There's one thing you're all tap dancing around, but no one is saying. Yes, the SEC bought back their rights. But how many years of rights did they need to buy back? If the ACC's second and/or third tier rights are sold through 2027, that's 12 years worth after this season. I don't know the answer, I'm sure someone could research it, but how many years of rights did the SEC have to buy back? If they only had 5-6 years worth to buy, that could be a significant savings over the 12 years the ACC is looking at--which means the ACC upfront costs at this point could be significantly larger than what the SEC had to pay.
All's quiet on the ACC Network front
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
YOU ASKED FOR IT:
Topdecktiger,
FACT
ACC THIRD PARTY RIGHTS TO RAYCOM UNTIL 2027:
The ACC's Third Tier Rights And Why They're Killing The Conference
FORBES LINK:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/06/04/the-accs-third-tier-rights-and-why-theyre-killing-the-conference/
EXCERPTS:
What’s more, this isn’t the first time that ACC Commissioner John Swofford has left media rights money on the table. When the ACC signed its previous ESPN contract a few years ago, Swofford insisted on maintaining a partnership with syndicator Raycom Sports, possibly giving away increased media rights revenue in the process: Swofford let the strongest bidders, ESPN and Fox, know that he wanted to include Raycom, which went into the talks as a partner to both networks, rather than trying to bid against their deeper pockets. The ACC television rights that Raycom secured are credited with keeping the syndicator alive: “company executives acknowledged that keeping a piece of the ACC’s business was the only way the small, regional TV syndicator and production company could stay relevant.” Raycom pays $50 million annually in a sublicense agreement with ESPN; ACC schools see none of that money. It’s rather surprising that a conference would so willingly take less TV money – the core source of revenue in collegiate athletics – just to keep a broadcast company from folding. There are, of course, plenty of conspiracy theories to explain Swofford’s irrational decision. Raycom Sports is based in North Carolina, and the ACC is often accused of favoring its four NC schools. Then there’s Swofford’s son, Chad Swofford, who is the Senior Director of New Media and Business Development at Raycom Sports (he was also employed by Boston College athletics when the school received an invite from the ACC). But regardless of what theory you choose to believe, the ultimate conclusion is that the ACC has not been the best at negotiating its TV rights contracts.
FACT
CHADD SWOFFORD HIRED TO WORK AT RAYCOM
ESPN executive in link below explains how they got the ACC deal: by appeasing Swofford and bringing in Tier three broadcaster Raycom, a company with an outmoded business model and in general a company widely considered to be an inferior quality broadcaster of sports events....that was on-the-brink-of-financial-extinction! ESPN's OWN WORDS negotiator John Skipper asks Swofford what it will take for ESPN to get the deal. Swofford says unequivocally "bring in Raycom". So ESPN gets a cut rate deal and the ACC football schools are dealt a killshot. All in order to save Swofford's son's job...?
LINK:
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2010/10/04/daily3.html?page=all
The survival of Raycom Sports hinged on its 31-year relationship with the ACC. As long as two years before it started negotiating with the conference in earnest, company executives acknowledged that keeping a piece of the ACC’s business was the only way the small, regional TV syndicator and production company could stay relevant in the burgeoning multibillion-dollar college marketplace. The problem was that Raycom couldn’t compete financially with bigger national TV networks, like ESPN and Fox, who also wanted the ACC’s rights. So Raycom decided to rely on the deep, personal relationships it developed over its three-decade relationship with the conference. ESPN’s John Skipper recognized the power of those ties early in his talks with Commissioner John Swofford last spring. Skipper, ESPN’s executive vice president for content and a North Carolina graduate, recalled sitting with Swofford on the brick patio outside the stately Washington Duke Inn, just hours before tip-off of the Duke-North Carolina basketball game. Underneath the swaying pine trees, Skipper asked Swofford what ESPN could do to secure a deal. “It would be our preference,” Swofford told Skipper, “if ESPN could construct something that would keep us in business with Raycom.”“So we did,” Skipper said.
STAYING IN BUSINESS
Raycom executives concede that the company’s existence depended on staying in the game with the ACC. While it manages the Meineke Car Care Bowl, and has managed golf tournaments and syndicated other programming, 80 percent of Raycom’s annual revenue comes from its business with the ACC.
FACT CHAD SWOFFORD STILL WORKS FOR RAYCOM:
Senior Director, New Media and Business Development
Joined Raycom in 2007 as Manager of ACC Marketing and was named Director of New Media & Marketing in 2009. He currently oversees all web and mobile initiatives for Raycom and the ACC Network, in addition to managing the ACC Digital Network. He is a graduate of the University of North Carolina and is an alumnus of Ohio University’s School of Sports Management graduate program. He worked at Boston College prior to joining Raycom
Topdecktiger,
FACT
ACC THIRD PARTY RIGHTS TO RAYCOM UNTIL 2027:
The ACC's Third Tier Rights And Why They're Killing The Conference
FORBES LINK:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/06/04/the-accs-third-tier-rights-and-why-theyre-killing-the-conference/
EXCERPTS:
What’s more, this isn’t the first time that ACC Commissioner John Swofford has left media rights money on the table. When the ACC signed its previous ESPN contract a few years ago, Swofford insisted on maintaining a partnership with syndicator Raycom Sports, possibly giving away increased media rights revenue in the process: Swofford let the strongest bidders, ESPN and Fox, know that he wanted to include Raycom, which went into the talks as a partner to both networks, rather than trying to bid against their deeper pockets. The ACC television rights that Raycom secured are credited with keeping the syndicator alive: “company executives acknowledged that keeping a piece of the ACC’s business was the only way the small, regional TV syndicator and production company could stay relevant.” Raycom pays $50 million annually in a sublicense agreement with ESPN; ACC schools see none of that money. It’s rather surprising that a conference would so willingly take less TV money – the core source of revenue in collegiate athletics – just to keep a broadcast company from folding. There are, of course, plenty of conspiracy theories to explain Swofford’s irrational decision. Raycom Sports is based in North Carolina, and the ACC is often accused of favoring its four NC schools. Then there’s Swofford’s son, Chad Swofford, who is the Senior Director of New Media and Business Development at Raycom Sports (he was also employed by Boston College athletics when the school received an invite from the ACC). But regardless of what theory you choose to believe, the ultimate conclusion is that the ACC has not been the best at negotiating its TV rights contracts.
FACT
CHADD SWOFFORD HIRED TO WORK AT RAYCOM
ESPN executive in link below explains how they got the ACC deal: by appeasing Swofford and bringing in Tier three broadcaster Raycom, a company with an outmoded business model and in general a company widely considered to be an inferior quality broadcaster of sports events....that was on-the-brink-of-financial-extinction! ESPN's OWN WORDS negotiator John Skipper asks Swofford what it will take for ESPN to get the deal. Swofford says unequivocally "bring in Raycom". So ESPN gets a cut rate deal and the ACC football schools are dealt a killshot. All in order to save Swofford's son's job...?
