I'm really surprised that after the ACC Spring Meetings, there wasn't any report or any articles written about the prospects of such a network. It was almost eerily absent, as if Swofford told them not to report on it. You'd have to think the question had to have come up at one of the zillion interviews and press conferences done there but I haven't found anything substantial. Seems likely that the network was not up for discussion by the media at this event. Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. But considering the vast amounts of money that SEC Network made, its hard to imagine the ACC not being successful.
All's quiet on the ACC Network front
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
I have no doubt it is in the works. None whatsoever. I think they will announce it next year.
Just really weird that such a hot topic didn't come up at all. Yea, my gut is telling me that it may be so far along now, that they had to sign non-disclosures as ESPN negotiates with the cable companies.
probably working out how to include ND also...they add alot of money to the deal...would love for them to join the ACC full time...what we need is the playoff to require conf champions...that would make ND join a conf..
Swofford based on his past always work more quietly before announcing his plans. In early 2000's there were rumors on ACC expansion but then the big announcement came, and subsequent changes of the plans, as the Big East took pains to adopt and adapt and panic?
The same quiet shock happen again when Pitt and Cuse joined and again changed the CFB landscape as Big Ten, SEC, and Big-12 reacted on their own changes. Links to the those News Reports had many Big East Schools shocked way back on that September day way back when? The Lair too!
Anyone forget how the big Ten kept offering Notre Dame Invitations multiple times and then all of a sudden, Notre Dame joins the ACC and agrees to play 5 ACC Games and is dropping some Big Ten Scheduling, as well as said, if need be, if the ACC future is doubt, ND will stand up in it! Again, quiet coup for a Program smack in Big Ten Country by Swofford?
Remember, the Dude???? Remember how the ACC was doomed by him, and Big Ten and Big-12 were going eat it up.?.?.?.?.then all of the sudden a quiet Grants Of Rights was announced and the Dude went quietly into the fog blog of thinner air of no more rumors. Swofford's silent work silence the Dude!
ACC starts talking to Penn State and all of sudden Big Ten adds Rutgers and Maryland. All of sudden Maryland huffs and puffs and files Lawsuits and Anti-Trust with their College President being an expert on Liquidated Damages and Swofford quietly says the ACC will prevail and $35+ Million stays with the ACC as Maryland Presidents settles for just leaving with only hIs own ego bruised and burned?
SEC built their SEC Network in an ACC State??? I just think this is not a coincidence, in my opinion! I still see a mutual sharing of Network Costs along with SEC & ACC someday and that is just smart business whose details need quiet agreements after discussions!
I still say and have a hunch, so long as the ACC has 15 All Sports Schools with a dangling Notre Dame, I think Swofford comments that the only school with an Open Invitation to the ACC anytime is Texas, and I still have a hunch, Swofford may not have given up on that either, and they have the Longhorn Network that could be a perfect fit to adapt and expand the ACC Network along with discussions of Notre Dame's deals with NBC?
We shall see, but Swofford has been very silent just before he makes more moves and waves? The Dude may do well to start wearing Diapers, it could happen at his worse time!
SportsDay Now@SportsdayNow8h8 hours ago
ACC Network Not the Answer to Close Revenue Gap with SEC - by @ChaddScott http://goo.gl/WuBMw8
ACC Network Not the Answer to Close Revenue Gap with SEC - by @ChaddScott http://goo.gl/WuBMw8
I found Chadd Scott comments simply small minded and not accurate, as well as based on his ignorance on how Network make the money based on the Conference State Market Cable Subscribers Footprint and the ACC is the biggest in CFB. He thinks it about competition between Teams, but the SEC plays many lightweights so he undercuts his own argument?
Scott also does not understand the biggest cost to the Conference Networks is Start Up costs whereby much is not given to the schools within the conference until that is recoup and then the money really comes rolling in at a higher rate as the Big Ten is proving! This guy is a real dunce!
The place the Conference Network makes more money is that it does not matter if any Cable Subscribers watch the Network, they get money just having it being paid within that state. The games mostly played are the ones no one wants to watch anyhow so the Conference Network shows them.
The Big Payouts between the Games the fans want to see are still paid by ESPN, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, and Third Party Rights!
Just a Sports Writer out of his League as far as brains and smarts!
BETTER LINK:
http://www.sportsdaynow.com/acc-network-not-the-answer-to-close-revenue-gap-with-sec/
Last edited:
Enjoyed the link...especially the end. Made me draw this conclusion - more ACC football contributors will be able to retire comfortably than SEC contributors OR they just have a larger and/or richer fan base.
does anything actually come from these meetings? Sounds like fancy dinners, drinks by the pool, interrupted by a 1/2 hour of talks with nothing but ideas being thrown out with no real conclusions.. Hey, not knocking it, sounds like a blast, free vacations on someone else's bill, just find it odd that nothing EVER comes from these meetings..
Have to disagree here. Start up costs are minimal in this case. The SECN is 100% owned and operated by ESPN. The SECN is housed in Charlotte, in the same facility as ESPN Regional. (The old ESPN Plus.) That's the syndication arm of ESPN. They used to produce the SEC's syndicated games, and now the produce the SECN. They essentially just took the same content, and broadcasted it on a different channel, in this case the SECN.
The reason I bring that up is because that's the framework the ACC will follow, should it get a network.
I will agree with you that an ACC network has more potential than he thinks. Where he is correct is that the ~$5 million the SECN made is pretty close to the peak (as is the ~$8 million from the BTN). Don't get me wrong, it's good money and the ACC would do well to get a fraction of that. My point is, these conference networks simply aren't going to make $15-20 million a year like some people were claiming. That was pie in the sky from day one.
That is not a delay. Notre Dame is never joining a conference in football unless it is forced to. They are good for at least the next 11 years (the length of the CFP). At the end of that, maybe it'll be just conference champions, who knows?
