesn't want the BIG 12 to be able to have a network so he tries to dream up reasons why the BIG 12 couldn't, tries to make Texas some adversary, etc.
But the BIG 12 is moving ahead with their discussions --the data has been collected and is being evaluated and decisions will be made soon. We won't know the timetable for a while yet but its certainly much further along than the years long talk of maybe a possible ACC network sometime down the road potentially.
Not sure how anyone could actually believe it would. ESPN is already monetizing what they ownfor themselves--they most certainly aren't giving it back for free to the ACC so the ACC can make more off of it for an ACCN. Its not as though ESPN is holding back inventory and not using it--everything they still own, they put on tv somewhere whether it be ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU or ESPN News. They aren't giving it back to the ACC for nothing.
The real problem for the ACC though is that Raycom actually has a good chunk of ACC product and FOX got some additional product from Raycom--and the ACC cannot get it back. FOX isn't giving up what they've got and Raycom will be out of business if they give up what they have--so there isn't any inventory to put on an ACC network.
Agree topdeck is afraid--afraid of the success of the BIG 12 and what the adoption of comprehensive changes would mean. He doesn't want the BIG 12 to be able to have a network so he tries to dream up reasons why the BIG 12 couldn't, tries to make Texas some adversary, etc.
But the BIG 12 is moving ahead with their discussions --the data has been collected and is being evaluated and decisions will be made soon. We won't know the timetable for a while yet but its certainly much further along than the years long talk of maybe a possible ACC network sometime down the road potentially.
None of this will matter once everyone realizes there is money being left on the table because they haven't expanded the playoffs to 8 teams. Everyone will make money, everyone will have a chance at the NC, even the G5 will get a shot to prove themselves, all 5 conferences will survive and prosper, Notre Dame will have a better chance of getting in, ratings will skyrocket, there will be really good matchups and upsets from the bottom 4 seeds. I'll bet it happens before 2025. It may happen before either the Big12 or the ACC get a network.
The playoff contract lasts through 2026. It isn't going to be changed prior to that--no provisions in it to open it back up even.
That doesn't address the revenue disparity that is beginning between the Big Ten, SEC and then the BIG 12 though. The Big Ten is going to have two contract adjustments prior to anyone else getting to the table for theirs--and they are already on top.
The other conferences aren't going to sit still and the BIG 12 can't either.
That doesn't address the revenue disparity that is beginning between the Big Ten, SEC and then the BIG 12 though. The Big Ten is going to have two contract adjustments prior to anyone else getting to the table for theirs--and they are already on top.
The other conferences aren't going to sit still and the BIG 12 can't either.
No, I'm not being delusional. You are insisting there will be 4 Power conferences, yet the is no evidence to indicate this is the case. This whole idea of 4 conferences is something fans dreamed up because it looks neat on paper. It's not based on any factual circumstances.
You are simply wrong. It doesn't cost as much to start the network as you think. You just say that without backing it up. It's also contradictory, because by that logic, a Big 12 network would have the exact same problem.
This is yet another example that you have no understanding of how the TV business works. ESPN does not have to give back any content to the ACC to start a network. If ESPN started an ACC network, then ESPN would own that network. They wouldn't give back anything to the ACC. This is exactly how the SEC network works now. ESPN owns all the content that is on the SEC Network, not the SEC. This is also exactly how the LHN works. ESPN owns that content, not Texas.
By that logic, explain how the Big 12 is going to form a network. ESPN and Fox both have the rights to the Big 12. By your logic, ESPN and Fox are "already monetizing what they ownfor themselves--they most certainly aren't giving it back for free".
In the end, we only know what could happen, not what will happen. I am comfortable with whatever DOES happen whether or not it is what I HOPE will happen. What other conferences HOPE to do or INTEND to do are no different than other plans laid by mice and men, to borrow a cliche or two. Reality tends to blindside us from out of the blue. What really changes things are the events we never saw coming. These discussions are entertainment and not much else. I might feel differently if I was anything more than just a fan. I suspect that some people here have some real skin in the game though.
Each and every time I post in this thread (and ones similar) I wonder why I can't stop participating in a circular discussion. No right or wrong...no opinions with an ounce of reasonable backing...
.....just people posting to post.
----------
..at least that's what I just did...
.....just people posting to post.
----------
..at least that's what I just did...
You honestly don't understand that if ESPN owns a set amount of ACC product (that which they did not sublicense) and they are already putting that product on tv and making revenues off of it-that in order for the ACC to use that inventory for an ACC network they would have to buy some of it back?!