LINK:
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2010/10/04/daily3.html?page=all
The survival of Raycom Sports hinged on its 31-year relationship with the ACC. As long as two years before it started negotiating with the conference in earnest, company executives acknowledged that keeping a piece of the ACC’s business was the only way the small, regional TV syndicator and production company could stay relevant in the burgeoning multibillion-dollar college marketplace. The problem was that Raycom couldn’t compete financially with bigger national TV networks, like ESPN and Fox, who also wanted the ACC’s rights. So Raycom decided to rely on the deep, personal relationships it developed over its three-decade relationship with the conference. ESPN’s John Skipper recognized the power of those ties early in his talks with Commissioner John Swofford last spring. Skipper, ESPN’s executive vice president for content and a North Carolina graduate, recalled sitting with Swofford on the brick patio outside the stately Washington Duke Inn, just hours before tip-off of the Duke-North Carolina basketball game. Underneath the swaying pine trees, Skipper asked Swofford what ESPN could do to secure a deal. “It would be our preference,” Swofford told Skipper, “if ESPN could construct something that would keep us in business with Raycom.”“So we did,” Skipper said.
STAYING IN BUSINESS
Raycom executives concede that the company’s existence depended on staying in the game with the ACC. While it manages the Meineke Car Care Bowl, and has managed golf tournaments and syndicated other programming, 80 percent of Raycom’s annual revenue comes from its business with the ACC.
FACT CHAD SWOFFORD STILL WORKS FOR RAYCOM:
Senior Director, New Media and Business Development
Joined Raycom in 2007 as Manager of ACC Marketing and was named Director of New Media & Marketing in 2009. He currently oversees all web and mobile initiatives for Raycom and the ACC Network, in addition to managing the ACC Digital Network. He is a graduate of the University of North Carolina and is an alumnus of Ohio University’s School of Sports Management graduate program. He worked at Boston College prior to joining Raycom
BlueBand,
Topdecktiger cannot answer my questions on the same subject and you are asking for the same answers, but like you say, he is a dancer, and he can't refute the LINKS either.
I have few more Links for him to think but he lacks the balls to answer your question too, because he cannot refute the FACTUAL EVIDENCE of How Swofford made a bigger problem for the ACCN due to selling ACC Rights until 2027 that need to be bought back now? Even worse, Swofford told ESPN to do it as shown in a LINK verified by ESPN Executive himself????
Below in a subsequent posts are some more Links that addresses the subject and provides far better information than anything Topdecktiger ever posted. Although I thanked Topdecktiger at first for his info and asked we will have to agree to disagree, he came back claiming FACTS he never did prove.
Subsequently the Links to make all of us Think together cut off his arguments, opinions, and he never did have FACTS because he refused to answer simple questions and then started his dancing being afraid to admit where he may be wrong.
In any event, I posted and defended Swofford saying exactly what i have read and have been told about him, and it is outlined in the above and next posts as well.
I think the ACC will have a Network, but I think Swofford will come under fire for saving Raycom and having to buy back Rights in larger amounts than Topdecktiger ever imagined.
We shall see, meanwhile the Article below with links is pretty good assessment where the ACC is right now for all the Board to share!
Subsequently the Links to make all of us Think together cut off his arguments, opinions, and he never did have FACTS because he refused to answer simple questions and then started his dancing being afraid to admit where he may be wrong.
In any event, I posted and defended Swofford saying exactly what i have read and have been told about him, and it is outlined in the above and next posts as well.
I think the ACC will have a Network, but I think Swofford will come under fire for saving Raycom and having to buy back Rights in larger amounts than Topdecktiger ever imagined.
We shall see, meanwhile the Article below with links is pretty good assessment where the ACC is right now for all the Board to share!
Last edited:
Link To Think:
Something Not Adding Up With John Swofford’s Recent ACC Network Comments.
When I saw a link today from the Courier-Journal with comments John Swofford made on the possibility of an ACC Network, I thought – oh some new information. Not only were the comments not new information, they could have been from 2013.
What are the prospects of an all-ACC network?
My answer to that really won’t change for a while. We are taking a look at that with ESPN, who would be our partner in it. ESPN will be our partner through 2026-2027 regardless of how it’s structured. We have the ability to do some things because of the quality of partner we have in ESPN. If we feel like that’s the best route to go in the long term, we’ll do that. And it’s a joint decision we’ll make with ESPN.
What would make that the best route?
I think the keys are where you put your inventory, what the distribution would be, which ties directly to what the revenue would entail. How does that compare to the potential increase in rights fees we currently have? Our television package right now has great exposure and outstanding dollars. The question for us is, where’s the growth potential? Is it better with an ACC channel that’s 24/7 or with the model we have? It’s a very important decision going forward with our league, and the good thing is, I don’t think there’s a wrong decision to be made. It’s a question of, what’s the better route to go?
Now here are some Swofford comments from August 2013…
“I think the beauty of it is it would be ACC all day, 24/7,” he said in Greensboro, N.C., at the ACC Kickoff.
But that’s getting ahead of ourselves. Swofford, who rarely tips his hand before acting, and the league’s membership have to first decide if an ACC channel is the next logical step for the conference.
“The need is for us to really thoroughly evaluate it to see if that’s the best route for us to take in terms of the future, both from a potential revenue standpoint and from an exposure standpoint,” said Swofford, who emphasized such undertakings take years.
“Channels, right now, are sort of the sexy thing to pursue.”
A glance around the country suggests so. The Big Ten Network, once ridiculed, is now a money-making machine, spitting out yearly checks to each school upwards of $7 million or $8 million, a growing bonus on top of the league’s regular TV deal.
The Pac-12 started a national network and several regional networks last year. And in August 2014, the SEC will launch its network, partnered with ESPN. Of the five power conferences, only the Big 12 has declined to pursue one while the ACC is mulling it.
While a number of media consultants agree that an ACC channel could be a boon for the conference long-term, t
hey also warn that the initial hurdles to forming a channel and gaining distribution are more burdensome than some realize and likely will take years. (MY POINT ALL ALONG AND THAT SWOFFORD CAUSED THIS DELAY BY SELLING RIGHTS TO RAYCOM HIS BUDDY AND SONS EMPLOYER)
MORE EXCERPTS:
The Big Ten paid out close to $25 million in total TV money to each of its members last year, a figure expected to rise as the network becomes more profitable and the league renegotiates its primary TV rights in 2016.
The ACC’s deal with ESPN, which goes through the 2026-27 season, will be worth roughly $20 million per year to each school. Without a network, a significant gap still exists with other leagues that will only get wider.
But the benefits go beyond money. It’s a 24/7 showcase for the league, which would control its brand and could get it into more households.
“Every major sports property (EXCEPT THE ACC RAYCOM GIFT) is out there and developing its network across a range of different platforms and screens,” said Neal Pilson, the former president of CBS Sports and current president of the media consulting firm Pilson Communications, Inc.
“NFL, Major League Baseball, NHL, NBA, there’s a Golf Channel, there’s a Tennis Channel. It makes perfect sense that you’d want to do this, not just for the way things are right now, but for the way things are in the future.
“And you’re looking for content across all these screens and you’re an ACC fan or a Big Ten fan, you know exactly where to go. Those are great resources to have as the technology changes that you can offer up your content any way people want to consume it.” (EXCEPT THE ACC AND RAYCOM WILL DEMAND A NICE PIECE OF MONEY TO GIVE ACC RIGHTS BACK???)
LINK:
http://hamptonroads.com/2013/08/acc-weighs-pros-and-cons-starting-its-own-channel
BACK TO THE ARTICLE LINK:
But that’s getting ahead of ourselves. Swofford, who rarely tips his hand before acting, and the league’s membership have to first decide if an ACC channel is the next logical step for the conference. “The need is for us to really thoroughly evaluate it to see if that’s the best route for us to take in terms of the future, both from a potential revenue standpoint and from an exposure standpoint,” said Swofford, who emphasized such undertakings take years. Um something is not adding up here. After nearly 1 1/2 years, Swofford has made virtually the same comment. There is no way, none, zero that the ACC doesn’t have a better idea on the viability of a network. As recently as last month, and we wrote that here, the FSU president made some definitive comments on the likelihood network.