I would hope the network includes ND football game replays, and football highlight shows and
That article was more like a fan's message board post. A few interesting things but he doesn't say anything substantive. Any idiot knows that an ACC Network isn't going to close any revenue gap between the SEC (or Big Ten). You can't touch those 2 leagues and its not because of their networks. As somebody else said, its really the "Titanic 2," followed by the "Power 3." The ACC has got to get to the point that its making more money and is an overall better league than the Big 12 and Pac 12 but it'll never touch the SEC or Big Ten. The ACC is stuck in a below market TV deal for its primary rights. Everybody knows this and its unfixable. Their day will come but its going to be 11 or so years from now when the ESPN deal runs out and they can go to market. In the mean time, a conference network will maybe give the ACC teams another $1 or $2 million per year per team (and it may not even be that much for awhile as the league will probably have to buy back the Raycom deal).
I've always thought the network will happen and still do. For me, nothing's changed. But, I've also never thought it was going to be a huge financial windfall. They're not going to be able to charge the same amount as BTN or SECN and the buyback of the Raycom games are going to eat away of a lot of the early profits.
I can see the ACC network overtaking the big ten eventually. It will take time but I
do see it happening.
do see it happening.
No, I'm not wrong. The start up costs for the SECN are simply not as much as you think they are. You can argue with me all you want, but it's not true. ESPN did not have to invest in any new facilities for the SECN, as Fox did for the BTN. As a result, the SECN had minimal startup costs. There isn't this big pot of money awaiting the SEC after all the startup costs are paid off.
It wasn't a "problem" for the SEC. The SEC bought back the Tier 3 rights that the individual schools had sold. In addition, ESPN had to repurchase the syndications packages it had with Fox and Comcast.
You are mischaracterizing the Raycom issue. Raycom is simply syndicating ACC games from ESPN. That's no different that Fox and Comcast syndicating SEC games. ESPN was going to syndicate ACC games, regardless of whether it was with Raycom or someone else. The ACC just asked ESPN to specifically use Raycom instead of Comcast, for example.
Nope, the ESPN contract runs out in 2016. The Fox contract for the BTN is not up until 2026. You are mistaking the CCG contract with Fox, which also runs out in 2016, with the BTN contract.
Slight correction. ESPN didn't "syndicate" the games through Raycom, they literally sold them a set amount of games over a set amount of years. Those games are not ESPN or ACC property. They are owned by Raycom (though ESPN maintained the internet rights to them and have the games on ESPN3). The ESPN/Raycom deal was for the entire length of the original ACC/ESPN deal back in 2009 or 2010 or whenever that deal went through. When ESPN renegotiated with the ACC after Pitt and Cuse came in, there was no record of whether the ESPN/Racyom deal was also extended. My guess was that no it wasn't and it will probably come to an end sometime in 2021 or 22. I am on record as saying the ACC or ESPN is going to buy Raycom Sports to get the programming.
No, that's wrong. The Raycom deal is a syndication deal. For example, here is just one link discussing the Raycom deal.
Edit:
Actually, I found a better example. Here is Raycom's own website:
And here's another:
So yeah, it's syndication.
Last edited:
Semantics, really. ESPN bought the ACC rights. They then sold some of those rights to Raycom in a sublicensing agreement. ESPN sublicensed those games to Raycom. It didn't "syndicate" the games to them. Raycom is "syndicating" the games through local OTA stations. Raycom has even sublicensed some of these games to Fox Sports South. Raycom does the production while FSS handles the syndication end of it.
Here's a quote from a more recent SBD article:
"The main roadblock is rights. When it signed its ACC deal in 2010, ESPN and Charlotte-based Raycom Sports cut a deal that grants Raycom the ACC’s digital and corporate sponsorship rights, plus a heavy dose of live football and basketball games. Through a sublicensing agreement, Raycom owns the rights to 31 live football games and 60 live men’s basketball games."
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/05/20/Media/ACC-net.aspx
No, it's not semantics at all. Sublicensing and syndication are the same thing. You even said it yourself. ESPN sublicensed games to Raycom, and Raycom sublicensed games to Fox. You used the exact same word, sublicensing, to describe both the games televised by Raycom and Fox.
Here's why that's important. The SEC had the same situation. ESPN had syndicated SEC games with Fox and Comcast. Here is an article explaining the process:
The point here is that people are exaggerating the difficulty posed by Raycom. ACC games are syndicated by Raycom and Fox. SEC games were syndicated by Fox and Comcast. Each conference had games syndicated with two different entities. It's no more difficult for ESPN to reclaim the ACC's syndication rights than it was to reclaim them for the SEC. When people complain about Raycom, it's simply inaccurate.
Very well Said SMF! I don't like to speculate on many unknowns because it just worth the time. I do think ND will be an ACC Team in all sports someday. There may be a total re-organization of CFB Five Power Conferences too, if a For profit league is set up, but one step at a time?
Topdecktiger...My Two Part Response:
PART II:
Topdecktiger said...
Nope, the ESPN contract runs out in 2016. The Fox contract for the BTN is not up until 2026. You are mistaking the CCG contract with Fox, which also runs out in 2016, with the BTN contract.
Captain Response:
I understand the difference, but what will happen in 2018 will impact on 2026, Contracts can be re-negotiated anytime both parties agree?
ANOTHER LINK TO MAKE YOU THINK:
"""The league's football and basketball deals with ESPN/ABC and CBS expire after the 2016-17 basketball season. Negotiations are expected to heat up soon, assuming they haven't already.
One thing is certain: The Big Ten should be in line for a windfall. The conference will get significant increases from its 10-year, $1 billion deal with ESPN/ABC for football and basketball and 6-year, $72 million pact with CBS for basketball; It also has a 25-year, $2.8 billion deal with the league-run BTN that extends through 2031-32.
However, the final decision could be more than about simply dollars and cents. Delany and the Big Ten also might have to put a price tag on the value of exposure if it decides to leave the immense reach of ESPN for the fledgling Fox Sports 1."""
LINK:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...n-media-big-ten-spt-0312-20150311-column.html
PART II:
Topdecktiger said...
Nope, the ESPN contract runs out in 2016. The Fox contract for the BTN is not up until 2026. You are mistaking the CCG contract with Fox, which also runs out in 2016, with the BTN contract.
Captain Response:
I understand the difference, but what will happen in 2018 will impact on 2026, Contracts can be re-negotiated anytime both parties agree?