ESPN isn't going to for example take the games off of ESPN News, and ESPNU and ESPN2 and give those games back to the ACC--thereby losing inventory themselves so the ACC can profit while ESPN now has a bunch of holes to fill.
And then you claim I have no understanding of how the tv business works? Honestly!? This is exactly why no one can take you seriously.
If ESPN owns the content and doesn't give anything back to the ACC--that would mean the ACC wouldn't make anything off of that network. So what exactly would the point be for the ACC? For a network the ACC needs inventory and right now they have NONE.
You are also wrong about the LHN--Texas owns its content as part of the arrangement for BIG 12 tier 3 content. Look it up. They've made a contract with IMG, and Texas and IMG made an agreement to have ESPN create and own the LHN-which then pays IMG and Texas for their product.
The BIG 12 is able to form a network because the BIG 12 is able to EXPAND which will give them INVENTORY to put a certain number of games on that network. That inventory is not currently owned it will be new inventory for the BIG 12.
Last edited:
No, sorry, you are wrong. Here's why. You said:
If ESPN owns the content and doesn't give anything back to the ACC--that would mean the ACC wouldn't make anything off of that network. So what exactly would the point be for the ACC? For a network the ACC needs inventory and right now they have NONE.
This is EXACLY how the SEC Network is set up. ESPN owns ALL of the content for the SECN. ESPN did not give ANY content back to the SEC when the SECN was started. So, how does the SEC make money off the SECN? I'll wait for your answer.
You are also 100% dead wrong about the LHN. Texas does not own any of those rights. They had already sold those rights to IMG. IMG then sold those rights to ESPN to form the LHN. Then ESPN pays IMG and Texas.
Ok, same situation for the SECN. ESPN bought the rights from the SEC. Then ESPN created the SECN, and pays the SEC from the revenue from the network. Ok, same situation for the ACC. They sold their rights to ESPN. ESPN then creates a network, and then pays the ACC from the revenue generated from that network. You can argue with me all you want to save face on the board, but I'm right and you're wrong. The facts are on my side.
Once again you are 100% incorrect. The SEC used to have tier 3 rights like the BIG 12 does now. Florida had for example a network just like the LHN.
Over a period of time the SEC schools reacquired those rights. Pac 12 schools are still in the process of buying back their rights even with their network up and running.
The SEC EXPANDED with Missouri and Texas A&M and this gave that conference new inventory above and beyond the inventory ESPN (and CBS) were putting on television already. With that and the inventory SEC schools (such as Florida) bought back--there was enough inventory to put on an SEC network.
As to Texas and the LHN--this from when the agreement was made:
All three parties – UT, ESPN and IMG – signed the contract, sources said, because some of the rights had to be sublicensed from IMG, while other rights came directly from the university.
As to the ACC network--again NO inventory is available for that network. Texas had some--their tier 3 rights. The SEC had some new inventory from expansion-and that which they purchased back from their tier 3 deals from before the SEC network.
Where is ACC additional content? With Raycom and FOX thats where. The ACC schools have to get that back if they want a network, they can't take games ESPN is already putting on TV, give ESPN nothing for those games and leave ESPN with holes in their network schedules while the ACC profits off of it.
No, sorry, you are still wrong. The SECN is not limited to the Tier 3 rights. All SEC content owned by ESPN is available to the network. The SEC did reacquire its Tier 3 rights, but then SOLD them to ESPN. So no, the SEC does not own any content that is on the SECN.
Regarding expansion, by your logic adding Texas A&M and Missouri would only make the content from those two schools available. The rest of the schools already sold their content to ESPN.
Now to your point about the ACC, all the ACC's game are available for the network. Every ACC game that ESPN owns is available for a network. Again, this is already how the SECN works. ESPN owns all of those games. Any one of them can be put on the SECN. By your logic, the SEC has no content for the network either, since they sold all of those games to ESPN.
You are trying to make the case that it's only the Tier 3 content that goes on the networks. It's not. The SEC was like the Big 12; each school had one Tier 3 football game. Ok, well by your logic, if it was only the Tier 3 content that goes on the SECN, then that's only 14 games. However, the SECN broadcasts 45 football games a year. Most of that content has to come from the games that ESPN already had under contract.
I find it a little comical and maybe arrogant that some of the very teams WVU played on a regular basis as a member of the Big East are now considered by a few to be 'mid-majors'. You are totally disregarding their broadcast draw as well as the tens of millions they have been spending to upgrade their entire athletic programs. They are who WVU was when the Mountaineers were invited to join the Big 12.
I never, at any point said that the SECn is limited to tier 3 rights. You just made that up because you know you are wrong.