Here is my opinion on this. John Swofford likes to keep things close to the vest. We know this and have commented on it before here. That’s how he earned the nickname “Ninja Commissioner”. That has worked in his favor many times. This is not one of those times. Positive PR is big these days for conferences, and Swofford missed an opportunity to provide some good feedback on the direction of the ACC.
Instead he provided a vague comments that sound like the ACC is no closer to a network than 1 1/2 years ago. We know that is not the case, so why say it? Are the negotiations at a critical juncture? Is he waiting to announce something in the next few months, and just working to keep things as quiet as possible until then? Who knows with the Ninja…
LINK
http://allsportsdiscussion.com/2015...h-john-swoffords-recent-acc-network-comments/
Something Not Adding Up With John Swofford’s Recent ACC Network Comments.
When I saw a link today from the Courier-Journal with comments John Swofford made on the possibility of an ACC Network, I thought – oh some new information. Not only were the comments not new information, they could have been from 2013.
What are the prospects of an all-ACC network?
My answer to that really won’t change for a while. We are taking a look at that with ESPN, who would be our partner in it. ESPN will be our partner through 2026-2027 regardless of how it’s structured. We have the ability to do some things because of the quality of partner we have in ESPN. If we feel like that’s the best route to go in the long term, we’ll do that. And it’s a joint decision we’ll make with ESPN.
What would make that the best route?
I think the keys are where you put your inventory, what the distribution would be, which ties directly to what the revenue would entail. How does that compare to the potential increase in rights fees we currently have? Our television package right now has great exposure and outstanding dollars. The question for us is, where’s the growth potential? Is it better with an ACC channel that’s 24/7 or with the model we have? It’s a very important decision going forward with our league, and the good thing is, I don’t think there’s a wrong decision to be made. It’s a question of, what’s the better route to go?
Now here are some Swofford comments from August 2013…
“I think the beauty of it is it would be ACC all day, 24/7,” he said in Greensboro, N.C., at the ACC Kickoff.
But that’s getting ahead of ourselves. Swofford, who rarely tips his hand before acting, and the league’s membership have to first decide if an ACC channel is the next logical step for the conference.
“The need is for us to really thoroughly evaluate it to see if that’s the best route for us to take in terms of the future, both from a potential revenue standpoint and from an exposure standpoint,” said Swofford, who emphasized such undertakings take years.
“Channels, right now, are sort of the sexy thing to pursue.”
A glance around the country suggests so. The Big Ten Network, once ridiculed, is now a money-making machine, spitting out yearly checks to each school upwards of $7 million or $8 million, a growing bonus on top of the league’s regular TV deal.
The Pac-12 started a national network and several regional networks last year. And in August 2014, the SEC will launch its network, partnered with ESPN. Of the five power conferences, only the Big 12 has declined to pursue one while the ACC is mulling it.
While a number of media consultants agree that an ACC channel could be a boon for the conference long-term, t
hey also warn that the initial hurdles to forming a channel and gaining distribution are more burdensome than some realize and likely will take years. (MY POINT ALL ALONG AND THAT SWOFFORD CAUSED THIS DELAY BY SELLING RIGHTS TO RAYCOM HIS BUDDY AND SONS EMPLOYER)
MORE EXCERPTS:
The Big Ten paid out close to $25 million in total TV money to each of its members last year, a figure expected to rise as the network becomes more profitable and the league renegotiates its primary TV rights in 2016.
The ACC’s deal with ESPN, which goes through the 2026-27 season, will be worth roughly $20 million per year to each school. Without a network, a significant gap still exists with other leagues that will only get wider.
But the benefits go beyond money. It’s a 24/7 showcase for the league, which would control its brand and could get it into more households.
“Every major sports property (EXCEPT THE ACC RAYCOM GIFT) is out there and developing its network across a range of different platforms and screens,” said Neal Pilson, the former president of CBS Sports and current president of the media consulting firm Pilson Communications, Inc.
“NFL, Major League Baseball, NHL, NBA, there’s a Golf Channel, there’s a Tennis Channel. It makes perfect sense that you’d want to do this, not just for the way things are right now, but for the way things are in the future.
“And you’re looking for content across all these screens and you’re an ACC fan or a Big Ten fan, you know exactly where to go. Those are great resources to have as the technology changes that you can offer up your content any way people want to consume it.” (EXCEPT THE ACC AND RAYCOM WILL DEMAND A NICE PIECE OF MONEY TO GIVE ACC RIGHTS BACK???)
LINK:
http://hamptonroads.com/2013/08/acc-weighs-pros-and-cons-starting-its-own-channel
BACK TO THE ARTICLE LINK:
But that’s getting ahead of ourselves. Swofford, who rarely tips his hand before acting, and the league’s membership have to first decide if an ACC channel is the next logical step for the conference. “The need is for us to really thoroughly evaluate it to see if that’s the best route for us to take in terms of the future, both from a potential revenue standpoint and from an exposure standpoint,” said Swofford, who emphasized such undertakings take years. Um something is not adding up here. After nearly 1 1/2 years, Swofford has made virtually the same comment. There is no way, none, zero that the ACC doesn’t have a better idea on the viability of a network. As recently as last month, and we wrote that here, the FSU president made some definitive comments on the likelihood network.
Here is my opinion on this. John Swofford likes to keep things close to the vest. We know this and have commented on it before here. That’s how he earned the nickname “Ninja Commissioner”. That has worked in his favor many times. This is not one of those times. Positive PR is big these days for conferences, and Swofford missed an opportunity to provide some good feedback on the direction of the ACC.
Instead he provided a vague comments that sound like the ACC is no closer to a network than 1 1/2 years ago. We know that is not the case, so why say it? Are the negotiations at a critical juncture? Is he waiting to announce something in the next few months, and just working to keep things as quiet as possible until then? Who knows with the Ninja…
LINK
http://allsportsdiscussion.com/2015...h-john-swoffords-recent-acc-network-comments/
Just to be clear, the ESPN/Raycom sublicensing agreement was only for the original ACC/ESPN deal that ran the 12 years from like 2010-2022. When the ACC added Pitt, Syr, and ND and renegotiated with ESPN to sign on until 2027, I never found one piece of evidence that ESPN also agreed to sublicense the added years to Raycom. Considering the landscape at that time, it would seem highly unlikely that they gave those extra years to Raycom.
So, what I believe to be true is the Raycom deal is supposed to end around 2022 or 2023. Every year those rights become less expensive to buy. And as I said earlier, because Raycom Sports's only property is the ACC and the ACC is the only thing keeping them in business and because college sports syndication is going away and there will be no content left fro them to buy after their ACC deal is up, I believe Raycom Media just up and sells Raycom Sports to either the ACC or ESPN. ESPN could acquire their studios, equipment, on-air talent, etc. It would make the transition to creating a network that much easier.
FWIW, ESPN rents their ESPNU/SECN studios in a suburban Charlotte business park. Raycom Sports is in more of a standalone building close to downtown Charlotte. If they own the building, then ESPN/ACC could acquire that and ESPN could move their ESPNU/SECN studios there.
SMF, I very much appreciate, respect, and slaute Topdecktiger (TDT, Your Own and Others contribution to this thread, and I agreed where i could, and to TDT where I disagreed, and he came back with opinion calling them Facts and dismissing other Facts as drivel, and did not answered the questions asked of him. When a Poster does that, he is not interested in sharing information, he just keeps repeating what he first said, and ignores the questions he can't or wouldn't answer.