ANOTHER LINK TO MAKE YOU THINK:
"""The league's football and basketball deals with ESPN/ABC and CBS expire after the 2016-17 basketball season. Negotiations are expected to heat up soon, assuming they haven't already.
One thing is certain: The Big Ten should be in line for a windfall. The conference will get significant increases from its 10-year, $1 billion deal with ESPN/ABC for football and basketball and 6-year, $72 million pact with CBS for basketball; It also has a 25-year, $2.8 billion deal with the league-run BTN that extends through 2031-32.
However, the final decision could be more than about simply dollars and cents. Delany and the Big Ten also might have to put a price tag on the value of exposure if it decides to leave the immense reach of ESPN for the fledgling Fox Sports 1."""
LINK:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...n-media-big-ten-spt-0312-20150311-column.html
I can accept some of what you say, and I did defend Swofford in an earlier Post that he has acted quietly when he makes big moves that cause big waves.....but so far, I can't see the reason why the ACC Network is not up this year, especially since you said, Start Up Costs for SEC were not that big with ESPN!!! If that is accurate on your part they should be even less with the ACC???? As well as, having a Network ready to go sooner like this year, why wait, what is the problem????
SMF, I apologize, I found my own LINK to share with the Board, but later I see you posted it first, I did not read it until after I posted my responses to Topdecktiger!
In any event, I agree with you, Raycom has those Rights until 2027, and somehow Topdecktiger doesn't think those are part of teh Start-Up costs, when I know in fact, they are and Fox owns some too!!!
The question Topdecktiger seems to forget is how much does FOX want to help out an ESPN Competitor especially since FOX is Partners with Big Ten and Big Ten does want more ACC teams not just Maryland???
SEC is in an ACC State with its Network, ESPN did work with ACC to undo the Big East, and Big Ten wants to go south to increase its own Footprint and Swofford has helped cause the delay of the ACC Network by his actions to save his UNC's Alumnus Company that hired Swofford's son by making sure ESPN sold ACC Rights to Raycom that sold some to FOX!!!!
So, if Swofford has all this goodwill, great relationships even with friends/family why is it the ACC does not have a Network sooner by now???
The acc network will have hours upon hours of old duke-unc basketball games from the 80's, actually would be entertaining to me. Would love to see some Johnny Dawkins and Jeff Lebo highlights..
It took the SEC almost 6 years to start its network. ESPN initially started working on SECN back in 2008. ESPN signed the SEC, and started airing games under the "SEC Network" banner. The "network" was nothing more than a logo at that point. ESPN just started doing this as a they were working on the actual network, which only launched 6 years later in 2014. (Notice the similarities with the "ACC Network" label on ACC games now?)
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/04/sec_network_timeline_the_confe.html
I never said that. You are putting words into my mouth. What I said was, ESPN has minimal start up costs for the SECN. I didn't say zero, I said minimal. What I was pointing out is that the syndication rights were not prohibitive for the SEC, and they will be no more prohibitive for the ACC. Syndication rights are simply not that hard to repurchase.
I also clearly stated in my last post that ESPN has syndicated ACC games with Fox, as well as Raycom. I compared that with the similar arrangement ESPN had syndicating SEC games with Fox and Comcast. The point is, the Raycom syndication is not unique.
As for the startup costs, what I was pointing out is that ESPN doesn't have the overhead such as new facilities, equipment, or employees that BTN had. ESPN is basically converting games from syndication over to SECN, so that really doesn't take new facilities or employees.
What you seem to forget is Fox had the exact same situation with the SEC, and they had no problem selling back to ESPN. What you say doesn't make sense. You say Fox won't sell to ESPN because it would help a competitor. So how is Fox selling the SEC back to ESPN not helping a competitor?
It also doesn't make sense for Fox to sell the SEC, but hold on to the ACC, when the SEC is more valuable. By your logic, it would make more sense for Fox to keep the SEC, but sell the ACC to ESPN.
The UNC/Raycom stuff is nothing but message board drivel. Do you not realize that Swofford can't do that on his own? He can't sign a contract without the approval of the university presidents. That would have required the agreement of the presidents of Florida ST, Miami, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, among others. Swofford and UNC couldn't do this on their own, because they needed 10 of 12 votes. I just listed you a coalition that could have easily stopped the deal if it was nothing but a kickback.
The Raycom deal did not delay an ACC Network. The ACC was never going to get a network before the SEC. Obviously, ESPN was going to start an SECN first, and the timeline shows you how long that was in the works. The SEC is simply more valuable, and ESPN is going to lead with its more valuable product first.
Aside from that, ESPN was going to syndicate ACC games no matter what. If it wasn't Raycom, they probably would have used Comcast, just like the SEC. The rights would still have to be repurchased, no matter what.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/04/sec_network_timeline_the_confe.html
I AGREE, part was buying back those Rights!
I never said that. You are putting words into my mouth. What I said was, ESPN has minimal start up costs for the SECN. I didn't say zero, I said minimal. What I was pointing out is that the syndication rights were not prohibitive for the SEC, and they will be no more prohibitive for the ACC. Syndication rights are simply not that hard to repurchase.
I can see they are less than the Big Ten based on your remarks, that I accept, and did not mean to put words in your mouth. I feel all 6 Years SEC was working on the Network are Start Up Costs though and buying those Righst back comes with a price, maybe not like the Big Ten but Minimum is a vague word too?
I also clearly stated in my last post that ESPN has syndicated ACC games with Fox, as well as Raycom. I compared that with the similar arrangement ESPN had syndicating SEC games with Fox and Comcast. The point is, the Raycom syndication is not unique.
Well, what other Conference Commissioner saved his UNC Alumnus Friend from Bankruptcy, that hired his son at a huge salary, and then had ESPN give Rights until 2027???? If Your answer is none, than I disagree, ACC had an unique deal!
As for the startup costs, what I was pointing out is that ESPN doesn't have the overhead such as new facilities, equipment, or employees that BTN had. ESPN is basically converting games from syndication over to SECN, so that really doesn't take new facilities or employees.
I disagree, all of that comes and is added to a Network Creation, trust me Taxes oversee these aspects it too, and until you or me know the exact amount attributed to SEC Network Start Up Costs and arrangements with ESPN, they are just a guess?