ESPN has a television contract with the SEC to carry a certain number of games per season on ABC, ESPN and the various ESPN channels. CBS also has a contract with the SEC to carry certain games and they have the pick of the top game each week. The inventory NOT included in this contract is left over for the SEC network. It's really not hard to understand and there is no reason for you trying to spin the facts other than--you are wrong and know it.
As to Texas A&M and Missouri -NO. Adding A&M and Missouri added a certain number of games available--inventory. The number depends only on if they have a home game or away game with one of their OOC opponents each year. If not, up to 12 games per year are available each season per school that were not part of the TV contracts before. But that doesn't mean the games must feature A&M or Missouri--that is just up to 24 games additional inventory. Any of the SEC teams could be in those games and A&M and Missouri could be on the games contracted for tv. The rest of the inventory-not all of it as I stated, came from tier 3 rights the SEC schools had prior to adding Missouri and A&M.
Back to your nonsense about the ACC network now. You seem somewhat dense so I'll try to break it down to your level.
ESPN has CONTRACTED ACC games A (ESPN), B(ESPN2), C (ESPNU), and D(ESPN News) every week that fit into a number of slots that ESPN MUST BY CONTRACT put on each of these platforms.
What you are fabricating is that the ACC can TAKE games from ESPN from B(ESPN2), C (ESPNU), and D(ESPN News) every week and put them on an ACC Network-- because ESPN already owns them.
What you are ignoring in this fabricated premise is that if ESPN moves the games B(ESPN2), C (ESPNU), and D(ESPN News) every week to the ACC network--its the same exact product for them. They aren't getting anything new for putting them on the ACC network that they didn't already get (and probably more of) by putting them on ESPN2, ESPNU, and ESPN News. Therefore, at best, each party just breaks even--no difference-the product is just presented to a smaller audience--- or as you appear to think, the ACC makes money airing these games on the ACC network-but then ESPN loses out.
ESPN would now have holes to fill on ESPN2, ESPNU, and ESPN News every week. So they would have to pay someone else for inventory to fill those holes and would lose money while the ACC gained ACC network money. That wouldn't actually be new money at all -or even the same money for the ACC, because they just moved the games from tv to the ACC network. The SAME games.
In reality, the games the ACC has that are the added inventory of expanding to 14 are now carried by RAYCOM (Swoffords son's company) and FOX which aquired the rights from Raycom. Raycom owns the rights to 31 football games and 60 men’s basketball games. Raycom sublicensed 17 football games and 25 basketball games to Fox, which puts the games on its rsn's. No negotiations are underway or expected to get those rights back.
The BTN has about 34 live football games on per season and the Pac networks about the same each year. The ACC has sold their inventory for a network to someone else, they are NOT getting their inventory from ESPN other than maybe just a few games the network doesn't want that might land on ESPN news or something like that. You can't have a network with 3 or 4 games.
There's no inventory for an ACC network.
Last edited:
No, you are wrong. The scenario you laid out is completely inaccurate.
ESPN has a television contract with the SEC to carry a certain number of games per season on ABC, ESPN and the various ESPN channels. CBS also has a contract with the SEC to carry certain games and they have the pick of the top game each week. The inventory NOT included in this contract is left over for the SEC network. It's really not hard to understand and there is no reason for you trying to spin the facts other than--you are wrong and know it.
No, see that's wrong. All the SEC's inventory is included in the ESPN contract (aside from the CBS game). The SEC does not have a separate contract for their network. They have only one contract with ESPN, and all the inventory is included in that one contract. The SEC's inventory is not split into two separate piles, where one group only goes to ESPN and the other group only goes to SECN. All the SEC's inventory (again save the CBS game) is in one pile, and ESPN can put any game on any platform.
ESPN has CONTRACTED ACC games A (ESPN), B(ESPN2), C (ESPNU), and D(ESPN News) every week that fit into a number of slots that ESPN MUST BY CONTRACT put on each of these platforms.
What you are fabricating is that the ACC can TAKE games from ESPN from B(ESPN2), C (ESPNU), and D(ESPN News) every week and put them on an ACC Network-- because ESPN already owns them.
No, again you are completely wrong. If a games goes on an ACC network, that game is not TAKEN from ESPN. ESPN would own the ACC network. The ACC network would be one of ESPN's channels, just like ESPNU. Let's take a football game between North Carolina and Georgia Tech. Right now, ESPN can put that game on any platform: ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, or ESPNNews. If the ACC had a network, that ESPN would have the same options for this UNC/GT game: ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNNews, or an ACCN. This is EXACTLY how the SECN works now. ESPN can take any SEC game it owns, and put it on any platform: ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNNews, or SECN.