On the other hand, that did not make all his info wrong and you added to the discussion and provided great clarifications and I agree with you posting above.
Yet, I did read a number of Sports Journal Articles and it is clear to me, the ACCN, NDNBC, PAC12N, and BIG12 TV Package & LHN are clearly behind B1GN & SECN right now.
This has caused the ACC and B12 some jitters on proceeding and adding 2 more Networks to Cable Subscribers Bills is becoming more difficult every day. As well as, High Tech Changes on the way TV is being changed for the future.
CFB is in a state of great flux and dynamic changes from NCAA Reorganization, to Paying Players more and benefits in addition to Scholarships, to Recruiting, and Expansion or mergers are not out of the question either as New Ways to Dream happen everyday!
The payouts for B1GN and SECN are exceeding anything PAC12N, ACC and BIG12 is doing right now. This is only growing as well for B1G and SEC.
The Good News is \B1G & SEC still need the other 3 Power Conferences in CFB and cannot go it alone either.
So, I understand why Swofford is taking his time to study the next move, just like BIG-12, NDNBC, LHN, and ACC and Swofford does operate as the Articles cite in a quiet way to advance the ACC.
Yet, Swofford is also known for making some missteps and misjudgments like he did at the First ACC Expansion that actually caused a Blowback on the ACC when the Big East responded with its own expansion, and caused Swofford to go after Cuse & Pitt and I contend made a mistake not taking WVU & Rutgers!
As well as, losing UMD and then having to replace them with ULou and bringing in ND, and not having GOR ready in the first place that would have kept UMD!
Finally, Swofford saving Raycom was also a mistake in my opinion, and instead of hooking up with a Company that could advance the ACC with bigger bucks and investments for future deals, he gave Raycom a handout that saved their jobs, but they have far less access to bigger investors as others, and now having to buy back the rights, even as you point and TNT point out, along with conflict of interests with saving his son job, is just bad judgments!
How it will be resolved is still unknown if you read all the Articles, but the ACC at $20 million, Big-12 at 23 million, and PAC-12 a tad above is going make some schools vulnerable as B1G and SECN get over $25 to $31 Million just from their Networks alone?
So, it will be interesting to watch Swofford make some moves for the ACC in the future and I thank you SMF for adding to the discussion and TNT too!
The SEC's syndication package had fewer years than the ACC's. So to your point, the ACC has more years to buy back.
But, this is the catch. The SEC also had to buy back Tier 3 rights. The ACC does not have to do that, because ESPN already has the Tier 3 rights. So, while the ACC has more expense in repurchasing syndication, it has zero expense in repurchasing Tier 3.
I know that. You said in your previous post:
I was talking about a hypothetical situation. I was saying that if even if hypothetically Comcast was on the verge of bankruptcy, and the ACC chose them instead of Raycom, it still wouldn’t affect the ability to start an ACC network.
Yes it is. The topic of this entire thread is the ACC creating a network. The only thing that matters about Raycom is how it affects the creation of an ACC network.
Yes, what you just said is factually wrong. I did not say rights are unimportant. I did not say that. The problem is that you are getting so mad, you are misreading what I’m saying.
Again, I did not say the rights are unimportant. What I said, is they are not difficult to repurchase, and they won’t prevent the network from being started.
As to why they don’t just do it now and start an ACC network, it’s because starting a network is not based on simply repurchasing the rights. ESPN is the one who has to start the network, not the ACC. ESPN has to determine if the ACCN will be profitable. That means, ESPN has to figure out whether ACCN will generate enough subscribers, how much those subscribers will pay, what kind of ratings ACCN will draw, and how much advertisers will pay. All that has to be figured out before you even get to the issue of repurchasing rights.
It wasn’t “cheap” for the SEC to reacquire its rights either. That expense wasn’t prohibitive for the SECN, and it won’t be prohibitive for the ACCN either.
The rights weren’t given away. You keep saying that, and it’s not true. I keep telling you, the rights were going to be syndicated to someone. If it wasn’t Raycom, it would have been someone else. You are making the argument that the rights would not have been syndicated if it wasn’t for Raycom. That’s simply not true.
No, I FACTUALLY ID you as one that keeps ignoring FACTS from Business JOURNALS and never answered the simple questions and that to me is someone with no balls and just strikes so your out! Your own words in your posts cut your balls off in your arguments so you are a Eunuch for Swofford Actions willing to guard Swofford's Mistakes in saving Raycom and undercutting the ACCN in the process. You made ineffectual arguments like a Eunuch which is an ineffectual person that refuses to answer the simple questions put forth to you this entire discussion.
It’s funny to watch you spew and sputter. I have asked you direct questions, and you don’t answer them. That sounds more like someone with no balls.
This is the whole problem. Your opinion is based on an incorrect premise. The ACC could not get a deal with another company.
The ACC signed All its rights with ESPN.
Let me say that again.
The ACC signed All its rights with ESPN.
The ACC had no rights to offer another company. That’s what you don’t understand.
I know that. You said in your previous post:
I was talking about a hypothetical situation. I was saying that if even if hypothetically Comcast was on the verge of bankruptcy, and the ACC chose them instead of Raycom, it still wouldn’t affect the ability to start an ACC network.
Woe TNT, so you used a Hypo instead of FACTS??? And then told me you cited FACTS!!!! Now who is sputtering, looks like you?
Yes it is. The topic of this entire thread is the ACC creating a network. The only thing that matters about Raycom is how it affects the creation of an ACC network.
Thank you, my point from the start and my belief Raycom should never have had a role, and Swofford made mistakes doing it!
Yes, what you just said is factually wrong. I did not say rights are unimportant. I did not say that. The problem is that you are getting so mad, you are misreading what I’m saying.
You just admitted you used Hypos, You would never answer my simple question, and you kept changing and dancing around like other Posters told you, and that is what upset you, when you quit addressing the central issue and would not answer the questions, or admit you were wrong, and now admit you used Hypos not FACTS....well....you undercut your own arguments and had no balls to admit it!!! Still do by the way! I pointed it out and in a way you understood!
Again, I did not say the rights are unimportant. What I said, is they are not difficult to repurchase, and they won’t prevent the network from being started.
Still, I agreed to disagree, saying Raycom was not the Company that should have gotten those Rights, they were broke! Another Company with Deeper Pockets should have gotten those Rights because they could help finance ACCN later with such clauses in them. Swofford saved his Raycom & Sons Job! I did not mind if you disagreed, but you came back it was drivel and I was Factually wrong instead of agreeing to disagree?
As to why they don’t just do it now and start an ACC network, it’s because starting a network is not based on simply repurchasing the rights. ESPN is the one who has to start the network, not the ACC. ESPN has to determine if the ACCN will be profitable. That means, ESPN has to figure out whether ACCN will generate enough subscribers, how much those subscribers will pay, what kind of ratings ACCN will draw, and how much advertisers will pay. All that has to be figured out before you even get to the issue of repurchasing rights.
I do not disagree with what you just said, now others in Sports Journals do, but that is their Professional Opinions. Yet, I still believe and you can disagree, that Swofford made a mistake backing a Bankrupt Raycom and having ESPN keeping or giving out the Rights with the Caveat they can comeback when the ACCN is started! Swofford used his Professional Position in the ACC to save his Alumnus Friend and Son Jobs in a Company that others dumped and that was wrong in my opinion!