Now if the ACC joins the SEC in Charlotte, I agree the ACC costs will be lower since that Network is established, but it will depend on ACC buyouts on Raycom & Fox too?
What you seem to forget is Fox had the exact same situation with the SEC, and they had no problem selling back to ESPN.
I disagree, FOX owns 49% of Big Ten Network until Start Up Costs are reimbursed and then new negotiations, and SEC is with ESPN iwth the SEC Network not Fox!
What you say doesn't make sense. You say Fox won't sell to ESPN because it would help a competitor. So how is Fox selling the SEC back to ESPN not helping a competitor?
I did not say that, I questioned it based on the Article Linked? Two different things! I also posted a Link that says Big Ten could rethink its relationship with Fox as well, not me, them!
So, tell me, if Swofford asked ESPN to give Raycom Rights until 2027 that sold some to Fox why was the ACC giving Rights away while SEC & ESPN was buying back their rights??? How does that make sense? Your answer can clarify my other arguments!
It also doesn't make sense for Fox to sell the SEC, but hold on to the ACC, when the SEC is more valuable. By your logic, it would make more sense for Fox to keep the SEC, but sell the ACC to ESPN.
Answer the above question, and maybe you will make some "sense" over "Swofford's Son's Dollars"?
My question came from the Sports Article that cited Facts, not an opinion?
The UNC/Raycom stuff is nothing but message board drivel.
Really....Raycom can be googled and was on verge of Bankruptcy? Swofford Son Employed by Raycom?? ESPN gave Rights To RRaycom 2027??? Where is the ACC Network????
Do you not realize that Swofford can't do that on his own?
Yeah, the Raycom Chirman told Newspapers without the ACC Rights he would be bankrupt? And Swofford's Son got that job on his owm! I agree, but it was done and not drivel! DO YOU THINK THAT WAS SMART BY SWOFFORD???
He can't sign a contract without the approval of the university presidents. That would have required the agreement of the presidents of Florida ST, Miami, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, among others. Swofford and UNC couldn't do this on their own, because they needed 10 of 12 votes. I just listed you a coalition that could have easily stopped the deal if it was nothing but a kickback.
Yeah, yeah, and Fifa took all kinds of money and is now indicted and the President finally agreed to step down, Oh please??? Just answer my question...When is Raycom going to sell back its Rights and what will that cost????
When is the ACC Network coming in your opinion or knowledge and why the delay?
The Raycom deal did not delay an ACC Network. The ACC was never going to get a network before the SEC. Obviously, ESPN was going to start an SECN first, and the timeline shows you how long that was in the works. The SEC is simply more valuable, and ESPN is going to lead with its more valuable product first.
Ok, that is fine wit me, you answered it, but I don't buy it and you shouldn't be selling it? Just based on the articles written by Sports Management Journals not blogs, I might add, that disagrees with your opinion on drivel???
Aside from that, ESPN was going to syndicate ACC games no matter what. If it wasn't Raycom, they probably would have used Comcast, just like the SEC. The rights would still have to be repurchased, no matter what.
When "PROBABLY" comes into discussions, then guessing as arrived.
Here is your Problem....SEC uses ESPN to set up SEC Network and takes 6 years to get back the rights that were previously sold.....While ACC signs an exclusive Contract with ESPN and has all the Third Party rights but then tells ESPN to sell them until 2027 to Raycom & Fox????
We don't Probably see your problems in explaining it but it is probable you don't understand it since it is not drivel?
WHEN IS ACC NETWORK COMING ONLINE? BEST GUESS!
[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
You are missing the point. You are too worried about ascribing a numerical value to repurchasing the rights. That’s not the relevant point. What I’m trying to get you to understand is that the cost to repurchase rights was not prohibitive to either the Big Ten or the SEC. The ACC’s rights are similarly situated, and thus are not prohibitive.
Because what you say is not accurate. There was nothing nefarious about the Raycom deal. You are taking things out of context. The Raycom deal came about in 2010, when the ACC signed its new contract. You have to understand the timeframe. The ACC just doubled its payout from $6 million to $12 million. That put them even with the SEC (at the time). The BTN had only been in existence for less than 3 years, and had only turned a profit that year. Nobody else even had a network. Also at the time, the ACC had the widest distribution of a syndication package of any conference, which was due to Raycom, who had been syndicating ACC games since 1984.
What you have to understand is, at the time, it looked like a good idea. The ACC had just doubled its payout. Conferences networks hadn’t yet proven to be profitable. The thinking was, it was better to sign with ESPN, and go for a big syndication package.
In fact, one reason the Big Ten created a network is that they were unhappy with their syndication package on ESPN Plus, which offered limited distribution. The idea of the BTN was to get wider distribution of their Tier 2 games than was currently being achieved by ESPN Plus.
No, it’s not just a guess. I agree with you that there are things like taxes that. Again, I perfectly understand that there are some start up costs. What I’m telling you is, the costs are not prohibitive, as you seem to be suggesting.
There is no if. It has already been established that any ACCN would be modeled after the SECN. That’s in writing. So it will be in Charlotte, if created.
No, the buyouts are not the issue. The issue is if the ACCN will draw enough subscribers and ratings to be profitable.
I don’t understand what you are getting at here, based on the quote. What I meant was, Fox had the same situation for the SEC, in which Fox owned the SEC’s syndication rights. ESPN had to repurchase those rights from Fox to form the SECN. So my point was, why would Fox be willing to sell ESPN the SEC rights, but not the ACC rights? It doesn’t make sense, because the SEC would be more valuable.
Also, Fox has recoupled the start up costs for the BTN in 2010, and now owns 51% of the network.
I don’t care. Whether it was a question or a statement, the information is still wrong. The ESPN deal is over in 2016, not 2018. The BTN deal with Fox is through 2026. Fox has a separate contract with the Big Ten for the CCG. This is because the Big Ten already had both deals in place when the expanded back in 2010. Therefore, their CCG was up for bid (unlike the SEC or ACC). The signed with Fox, and that is the deal that runs out in 2016.
As for the other part, it’s still illogical. It makes no sense that Fox would be willing to sell SEC games back to ESPN, but not ACC games. It would have made more sense the other way around.