What you are ignoring in this fabricated premise is that if ESPN moves the games B(ESPN2), C (ESPNU), and D(ESPN News) every week to the ACC network--its the same exact product for them. They aren't getting anything new for putting them on the ACC network that they didn't already get
No, this is again inaccurate. ESPN gets to charge cable providers for an additional subscription fee for an ACC network. They don't get to do that now. The subscription fee for the network would be additional income for ESPN. Again, this is exactly how both the SECN and LHN work.
ESPN would now have holes to fill on ESPN2, ESPNU, and ESPN News every week. So they would have to pay someone else for inventory to fill those holes and would lose money while the ACC gained ACC network money.
No, this is again false. ESPN already has more inventory than they can broadcast. You can realistically only broadcast 3 games on one particular platform: a noon game, an afternoon game, and a night game. Even with ESPN's several channels, that's only 15-20 games at best. Plus, you are forgetting that ESPN has other contracts, such as MLB or NASCAR, that they also televise on Saturdays, so ESPN is not exhausting its inventory of games. Also, by your logic, ESPN had the same problem with the SECN. That took away 2 or 3 games a week that they could have put on other platforms, yet ESPN still went ahead with the network anyway.
In reality, the games the ACC has that are the added inventory of expanding to 14 are now carried by RAYCOM (Swoffords son's company) and FOX which aquired the rights from Raycom. Raycom owns the rights to 31 football games and 60 men’s basketball games. Raycom sublicensed 17 football games and 25 basketball games to Fox, which puts the games on its rsn's. No negotiations are underway or expected to get those rights back.
No, again you are wrong. Every ACC game ESPN owns can be put on the network. That's again because a network is just another ESPN channel, like ESPNU. Since ESPN owns all of these channels, they can put any content on any channel. You are also wrong about the negotiations. Just this week, Dan Radakovich was interviewed, and he said that the ACC has a consulting firm that is negotiating the network.
"topdecktiger"No, you are wrong. The scenario you laid out is completely inaccurate.
ESPN has a television contract with the SEC to carry a certain number of games per season on ABC, ESPN and the various ESPN channels. CBS also has a contract with the SEC to carry certain games and they have the pick of the top game each week. The inventory NOT included in this contract is left over for the SEC network. It's really not hard to understand and there is no reason for you trying to spin the facts other than--you are wrong and know it.
No, see that's wrong. All the SEC's inventory is included in the ESPN contract (aside from the CBS game). The SEC does not have a separate contract for their network. They have only one contract with ESPN, and all the inventory is included in that one contract. The SEC's inventory is not split into two separate piles, where one group only goes to ESPN and the other group only goes to SECN. All the SEC's inventory (again save the CBS game) is in one pile, and ESPN can put any game on any platform.
B: ESPN signed a deal with the SEC in 2013 which created the SEC network. Their previous deal did not include either the inventory from SEC schools tier 3 deals, or the inventory Missouri and Texas A&M brought to the table. With that new inventory, ESPN is able to have enough to keep a certain amount of SEC product on their networks, and still put a certain amount of product on the SEC network. That is how it is done.
Here's a quote from ESPN's John Skipper from 2013
"We have between six and 13 more games to pick from each week," ESPN President John Skipper said.
It doesn't matter if its "in two separate piles" or not--the point is that there is now inventory there to put on their network that did NOT exist prior to that. The 45 games are NOT from their pre existing agreements.
ESPN has CONTRACTED ACC games A (ESPN), B(ESPN2), C (ESPNU), and D(ESPN News) every week that fit into a number of slots that ESPN MUST BY CONTRACT put on each of these platforms.
What you are fabricating is that the ACC can TAKE games from ESPN from B(ESPN2), C (ESPNU), and D(ESPN News) every week and put them on an ACC Network-- because ESPN already owns them.
No, again you are completely wrong. If a games goes on an ACC network, that game is not TAKEN from ESPN. ESPN would own the ACC network. The ACC network would be one of ESPN's channels, just like ESPNU. Let's take a football game between North Carolina and Georgia Tech. Right now, ESPN can put that game on any platform: ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, or ESPNNews. If the ACC had a network, that ESPN would have the same options for this UNC/GT game: ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNNews, or an ACCN. This is EXACTLY how the SECN works now. ESPN can take any SEC game it owns, and put it on any platform: ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNNews, or SECN.