It wasn’t “cheap” for the SEC to reacquire its rights either. That expense wasn’t prohibitive for the SECN, and it won’t be prohibitive for the ACCN either.
Well, now you differ again, I never said it was cheap to reacquire SEC Rights, clearly it was not "PROHIBITIVE" (YOUR WORDS NOT MINE), and I didn't say it would ever be (PROHIBITIVE AGAIN YOUR WORD NOT MIND) for the ACC? I said, it was not necessary for Swofford to save Raycom by giving them rights when they were broke! I also, said, this part of Start Up Costs and they are!
Yet, I accepted and thanked you for your info on saying SECN Start Up costs were not as big as the B!G, but you went on tangents again! As well as, keep repeating minutiae over and over like a Eunuch!
The rights weren’t given away. You keep saying that, and it’s not true.
Give me a break, you know what was meant, they were sold to a UNC Alumnus Broke Company! In addition, ESPN Executive said, this was the only way for ESPN to get all those Rights? Quit being a silly Eunuch!
I keep telling you, the rights were going to be syndicated to someone. If it wasn’t Raycom, it would have been someone else.
AND I KEEPING ASKING YOU WHY SELL THEM TO RAYCOM THAT WAS BROKE AND FRIEND OF SWOFFORD & SON???
You are making the argument that the rights would not have been syndicated if it wasn’t for Raycom. That’s simply not true.
NO, YOU ARE SAYING THAT IS MY ARGUMENT AND YOU NEVER ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOVE THAT REFUTE MY FACTS ABOVE IN THAT QUESTION?
No, I FACTUALLY ID you as one that keeps ignoring FACTS from Business JOURNALS and never answered the simple questions and that to me is someone with no balls and just strikes so your out! Your own words in your posts cut your balls off in your arguments so you are a Eunuch for Swofford Actions willing to guard Swofford's Mistakes in saving Raycom and undercutting the ACCN in the process. You made ineffectual arguments like a Eunuch which is an ineffectual person that refuses to answer the simple questions put forth to you this entire discussion.
It’s funny to watch you spew and sputter. I have asked you direct questions, and you don’t answer them. That sounds more like someone with no balls.
Nice try, you are now not just unable or won't answer the questions posed to you, but using my quotes about your weak responses and mistakes, LOL!!! Now go away Eunuch until you find the balls to answer the simple question above! And you have been set straight once again! Now you admit HYPOS and HYPOS are not FACTS!
Now Quit crying because the Links To Make You Think, above still question Swofford's mistakes on choosing Raycom his buddy and sons company!
Last edited:
Topdecktiger said, This is the whole problem. Your opinion is based on an incorrect premise. The ACC could not get a deal with another company.
The ACC signed All its rights with ESPN.
Let me say that again.
The ACC signed All its rights with ESPN.
The ACC had no rights to offer another company. That’s what you don’t understand.
My Quotes above have said this all along, LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN, my QUOTES above say it all along! SMF corrected you as well as my Links on sublicensing agreement rights? It is also in my Question Above You Never Answered?
So, tell me, if Swofford asked ESPN to give Raycom Rights until 2027 that sold some to Fox why was the ACC selling Rights Away to Swofford Friend & Son's Employer while SEC & ESPN was buying back their rights??? How does that make sense?
The ACC signed All its rights with ESPN.
Let me say that again.
The ACC signed All its rights with ESPN.
The ACC had no rights to offer another company. That’s what you don’t understand.
My Quotes above have said this all along, LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN, my QUOTES above say it all along! SMF corrected you as well as my Links on sublicensing agreement rights? It is also in my Question Above You Never Answered?
So, tell me, if Swofford asked ESPN to give Raycom Rights until 2027 that sold some to Fox why was the ACC selling Rights Away to Swofford Friend & Son's Employer while SEC & ESPN was buying back their rights??? How does that make sense?
No, SMF did not correct me. He was wrong. Raycom has a syndication agreement with ESPN. They don't own any rights. I discussed this in post #20.
Raycom is simply a syndication package. I’ve told you that repeatedly. Raycom and the ACC do not even have a contract.
I answered this in post #29. I will summarize it here again.
The SEC was not buying back rights while the ACC was selling them. In 2010, when the ACC signed with ESPN, SEC games were being syndicated with both Comcast and Fox. The SEC signed a contract with ESPN in 2008. ESPN then syndicated SEC games with Comcast and Fox, which it continued to do until 2013.
That’s the exact same thing the ACC did in 2010. They signed a deal with ESPN, and then ESPN syndicated ACC games with Raycom and Fox.
Both conferences were syndicating games.
You keep trying to insinuate that Raycom is not a syndication deal. It is a syndication deal. You are also trying to insinuate that ESPN would not have syndicated ACC games if it wasn’t for Raycom. That’s false. ESPN was going to syndicate ACC games, even if it didn’t use Raycom.
If you want me to answer questions, then ask me question. Don’t write a two-page editorial. Just make a specific list of all the questions you want to ask and I will answer them.
Topdecktiger, said, No, SMF did not correct me. He was wrong. Raycom has a syndication agreement with ESPN. They don't own any rights. I discussed this in post #20.
I disagree, you are parsing words that is all!
Raycom is simply a syndication package. I’ve told you that repeatedly. Raycom and the ACC do not even have a contract.
We know, it tells us nothing. Swofford told ESPN if they wanted all Rights they had to sell them to Raycom even before ESPN got ALL RIGHTS, THEN SOLD SOME TO RAYCOM THAT SOLD SOME TO FOX! The Links show that was a FACT!
I answered this in post #29. I will summarize it here again.
The SEC was not buying back rights while the ACC was selling them.
WOE, IT IS ON RECORD THAT SEC SAID IT WAS BUYING UP ALL THIRD PART RIGHTS TO SET UP SECN WITH ESPN, AND YOU SAID IT TOOK 6 YEARS? You do understand that SEC did have to buy up the Rights? You do understand that Swofford only allowed ESPN TO HAVE ALL ACC RIGHTS only if ESPN would sell some to Raycom? Once again, only you are sputtering and your post on 20 and 29 did not answer my questions!
In 2010, when the ACC signed with ESPN, SEC games were being syndicated with both Comcast and Fox. The SEC signed a contract with ESPN in 2008. ESPN then syndicated SEC games with Comcast and Fox, which it continued to do until 2013.
FINE, BUT IN THE END SEC WAS STILL BUYING BACK RIGHTS TO SET UP SECN! DO YOU NEED A LINK ON THAT????
That’s the exact same thing the ACC did in 2010. They signed a deal with ESPN, and then ESPN syndicated ACC games with Raycom and Fox.
NO, YOU ARE WRONG, THE LINK I PUT UP SAYS ESPN WAS TOLD BY SWOFFORD THAT IF THEY WANTED ALL THE RIGHTS THEY HAVE TO SELL SOME THIRD PARTY RIGHTS TO RAYCOM THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPEN AND RAYCOM SOLD SOME TO FOX.
AND YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED HOW THAT MAKES SENSE? ESPECIALLY WHEN SWOFFORD KNEW SEC WAS BUYING BACK THE THIRD PARTY RIGHTS TO SET UP SECN WITH ESPN???
If you think you answered the question, I do not agree! So accept to agree to disagree!
Both conferences were syndicating games.
CORRECTION, ALL CONFERENCES, QUIT RUNNING FROM THE QUESTIONS!
You keep trying to insinuate that Raycom is not a syndication deal. It is a syndication deal.