Well, I answered some of this earlier. SEC & ESPN were not buying back rights in 2010, when the Raycom deal went through. You also keep mischaracterizing the Raycom deal. It’s just a syndication package. There was always going to be a syndication package. The only question was with whom. The ACC simply requested ESPN use Raycom, as opposed to and different syndicator.
I have no idea when Raycom will sell back the rights. Noticed you sidestepped the issue about the votes necessary by the conference presidents. Puts a pretty big dent in the argument that Swofford and UNC somehow pulled a fast one.
When, I have no idea. The “delay” is for two reasons. One, ESPN was clearly going to start SECN first, since it is the most valuable, and has the greatest odds of success.
Two, it all comes down to whether or not ESPN feels an ACCN will make money. The rights aren’t the issue. The issue is how many people will subscribe to the channel.
Your overreaction indicates I hit a nerve.
No, you misunderstand. It was 100% certain that ESPN would syndicate ACC game. The word “probably” was only in reference to who the syndicator might be. I just gave Comcast as a possible example as to who.
This is what I keep trying to tell you. The syndication was going to happen, 100% guaranteed. The ACC just specifically asked ESPN to use Raycom, as opposed to someone like Comcast. It was pre-ordained that the somebody would get the syndication package, even if it wasn’t Raycom. The ACC did not give away any additional rights because of Raycom.
No, again I explained to you. The ACC signed the syndication package back in 2010. At that time, the SEC’s games were still in syndication. I don’t know why you don’t get that. The SEC had games syndicated at that time, just like the ACC. The SEC didn’t reacquire the syndication rights until later.
You are simply making too big of a deal out of the rights. That’s not the big issue. For the third time, this issue is how much money ESPN believes the network will make. That’s based on the number of subscribers and the ratings.
As I said, I have no idea when. I’m not even going to make a guess, because I have no idea what ESPN’s projections are for subscribers or ad rates. Like I have said for now the fourth time, that’s the key to launching a network.
The problem is that you have this idea that the Raycom somehow gave away additional rights. It did not. Even if Raycom had not been used, ESPN would still have syndicated ACC games with someone, and those games would still need to be repurchased for an ACCN.
Even if Raycom never existed, the syndications rights would still need to be repurchased.
I admit this is a silly argument but hey, its a message board. Here's the difference. Sublicensing is the act of selling licensed programming to a 3rd party. ESPN sold the rights they bought from ACC to Raycom. Other notable sublicensing agreements. Syndication is the act of selling televison events in many local markets.
Whoever it is that owns Seinfeld, doesn't sublicense it to local OTA stations, they syndicate it.
Raycom owns the rights they bought through a sublicensing agreement. They, then, syndicate the games to the local markets.
I agree with you on the ease of which these rights should be bought back though. The SEC and Pac 12 had to work with multiple networks to buy back rights because their schools previously sold those individually. The ESPN and Raycom only have to negotiate with Raycom Sports and considering the fact that college sports syndication is going away and this is Raycom Sports's only property, I think they agree to be acquired.
How cool is going to be to see Pitt baseball in Atlanta or Pitt wresting in Boston?
And see ND in Pittsburgh? I can't wait.
And see ND in Pittsburgh? I can't wait.
PART II
topdecktiger said:
In fact, one reason the Big Ten created a network is that they were unhappy with their syndication package on ESPN Plus, which offered limited distribution. The idea of the BTN was to get wider distribution of their Tier 2 games than was currently being achieved by ESPN Plus.
Now you are off topic, we know why Big Ten created their own Network and the Dumbass Executive at ESPN was fired when that happen, but I am talking about why the ACC has been delayed, and stick to those facts if you can put some up?
topdecktiger said: ↑
No, it’s not just a guess. I agree with you that there are things like taxes that. Again, I perfectly understand that there are some start up costs. What I’m telling you is, the costs are not prohibitive, as you seem to be suggesting.
More drivel from you! If the costs are not "prohibitive" (I Said Large) which i never said, what is holding up the ACC Network that you never answer????
topdecktiger said: ↑
There is no if. It has already been established that any ACCN would be modeled after the SECN. That’s in writing. So it will be in Charlotte, if created.
Thank you for confirming what i have been saying all along! So when is it going to happen? Are you going to call Wwofford son after his buyout?
topdecktiger said: ↑
No, the buyouts are not the issue. The issue is if the ACCN will draw enough subscribers and ratings to be profitable.
Oh, please, quit repeating my posts, it is all about subscribers and why it should have happen by now without the Raycom Agreement Giveaway!
topdecktiger said: ↑
I don’t understand what you are getting at here, based on the quote.
Well, we know that, I'll alert the media that you don't understand because you still can;'t answer the simple questions put to you?
What I meant was, Fox had the same situation for the SEC, in which Fox owned the SEC’s syndication rights. ESPN had to repurchase those rights from Fox to form the SECN. So my point was, why would Fox be willing to sell ESPN the SEC rights, but not the ACC rights? It doesn’t make sense, because the SEC would be more valuable. Also, Fox has recoupled the start up costs for the BTN in 2010, and now owns 51% of the network.
My point is F%2%& FOX, there would be no Fox if Swofford never sold Raycom Rights to save his Company when ESPN owned everything as the Article said....get off FOX and answer the simple questions!
topdecktiger said: ↑
I don’t care. Whether it was a question or a statement, the information is still wrong. The ESPN deal is over in 2016, not 2018. The BTN deal with Fox is through 2026. Fox has a separate contract with the Big Ten for the CCG. This is because the Big Ten already had both deals in place when the expanded back in 2010. Therefore, their CCG was up for bid (unlike the SEC or ACC). The signed with Fox, and that is the deal that runs out in 2016.
Well, I like links, that verify Facts, and I dismiss "I Don't Cares" from opinions that have nothing to support it!
topdecktiger said: ↑
As for the other part, it’s still illogical. It makes no sense that Fox would be willing to sell SEC games back to ESPN, but not ACC games. It would have made more sense the other way around.
Once again, get off of Fox and no one cares what you think, just answer the questions!
Well, I answetopdecktiger said: ↑red some of this earlier. SEC & ESPN were not buying back rights in 2010, when the Raycom deal went through. You also keep mischaracterizing the Raycom deal. It’s just a syndication package. There was always going to be a syndication package. The only question was with whom. The ACC simply requested ESPN use Raycom, as opposed to and different syndicator.
No I am not, the facts are you you ignore the Sports Journal articles and keep your own diatribes of nonsense and won't answer the question?
PART III NEXT
topdecktiger said:
In fact, one reason the Big Ten created a network is that they were unhappy with their syndication package on ESPN Plus, which offered limited distribution. The idea of the BTN was to get wider distribution of their Tier 2 games than was currently being achieved by ESPN Plus.
Now you are off topic, we know why Big Ten created their own Network and the Dumbass Executive at ESPN was fired when that happen, but I am talking about why the ACC has been delayed, and stick to those facts if you can put some up?
topdecktiger said: ↑
No, it’s not just a guess. I agree with you that there are things like taxes that. Again, I perfectly understand that there are some start up costs. What I’m telling you is, the costs are not prohibitive, as you seem to be suggesting.
More drivel from you! If the costs are not "prohibitive" (I Said Large) which i never said, what is holding up the ACC Network that you never answer????
topdecktiger said: ↑
There is no if. It has already been established that any ACCN would be modeled after the SECN. That’s in writing. So it will be in Charlotte, if created.
Thank you for confirming what i have been saying all along! So when is it going to happen? Are you going to call Wwofford son after his buyout?
topdecktiger said: ↑
No, the buyouts are not the issue. The issue is if the ACCN will draw enough subscribers and ratings to be profitable.
Oh, please, quit repeating my posts, it is all about subscribers and why it should have happen by now without the Raycom Agreement Giveaway!
topdecktiger said: ↑
I don’t understand what you are getting at here, based on the quote.
Well, we know that, I'll alert the media that you don't understand because you still can;'t answer the simple questions put to you?
What I meant was, Fox had the same situation for the SEC, in which Fox owned the SEC’s syndication rights. ESPN had to repurchase those rights from Fox to form the SECN. So my point was, why would Fox be willing to sell ESPN the SEC rights, but not the ACC rights? It doesn’t make sense, because the SEC would be more valuable. Also, Fox has recoupled the start up costs for the BTN in 2010, and now owns 51% of the network.
My point is F%2%& FOX, there would be no Fox if Swofford never sold Raycom Rights to save his Company when ESPN owned everything as the Article said....get off FOX and answer the simple questions!
topdecktiger said: ↑
I don’t care. Whether it was a question or a statement, the information is still wrong. The ESPN deal is over in 2016, not 2018. The BTN deal with Fox is through 2026. Fox has a separate contract with the Big Ten for the CCG. This is because the Big Ten already had both deals in place when the expanded back in 2010. Therefore, their CCG was up for bid (unlike the SEC or ACC). The signed with Fox, and that is the deal that runs out in 2016.
Well, I like links, that verify Facts, and I dismiss "I Don't Cares" from opinions that have nothing to support it!
topdecktiger said: ↑
As for the other part, it’s still illogical. It makes no sense that Fox would be willing to sell SEC games back to ESPN, but not ACC games. It would have made more sense the other way around.
Once again, get off of Fox and no one cares what you think, just answer the questions!
Well, I answetopdecktiger said: ↑red some of this earlier. SEC & ESPN were not buying back rights in 2010, when the Raycom deal went through. You also keep mischaracterizing the Raycom deal. It’s just a syndication package. There was always going to be a syndication package. The only question was with whom. The ACC simply requested ESPN use Raycom, as opposed to and different syndicator.
No I am not, the facts are you you ignore the Sports Journal articles and keep your own diatribes of nonsense and won't answer the question?
PART III NEXT
PART III
topdecktiger said: ↑
I have no idea when Raycom will sell back the rights. Noticed you sidestepped the issue about the votes necessary by the conference presidents. Puts a pretty big dent in the argument that Swofford and UNC somehow pulled a fast one.
You have No IDEA, but know everything else. My point still stands, THERE WAS NO NEED TO SELL ANYTHING TO RAYCOM THAT SOLD TO FOX, WHEN ESPN OWNED ALL THE RIGHTS UNTIL SWOFFORD SAVED HIS FRIEND'S COMPANY THAT HIRED HIS SON! Can you hear that now and you keep ignoring it!
topdecktiger said: ↑
When, I have no idea. The “delay” is for two reasons. One, ESPN was clearly going to start SECN first, since it is the most valuable, and has the greatest odds of success.
Nice guess, but the ACC still would not have to buyback Rights ESPN once owned?
topdecktiger said: ↑
Two, it all comes down to whether or not ESPN feels an ACCN will make money. The rights aren’t the issue. The issue is how many people will subscribe to the channel. Your overreaction indicates I hit a nerve.
No, I disagree, your ignorance of not being able to answer the question has you huffing and puffing all over the place and crying about not being able to defend Swofford's actions!!
topdecktiger said: ↑
No, you misunderstand. It was 100% certain that ESPN would syndicate ACC game. The word “probably” was only in reference to who the syndicator might be. I just gave Comcast as a possible example as to who.This is what I keep trying to tell you. The syndication was going to happen, 100% guaranteed. The ACC just specifically asked ESPN to use Raycom, as opposed to someone like Comcast. It was pre-ordained that the somebody would get the syndication package, even if it wasn’t Raycom. The ACC did not give away any additional rights because of Raycom.
Well, using you own logic and words, you just undercut your own words earlier. Looks likE Swofford cut a bad deal giving away Rights once owned after ESPN was given them all, then sold some to Raycom to save Swofford's friend that hired his son, because that is your answer to my question as I see it in your own words!
topdecktiger said: ↑
No, again I explained to you. The ACC signed the syndication package back in 2010. At that time, the SEC’s games were still in syndication. I don’t know why you don’t get that. The SEC had games syndicated at that time, just like the ACC. The SEC didn’t reacquire the syndication rights until later.
Blah, Blah Blah, so what, it was a dumb OR INTENTIONAL CONFLICT OF INTERESTS move by Swofford and is holding up the ACCN! No Soup for You,NEXT!!!!
topdecktiger said: ↑
You are simply making too big of a deal out of the rights. That’s not the big issue. For the third time, this issue is how much money ESPN believes the network will make. That’s based on the number of subscribers and the ratings.
Yeah, like Is aid they are part of the Start Up Costs that held up the SECN and once sold to Raycom are holding up the ACCN, one thing for to remember in America "RIGHTS" are important especially in Business Transactions, Swofford sold off ACC to his friend that employed his son, GO GET THEM BACK NOW, This is what you keep ignoring....NOW I AM TOLD RIGHTS are that important by you???? Sports Journals are saying this not just me!
topdecktiger said: ↑
As I said, I have no idea when. I’m not even going to make a guess, because I have no idea what ESPN’s projections are for subscribers or ad rates. Like I have said for now the fourth time, that’s the key to launching a network.
We got that, you need not repeat it, you know what you don't know now, looking at your own words! If The Rights are not a big deal, you go and get them back, and show all of us, how unimportant they are now?
topdecktiger said: ↑
The problem is that you have this idea that the Raycom somehow gave away additional rights. It did not. Even if Raycom had not been used, ESPN would still have syndicated ACC games with someone, and those games would still need to be repurchased for an ACCN.
Yeah we get it, Raycom sold part of the ACC Rights to Fox to save their income,make a profit, and to pay for Swofford Sons, so SECN can be made first, and you have no idea about anything else!
topdecktiger said: ↑
Even if Raycom never existed, the syndications rights would still need to be repurchased.
CORRECTION, IF SWOFFORD AND RAYCOM FOUNDER NEVER WENT TO UNC, RAYCOM WOULD NOT EXIST AND THE ACC WOULD HAVE A NETWORK BY NOW WITHOUT HAVING TO FIND A JOB FOR SWOFFORD'S SON!
topdecktiger said: ↑
I have no idea when Raycom will sell back the rights. Noticed you sidestepped the issue about the votes necessary by the conference presidents. Puts a pretty big dent in the argument that Swofford and UNC somehow pulled a fast one.
You have No IDEA, but know everything else. My point still stands, THERE WAS NO NEED TO SELL ANYTHING TO RAYCOM THAT SOLD TO FOX, WHEN ESPN OWNED ALL THE RIGHTS UNTIL SWOFFORD SAVED HIS FRIEND'S COMPANY THAT HIRED HIS SON! Can you hear that now and you keep ignoring it!
topdecktiger said: ↑
When, I have no idea. The “delay” is for two reasons. One, ESPN was clearly going to start SECN first, since it is the most valuable, and has the greatest odds of success.
Nice guess, but the ACC still would not have to buyback Rights ESPN once owned?
topdecktiger said: ↑
Two, it all comes down to whether or not ESPN feels an ACCN will make money. The rights aren’t the issue. The issue is how many people will subscribe to the channel. Your overreaction indicates I hit a nerve.
No, I disagree, your ignorance of not being able to answer the question has you huffing and puffing all over the place and crying about not being able to defend Swofford's actions!!
topdecktiger said: ↑
No, you misunderstand. It was 100% certain that ESPN would syndicate ACC game. The word “probably” was only in reference to who the syndicator might be. I just gave Comcast as a possible example as to who.This is what I keep trying to tell you. The syndication was going to happen, 100% guaranteed. The ACC just specifically asked ESPN to use Raycom, as opposed to someone like Comcast. It was pre-ordained that the somebody would get the syndication package, even if it wasn’t Raycom. The ACC did not give away any additional rights because of Raycom.
Well, using you own logic and words, you just undercut your own words earlier. Looks likE Swofford cut a bad deal giving away Rights once owned after ESPN was given them all, then sold some to Raycom to save Swofford's friend that hired his son, because that is your answer to my question as I see it in your own words!
topdecktiger said: ↑
No, again I explained to you. The ACC signed the syndication package back in 2010. At that time, the SEC’s games were still in syndication. I don’t know why you don’t get that. The SEC had games syndicated at that time, just like the ACC. The SEC didn’t reacquire the syndication rights until later.
Blah, Blah Blah, so what, it was a dumb OR INTENTIONAL CONFLICT OF INTERESTS move by Swofford and is holding up the ACCN! No Soup for You,NEXT!!!!
topdecktiger said: ↑
You are simply making too big of a deal out of the rights. That’s not the big issue. For the third time, this issue is how much money ESPN believes the network will make. That’s based on the number of subscribers and the ratings.
Yeah, like Is aid they are part of the Start Up Costs that held up the SECN and once sold to Raycom are holding up the ACCN, one thing for to remember in America "RIGHTS" are important especially in Business Transactions, Swofford sold off ACC to his friend that employed his son, GO GET THEM BACK NOW, This is what you keep ignoring....NOW I AM TOLD RIGHTS are that important by you???? Sports Journals are saying this not just me!
topdecktiger said: ↑
As I said, I have no idea when. I’m not even going to make a guess, because I have no idea what ESPN’s projections are for subscribers or ad rates. Like I have said for now the fourth time, that’s the key to launching a network.
We got that, you need not repeat it, you know what you don't know now, looking at your own words! If The Rights are not a big deal, you go and get them back, and show all of us, how unimportant they are now?
topdecktiger said: ↑
The problem is that you have this idea that the Raycom somehow gave away additional rights. It did not. Even if Raycom had not been used, ESPN would still have syndicated ACC games with someone, and those games would still need to be repurchased for an ACCN.
Yeah we get it, Raycom sold part of the ACC Rights to Fox to save their income,make a profit, and to pay for Swofford Sons, so SECN can be made first, and you have no idea about anything else!
topdecktiger said: ↑
Even if Raycom never existed, the syndications rights would still need to be repurchased.
CORRECTION, IF SWOFFORD AND RAYCOM FOUNDER NEVER WENT TO UNC, RAYCOM WOULD NOT EXIST AND THE ACC WOULD HAVE A NETWORK BY NOW WITHOUT HAVING TO FIND A JOB FOR SWOFFORD'S SON!
Like I said, if ESPN had not syndicated with Raycom, then they would have syndicated with somebody else, like Comcast. The rights would still have to be purchased back either way. That ends the argument right there.
No, sorry. You're still wrong. The article that you posted--that you posted, mind you--used the word sublicensing for both Raycom and Fox. You can't have it both ways. You can't say the same word means one thing for Raycom, but another thing for Fox.
I posted a link earlier, from Raycom's own website, and it says they have the syndication rights to ACC games. It's Raycom's own website for crying out loud. So now they don't even know what they have? You and the other guy are being way too obstinate about this.
Topdecktiger, I appreciate your time and info on this issue and we can agree to disagree.
Yet it is time the "C" in unC be removed from the "ACC" because the ACC has 15 Schools now, no longer 8 when it was founded and 4 were from North Carolina.
South Carolina dropped out and joined SEC, FSU was added in 1990's, Miami and VT in 2003, and later BC in 2005, then Pitt, Cuse, followed by ND and ULou replaced Maryland that dropped out too.
We no long the "C" of North Carolina in the ACC, it is not the Atlantic Carolina Conference anymore! The next Commissioner should come from another location and not North Carolina.
It is clear to me and has been said by many Sports Journalists, Sports Lawyers, and College College that the ACC caters to the North Carolina Schools and it was one reason cited fro Maryland leaving.
UNC built their Basketball Program with multiple years of NCAA Violations and a number of years of repeated violations. UNC Academic Fraud is a stain on the ACC.
Now NCAA has found LOIC at UNC Link:
http://www.wralsportsfan.com/ncaa-f...-control-at-unc/14689222/#AiKdiAtOYwPHgzC2.99
As well, as, UNC's Swofford Sweetheart Deals with his Alumni Friends and including his son that does not pass the smell tests.
The ACC can do better and must do better to remain a Power Conference. The ACCN will bring in more money than Raycom ever did!
Swofford has done good in many respects just like when we had Pitt Pederson doing the same for Pitt, but Swofford just like Pederson made mistakes where he could no longer justify his tenure to remain.
I see the same for Swofford in the coming days and months ahead, I just think the time has come for his departure.
I hope it never gets as bad as the recent FIFA Quote in tdays Newspapers by someone that knows what was going on at UNC and within the ACC....“I know that they are criminal scum, and I’ve known it for years,” he said. “And that is a thoughtful summation. That is not an insult. That is not throwing about wild words.These scum have stolen the people’s sport. They’ve stolen it, the cynical thieving bastards,” he said. “So, yes, it’s nice to see the fear on their faces.”
The way I see it and read it in many Journals and after talking to Sports Lawyers and Sports Network Executives, there was no reason to to give Raycom any ACC rights to save them from Bankruptcy and having Swofford Son employed was terrible judgement, and to now have to buy back the Rights was a creation between Swofford and Raycom Owner, two bussies at UNC!
Thank you again, and we shall see?
Yet it is time the "C" in unC be removed from the "ACC" because the ACC has 15 Schools now, no longer 8 when it was founded and 4 were from North Carolina.
South Carolina dropped out and joined SEC, FSU was added in 1990's, Miami and VT in 2003, and later BC in 2005, then Pitt, Cuse, followed by ND and ULou replaced Maryland that dropped out too.
We no long the "C" of North Carolina in the ACC, it is not the Atlantic Carolina Conference anymore! The next Commissioner should come from another location and not North Carolina.
It is clear to me and has been said by many Sports Journalists, Sports Lawyers, and College College that the ACC caters to the North Carolina Schools and it was one reason cited fro Maryland leaving.
UNC built their Basketball Program with multiple years of NCAA Violations and a number of years of repeated violations. UNC Academic Fraud is a stain on the ACC.
Now NCAA has found LOIC at UNC Link:
http://www.wralsportsfan.com/ncaa-f...-control-at-unc/14689222/#AiKdiAtOYwPHgzC2.99
As well, as, UNC's Swofford Sweetheart Deals with his Alumni Friends and including his son that does not pass the smell tests.
The ACC can do better and must do better to remain a Power Conference. The ACCN will bring in more money than Raycom ever did!
Swofford has done good in many respects just like when we had Pitt Pederson doing the same for Pitt, but Swofford just like Pederson made mistakes where he could no longer justify his tenure to remain.
I see the same for Swofford in the coming days and months ahead, I just think the time has come for his departure.
I hope it never gets as bad as the recent FIFA Quote in tdays Newspapers by someone that knows what was going on at UNC and within the ACC....“I know that they are criminal scum, and I’ve known it for years,” he said. “And that is a thoughtful summation. That is not an insult. That is not throwing about wild words.These scum have stolen the people’s sport. They’ve stolen it, the cynical thieving bastards,” he said. “So, yes, it’s nice to see the fear on their faces.”
The way I see it and read it in many Journals and after talking to Sports Lawyers and Sports Network Executives, there was no reason to to give Raycom any ACC rights to save them from Bankruptcy and having Swofford Son employed was terrible judgement, and to now have to buy back the Rights was a creation between Swofford and Raycom Owner, two bussies at UNC!
Thank you again, and we shall see?
There is no such thing as "agree to disagree." The facts are the facts. ESPN was going to syndicate ACC games no matter what. If it was not Raycom, it would have been Comcast, Fox, etc. You have never addressed that point in the entire thread. You have never explained how syndicating with Raycom hinders an ACCN, but syndicating with Comcast, etc. would not.
It doesn't matter whether Comcast was "on the verge of Bankruptcy" or not. That has nothing to do with the difficulty in repurchasing the rights.
You still have not explained why it will be more difficult for ESPN to repurchase syndication rights from Raycom and Fox, but not from Comcast and Fox. That's the issue. The only issue for launching an ACCN is how to reacquire the rights. I factually demonstrated that it is not difficult to repurchase syndication rights, because ESPN just did it with the SECN. You haven't proven why it would be difficult.
You are also putting words into my mouth yet again. I never said rights "were not important." What I have been saying is that it is not hard to reacquire them. That's the whole issue. Again, the only concern for an ACCN is how difficult it is to repurchase those rights. It's been proven that repurchasing is not difficult.
The fact that you have to resort to personal insults just proves that you are losing the argument and have no way to refute what I said.