B: No its not exactly how the SEC network works right now. You are getting caught up in selections. Selections isn't the issue --it is INVENTORY. The additional game inventory of the ACC is with Raycom and FOX now-NOT ESPN. So if ESPN takes a game off of their networks and moves it to the ACCN--they now have a hole in their schedule where that ACC game was on one of their platforms. With the SEC there is NO hole, because there is more than enough inventory to put on all the games they can on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU etc. With the ACC--unless the rights come back from Raycom--that eliminates a game ESPN had to put on those platforms that they must fill with someone else's product--AND they are moving said game to point A to point B with no gain--and probably a financial loss since it will be distributed to fewer homes on an ACC network.
What you are ignoring in this fabricated premise is that if ESPN moves the games B(ESPN2), C (ESPNU), and D(ESPN News) every week to the ACC network--its the same exact product for them. They aren't getting anything new for putting them on the ACC network that they didn't already get
No, this is again inaccurate. ESPN gets to charge cable providers for an additional subscription fee for an ACC network. They don't get to do that now. The subscription fee for the network would be additional income for ESPN. Again, this is exactly how both the SECN and LHN work.
B: Yes, they'll charge a subscription fee for an ACC network--but now they've taken games they were monetizing OFF their primary platforms and moved them to fewer viewers(and payers) on an ACC network. Where does the money that they made for those games on ESPN2, ESPNU, and ESPN News go? That's right-it doesn't exist for ESPN anymore. They SHIFTED inventory with your premise, they havent ADDED anything. And now, ESPN must fill all the holes created on ESPN2, ESPNU, and ESPN News with someone else's inventory that THEY MUST PAY FOR. Which means ESPN loses money.
ESPN would now have holes to fill on ESPN2, ESPNU, and ESPN News every week. So they would have to pay someone else for inventory to fill those holes and would lose money while the ACC gained ACC network money.
No, this is again false. ESPN already has more inventory than they can broadcast. You can realistically only broadcast 3 games on one particular platform: a noon game, an afternoon game, and a night game. Even with ESPN's several channels, that's only 15-20 games at best. Plus, you are forgetting that ESPN has other contracts, such as MLB or NASCAR, that they also televise on Saturdays, so ESPN is not exhausting its inventory of games. Also, by your logic, ESPN had the same problem with the SECN. That took away 2 or 3 games a week that they could have put on other platforms, yet ESPN still went ahead with the network anyway.
B: It's not false at all. ESPN does not already have more ACC inventory than they can broadcast. Everything they didn't want or didn't have space for they licensed to Raycom. If you are claiming otherwise lets look it up. Tell us--what 30 plus football games from the ACC did ESPN NOT put on one of their platforms or was not on the Raycom or FOX package? Can't wait for this answer.
In reality, the games the ACC has that are the added inventory of expanding to 14 are now carried by RAYCOM (Swoffords son's company) and FOX which aquired the rights from Raycom. Raycom owns the rights to 31 football games and 60 men’s basketball games. Raycom sublicensed 17 football games and 25 basketball games to Fox, which puts the games on its rsn's. No negotiations are underway or expected to get those rights back.
No, again you are wrong. Every ACC game ESPN owns can be put on the network. That's again because a network is just another ESPN channel, like ESPNU. Since ESPN owns all of these channels, they can put any content on any channel. You are also wrong about the negotiations. Just this week, Dan Radakovich was interviewed, and he said that the ACC has a consulting firm that is negotiating the network.
B: So you are claiming that ESPN hasn't sold the rights to 31 football games and 60 men's basketball games to Raycom who then sublicensed some of those to FOX? You are actually claiming this? WOW.
You don't understand inventory so you shouldn't discuss it. The ACC only has a certain number of games available to put on tv. Right now all of their games are on one of the ESPN platforms or the Raycom sindicated package or a FOX rsn. There is NO additional inventory. If ESPN takes a game from ESPN or ESPN2 or ESPNU or wherever, and instead puts it on the ACC network--then they have created a hole on ESPN2 or ESPN2 or ESPNU. They won't have made any money off of that and in fact will probably LOSE money since now they must fill that network slot with someone else's inventory they must pay another conference for.
The ONLY way the ACC is getting a network is if they get back the inventory from Raycom and FOX and no one is negotiating any such thing. Dan Radakovich -Clemson's AD said they hope they get a really good update about an ACC network in their spring meetings and there is a sense of urgency in the conference as they worry about falling behind other conferences. Doesn't sound like much in the works still.
ESPN has a television contract with the SEC to carry a certain number of games per season on ABC, ESPN and the various ESPN channels. CBS also has a contract with the SEC to carry certain games and they have the pick of the top game each week. The inventory NOT included in this contract is left over for the SEC network. It's really not hard to understand and there is no reason for you trying to spin the facts other than--you are wrong and know it.