I don't care what you call it, AGAIN WHY DID SWOFOORD CHOOSE RAYCOM A BROKE COMPANY WHEN IT WAS DROPPED BY OTHERS AND WHY IT WAS BROKE???? ESPECIALLY WHEN SEC WAS BUYING BACK ALL RIGHTS TO SET UP SECN???
You are also trying to insinuate that ESPN would not have syndicated ACC games if it wasn’t for Raycom.
Do not tell me what I am insuating when you still avoid answering the questions?
ARE YOU TELLING ME......THERE WAS NO OTHER MEDIA SPORTS COMPANY OUT THERE TO SYNDICATE ACC GAMES????
Sorry, I cannot buy that and you should not be selling it like Swofford sold ACC Rights to Raycom!
That’s false. ESPN was going to syndicate ACC games, even if it didn’t use Raycom.
NO IT IS NOT FALSE, YOU are Ball-Less again, this is your real problem and why look silly here. ESPN Executive as LINKED said this was the only way for ESPN to get All The Rights and Swofford told them they must sell some Rights RAYCOM! You are again running and hiding and the entire Board can see it! Even Raycom has said publicly this saved Raycom from going broke??? Need a link???
If you want me to answer questions, then ask me question. Don’t write a two-page editorial. Just make a specific list of all the questions you want to ask and I will answer them.
LOL, the question is right above in red and only 3 lines, now you are proving to be a Crybaby Eunuch, you still have not answered it? LOL!
I disagree, you are parsing words that is all!
Raycom is simply a syndication package. I’ve told you that repeatedly. Raycom and the ACC do not even have a contract.
We know, it tells us nothing. Swofford told ESPN if they wanted all Rights they had to sell them to Raycom even before ESPN got ALL RIGHTS, THEN SOLD SOME TO RAYCOM THAT SOLD SOME TO FOX! The Links show that was a FACT!
I answered this in post #29. I will summarize it here again.
The SEC was not buying back rights while the ACC was selling them.
WOE, IT IS ON RECORD THAT SEC SAID IT WAS BUYING UP ALL THIRD PART RIGHTS TO SET UP SECN WITH ESPN, AND YOU SAID IT TOOK 6 YEARS? You do understand that SEC did have to buy up the Rights? You do understand that Swofford only allowed ESPN TO HAVE ALL ACC RIGHTS only if ESPN would sell some to Raycom? Once again, only you are sputtering and your post on 20 and 29 did not answer my questions!
In 2010, when the ACC signed with ESPN, SEC games were being syndicated with both Comcast and Fox. The SEC signed a contract with ESPN in 2008. ESPN then syndicated SEC games with Comcast and Fox, which it continued to do until 2013.
FINE, BUT IN THE END SEC WAS STILL BUYING BACK RIGHTS TO SET UP SECN! DO YOU NEED A LINK ON THAT????
That’s the exact same thing the ACC did in 2010. They signed a deal with ESPN, and then ESPN syndicated ACC games with Raycom and Fox.
NO, YOU ARE WRONG, THE LINK I PUT UP SAYS ESPN WAS TOLD BY SWOFFORD THAT IF THEY WANTED ALL THE RIGHTS THEY HAVE TO SELL SOME THIRD PARTY RIGHTS TO RAYCOM THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPEN AND RAYCOM SOLD SOME TO FOX.
AND YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED HOW THAT MAKES SENSE? ESPECIALLY WHEN SWOFFORD KNEW SEC WAS BUYING BACK THE THIRD PARTY RIGHTS TO SET UP SECN WITH ESPN???
If you think you answered the question, I do not agree! So accept to agree to disagree!
Both conferences were syndicating games.
CORRECTION, ALL CONFERENCES, QUIT RUNNING FROM THE QUESTIONS!
You keep trying to insinuate that Raycom is not a syndication deal. It is a syndication deal.
I don't care what you call it, AGAIN WHY DID SWOFOORD CHOOSE RAYCOM A BROKE COMPANY WHEN IT WAS DROPPED BY OTHERS AND WHY IT WAS BROKE???? ESPECIALLY WHEN SEC WAS BUYING BACK ALL RIGHTS TO SET UP SECN???
You are also trying to insinuate that ESPN would not have syndicated ACC games if it wasn’t for Raycom.
Do not tell me what I am insuating when you still avoid answering the questions?
ARE YOU TELLING ME......THERE WAS NO OTHER MEDIA SPORTS COMPANY OUT THERE TO SYNDICATE ACC GAMES????
Sorry, I cannot buy that and you should not be selling it like Swofford sold ACC Rights to Raycom!
That’s false. ESPN was going to syndicate ACC games, even if it didn’t use Raycom.
NO IT IS NOT FALSE, YOU are Ball-Less again, this is your real problem and why look silly here. ESPN Executive as LINKED said this was the only way for ESPN to get All The Rights and Swofford told them they must sell some Rights RAYCOM! You are again running and hiding and the entire Board can see it! Even Raycom has said publicly this saved Raycom from going broke??? Need a link???
If you want me to answer questions, then ask me question. Don’t write a two-page editorial. Just make a specific list of all the questions you want to ask and I will answer them.
LOL, the question is right above in red and only 3 lines, now you are proving to be a Crybaby Eunuch, you still have not answered it? LOL!
Last edited:
Nope, I’m not. SMF said Raycom was not a syndication package. That’s incorrect. Raycom is a syndication package, just like SEC had syndication packages with Comcast and Fox. It’s not parsing words. Ownership and syndication are two completely different things.
And this is what you don’t understand. After ESPN acquired all the ACC’s rights, somebody was going to get the syndication package. If it hadn’t been Raycom, it would have been somebody else. So even if they had not asked ESPN to specifically use Raycom, ESPN would have simply picked another syndicator. The rights were going to be syndicated no matter what, and would still have to be repurchased no matter what.
No, that’s not what I said at all. Again, this is you putting words into my mouth. You can go back and read the actual post I wrote.
What I said was, it took the SEC 6 years to create the network. I did not say they were buying up rights all six years. You just added that part in yourself.
There is much more to creating a network that buying back rights. That is only one part of many other things that have to happen. So, during the 6 year period, ESPN/SEC were doing more things than buying back rights. They only started buying back rights later on in the 6 year period, after they had worked on other parts of the process, and determined that the network would be viable.
Actually, buying back rights only comes at the end of the process. You don’t start buying back rights until you have done research and determined that a network will be viable in the first place.
That doesn’t support your point. You specifically asked why the ACC was selling rights while the SEC was buying them. The ACC sold rights before the SEC ever started buying them back, not while. So therefore, your entire premise was wrong.
To your new point, just the mere fact that the SEC bought back rights later on does not support your point either. As I said, you don’t start buying back rights until you already decide to start a network. The SEC eventually bought back rights because they decided to start a network. The ACC hasn’t yet decided to start a network, so they won’t buy back rights until the make that decision. It’s pretty cut and dried.
I understand that. The problem is you don’t understand what I’m saying. Those rights that went to Raycom and Fox, somebody was going to get them anyway. ESPN would have just syndicated with someone else if the ACC had not requested Raycom. What I’m telling you is that just because the ACC requested Raycom, it did not mean the ACC would have extra rights now. The rights would still have to be bought back either way.
Nope, I don’t accept it, because it’s not true. The SEC wasn’t buying back rights when the ACC made the deal, you are factually wrong. No “agree to disagree” about it.
Right, that’s the point I’ve been making, so why are you arguing with me?
The ACC chose Raycom because Raycom had the largest syndication distribution.