No, see that's wrong. All the SEC's inventory is included in the ESPN contract (aside from the CBS game). The SEC does not have a separate contract for their network. They have only one contract with ESPN, and all the inventory is included in that one contract. The SEC's inventory is not split into two separate piles, where one group only goes to ESPN and the other group only goes to SECN. All the SEC's inventory (again save the CBS game) is in one pile, and ESPN can put any game on any platform.
B: ESPN signed a deal with the SEC in 2013 which created the SEC network. Their previous deal did not include either the inventory from SEC schools tier 3 deals, or the inventory Missouri and Texas A&M brought to the table. With that new inventory, ESPN is able to have enough to keep a certain amount of SEC product on their networks, and still put a certain amount of product on the SEC network. That is how it is done.
Here's a quote from ESPN's John Skipper from 2013
"We have between six and 13 more games to pick from each week," ESPN President John Skipper said.
It doesn't matter if its "in two separate piles" or not--the point is that there is now inventory there to put on their network that did NOT exist prior to that. The 45 games are NOT from their pre existing agreements.
ESPN has CONTRACTED ACC games A (ESPN), B(ESPN2), C (ESPNU), and D(ESPN News) every week that fit into a number of slots that ESPN MUST BY CONTRACT put on each of these platforms.
What you are fabricating is that the ACC can TAKE games from ESPN from B(ESPN2), C (ESPNU), and D(ESPN News) every week and put them on an ACC Network-- because ESPN already owns them.
No, again you are completely wrong. If a games goes on an ACC network, that game is not TAKEN from ESPN. ESPN would own the ACC network. The ACC network would be one of ESPN's channels, just like ESPNU. Let's take a football game between North Carolina and Georgia Tech. Right now, ESPN can put that game on any platform: ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, or ESPNNews. If the ACC had a network, that ESPN would have the same options for this UNC/GT game: ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNNews, or an ACCN. This is EXACTLY how the SECN works now. ESPN can take any SEC game it owns, and put it on any platform: ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNNews, or SECN.
B: No its not exactly how the SEC network works right now. You are getting caught up in selections. Selections isn't the issue --it is INVENTORY. The additional game inventory of the ACC is with Raycom and FOX now-NOT ESPN. So if ESPN takes a game off of their networks and moves it to the ACCN--they now have a hole in their schedule where that ACC game was on one of their platforms. With the SEC there is NO hole, because there is more than enough inventory to put on all the games they can on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU etc. With the ACC--unless the rights come back from Raycom--that eliminates a game ESPN had to put on those platforms that they must fill with someone else's product--AND they are moving said game to point A to point B with no gain--and probably a financial loss since it will be distributed to fewer homes on an ACC network.
What you are ignoring in this fabricated premise is that if ESPN moves the games B(ESPN2), C (ESPNU), and D(ESPN News) every week to the ACC network--its the same exact product for them. They aren't getting anything new for putting them on the ACC network that they didn't already get
No, this is again inaccurate. ESPN gets to charge cable providers for an additional subscription fee for an ACC network. They don't get to do that now. The subscription fee for the network would be additional income for ESPN. Again, this is exactly how both the SECN and LHN work.
B: Yes, they'll charge a subscription fee for an ACC network--but now they've taken games they were monetizing OFF their primary platforms and moved them to fewer viewers(and payers) on an ACC network. Where does the money that they made for those games on ESPN2, ESPNU, and ESPN News go? That's right-it doesn't exist for ESPN anymore. They SHIFTED inventory with your premise, they havent ADDED anything. And now, ESPN must fill all the holes created on ESPN2, ESPNU, and ESPN News with someone else's inventory that THEY MUST PAY FOR. Which means ESPN loses money.
ESPN would now have holes to fill on ESPN2, ESPNU, and ESPN News every week. So they would have to pay someone else for inventory to fill those holes and would lose money while the ACC gained ACC network money.
No, this is again false. ESPN already has more inventory than they can broadcast. You can realistically only broadcast 3 games on one particular platform: a noon game, an afternoon game, and a night game. Even with ESPN's several channels, that's only 15-20 games at best. Plus, you are forgetting that ESPN has other contracts, such as MLB or NASCAR, that they also televise on Saturdays, so ESPN is not exhausting its inventory of games. Also, by your logic, ESPN had the same problem with the SECN. That took away 2 or 3 games a week that they could have put on other platforms, yet ESPN still went ahead with the network anyway.
B: It's not false at all. ESPN does not already have more ACC inventory than they can broadcast. Everything they didn't want or didn't have space for they licensed to Raycom. If you are claiming otherwise lets look it up. Tell us--what 30 plus football games from the ACC did ESPN NOT put on one of their platforms or was not on the Raycom or FOX package? Can't wait for this answer.
In reality, the games the ACC has that are the added inventory of expanding to 14 are now carried by RAYCOM (Swoffords son's company) and FOX which aquired the rights from Raycom. Raycom owns the rights to 31 football games and 60 men’s basketball games. Raycom sublicensed 17 football games and 25 basketball games to Fox, which puts the games on its rsn's. No negotiations are underway or expected to get those rights back.
No, again you are wrong. Every ACC game ESPN owns can be put on the network. That's again because a network is just another ESPN channel, like ESPNU. Since ESPN owns all of these channels, they can put any content on any channel. You are also wrong about the negotiations. Just this week, Dan Radakovich was interviewed, and he said that the ACC has a consulting firm that is negotiating the network.
B: So you are claiming that ESPN hasn't sold the rights to 31 football games and 60 men's basketball games to Raycom who then sublicensed some of those to FOX? You are actually claiming this? WOW.
You don't understand inventory so you shouldn't discuss it. The ACC only has a certain number of games available to put on tv. Right now all of their games are on one of the ESPN platforms or the Raycom sindicated package or a FOX rsn. There is NO additional inventory. If ESPN takes a game from ESPN or ESPN2 or ESPNU or wherever, and instead puts it on the ACC network--then they have created a hole on ESPN2 or ESPN2 or ESPNU. They won't have made any money off of that and in fact will probably LOSE money since now they must fill that network slot with someone else's inventory they must pay another conference for.
The ONLY way the ACC is getting a network is if they get back the inventory from Raycom and FOX and no one is negotiating any such thing. Dan Radakovich -Clemson's AD said they hope they get a really good update about an ACC network in their spring meetings and there is a sense of urgency in the conference as they worry about falling behind other conferences. Doesn't sound like much in the works still.
The BIG has an appetite to expand their territory, they would love to get into the GA, NC and VA market. The ACC is vulnerable because Swofford promised an ACCN in order to get programs to sign GOR. Because of this promise, the ACC GOR could be challenged should the Network not be put in place by next year. s
It will be interesting to see the numbers regarding BIG12 expansion. If the numbers come out positive for expansion, will the dysfunctional BIG12 take advantage? I am not very hopeful
After the 1st ACC raid, the BE, was pseudo mid-major. Most of the perceived post-raid success of the conference came from WVU's three BCS wins. The ACC took sPitt, Cuse and later picked UofL to replace Maryland. You can't tell me that sPitt and Cuse don't play mid-major level football, with less than mid-major fan support. The UofL is the only program of the 3 that is worth anything
You are projecting what you want for the Big Ten, they aren't saying they want this, nor are they intimating in any way shape or form they intend to expand further.
The bottom line is this. The Big Ten and SEC are already getting paid more than the bulk of BIG 12 members. In 2017 we know the Big Ten gets a new contract which is going to jump them even further ahead. Then in 2023 they'll get Another new contract two years before the BIG 12 can get to the table for their next increase. The SEC in between will be getting a new CBS deal. So beginning in 2017 the BIG 12 schools will begin falling behind and by 2025 virtually all will be behind- even Texas will be struggling to keep up. Also during that time if they do nothing competitively the conference will fall off as recruiting drops off and as the conference has to worry about playoff access every year while for everyone else it's win and you are in.
The BIG 12 will need a few years to get new members on board and at least that long to get a network operational and in the meantime they are falling behind as other leagues take action. By 2023 the BIG 12 will be within two seasons of the end of their contracts-- one can bet if the league is vulnerable at that time the Big Ten will come knocking ahead of their next tv contract. That will be disastrous for WVU and most of the members if they sat on their @sses since 2016 and did nothing- waiting for some pipe dream of ACC schools.
I am not projecting anything and I have been consistent in what I have been saying. Both the ACC in BIG12 are at a major risk of being raided. Short term the ACC is more vulnerable, however if the BIG12 sits on their *** until 2023, they will be the conference that is most in jeopardy. Again, last conference to create a network is the loser.
All you are doing is projecting what you want to be true.
There's no evidence to support either the BIG 12 or ACC are at risk of being raided, or that they are more likely to be raided than others such as the Pac 12. You WANT them to be, no evidence supports this.
There's also no evidence to support the ACC is more vulnerable short term. Especially since they have a grant of rights that lasts two years beyond the BIG 12s own grant of rights.