Raycom only had two leagues: the SEC and ACC. The SEC left because they signed with ESPN, which was the beginnings of starting the network.
For the last time, the SEC wasn’t buying back rights when this happened.
I never said there was no other company to syndicate games. Yet again, for about the 4th or 5th time, you are putting words into my mouth.
Stop twisting around what I say, and stick to what I actually write.
I keep telling you this, and you don’t listen. ESPN was going to syndicate ACC games no matter what. You even said yourself “ALL CONFERENCES” syndicate games. You just said it in your last post, and I quoted it earlier. That’s an important point. Here’s why.
When the ACC signed with ESPN, somebody was going to get the syndication games. It doesn’t matter if it was Raycom, Comcast, or Fox. Somebody was going to get those syndication rights. The only thing the ACC did was to ask that ESPN use Raycom instead of Comcast or Fox. etc.
The ACC doesn’t get paid for syndication. So ESPN using Comcast instead of Raycom would not have made the ACC any more money. And, ESPN would still have to buy back those rights to start a network, no matter what. The ACC didn’t lose any money by using Raycom. The ACC didn’t give away any rights by using Raycom.
Again, you keep missing my point. The syndication rights that were sold to Raycom would have been sold to somebody. You are making a big deal about the ACC requesting Raycom. That still would not change the fact that the games would have been syndicated anyway, and the rights would still have to be repurchased anyway.
Well, there weren't actually broke. They would have been, if they lost the ACC.
Raycom had SEC games and ACC games. The SEC left for ESPN in 2008. ESPN outbid Raycom for the SEC in 2008. Why was that? Because ESPN wanted to lock in the SEC for a network.
Here's the thing, and it goes back to the argument I had with SMF. Back in 2008, Raycom straight out owned both SEC and ACC games. There was no "sublicensing" or "syndicating." Raycom straight out owned games from both conferences. The SEC left Raycom in 2008, and ESPN chose to syndicate SEC games with Comcast and Fox. Thus, Raycom had no more SEC games.
Now, here's the interesting little point. The ACC actually left Raycom in 2010 as well. The ACC sold the games that were previously owned Raycom to ESPN. So now ESPN had outright ownership of those games. What the ACC asked ESPN to do was syndicate games with Raycom. That's different than outright ownership.
The ACC really did the same thing as the SEC. Both leagues left Raycom. The ACC just got ESPN to use Raycom as a syndicator. The SEC just let ESPN syndicate with whomever.
Topdecktiger said, Well, there weren't actually broke. They would have been, if they lost the ACC.
Ok, I accept that and that is fair!
Raycom had SEC games and ACC games. The SEC left for ESPN in 2008. ESPN outbid Raycom for the SEC in 2008. Why was that? Because ESPN wanted to lock in the SEC for a network.
Ok, agree with again!
Here's the thing, and it goes back to the argument I had with SMF. Back in 2008, Raycom straight out owned both SEC and ACC games. There was no "sublicensing" or "syndicating."
Ok, I have no dog in this fight, I complimented both of you, and to me it does not matter that much since back in 2008. Again, agree to not take sides. and you answered my question on this aspect. Term are important to define and that is fine that you both differ, and I respect both you.
Raycom straight out owned games from both conferences. The SEC left Raycom in 2008, and ESPN chose to syndicate SEC games with Comcast and Fox. Thus, Raycom had no more SEC games.
Again, thank you and answers are just fine with me!
Now, here's the interesting little point. The ACC actually left Raycom in 2010 as well.
Ok, I am with you with appreciation!
The ACC sold the games that were previously owned Raycom to ESPN. So now ESPN had outright ownership of those games. What the ACC asked ESPN to do was syndicate games with Raycom. That's different than outright ownership.
I understood this point you made and have no problem with it, but Swofford had a hand in it, and I can accept with you that t was not all Swofford but others on ACC Committee that approved it! It is a tad unfair by the ESPN Executive say it was Swofford, but he was just the spokeman and commissioners!
The ACC really did the same thing as the SEC. Both leagues left Raycom. The ACC just got ESPN to use Raycom as a syndicator. The SEC just let ESPN syndicate with whomever.
Thank you for those answers!!!
Question 1.
In your opinion, did SEC through ESPN choose better syndicator than ACC? (AND I UNDERSTAND IT IS YOUR WELL INFORMED OPINION SO NO RIGHT OR WRONG BUT YOUR JUDGMENT AND THAT IS FAIR TO ME, & I HAVE NO OPINION)
Question 2:
In your opinion, did ACC make the right call in choosing Raycom, same as above? (I HAVE AN OPINION BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKLE IT RIGHT!)
Ok, I accept that and that is fair!
Raycom had SEC games and ACC games. The SEC left for ESPN in 2008. ESPN outbid Raycom for the SEC in 2008. Why was that? Because ESPN wanted to lock in the SEC for a network.
Ok, agree with again!
Here's the thing, and it goes back to the argument I had with SMF. Back in 2008, Raycom straight out owned both SEC and ACC games. There was no "sublicensing" or "syndicating."
Ok, I have no dog in this fight, I complimented both of you, and to me it does not matter that much since back in 2008. Again, agree to not take sides. and you answered my question on this aspect. Term are important to define and that is fine that you both differ, and I respect both you.
Raycom straight out owned games from both conferences. The SEC left Raycom in 2008, and ESPN chose to syndicate SEC games with Comcast and Fox. Thus, Raycom had no more SEC games.
Again, thank you and answers are just fine with me!
Now, here's the interesting little point. The ACC actually left Raycom in 2010 as well.
Ok, I am with you with appreciation!
The ACC sold the games that were previously owned Raycom to ESPN. So now ESPN had outright ownership of those games. What the ACC asked ESPN to do was syndicate games with Raycom. That's different than outright ownership.
I understood this point you made and have no problem with it, but Swofford had a hand in it, and I can accept with you that t was not all Swofford but others on ACC Committee that approved it! It is a tad unfair by the ESPN Executive say it was Swofford, but he was just the spokeman and commissioners!
The ACC really did the same thing as the SEC. Both leagues left Raycom. The ACC just got ESPN to use Raycom as a syndicator. The SEC just let ESPN syndicate with whomever.
Thank you for those answers!!!
Question 1.
In your opinion, did SEC through ESPN choose better syndicator than ACC? (AND I UNDERSTAND IT IS YOUR WELL INFORMED OPINION SO NO RIGHT OR WRONG BUT YOUR JUDGMENT AND THAT IS FAIR TO ME, & I HAVE NO OPINION)
Question 2:
In your opinion, did ACC make the right call in choosing Raycom, same as above? (I HAVE AN OPINION BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKLE IT RIGHT!)
No. Here's why I say that. You have to be very specific here about what you are asking. If we are talking purely in terms of syndication, then Raycom was a better syndicator than Comcast or Fox. Raycom had a wider distribution platform than either Comcast or Fox. So in other words, ACC games were on more TV stations than SEC games. (Now keep in mind, that's only for syndicated games.)
What you also have to keep in mind, and this is very important, is that the conferences do not get paid for syndication. The SEC did not get paid for Comcast and Fox, just like the ACC doesn't get paid for Raycom and Fox. In the case of both the SEC and ACC, ESPN was the one who got the money from the syndicators.
That's the thing. Syndication isn't about making money for the conference. It's about distribution, i.e. how many stations you can get on. That's a completely different issue than forming a conference network, as I will explain below.
Again, if we are talking purely in terms of syndication, then yes Raycom was the right call. They got more distribution.
This is the ultimate problem. The real issue is Syndication vs. Conference Network. That's the real argument here. Raycom is nothing more that a subheading under the broader category of Syndication.
If you want to fault Swofford and Co., it's in this respect. Swofford and Co. did not realize how much money conference networks would make. At the time, they did not think conference networks would make much money, so they though it was a better idea to focus on exposure. In other words, they thought it was better to try to get on the most TV sets, rather than trying to get a network that charged a subscription fee.
In terms of exposure, they did get that, because Raycom's distribution package had more TV sets than the BTN. In other words, more people could watch ACC games then BTN games. However, what happened was that it turned out conference networks started bringing in more money then Swofford and Co. realized.
So in other words, the problem was not choosing Raycom. The problem was thinking syndication in general was better than a conference network. In terms of your argument, the ACC made the wrong choice as soon as they picked syndication over conference network. Even if they chose someone other than Raycom to syndicate with, that still was the wrong choice, because syndication itself was the wrong choice.
PART II FROM REPEAT PEAT!
Nope, I don’t accept it, because it’s not true. The SEC wasn’t buying back rights when the ACC made the deal, you are factually wrong. No “agree to disagree” about it.
Yeah, I agree to disagree again, and if SEC dumped Raycom in 2008 and started to pursue a SECN "using your words" and started to buy back their Rights somewhere between 2008 to 2013,and when they did set up SECN and made $31 Million, they made the right call in dumping Raycom and setting up SECN!
As opposed to ACC that sold their Rights To ESPN in 2o10, and chose not to pusue an ACCN and saved Raycom and still does not have an ACCN and when they want one, have to buyback Rights from Raycom!
Right, that’s the point I've been making, so why are you arguing with me?
Well, if I said it to you, this proof you missed it and thank you but you still missed my points that are factually correct below:
Once again, I said it above, the ACC saved Raycom 6 years ago and no ACCN so far! SEC dumps Raycom and has a SECN 6 Years later!
Factually correct in all aspects, so you quit arguing?
The ACC chose Raycom because Raycom had the largest syndication distribution.
My counter to that is SEC did not Care and dumped them, and when teh ACC chose them, Raycom was almost Broke using your own words!!
You keep refusing to say ACC saved Raycom in the process and ignored ACCN and I think that was a mistake and you can't refute it now?
Raycom only had two leagues: the SEC and ACC.
Repeat Repeat!
The SEC left because they signed with ESPN, which was the beginnings of starting the network.
So, they made the right call, and got $31 Million 6 years later and only growing every year? And ACC got what again with Raycom?
For the last time, the SEC wasn’t buying back rights when this happened.
For the 4h time, you argue over nothing, you can see what was posted, SEC made the right moves dumping Raycom and ACC did not make more saving Raycom???
I never said there was no other company to syndicate games. Yet again, for about the 4th or 5th time, you are putting words into my mouth.
Naw, as seen above you, you have repeated repeats!
Stop twisting around what I say, and stick to what I actually write.
Don't have to, you do a good job yourself running from the fact ACC saved Raycom and SEC got SECN!
I keep telling you this, and you don’t listen
Well, no you cabn see above you have just repeated over and over what is above on a points that is only on you! Drop it now, and accept ACC made a mistake and SEC did not!
ESPN was going to syndicate ACC games no matter what. You even said yourself “ALL CONFERENCES” syndicate games. You just said it in your last post, and I quoted it earlier. That’s an important point. Here’s why.
OH my G-d, there you go again. and that was a mistake choosing Raycom when SEC did not make that mistake is my point!
BLAH BLAH for your BLAH 5th time! Eunuch!
Nope, I don’t accept it, because it’s not true. The SEC wasn’t buying back rights when the ACC made the deal, you are factually wrong. No “agree to disagree” about it.
Yeah, I agree to disagree again, and if SEC dumped Raycom in 2008 and started to pursue a SECN "using your words" and started to buy back their Rights somewhere between 2008 to 2013,and when they did set up SECN and made $31 Million, they made the right call in dumping Raycom and setting up SECN!
As opposed to ACC that sold their Rights To ESPN in 2o10, and chose not to pusue an ACCN and saved Raycom and still does not have an ACCN and when they want one, have to buyback Rights from Raycom!
Right, that’s the point I've been making, so why are you arguing with me?
Well, if I said it to you, this proof you missed it and thank you but you still missed my points that are factually correct below:
Once again, I said it above, the ACC saved Raycom 6 years ago and no ACCN so far! SEC dumps Raycom and has a SECN 6 Years later!
Factually correct in all aspects, so you quit arguing?
The ACC chose Raycom because Raycom had the largest syndication distribution.
My counter to that is SEC did not Care and dumped them, and when teh ACC chose them, Raycom was almost Broke using your own words!!
You keep refusing to say ACC saved Raycom in the process and ignored ACCN and I think that was a mistake and you can't refute it now?
Raycom only had two leagues: the SEC and ACC.
Repeat Repeat!
The SEC left because they signed with ESPN, which was the beginnings of starting the network.
So, they made the right call, and got $31 Million 6 years later and only growing every year? And ACC got what again with Raycom?
For the last time, the SEC wasn’t buying back rights when this happened.
For the 4h time, you argue over nothing, you can see what was posted, SEC made the right moves dumping Raycom and ACC did not make more saving Raycom???
I never said there was no other company to syndicate games. Yet again, for about the 4th or 5th time, you are putting words into my mouth.
Naw, as seen above you, you have repeated repeats!
Stop twisting around what I say, and stick to what I actually write.
Don't have to, you do a good job yourself running from the fact ACC saved Raycom and SEC got SECN!
I keep telling you this, and you don’t listen
Well, no you cabn see above you have just repeated over and over what is above on a points that is only on you! Drop it now, and accept ACC made a mistake and SEC did not!
ESPN was going to syndicate ACC games no matter what. You even said yourself “ALL CONFERENCES” syndicate games. You just said it in your last post, and I quoted it earlier. That’s an important point. Here’s why.
OH my G-d, there you go again. and that was a mistake choosing Raycom when SEC did not make that mistake is my point!
BLAH BLAH for your BLAH 5th time! Eunuch!
I’m going to sum up my response using this quote, if this does not cover all aspects, then list those aspects you want to know in the next post.
This is the problem. You are setting up a false dichotomy. It was not a choice between ACCN or Raycom. Swofford and Co. had already decided against a network before Raycom was ever an issue. They asked ESPN to use Raycom after they ruled out a network. So, the error came before Raycom ever came into the picture.
Now let me clarify. I’m using the term “error” loosely. You are overlooking one key point. The ACC can’t start a network unless ESPN agrees to it. Would ESPN have started a network in 2010? Maybe, maybe not.
It’s not a sure thing that they would. BTN was the only conference network around in 2010, and it wasn’t making much money. ESPN was already working on the SECN, so the ACC still would have been on the backburner anyway. Plus, the ACC didn’t have New York and Pennsylvania in the conference in 2010. That’s a huge chunk of the footprint that would not have been included in the network, had ESPN even agreed to one at the time. Would ESPN start a network without those two big markets? Again, not an easy question to answer.
Well perhaps someday way far away. The BIG part of the country has negative growth rates in some cases.. its comprised of dying states like Nebraska and Iowa.. even Michigan and Wisconsin are seeing population stagnant growth. Most of the ACC is in higher growth areas.
Since Swofford has a great relationship with Raycom for helping them in their time of survival and his son works there, I can wait for his actions on the ACCN and Swofford is known to work quietly behind the scenes to make things happen.