You WANT the BIG 12 to get ACC schools, but there's no evidence to support ANY ACC schools are interested in joining the BIG 12, or the Big Ten or SEC for that matter. Or that any conference is contemplating expanding with those schools. You've ignored the ACC's grant of rights-not because it doesn't exist or isn't actually enforceable, but because you don't want it to be enforceable. Nothing supports that it is not.
The two conferences future are also not dependent on which gets a network first. They may both get networks and be fine even if they begin at different times.
The BIG 12s future has nothing to do with the ACC at all--not related in any way. The BIG 12 has to move forward with comprehensive changes as soon as that is possible to secure their future, not wait around for the hope of adding an ACC school in 2027 or so.
Agree. WVU was playing several of these schools regularly and some were defeating WVU regularly and now suddenly they are unworthy? These people are taking an emotional reaction and ignoring the facts.
It's mostly based on the myths that were created in the previous realignment that ACC schools were on the verge of joining the conference when in reality some ACC schools showed interest, but the BIG 12 did not.
Some just can't get past that, but the BIG 12 conference has to.
If anyone is projecting it is you, The B1G and SEC product is most coveted and their networks are the most successful. I know you will agree the gap between those two vs the BIG12, ACC, and PAC, is growing at an alarming rate. The next logical move is to reach 16-20 programs expanding their territory and content for their network while working towards 4 divisions, and semi final conference game. If that is the case (which I believe), there isn’t room or enough programs for 5 Power conferences. The two conferences that are most at risk at losing power status are the ACC and BIG12. If the BIG12 finds that the $ don’t support expansion, or it supports it and they don’t move, they are doomed. If BIG12 gets a network before ACC, the it is likely it will be ACC to fall apart.
I'm discussing the situation as it is.
There is no mandate for 16-20 team conferences. You wanting that to be does not make it so. it isn't logical or probable. it's just what you want.
There doesn't have to be any change in the P5s other than the BIG 12 expanding to at least 12 and the ACC and SEC going to 9 game schedules. If schools don't want to change conference there's no mandate that they must nor that they can't keep in similar pace to the Big Ten or SEC.
See there is where you always go off track. You believe just because someone expresses an opinion it is what they want. Maybe that comes from you expressing your opinion through your beliefs.
These next 3 statements are not meant to be political, but used get my point across how ludicrous it is for you to assume that just because someone post something they are projecting their beliefs.
· I think Hillary will become our next president, but it is not what I want
· I believe Iran will bomb Israel should the world allow them to build a nuclear weapon, but it is not what I want
· I believe the economy is head for another major recession, but it is not what I want.
I want the BIG12 to remain relevant as a P5 conference, but it does not mean I believe it will happen. I could care a less in the B1G goes to 16 or 20. If anything and for the sake of the BIG12 staying relevant, I want things to stay as they are. So please freaking stop saying to others they are only projecting their wants just because they post something, It is belittling makes shows your biased, and makes anything you post afterward irrelevant
I just like having 10 schools. I am not of the camp that says we should only expand if we can get teams like Clemson and FSU. The Big12 is hard enough to win in already. I am unapologetic about liking the round robin format and I do not claim to see the future. You can only plan for the future, not predict it. If they have to expand, I'd prefer teams close to WVU that might end up in our win column. FSU meets neither of those requirements and Clemson isn't exactly close. There may or may not be enough evidence for those within the Big12 to make the decision to expand. No amount of arguing on this message board will change the information they review or affect each schools self interest and built in bias. We are just pissing in the wind.
I certainly understand your reasoning, though I disagree with 10 instead of 12 members if the current studies justify it economically. I also would like to see the number of in conference games reduced to 8 with 3 out of 4 OOC games becoming mandatory against power 5 schools.
My reasoning is it allows WVU another game within fans reach and lessons the chance of a back to back repeat for a CCG. In some cases it would enhance strength of schedule as well as allow for the possible resumption of traditional rivalries
I am not disparaging your opinion in any way, we simply disagree in some areas. WVU will be OK either way. I do agree with your philosophy regarding opinions!
Did you did you not just state this:
"The next logical move is to reach 16-20 programs expanding their territory and content for their network while working towards 4 divisions, and semi final conference game."
Well hate to break it to you but that is coming from you, not somewhere else. YOU are saying that's the next logical move, not anyone else. So don't be mad when someone points that out. No one in any conference is saying that's the "next logical move".
Stating such personal opinions as facts makes everything you say irrelevant and shows that you base what you say not on facts but only your personal beliefs. Getting belligerent anytime someone points that out simply makes things worse.
Last edited: