Next round of expansion

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

Part II Continued From Above:
What happened was, back in 2008, the SEC did something sort of similar to the Big 12. They kept all the Tier 3 rights for the individual schools, and signed the Tier 2 rights over to ESPN. The SEC didn't make a conscious decision to dump Raycom. What happened was, they just didn't request that ESPN use a specific syndicator, so ESPN chose to use Comcast and Fox instead of Raycom. So in other words, the SEC just let ESPN decide which syndicator to use, whereas the ACC specifically requested Raycom.
I disagree if you read why SEC dump Raycom. Still, I cannot agree in total at all, SEC dumped Raycom, Raycom admitted it, and SEC went with another Syndication even though still based in Charlotte. SE became a SEC-ESPN Network! ACC does not have one to date and I accept the reasons why, and Articles point out ACC liked Raycom and that could include the University Presidents as you said, even though it tugged at Swofford Heart?

The thing that you keep confusing is that you have this idea that the Raycom syndication package is somehow different from Comcast or Fox. It's not. It's the same thing. It would be like choosing between Coke, Pepsi, or Dr. Pepper. They are all soft drinks. It's just a different brand. The ACC said, "We want Pepsi," whereas the SEC said, "We don't care what kind. We just want a drink."
Woe, one correction, SEC says we won't drink with Raycom and ACC says we will...Big difference and what I have been saying! I understand what you are saying as well, but Raycom syndicates no SEC Games and if I am mistaken what SEC FB & BB games are they syndicating? Above shows my comments about SEC dumping Raycom, and ACC saving Raycom, and both show up in the Links.

My point still stands, why SEC-ESPN has Network without Raycom, and there is no ACC-ESPN Network, but the ACC has Raycom. If it is "Simple Economics" as another Fine Poster pointed out that SEC is far more valuable, then even taking that into account means there won't be an ACC-ESPN Network because they can't match B1G & SEC Ratings, Attendance, and Value?

I simply feel and it is my opinion, the ACC needs New Leadership both in Presidents and Commissioners that avoid some of the mistakes made by their Preisdents on Saving Raycom and making mistakes on Expansions that left off Rutgers and did not have GOR Rights to prevent Maryland from leaving, I still blame that on Swofford and having his son employed at Raycom is even more bad judgment.

Here another LINK to augment the discussion that adds to your own valuable information that educated me and where I agree with you without disagreeing. It agrees with many things you posted and you can challenge anything you choose and I welcome it, so we all learn from you on the Lair.

I also very much value, respect, and appreciate your postings and time.
Blog:
ACC Football Rx Prescription for ACC Football
ACCN vs SECN:Tears or Tiers?
The SEC has a cable network, the ACC would like one. Will it happen? Can it happen? Is it a matter of tears, or tiers?
Apples and Orangutans.
There are a lot of people (mostly SEC, Big Ten and Big XII fans) writing on the internet with the opinion that the ACC simply can't support a cable network during the all-important football season. They'll point to the Raycom TV broadcasts and claim that takes away too much content which is needed to launch a cable network... is that true?
The problem with comparing ACC vs SEC TV contracts is the tiers. The SEC contract specifies 12 to 15 tier 1 games for CBS, with the rest going to ESPN, which decides which games will go on tier 2 (ESPN) and which will go on tier 3 (SECN). Also, SEC games may not appear on ABC (even though it's owned by the same company as ESPN) due to an exclusivity clause with CBS. The ACC contract is different in that tier 1 rights belong to ABC/ESPN, which also owns the tier 3 rights, but tier 2 belongs to Raycom Sports (which subleases some of those rights to Fox for regional cable broadcasts).....
Of course, that leaves a huge discrepancy in Tier #3. While the SEC has 53 games leftover for its network, the ACC is left with a mere 14 games, which is clearly not enough. The obvious solution is to take some of those ESPN Tier 1 games and show them on a new ACC Network channel. Of course, that could create an inventory shortage for ESPN, I suppose, but then they do seem to have an awful lot of G5 games which are currently being relegated to ESPN3...

Home Games.
There's one more thing which fairly jumps out of the numbers above: the SEC had 6 more home games than the ACC last year. You might think this is because ACC teams are more willing to do home and home series, even if it means "only" 6 home games sometimes... but you'd be wrong: 95 home games divided by 14 teams equals 6.78 home games per team average (in other words, only 3 teams "settled" for 6 home games). Instead, it's the SEC buying an average of 7.21 home games (i.e. every team with 7 and 3 teams with 8 home games). Keep in mind that most of those "extra" home games are against undesirable opponents - P5 teams just won't agree to a "one and done".
LINK:
http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2015/07/accn-vs-secn-tears-or-tiers.html

History Of Raycom Link For All To Read:
LINK:
http://raycomsports.com/expanded-company-history/

 

[topdecktiger]

I disagree if you read why SEC dump Raycom. Still, I cannot agree in total at all, SEC dumped Raycom, Raycom admitted it, and SEC went with another Syndication even though still based in Charlotte. SE became a SEC-ESPN Network! ACC does not have one to date and I accept the reasons why, and Articles point out ACC liked Raycom and that could include the University Presidents as you said, even though it tugged at Swofford Heart?

You're jumping back and forth between the syndication and broadcast contracts like they are the same thing. If you are talking about syndication, then we have to stick with syndication. If you are talking about broadcasting, then we have to stick with broadcasting. If you are talking about the SEC dumping Raycom as a broadcaster, well the ACC did that also.

Until 2008 the SEC had a broadcast contract with Raycom. This was a direct contract with Raycom to broadcast SEC games. Nobody else was involved. No ESPN, CBS, NBC, or Fox. This was a contract strictly between Raycom and the SEC. In 2008, that contract ran out. The SEC didn't renew the contract, and sold those rights to ESPN instead. ESPN then signed a syndication package with Comcast for SEC games.

Now for the ACC. Until 2010 the ACC had a broadcast contract with Raycom. This was a direct contract with Raycom to broadcast ACC games. Nobody else was involved. No ESPN, CBS, NBC, or Fox. This was a contract strictly between Raycom and the ACC. In 2010, that contract ran out. The ACC didn't renew the contract, and sold those rights to ESPN instead. ESPN then signed a syndication package with Raycom for ACC games.

Woe, one correction, SEC says we won't drink with Raycom and ACC says we will...Big difference and what I have been saying! I understand what you are saying as well, but Raycom syndicates no SEC Games and if I am mistaken what SEC FB & BB games are they syndicating? Above shows my comments about SEC dumping Raycom, and ACC saving Raycom, and both show up in the Links.

My point still stands, why SEC-ESPN has Network without Raycom, and there is no ACC-ESPN Network, but the ACC has Raycom. If it is "Simple Economics" as another Fine Poster pointed out that SEC is far more valuable, then even taking that into account means there won't be an ACC-ESPN Network because they can't match B1G & SEC Ratings, Attendance, and Value?

I simply feel and it is my opinion, the ACC needs New Leadership both in Presidents and Commissioners that avoid some of the mistakes made by their Preisdents on Saving Raycom and making mistakes on Expansions that left off Rutgers and did not have GOR Rights to prevent Maryland from leaving, I still blame that on Swofford and having his son employed at Raycom is even more bad judgment.

You are right that Raycom doesn't syndicate any SEC game. You are misinterpreting this however. As of 2014, no SEC games are syndicated because of the SEC Network. However, what you have to understand is that from 2008-2013, SEC games WERE syndicated. ESPN had a contract with Comcast to syndicate SEC games. ESPN had to repurchase that syndication contract from Comcast to start the SEC Network.

Now compare that with the ACC. From 2010- present, ACC games are syndicated. ESPN has a contract with Raycom to syndicate ACC games. ESPN will have to repurchase that syndication contract from Raycom to start an ACC Network.

----------

If you notice, these paragraphs I wrote about the ACC vs. the SEC are exactly the same. The only difference is that the word "Comcast" has been substituted for "Raycom." That's what I'm trying to explain to you. You have this idea that Raycom is hindering the ACC from starting a network. This is false. Raycom does not present any hindrance to the ACC starting a network. If the ACC had not requested ESPN use Raycom, then Comcast would have the ACC's syndication package, and ESPN would still have to repurchase it to start an ACC Network. Having a syndication package simply is not was is preventing the ACC from having a network.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

You're jumping back and forth between the syndication and broadcast contracts like they are the same thing. If you are talking about syndication, then we have to stick with syndication. If you are talking about broadcasting, then we have to stick with broadcasting. If you are talking about the SEC dumping Raycom as a broadcaster, well the ACC did that also.

Until 2008 the SEC had a broadcast contract with Raycom. This was a direct contract with Raycom to broadcast SEC games. Nobody else was involved. No ESPN, CBS, NBC, or Fox. This was a contract strictly between Raycom and the SEC. In 2008, that contract ran out. The SEC didn't renew the contract, and sold those rights to ESPN instead. ESPN then signed a syndication package with Comcast for SEC games.

Now for the ACC. Until 2010 the ACC had a broadcast contract with Raycom. This was a direct contract with Raycom to broadcast ACC games. Nobody else was involved. No ESPN, CBS, NBC, or Fox. This was a contract strictly between Raycom and the ACC. In 2010, that contract ran out. The ACC didn't renew the contract, and sold those rights to ESPN instead. ESPN then signed a syndication package with Raycom for ACC games.



You are right that Raycom doesn't syndicate any SEC game. You are misinterpreting this however. As of 2014, no SEC games are syndicated because of the SEC Network. However, what you have to understand is that from 2008-2013, SEC games WERE syndicated. ESPN had a contract with Comcast to syndicate SEC games. ESPN had to repurchase that syndication contract from Comcast to start the SEC Network.

Now compare that with the ACC. From 2010- present, ACC games are syndicated. ESPN has a contract with Raycom to syndicate ACC games. ESPN will have to repurchase that syndication contract from Raycom to start an ACC Network.

----------

If you notice, these paragraphs I wrote about the ACC vs. the SEC are exactly the same. The only difference is that the word "Comcast" has been substituted for "Raycom." That's what I'm trying to explain to you. You have this idea that Raycom is hindering the ACC from starting a network. This is false. Raycom does not present any hindrance to the ACC starting a network. If the ACC had not requested ESPN use Raycom, then Comcast would have the ACC's syndication package, and ESPN would still have to repurchase it to start an ACC Network. Having a syndication package simply is not was is preventing the ACC from having a network.

Not jumping at all, just putting up Links that add to your arguments and point out SEC did dump Raycom while ACC saved them. If the Links upset you, then put up where Raycom is still with SEC and ACC has a Network with ESPN?

Even the Raycom article talks about being replaced as a Syndication for SEC!

Put up the Article Link that Raycom is still with SEC? I don't mind being wrong, but prove it with a one line link!

 

[topdecktiger]

Not jumping at all, just putting up Links that add to your arguments and point out SEC did dump Raycom while ACC saved them. If the Links upset you, then put up where Raycom is still with SEC and ACC has a Network with ESPN?

Even the Raycom article talks about being replaced as a Syndication for SEC!

Put up the Article Link that Raycom is still with SEC? I don't mind being wrong, but prove it with a one line link!

I didn't say Raycom is still with the SEC. You are misinterpreting what I am saying.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I didn't say Raycom is still with the SEC. You are misinterpreting what I am saying.

At some point in time you need to realize who you are dealing with and move on.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

Joe the Panther Fan, post: 1280670, member: 278"]At some point in time you need to realize who you are dealing with and move on.
I agree, you should move on, have you left the nursery to come to irritate the adults that talk football content? LOL!

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

I didn't say Raycom is still with the SEC. You are misinterpreting what I am saying.

CITATION IN EARLIER POSTS & MY RESPONSE:
To get to your other point about why the SEC dumped Raycom, they didn't.
topdecktiger, Yesterday at 8:22 PM

"topdecktiger, post: 1279950, member: 3806"]
To get to your other point about why the SEC dumped Raycom, they didn't.
CaptainSidneyReilly, Yesterday at 10:47 PM
Hmmmnnnnn, even Raycom CEO Haines said once SEC dumped them the ACC saved Raycom? Deal with it not me this contradicts your assumptions even with what I accepted and thanked you![/QUOTE]

Once again, you did say it, posted above in RED?
1. SEC did dump Raycom!
2. ACC had ESPN keep Raycom!!

1A. SEC-ESPN Network exist with No Raycom unless you can show me a Link they did not dump or did rehire Raycom???? I am open to admitting my mistakes.

2A. ACC-ESPN has no Network but Raycom has Syndication Rights and said ACC saved them!

1B. All you comments about Syndication rights were understood but it is still my opinion, if SEC Commissioner and University were smart enough to dump Raycom and form a SEC-ESPN Network even with Comcast, Fox, and are making great money today, and did not need Raycom at all, so be it!

2B. Too bad the ACC Presidents & Raycom friends and Son tugged to Swofford's Heart and told ESPN if you want an ACC-ESPN Partnership give some Rights to Raycom and if you read the Links Raycom actually made more money by selling some of its ACC Rights to Fox?

Your Other Point:
"topdecktiger, post: 1279950, member: 3806"
What happened was, they just didn't request that ESPN use a specific syndicator, so ESPN chose to use Comcast and Fox instead of Raycom.
1C. So SEC with ESPN went with Comcast & Fox bigger more successful media companies, did they not, while dumping Raycom, or does Raycom owning any Rights within SEC? I see that as you saying "they didn't" dump Raycom just does not match your own words and certainly in the Links. This not my misinterpretation at all, as far as I see and read your own words? I see in the Links SEC called Raycom Haines and told them they are gone after the end of the contract and no renewals or Rights?

2C. ACC decided to tell ESPN to go with Raycom and Fox got some rights too and was that sold to Fox from Raycom? Why didn't the ACC just go with Comcast and Fox without Raycom? What added benefit did the ACC get saving Raycom?

My Conclusion:
Raycom is doing just fine now and making money and saved from going out of business, so be it, I consider the ACC saving Raycom instead of telling ESPN if you want a Full Partner then we want ACC-ESPN Network now, not later? Or the ACC should have chosen Comcast or Fox as a Partner over ESPN and dump Raycom like SEC did? This is just my opinion and does not make your own wrong.

But the ACC has no Network and is falling behind just like Big-12 and PAC-12 is looking to change or sell part of its Network to keep up with B1G and SEC. I still do not see any benefit in the ACC keeping and saving Raycom while SEC dumped them and ESPN was happy to do both? I realize the SEC is far more profitable and always will be than the ACC, and commend you showing it why they could have SEC-ESPN Network and make money right away once they bought up Third party Rights and then went with other syndication as well as CBS and other but not Raycom.

End of the Debate and just agree to disagree unless you can Link anything I just posted above that is wrong on SEC not dumping Raycom.

I don't mind if you differ in my opinion that I think the ACC made a mistake making ESPN giving Rights to Raycom to save a Company in trouble and it did not help using simple economics to know the ACC is still forming a Network.

When the ACC Network comes on Board, I'll agree with you, whether Raycom doe sit or ESPN or anyone or a different way to make more money that help keeps them nearer to B1G or SEC?

Based on what I read here looks like the ACC may just be waiting to be broken up since they can't compete with SEC & B1G. At least BIG-12 and PAC-12 are looking at changes to close that gap.

When you can add how the ACC can do it post it! I very much will appreciate and respect your info and knowledge. We know what you posted where the ACC& SEC have been in forming their Conferences & Media Properties, you a did a great job on informing us why too!

However, for the future what are you thoughts on what, when and how in your knowledge will the ACC be able to enhance its own value per school? I understand and agree with SEC & B1G will always be ahead for many reasons you outline and I agree, but how does the ACC advance to higher income per their schools, or do you think they are doomed to be absorbed?

Thanks in advance!

 

[chethejet]

Big Ten badly wants into the lucrative South East and Florida. ACC GOR is solid for another 10 years. But at some point the weaker teams in college football are vulnerable. think the Big Ten wants to share the money with Purdue, Rutgers, Minnesota, BB is not the cash cow it once was for the Dukes and other programs. Football is and that will be the final arbiter of the landscape. Cable will be different and not sure the subscription model holds up the next decade.

 

[topdecktiger]

CITATION IN EARLIER POSTS & MY RESPONSE:
To get to your other point about why the SEC dumped Raycom, they didn't.
topdecktiger, Yesterday at 8:22 PM

"topdecktiger, post: 1279950, member: 3806"]
To get to your other point about why the SEC dumped Raycom, they didn't.
CaptainSidneyReilly, Yesterday at 10:47 PM
Hmmmnnnnn, even Raycom CEO Haines said once SEC dumped them the ACC saved Raycom? Deal with it not me this contradicts your assumptions even with what I accepted and thanked you

Once again, you did say it, posted above in RED?
1. SEC did dump Raycom!
2. ACC had ESPN keep Raycom!!

1A. SEC-ESPN Network exist with No Raycom unless you can show me a Link they did not dump or did rehire Raycom???? I am open to admitting my mistakes.

2A. ACC-ESPN has no Network but Raycom has Syndication Rights and said ACC saved them!

1B. All you comments about Syndication rights were understood but it is still my opinion, if SEC Commissioner and University were smart enough to dump Raycom and form a SEC-ESPN Network even with Comcast, Fox, and are making great money today, and did not need Raycom at all, so be it!

2B. Too bad the ACC Presidents & Raycom friends and Son tugged to Swofford's Heart and told ESPN if you want an ACC-ESPN Partnership give some Rights to Raycom and if you read the Links Raycom actually made more money by selling some of its ACC Rights to Fox?

Your Other Point:
"topdecktiger, post: 1279950, member: 3806"
What happened was, they just didn't request that ESPN use a specific syndicator, so ESPN chose to use Comcast and Fox instead of Raycom.
1C. So SEC with ESPN went with Comcast & Fox bigger more successful media companies, did they not, while dumping Raycom, or does Raycom owning any Rights within SEC? I see that as you saying "they didn't" dump Raycom just does not match your own words and certainly in the Links. This not my misinterpretation at all, as far as I see and read your own words? I see in the Links SEC called Raycom Haines and told them they are gone after the end of the contract and no renewals or Rights?

2C. ACC decided to tell ESPN to go with Raycom and Fox got some rights too and was that sold to Fox from Raycom? Why didn't the ACC just go with Comcast and Fox without Raycom? What added benefit did the ACC get saving Raycom?

My Conclusion:
Raycom is doing just fine now and making money and saved from going out of business, so be it, I consider the ACC saving Raycom instead of telling ESPN if you want a Full Partner then we want ACC-ESPN Network now, not later? Or the ACC should have chosen Comcast or Fox as a Partner over ESPN and dump Raycom like SEC did? This is just my opinion and does not make your own wrong.

But the ACC has no Network and is falling behind just like Big-12 and PAC-12 is looking to change or sell part of its Network to keep up with B1G and SEC. I still do not see any benefit in the ACC keeping and saving Raycom while SEC dumped them and ESPN was happy to do both? I realize the SEC is far more profitable and always will be than the ACC, and commend you showing it why they could have SEC-ESPN Network and make money right away once they bought up Third party Rights and then went with other syndication as well as CBS and other but not Raycom.

End of the Debate and just agree to disagree unless you can Link anything I just posted above that is wrong on SEC not dumping Raycom.

I don't mind if you differ in my opinion that I think the ACC made a mistake making ESPN giving Rights to Raycom to save a Company in trouble and it did not help using simple economics to know the ACC is still forming a Network.

When the ACC Network comes on Board, I'll agree with you, whether Raycom doe sit or ESPN or anyone or a different way to make more money that help keeps them nearer to B1G or SEC?

Based on what I read here looks like the ACC may just be waiting to be broken up since they can't compete with SEC & B1G. At least BIG-12 and PAC-12 are looking at changes to close that gap.

When you can add how the ACC can do it post it! I very much will appreciate and respect your info and knowledge. We know what you posted where the ACC& SEC have been in forming their Conferences & Media Properties, you a did a great job on informing us why too!

However, for the future what are you thoughts on what, when and how in your knowledge will the ACC be able to enhance its own value per school? I understand and agree with SEC & B1G will always be ahead for many reasons you outline and I agree, but how does the ACC advance to higher income per their schools, or do you think they are doomed to be absorbed?

Thanks in advance!

I explained what I mean when I said the SEC "didn't dump" Raycom. What I meant was, the SEC did not drop Raycom as a syndicator. They simply let ESPN choose who was the syndicator. Your are correct when you say that the SEC dumped Raycom as a broadcast partner. However, you ignored the point I made that the ACC also dumped Raycom as a broadcast partner. It's not fair for you to leave out that part of what I said. When you only pick out my one comment about the SEC, but ignore what I said about the ACC, that completely changes the meaning of my statement. Again, not fair cherrypick one comment without the other.

To answer your question, the only way for the ACC to get more money is to start a conference network. That's up to ESPN. Whenever ESPN wants to start the network, it will happen. It's 100% ESPN's decision when/if the network starts.

You keep asking me questions, so I have a question for you. Explain how the situation would be any better by using Comcast.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I agree, you should move on, have you left the nursery to come to irritate the adults that talk football content? LOL!

Nope, I came to irritate the poster who has never had an original thought of his own and only knows what he can copy from others. And it appears that it worked.

Now run along and see if you can find someone else to copy in response.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

"topdecktiger, post: 1281126, member: 3806"]I explained what I mean when I said the SEC "didn't dump" Raycom. What I meant was, the SEC did not drop Raycom as a syndicator. They simply let ESPN choose who was the syndicator. Your are correct when you say that the SEC dumped Raycom as a broadcast partner.
I accept what you now explained as what I linked that was accurate and not my misinterpretation, and I thank you.Your words contradicted the Informative Links you did not read and that your own words.

Just to be clear from you, so Raycom is still a Syndicator of SEC Games?

Or did ESPN choose another Syndicator as I read in the Link?

I don't find anything "simple' when a Company will be bankrupt after SEC dumped them as a Broadcaster, just my opinion.

However, you ignored the point I made that the ACC also dumped Raycom as a broadcast partner.
OK, I can admit that error as you did above, but there is a difference and it would be good you answer the questions above for clarification in the Link.

I read in the LINK, the ACC told ESPN it would be good to make Raycom a Syndicator if ESPN wanted the ACC Partnership as a Broadcaster. I also read no where that SEC did that and made Raycom a Syndicator, if you can point it out fine, I'll admit a second error.

It's not fair for you to leave out that part of what I said. When you only pick out my one comment about the SEC,
I posted what was relevant and what you confused with your words saying "SEC Didn't' Well, it was your words that differed with the LINK I posted and you did admit above SEC dumped Raycom as a Broadcaster, it was your posts that was unclear on that as all can see? I am still waiting to see where Raycom was brought in as a SEC Syndicator too, because I raed they went with another company in the LINK, and it is OK if i am I am wrong. I'lla dmit it, but you need to show or prove Raycom is still a SEC Syndicator with a Link somewhere! I consider these corrections to the dialogue not being wrong but adding to the posts, so don't take offense.

but ignore what I said about the ACC, that completely changes the meaning of my statement. Again, not fair cherrypick one comment without the other.
I outlined by numbers my request for you to clarify your remarks. To Be Fair, well, it was your postings that were misinterpretations and unclear when you contradict your words in the same sentence and then say I misinterpreted them? Again, not a problem now that you admitted SEC did Dump Raycom as a Broadcaster!

I will wait for your link showing me SEC now has Raycom as a Syndicator that does explain where the confusion arose but need to see it from you.

Now regarding the ACC, I can accept you saying the ACC also dumped Raycom as a Broadcaster just like SEC did for ESPN, but the ACC told ESPN we could have a deal if Raycom is included as as a Syndicator and it was Raycom that actually helped ESPN what was going on as stated in the Link. I posted above Sections for you to respond to to avoid confusion but you ignored them?

I still stand by my opinion and can say until you show me otherwise and Please answer under my # Sections to keep thing clearer.
A. So SEC did these things:
1. SEC Dump Raycom as Broadcaster and went with ESPN and we both agree.

2. I also read Comcast, Fox became Syndicators for SEC and do you concur or did I get wrong?

3. However, I did not read anywhere where Raycom became a Syndicator for SEC, please cite where they did that in any link?

4. You do agree after SEC-ESPN set up the SEC-ESPN Network?

B. On the ACC same # Questions
1. The ACC Dumped Raycom as Broadcaster as you corrected me, we agree now!

2. The ACC Presidents or Swofford or both did tell ESPN they will be the ACC Broadcaster if they would choose to include Raycom as one of the ACC Syndicator and Fox bought those Rights from Raycom after given to them for Raycom to make a profit? this is w hat I read in the Link, do we agree?

3. So, ACC chose ESPN over other Broadcasters because because they included Raycom and the other Broadcaster did not, and ESPN became the ACC-ESPN Broadcaster do you agree?

4. Yet, there is no ACC-ESPN Network at this time, do you agree?

To answer your question, the only way for the ACC to get more money is to start a conference network. That's up to ESPN. Whenever ESPN wants to start the network, it will happen. It's 100% ESPN's decision when/if the network starts.
Thank you, just reinforces my opinion, the ACC did not need to save Raycom at all and SEC refused to do it!
I'll wait to see if you can show me SEC is using Raycom as a Syndicator AND AGAIN THANK YOU! GREAT POST!
(PART II BELOW)

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

(PART II FROM ABOVE)
"topdecktiger, post: 1281126, member: 3806"] You keep asking me questions, so I have a question for you. Explain how the situation would be any better by using Comcast.
Thank you and that is fair and good question;
My Answer:
I just think COMCAST being A Cable Network Provider would be just as effective as ESPN for the ACC Network and just bought Dreamworks. I would think they might why save Raycom and it was bad judgment to have ESPN be a partner that will decide when the ACC Network will happen.

B!G Broadcast Partner is Fox with B1G owning 51% to Fox 49%!
SEC Broadcast Partner is ESPN and have a SEC-ESPN Network!
ACC Broadcast partner is ESPN with No Network until ESPN says So?
PAC-12 Owns its PAC-12 Network and looking for a Partner now, lets hope it is not COMCAST?

AUGMENT MY ANSWER INFO:
Why didn't the ACC go with COMCAST that can put an ACC-COMCAST NETWORK in before SEC-ESPN and that way ACC never needed to save Raycom?

COMCAST WORTH:

Industry Telecommunications PUBLIC Mass media
Founded June 28, 1963; 52 years ago
Tupelo, Mississippi, United States
Founder Ralph J. Roberts, Daniel Aaron, Julian A. Brodsky
Headquarters Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States

Cable television, Broadband internet, VoIP phone, Home Security Systems, Television broadcasting, Motion pictures, Radio broadcasting, Sports franchising, Theme parks, Venture capital
Revenue

US$ 74.51 billion (2015)[4]

Operating income

US$ 16.00 billion (2015)[4]

Net income

US$ 8.16 billion (2015)[4]
Divisions Comcast Cable NBCUniversal
Website corporate.comcast.com
LINK:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast

Comcast Worth is $79.8 Billion
Location: Comcast Center (Philadelphia)
Products: '''Xfinity''', Broadcasting, radio
Industry: Telecommunications, Mass media
Revenue: {{increase US$ 55.842 billion (2011) Operating Income:
Num Employees: 126,000 (2011) Subsid: NBCUniversal (51% share in a joint venture with General Electric), Comcast-Spectacor (63%, remaining stock owned by chair Ed Snider)
Homepage:
LINK:
http://www.getnetworth.com/comcast-net-worth/

ESPN
The Walt Disney Studios (corporate headquarters).

Industry PUBLIC Mass media
Entertainment
Predecessors Laugh-O-Gram Studio
Founded October 16, 1923; 92 years ago
Los Angeles, California, United States[1]
Founders Walt Disney
Roy O. Disney
Headquarters 500 South Buena Vista Street,, Burbank, California, United States
Products Cable television, publishing, films, music, video games, theme parks, broadcasting, radio, web portals
Services Licensing
Revenue

US$52.46 billion (2015)[2]

LINK:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company
The Value of ESPN Surpasses $50 Billion
LINK:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbad...ue-of-espn-surpasses-50-billion/#570673cdb69b

RAYCOM NET WORTH:
PRIVATE EMPLOYEE OWNED COMPANY
employee-owned[1]
Industry Broadcast Television
Television Production
Founded 1992
Headquarters Montgomery, Alabama, U.S.

Area served
United States (Nationwide)

Key people
Paul McTear
(President & CEO)

Number of employees
4,200
Divisions Raycom Sports
Broadview Media
LINKS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raycom_Media

BLOOMBERG LINK:
http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=681777

TOO BAD THE ACC PRESIDENTS AND SWOFFORD WERE NOT SMART ENOUGH AS THE SEC PRESIDENTS AND COMMISSIONER: Saving Raycom still has not brought a ACC-ESPN Network? I think it explains why the ACC has no Network?

I like the Forbes Quote of the Day Raycom was not worth saving in my opinion and the ACC could have found better well heeled Syndicators that could have absorbed Raycom easily. I see nothing of value they brought to the ACC and the ESPN was happy to win the Broadcast Rights by doing what Swofford told them he wanted or the ACC Presidents as you say?

"Success comes from knowing what you don’t know, more than coming from what you do know."

Ray Dalio

Thank You "Topdecktiger and looking forward to reading you again.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

"Joe the Panther Fan, post: 1281183, member: 278"]Nope, I came to irritate the poster who has never had an original thought of his own and only knows what he can copy from others. And it appears that it worked.
Disagree, Little Joey, not even a good High School Rebuttal from you.

We all can see how you did not provide one original thought at all or even a post worthy of reading. Now the Adults are talking and time for your bedtime.

Now run along and see if you can find someone else to copy in response
Since you can't provide anything of value to the Topic you can go back to sucking your thumb and take your Blakey with you, until you can show you can contribute, to an adult conversation, show it don't blow it.

 

[OmarLittle]

i didn't read this entire thread, ill admit.

but its been clear as day for years the leftovers from the big 12 and acc will merge to form the 4th, so we will be in the weakest of the major conferences for a 3rd time. b1g/sec will take who they want.

unfortunately for us, the acc has many more desirable teams than the big 12 does.

big 12 has 2 guarantees, texas, oklahoma, and to a lesser extent kansas.
acc has 6+ unc, nc state (one to each of the big boys), vt and virginia (one to each), fsu, gt all guaranteed a spot.

even the leftovers acc has next in line miami, clemson, bc(market), louisville, duke compared to big 12 next in line...uh...iowa state or kansas state? no. texas tech, baylor, tcu, oklahoma state? probably not if a conference wanted to take a throw in to get texas/oklahoma the big 12 would already be dead.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

"OmarLittle, post: 1281408, member: 2796"]i didn't read this entire thread, ill admit. but its been clear as day for years the leftovers from the big 12 and acc will merge to form the 4th, so we will be in the weakest of the major conferences for a 3rd time. b1g/sec will take who they want.
This my point, the ACC has made some mistakes in Expansion and saving Raycom, in my opinion. Looks likes the ACC has to wait on ESPN when they have SEC-ESPN NETWORK, and they can offer any ACC School anytime!

unfortunately for us, the acc has many more desirable teams than the big 12 does.
I really appreciate what TopDeckTiger took the time to explain, but it still does not change my opinion, that the ACC can do better with New Leadership unless a Network is formed soon. It just confirm the ACC without increasing its TV Money is vulnerable.

big 12 has 2 guarantees, texas, oklahoma, and to a lesser extent kansas.
acc has 6+ unc, nc state (one to each of the big boys), vt and virginia (one to each), fsu, gt all guaranteed a spot.
Agree, the longer it takes, the more time SEC & B1G will grow, and the ACC even if it begins its Network today will take years to catch up and maybe they should expand now with Big-12 and protect both to form a bigger Network and with bigger Media Companies.

even the leftovers acc has next in line miami, clemson, bc(market), louisville, duke compared to big 12 next in line...uh...iowa state or kansas state? no. texas tech, baylor, tcu, oklahoma state? probably not if a conference wanted to take a throw in to get texas/oklahoma the big 12 would already be dead.
If the ACC & Big-12 agree to dissolve they end current contractual rights and reform into a bigger conference adding bigger schools with ND and that way find another Partner if ESPN cannot accommodate them.

The PAC-12 Network could join with COMCAST a new coast to coast CFB-COMCAST Network Consortium with ACC & Big-12. All 3 Conferences can create scheduling and Bowls Coast to Coast All Day Night Long with great match up. Even cut less games among B1G.

Close the Money Gap using such CFB National Network and avoid endangering their existence later? COMCAST just bought Dreamworks and there Cable Network is just as big as any even ESPN would have to negotiate with putting their SEC-ESPN Network on COMCAST and Fox too!

 

[Jpripper88]

Agreed... Cable TV views was 99% of the motivation behind recent conference shuffling, but that will be much different business a few years from now. Traditional expanded cable is quickly becoming a dinosaur technology with the emergence of streaming alternatives. To remain price competitive, it would seem cable and satellite companies will eventually be forced to FINALLY cave to the demand for pure a la carte pricing and abandon the required bundle pricing arrangements with channels that many subscribers do not care to own and certainly will not pay, if the option exists. These sports bundles are the lifeblood to the lucrative networks revenues for the conferences. In reality, a huge number of New York fans will not buy the BTN, if they can get YES and MSG cheaper individually without paying for a package that includes BTN.

Exclusive streaming is the new horizon for revenue that the ACC and others entering the network business must adopt into their strategies. Don't laugh, but the WWE has actually pioneered something that may become commonplace in broadcast sports for many years ahead. Their online network contains a combination of exclusive live streaming events (games) with an endless library of on-demand historical content that becomes very attractive to the core market fans and eliminates the profit cut taken by cable and satellite providers (or in their case PPV providers). A conference can make equal money on such a network with FAR fewer needed subscribers using this technology. Subscriber numbers have not yet been as lucrative as initially planned in the WWE, but the format and technology is now proven viable and transferable to other sports programming.

It will be very interesting with how quickly broadcast entertainment technology and habits are going to move in the years ahead.

The loss of the bundle would be awful for the true sports fan. Too many seem to be clueless they are the ones who benefit.

 

[topdecktiger]

I accept what you now explained as what I linked that was accurate and not my misinterpretation, and I thank you.Your words contradicted the Informative Links you did not read and that your own words.

Yes, it was your misinterpretation. I clearly explained my position. You just chose not to read it. I will demonstrate this as I answer your other question.

Just to be clear from you, so Raycom is still a Syndicator of SEC Games?

No, Raycom is not a syndicator of SEC games. Raycom never was a syndicator of SEC games. I never said Raycom is or was a syndicator of SEC games. Here is what I actually said:

The SEC didn't make a conscious decision to dump Raycom. What happened was, they just didn't request that ESPN use a specific syndicator, so ESPN chose to use Comcast and Fox instead of Raycom.

If you had read what I wrote, I clearly stated that ESPN used Comcast and Fox to syndicate SEC games, not Raycom. I clearly said that. So no, you can't claim that I was saying Raycom syndicated SEC games, because I clearly said that it was Comcast and Fox who were syndicating SEC games. It was 100% clear, and the evidence is there in print.

Or did ESPN choose another Syndicator as I read in the Link?

As I just said, I clearly said that ESPN chose another syndicator. I will again post the quote that proves what I said:

The SEC didn't make a conscious decision to dump Raycom. What happened was, they just didn't request that ESPN use a specific syndicator, so ESPN chose to use Comcast and Fox instead of Raycom.

Again, I clearly said ESPN chose another syndicator. You cannot claim otherwise, because it's posted on the board for everyone to see.

I will wait for your link showing me SEC now has Raycom as a Syndicator that does explain where the confusion arose but need to see it from you.

I never made that claim. I never said Raycom syndicates SEC games, so you can't keep claiming that.

A. So SEC did these things: 1. SEC Dump Raycom as Broadcaster and went with ESPN and we both agree


2. I also read Comcast, Fox became Syndicators for SEC and do you concur or did I get wrong?
I said that clearly in my first post on that issue. You cannot keep saying otherwise, because the post is still listed in the forum, and you can easily go back and see where I said Comcast and Fox were the syndicators.

3. However, I did not read anywhere where Raycom became a Syndicator for SEC, please cite where they did that in any link?

I never said that. You cannot keep putting words in my mouth. You cannot find any post where I wrote, "Raycom syndicated SEC games." You cannot find those words in post I wrote, so you cannot keep trying to put words in my mouth.
4. You do agree after SEC-ESPN set up the SEC-ESPN Network?

What do you mean by "after?" The SEC got a network 6 years after signing a contract with ESPN.

B. On the ACC same # Questions
1. The ACC Dumped Raycom as Broadcaster as you corrected me, we agree now!

2. The ACC Presidents or Swofford or both did tell ESPN they will be the ACC Broadcaster if they would choose to include Raycom as one of the ACC Syndicator and Fox bought those Rights from Raycom after given to them for Raycom to make a profit? this is w hat I read in the Link, do we agree?

Not exactly. When the ACC's rights were up for bid in 2010, both Fox and ESPN were making bids. The ACC told both parties in the initial stages that they wanted to use Raycom as a syndicator. In other words, the ACC told both ESPN and Fox, not only ESPN.

3. So, ACC chose ESPN over other Broadcasters because because they included Raycom and the other Broadcaster did not, and ESPN became the ACC-ESPN Broadcaster do you agree?

No. This is incorrect. Fox was also going to use Raycom as a syndicator. Fox made several bids on the ACC package back in 2010. In fact, Fox made a final bid the same week that ESPN won the contract. It is false that Fox did not agree to use Raycom as a syndicator. Fox was simply outbid by ESPN. Here is an excerpt from the article:

ESPN won the TV rights to ACC football and basketball in a bidding competition with Fox Sports that was surprisingly close, industry sources say, and as a result made the conference several million more dollars.

The back-and-forth bidding, which reached its final stages last week at the league’s spring meetings in Amelia Island, Fla., drove up ESPN’s rights fee from initial projections of about $120 million a year to $155 million, sources said, providing the ACC with more than double the revenue it was receiving from its previous football and basketball contracts.

ESPN’s increase was in response to an unexpectedly strong pursuit by Fox Sports and sources familiar with the negotiations say the bidding was neck-and-neck last week.

4. Yet, there is no ACC-ESPN Network at this time, do you agree?
Yes. This has nothing to do with Raycom.

Thank you, just reinforces my opinion, the ACC did not need to save Raycom at all and SEC refused to do it!
Raycom is not preventing the ACC from starting a network.

I'll wait to see if you can show me SEC is using Raycom as a Syndicator
I have never said the SEC is using Raycom as a syndicator, so stop accusing me of that.

I just think COMCAST being A Cable Network Provider would be just as effective as ESPN for the ACC Network

Two points:

#1. No, Comcast would not be as effective for the ACC network. You need someone to produce the network. You need studios, cameras, sound equipment, lighting, cameramen, soundmen, technicians, announcers, commentators, sideline reporters, etc. That's why ESPN and Fox are the only two companies currently producing conference networks. ESPN and Fox already have the equipment and personnel in place to produce games. Other companies would have to build all that from scratch. It's much more cost effective for companies like ESPN and Fox to start conference networks, hence the reason they are the only two to do it.

#2. Comcast wouldn't be able to do it anyway, because they don't have any rights to ACC games. ESPN owns all the rights to ACC games. (Remember, Raycom is just a syndicator. Essentially, they are just leasing games from ESPN for a fixed term.) That's the same reason the SEC had to go with ESPN to start a network, because ESPN owned most of the SEC's games. There was not enough content for the SEC to go with another partner. Comcast simply isn't in the college sports business. They don't own the rights to any of the conferences. They syndicate some games, but they don't directly own the games. You can't start a network that way.

I would think they might why save Raycom and it was bad judgment to have ESPN be a partner that will decide when the ACC Network will happen.

It was not a bad decision. You have to understand that you also have to have a regular broadcast contract. You can't have all of your games on a conference network. You need to have a regular contract with an established broadcaster, ESPN, Fox, CBS, etc. The ACC was going to have to sign with SOMEBODY. They were going to have to sign with ESPN, Fox, CBS, etc. just like all the other conferences have done. The ACC is not the only conference that had to wait on a broadcaster to start a network. The Big Ten had to wait on Fox to decide to start a network. The SEC had to wait on ESPN to start a network. (Remember, ESPN didn't start the SEC network for 6 years.)

Also, as the link I posted indicates, Comcast didn't even bid on the ACC's rights in the first place. The only choice the ACC had was either Fox or ESPN.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

"topdecktiger, post: 1282299, member: 3806"]Yes, it was your misinterpretation. I clearly explained my position. You just chose not to read it. I will demonstrate this as I answer your other question.
No problem, but don't split hair like you did before. In one sentence you said SEC didn't dump Raycom, but they did and more important the Links correct you too, calling Raycom Haines telling they won't renew. This is plainly seen the links posted to correct you and I did! You using the "SEC Didn't" and then saying SEC did dump Raycom as a Broadcaster are your words not mine??? Additionally, you just admitted SEC does not have Raycom doing Syndincation either and again in the Links I posted. Clearly, SEC DUMPED Raycom all together as was posted in the Links and my own words. Nothing you can say now changes that FACT and you caused the confusion, not me!

No, Raycom is not a syndicator of SEC games. Raycom never was a syndicator of SEC games. I never said Raycom is or was a syndicator of SEC games. Here is what I actually said:
If you had read what I wrote, I clearly stated that ESPN used Comcast and Fox to syndicate SEC games, not Raycom. I clearly said that. So no, you can't claim that I was saying Raycom syndicated SEC games, because I clearly said that it was Comcast and Fox who were syndicating SEC games. It was 100% clear, and the evidence is there in print.
Does it matter now????? SEC Dumped Raycom like I said, and all can see you said, "they didn't". Also, SEC has nothing to do with Raycom as you said above. So, my Statement SEC Dumped Raycom is accurate, anything else is irrelevant now.

As I just said, I clearly said that ESPN chose another syndicator. I will again post the quote that proves what I said:
Meaning SEC chose ESPN and in the Link Raycom CEO says SEC called him and told him on a Sunday Night, SEC will not renew Raycom. So, SEC by choosing ESPN still dumped Raycom!

Again, I clearly said ESPN chose another syndicator. You cannot claim otherwise, because it's posted on the board for everyone to see.
LOL, so ESPN Dumped RAYCOM? Choosing someone else to Syndicate means dumping in plain English when someone's Contract is not renewed. Additionally, it was SEC Commissioner that called Raycom and told him they would be renewed. When are you going to accept SEC chose ESPN and both DUMPED Raycom!

I never made that claim. I never said Raycom syndicates SEC games, so you can't keep claiming that.
Well, I asked you to clarify whether Raycom had anything to do with SEC at all just in case you got lost in your words again, because you think ESPN choosing other Syndication is not a Dumping Raycom? Everyone can see and it is in the Link too! Read It!

I am not going to change my words, SEC DUMPED RAYCOM! This is a FACT! I am made that claim, you kept trying to change it, and if SEC CHOOSES another Broadcaster that CHOOSES other Syndication and not Raycom. Raycom was in trouble by being DUMPED!
A. So SEC did these things: 1. SEC Dump Raycom as Broadcaster and went with ESPN and we both agree.
You have agreed above that Raycom has nothing to do with SEC anymore. Cannot be any clearer, Raycom was DUMPED by SEC! Accept It and Agree or Disagree, but won't change the FACTS SEC has nothing to do with Raycom! You admit that now and we both agree so be it!

My point as read in the Link Posted makes it more clear and still stands, SEC DUMPED Raycom and ACC told ESPN To Saved Raycom!

We can now move on to PART II since we both agree SEC and Raycom have nothing to do with others and that is Fact you agree with it.

PART II BELOW

 

[topdecktiger]

"topdecktiger, post: 1282299, member: 3806"]Yes, it was your misinterpretation. I clearly explained my position. You just chose not to read it. I will demonstrate this as I answer your other question.
No problem, but don't split hair like you did before. In one sentence you said SEC didn't dump Raycom, but they did and more important the Links correct you too, calling Raycom Haines telling they won't renew. This is plainly seen the links posted to correct you and I did! You using the "SEC Didn't" and then saying SEC did dump Raycom as a Broadcaster are your words not mine??? Additionally, you just admitted SEC does not have Raycom doing Syndincation either and again in the Links I posted. Clearly, SEC DUMPED Raycom all together as was posted in the Links and my own words. Nothing you can say now changes that FACT and you caused the confusion, not me!

No, Raycom is not a syndicator of SEC games. Raycom never was a syndicator of SEC games. I never said Raycom is or was a syndicator of SEC games. Here is what I actually said:
If you had read what I wrote, I clearly stated that ESPN used Comcast and Fox to syndicate SEC games, not Raycom. I clearly said that. So no, you can't claim that I was saying Raycom syndicated SEC games, because I clearly said that it was Comcast and Fox who were syndicating SEC games. It was 100% clear, and the evidence is there in print.
Does it matter now????? SEC Dumped Raycom like I said, and all can see you said, "they didn't". Also, SEC has nothing to do with Raycom as you said above. So, my Statement SEC Dumped Raycom is accurate, anything else is irrelevant now.

As I just said, I clearly said that ESPN chose another syndicator. I will again post the quote that proves what I said:
Meaning SEC chose ESPN and in the Link Raycom CEO says SEC called him and told him on a Sunday Night, SEC will not renew Raycom. So, SEC by choosing ESPN still dumped Raycom!

Again, I clearly said ESPN chose another syndicator. You cannot claim otherwise, because it's posted on the board for everyone to see.
LOL, so ESPN Dumped RAYCOM? Choosing someone else to Syndicate means dumping in plain English when someone's Contract is not renewed. Additionally, it was SEC Commissioner that called Raycom and told him they would be renewed. When are you going to accept SEC chose ESPN and both DUMPED Raycom!

I never made that claim. I never said Raycom syndicates SEC games, so you can't keep claiming that.
Well, I asked you to clarify whether Raycom had anything to do with SEC at all just in case you got lost in your words again, because you think ESPN choosing other Syndication is not a Dumping Raycom? Everyone can see and it is in the Link too! Read It!

I am not going to change my words, SEC DUMPED RAYCOM! This is a FACT! I am made that claim, you kept trying to change it, and if SEC CHOOSES another Broadcaster that CHOOSES other Syndication and not Raycom. Raycom was in trouble by being DUMPED!
A. So SEC did these things: 1. SEC Dump Raycom as Broadcaster and went with ESPN and we both agree.
You have agreed above that Raycom has nothing to do with SEC anymore. Cannot be any clearer, Raycom was DUMPED by SEC! Accept It and Agree or Disagree, but won't change the FACTS SEC has nothing to do with Raycom! You admit that now and we both agree so be it!

My point as read in the Link Posted makes it more clear and still stands, SEC DUMPED Raycom and ACC told ESPN To Saved Raycom!

We can now move on to PART II since we both agree SEC and Raycom have nothing to do with others and that is Fact you agree with it.

PART II BELOW

You are the one at fault here. It's because you don't understand the difference between a broadcast contract and a syndication contract. The SEC decided to dump Raycom as a broadcaster. ESPN is the one who decided not to use Raycom as a syndicator.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

PART II: Now Onto The ACC Saving Raycom As In The Links:
"topdecktiger, post: 1282299, member: 3806"]
2. I also read Comcast, Fox became Syndicators for SEC and do you concur or did I get wrong?
I said that clearly in my first post on that issue. You cannot keep saying otherwise, because the post is still listed in the forum, and you can easily go back and see where I said Comcast and Fox were the syndicators.
I agree with you before and you now concur again. I agreed and thanked you for saying it and accepted you were correct but that meant Raycom was dumped when ESPN chose COMCAST & Fox and SEC Commish warned them No renewals, is just as clear! We can move on again because we agree!

3. However, I did not read anywhere where Raycom became a Syndicator for SEC, please cite where they did that in any link?
I never said that. You cannot keep putting words in my mouth. You cannot find any post where I wrote, "Raycom syndicated SEC games." You cannot find those words in post I wrote, so you cannot keep trying to put words in my mouth.
It was a question not an accusation.....OK, just making sure and nailing you down when "SEC didn't" phrase and you did admit SEC dumped Raycom as a Broadcaster so, now SEC does not have Raycom as a Broadcaster or Syndicator, so we can move on and accept that Fact! It is no longer important what you or I said anymore, SEC and Raycom don't have a relationship anymore since they were DUMPED or SEC-ESPN CHOSE. We both agree!

4. You do agree after SEC-ESPN set up the SEC-ESPN Network?
What do you mean by "after?" The SEC got a network 6 years after signing a contract with ESPN.
Good enough again, just making sure if SEC chose ESPN and told Raycom won't be renewed, so SEC & ESPN did work the next few years to set up the SEC-ESPN NETWORK.

All I wanted to say is that once SEC chose ESPN and ESPN chose others to syndicate and Raycom nowhere in relevant with SEC-ESPN, they formed a Network. I know you agree and and your prior posts were very informative and thanked you many times above for you taking the time to post it. That's all and why I asked you make sure you agree.

PART II Below:

 

[topdecktiger]

PART II: Now Onto The ACC Saving Raycom As In The Links:
"topdecktiger, post: 1282299, member: 3806"]
2. I also read Comcast, Fox became Syndicators for SEC and do you concur or did I get wrong?
I said that clearly in my first post on that issue. You cannot keep saying otherwise, because the post is still listed in the forum, and you can easily go back and see where I said Comcast and Fox were the syndicators.
I agree with you before and you now concur again. I agreed and thanked you for saying it and accepted you were correct but that meant Raycom was dumped when ESPN chose COMCAST & Fox and SEC Commish warned them No renewals, is just as clear! We can move on again because we agree!

3. However, I did not read anywhere where Raycom became a Syndicator for SEC, please cite where they did that in any link?
I never said that. You cannot keep putting words in my mouth. You cannot find any post where I wrote, "Raycom syndicated SEC games." You cannot find those words in post I wrote, so you cannot keep trying to put words in my mouth.
It was a question not an accusation.....OK, just making sure and nailing you down when "SEC didn't" phrase and you did admit SEC dumped Raycom as a Broadcaster so, now SEC does not have Raycom as a Broadcaster or Syndicator, so we can move on and accept that Fact! It is no longer important what you or I said anymore, SEC and Raycom don't have a relationship anymore since they were DUMPED or SEC-ESPN CHOSE. We both agree!

4. You do agree after SEC-ESPN set up the SEC-ESPN Network?
What do you mean by "after?" The SEC got a network 6 years after signing a contract with ESPN.
Good enough again, just making sure if SEC chose ESPN and told Raycom won't be renewed, so SEC & ESPN did work the next few years to set up the SEC-ESPN NETWORK.

All I wanted to say is that once SEC chose ESPN and ESPN chose others to syndicate and Raycom nowhere in relevant with SEC-ESPN, they formed a Network. I know you agree and and your prior posts were very informative and thanked you many times above for you taking the time to post it. That's all and why I asked you make sure you agree.

PART II Below:

Here's my main point in all of this. After the SEC signed the contract with ESPN in 2008, the SEC would not have objected if ESPN used Raycom as a syndicator.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

"topdecktiger, post: 1286310, member: 3806"]You are the one at fault here. It's because you don't understand the difference between a broadcast contract and a syndication contract. The SEC decided to dump Raycom as a broadcaster. ESPN is the one who decided not to use Raycom as a syndicator.
Well, I thanked you on making that clear and why I had to asked you specific questions, so you could make it clear, and we could agree. You answered by questions above. All can see I was asking why all my description SEC "Dumping" Raycom! "they didn't" were your words not mine. Youe xplained the difference and were thanked by me, but Raycom was still dumped by SEC and not CHOSEN by ESPN! As in the LINKS, Calling Raycom CEO on Sunday Night and telling him his Raycom Contract will not be renewed, and SEC is CHOOSING another Broadcaster, and when ESPN took over Raycom was not chosen or DUMPED still stands too! It is no longer important anymore we both agree SEC-ESPN CHOSE to Dump Raycom!

I credit you plenty times but my point SEC-ESPN CHOSE & Dumped Raycom. ACC told ESPN if they want ACC-ESPN Broadcaster then save Raycom and give them Rights and ESPN did.

Both can seen in the LINKS, this does not make you wrong, SEC-ESPN minus Raycom, ACC-ESPN + Raycom are Facts!

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

Here's my main point in all of this. After the SEC signed the contract with ESPN in 2008, the SEC would not have objected if ESPN used Raycom as a syndicator.

Although that is speculation since we won't know for sure, but I defer and accept it from you, because you follow it far better than me.

In any event, the Facts are that SEC did not demand and ESPN did not CHOOSE Raycom! For whatever reason and I am not saying you are wrong either, but no facts to support that speculation.

Today, like you said, Raycom has nothing to do with SEC, so it does not matter!

SEC-ESPN took time bought up Rights and then like you said syndicated them to others and SEC-ESPN NETWORK born! The reason why it took years to create a SEC-ESPN Network and i can link it, is that they said they had to buyout Third Tier Rights and let ESPN redistribute them with SEC.

Yet, for whatever reason the ACC told ESPN if you want to win the ACC Broadcasting Contract for All Rights to be distributed by ESPN, the ACC would like you to consider Raycom in some way and they agreed!

Yet, no ACC-ESPN NETWORK so far?

The Link says Raycom says ACC saved them, for whatever reason SEC abandon them and did not ask ESPN to help or choose them! ACC-ESPN saved Raycom is still a fact too.

 

[topdecktiger]

Although that is speculation since we won't know for sure, but I defer and accept it from you, because you follow it far better than me.

In any event, the Facts are that SEC did not demand and ESPN did not CHOOSE Raycom! For whatever reason and I am not saying you are wrong either, but no facts to support that speculation.

Today, like you said, Raycom has nothing to do with SEC, so it does not matter!

SEC-ESPN took time bought up Rights and then like you said syndicated them to others and SEC-ESPN NETWORK born! The reason why it took years to create a SEC-ESPN Network and i can link it, is that they said they had to buyout Third Tier Rights and let ESPN redistribute them with SEC.

Yet, for whatever reason the ACC told ESPN if you want to win the ACC Broadcasting Contract for All Rights to be distributed by ESPN, the ACC would like you to consider Raycom in some way and they agreed!

Yet, no ACC-ESPN NETWORK so far?

The Link says Raycom says ACC saved them, for whatever reason SEC abandon them and did not ask ESPN to help or choose them! ACC-ESPN saved Raycom is still a fact too.

ESPN also had to buy back the SEC's syndication package from Comcast and Fox. You are correct that they also had to buy back Tier 3, but it wasn't only the Tier 3. The syndication package with Comcast and Fox also had to be repurchased as well. I bring that up to make the point that having a syndication package doesn't stop a conference from forming a network.

Anyway, this is the point I want to get to. You keep focusing on this Raycom business, so I'm going to ask a question of you. Explain how Raycom is preventing the ACC from forming a network.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

"topdecktiger
I apprecaite you time and will just close off my last questions.

PART III
"topdecktiger, post: 1286310, member: 3806" 97 topdecktiger, Monday at 1:18 PM
B. On the ACC same # Questions
1. The ACC Dumped Raycom as Broadcaster as you corrected me, we agree now!
2. The ACC Presidents or Swofford or both did tell ESPN they will be the ACC Broadcaster if they would choose to include Raycom as one of the ACC Syndicator and Fox bought those Rights from Raycom after given to them for Raycom to make a profit? this is w hat I read in the Link, do we agree?
Not exactly. When the AC
C's rights were up for bid in 2010, both Fox and ESPN were making bids. The ACC told both parties in the initial stages that they wanted to use Raycom as a syndicator. In other words, the ACC told both ESPN and Fox, not only ESPN.
Accept and thank you. I also accept when yous aid the ACC would have to give away those Rights later anyway. It is just my contention that I feel that was error by the ACC, and does not make me right either, just my opinion. Additionally, you have clearly and correctly pointed out the difference between ACC Valur and SEC Value.

3. So, ACC chose ESPN over other Broadcasters because because they included Raycom and the other Broadcaster did not, and ESPN became the ACC-ESPN Broadcaster do you agree?
No. This is incorrect. Fox was also going to use Raycom as a syndicator.
OK, thank you again and accept that fact and thank you.

Fox made several bids on the ACC package back in 2010. In fact, Fox made a final bid the same week that ESPN won the contract.
Yet, the other Link stated that Raycom kept ESPN fully informed throughout the bidding Process???? I can accept that was one Sport's Writer view and could be wrong too!

It is false that Fox did not agree to use Raycom as a syndicator. Fox was simply outbid by
ESPN.
Ok, again acceptable, but the Article Link leads the impression that ESPN got that edge by saying yes to Raycom and was in constant communications with Raycom during the Bidding, and i can accept that was a smart move by ESPN over Fox and won the contract by working with Raycom on it.

Here is an excerpt from the article:
ESPN won the TV rights to ACC football and basketball in a bidding competition with Fox Sports that was surprisingly close, industry sources say, and as a result made the conference several million more dollars.
Good thank you!

The back-and-forth bidding, which reached its final stages last week at the league’s spring meetings in Amelia Island, Fla., drove up ESPN’s rights fee from initial projections of about $120 million a year to $155 million, sources said, providing the ACC with more than double the revenue it was receiving from its previous football and basketball contracts. ESPN’s increase was in response to an unexpectedly strong pursuit by Fox Sports and sources familiar with the negotiations say the bidding was neck-and-neck last week.
Excellent and thank you again and Fox knew ESPN had a prior relationship with Raycom and like you say, looks like fox Bid up the contract just to make ESPN pay more, so again appreciate that clarification. Raycom kept both informed as well as the Link points out.

I see your points, the ACC would have just as much problems trusting FOX Partners with B1G as they do with SEC ESPN, and ESPN worked with Raycom before when formed in 1980s. Just feel the ACC made too many mistakes on Expansion and did not move as fast as B1G & SEC but that is just my opinion.


PART IV BELOW:

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

PART IV:
4. Yet, there is no ACC-ESPN Network at this time, do you agree?
Yes. This has nothing to do with Raycom.
I can accept that but the ACC did not keep Raycom in any way in my opinion but chose to do it, so be it. SEC did not save them the ACC did as company, but like you say many reasons for it.

Thank you, just reinforces my opinion, the ACC did not need to save Raycom at all and SEC refused to do it!
Raycom is not preventing the ACC from starting a network.
I know and you did add much to that scenario and I accept your info, but I still feel the SEC Presidents and Commissioner with their SEC Power of more being more valuable chose they did not need Raycom and neither did ESPN choose them, and just my opinion. The ACC clearly wanted them part of their Broadcast Deal and SEC did not care enough and still a Dump to me when SEC chose not choose them for anything.

I'll wait to see if you can show me SEC is using Raycom as a Syndicator
I have never said the SEC is using Raycom as a syndicator, so stop accusing me of that.
It is not accusation, it was a question for a clarification, and you provided that clarification and I thank you. It was compliment asking you too, I was wondering if the SEC did use Raycom on anything after you separated the Broadcast & Syndication Rights, and knew you would educate me on it and again thank you. When I posted "SEC DUMP RAYCOM" you disagree by saying they CHOSE ESPN and ESPN did not CHOSE Raycom for anything.

After I asked the specific questions. i see no difference in that regard. SEC choosing ESPN and ESPN Choosing to end a Business Relationship with Raycom is still a Dumping for whatever reason

However, the ACC Chose to save Raycom as stated by its CEO but like added the reasons why and thank you, but still do not agree that was great move, but that is just my opinion. There is an article up yesterday saying the ACC Meeting is this week and many ACC AD's are waiting for answers why no ACC Network. yet, after all the Links and your great posts i see the complications and thank you for making me look them up.

I just think COMCAST being A Cable Network Provider would be just as effective as ESPN for the ACC Network
Two points:
#1. No, Comcast would not be as effective for the ACC network. You need someone to produce the network. You need studios, cameras, sound equipment, lighting, cameramen, soundmen, technicians, announcers, commentators, sideline reporters, etc. That's why ESPN and Fox are the only two companies currently producing conference networks. ESPN and Fox already have the equipment and personnel in place to produce games. Other companies would have to build all that from scratch. It's much more cost effective for companies like ESPN and Fox to start conference networks, hence the reason they are the only two to do it.
Yes, the B1G still is paying Fox for some of that B1G NETWORK Start-Up Costs, and had less payouts levels per school, due to the reasons you outline above. Now they are doing even better since much of that Start-Up Costs are gone.

The SEC-ESPN NETWORK made First Year Profit for its Schools in its first year because of its valuable Rights and Viewership and both are far more valuable than ACC.

The PAC-12 learned that lesson and is now looking for a solution as posted in the Link I put up, and why ACC has to be cautious now.

#2. Comcast wouldn't be able to do it anyway, because they don't have any rights to ACC games. ESPN owns all the rights to ACC games. (Remember, Raycom is just a syndicator. Essentially, they are just leasing games from ESPN for a fixed term.) That's the same reason the SEC had to go with ESPN to start a network, because ESPN owned most of the SEC's games. There was not enough content for the SEC to go with another partner. Comcast simply isn't in the college sports business. They don't own the rights to any of the conferences. They syndicate some games, but they don't directly own the games. You can't start a network that way.
Agree, I read that too and thank you again and it makes it hard for the ACC even consider it now too, since they are not SEC. Due to your fine Info on that aspect too! However, they acquired Dreamworks and it is not impossible for them to set one up either but it has to make cost-benefit to do it too.

I would think they might why save Raycom and it was bad judgment to have ESPN be a partner that will decide when the ACC Network will happen.
It was not a bad decision. You have to understand that you also have to have a regular broadcast contract. You can't have all of your games on a conference network. You need to have a regular contract with an established broadcaster, ESPN, Fox, CBS, etc. The ACC was going to have to sign with SOMEBODY. They were going to have to sign with ESPN, Fox, CBS, etc. just like all the other conferences have done. The ACC is not the only conference that had to wait on a broadcaster to start a network.
I know and you added even more along with the Links and other Posters. Yet, leadership gets it done, like B1G-Fox & SEC-ESPN.

The Big Ten had to wait on Fox to decide to start a network.
Agree, and it was UNC Grad Delany that went out and did it when ESPN's CEO Executive laughed at him and told good luck trying. FOX moved in with B1G and did it, and ESPN went running to SEC to and SEC too, just to keep up with B1G! it tooks years and B1G got a jump and SEC is right there too now, and the other 3 are scrambling to keep up?


The SEC had to wait on ESPN to start a network. (Remember, ESPN didn't start the SEC network for 6 years.)
I agree again, and it was due to having to buy up rights and like you say organize a Network and they put int in Charlotte! Yet, SEC Commissioners and School Presidents made it a priority but like you said, they had the value within SEC to do it and it still took 6 years too, like you said?

In addition, now the ACC must wait on ESPN to decide when and how? As the PAC-12 is reorganizing and Big-12 is caught in its own messes.

Yet, BIG Delany told ESPN F_off we will do it without you and ESPN came back now looking for those Second Bunch of Syndication's Rights!

The SEC says welcome ESPN are you ready to work with us now ad build a Network with us.

The PAC-12 said, we don't need any "Stinkin Network, we will do it ourselves, and now Oops, we need a Partner or keep falling behind B1G-SEC?

The ACC is on bended knee now and not as valuable as B1G & SEC and does not want to make the mistakes of the PAC-12?

Big-12 has to deal with the LGH Network and expansion and both Biggest Programs are prey for B1G & SEC anytime sooner not later?

Also, as the link I posted indicates, Comcast didn't even bid on the ACC's rights in the first place. The only choice the ACC had was either Fox or ESPN.
I know and thank you and agree with all aspects on the right above remarks. COMCAST is now far bigger and now weighing the value of maybe joining in Sports or happy to keep thing as they are, and technology with FCC regulations are changing.

However, it is still my contention and it is hindsight that there was time the ACC should have considered merging with the Big East way back in 2003.

Whereby it was the Big East BB with ESPN way back in 1980s that grew the First Sports Network and changed College Sports and ACC-Raycom worked with them. Yet, Delany with brave and bold foresight was two steps ahead of everyone and everyone was reacting and SEC was powerful to play catch up.

Yet, the ACC Presidents like you say were difficult to work with and Expansion has gone good but not great and they could have done better, and now must can't stand by watch 18 of 28 $100Million+ FB Programs in B1G & SEC having gap that makes the other 3 Conference fodder for their expansion to make even more.

Hindsight is great but info like your own is better.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

"topdecktiger, post: 1286469, member: 3806"]ESPN also had to buy back the SEC's syndication package from Comcast and Fox. You are correct that they also had to buy back Tier 3, but it wasn't only the Tier 3. The syndication package with Comcast and Fox also had to be repurchased as well. .
I was always in agreement with you as deferring to your superior knowledge I no longer follow these aspects closely anymore. Why I am happy you post here and thank you.

I bring that up to make the point that having a syndication package doesn't stop a conference from forming a network.
No question you are correct sir! Yet, Big-12 and ACC are still prey and PAC-12 still needing a Partner that can pay them more, and that is the rub, along with Technology changes, Cable Box Regs & Changes, and it is hard for any school to turn down SEC or B1G when Maryland and Rutgers are just happy getting way more than they ever expected?

Anyway, this is the point I want to get to. You keep focusing on this Raycom business, so I'm going to ask a question of you. Explain how Raycom is preventing the ACC from forming a network.
Very fair question, 3 Combine Sections to answer it fairly too. It is not matter of answering it just in today's reality when it was yesterday's misjudgments by the ACC:

1. The SEC did end its relationship with Raycom and that was confirmed by Raycom, and ESPN did not choose Raycom for any reason to help them out either. I respect you think they would have, but it did not happen and still is a reality without Raycom. Consequently, SEC allow ESPN to not CHOOSE or DUMP are the same effects. SEC signed ESPN and went about setting up a Network that took time to buy out Rights and Syndication's sell Rights like you said. They went about forming a Network without Raycom and did not need them.

2. The ACC like you said ended Raycom as a Broadcaster, but was the Conference that did CHOOSE ESPN over FOX Bid with Raycom helps, to be ACC-ESPN Broadcast Partner. The ACC had an opportunity to have ESPN just form a Network right there and then, but chose to assign Syndication to Raycom that sold them to Fox. (If What I Read In Link Is Correct If Not Defer to You If In Error). The ACC wanted Raycom but no longer needed Raycom at that time.

3. I used my knowledge from Article and Links that were critical of Swofford and his relationship with Raycom and of course the Conflict of Interests of his Son. This was just poor judgment by Swofford, his son was capable of being a good Executive any Media, in my opinion. But like you say, the ACC Presidents were obstacle as well wanting Raycom. The mistake Swofford or as you say the ACC Presidents made way back when they signed with ESPN were no GOR Rights and the Exit Penalty was not enough and lost Maryland as well as not including Rutgers in Second Expansion. B1G & SEC Expansions were smarter and better than ACC.

Consequently, if SEC did not need Raycom with knowing as a Broadcaster Partner was too small to bid what ESPN and FOX could do to start up a Network. Now if any Network does come Raycom is doing better than it did and has to be bought out or be part of new Network and they did sell Rights to Fox that has to be bought out too. The ACC would have done just fine without Raycom just like SEC did.

In my opinion, the ACC could be doing just as well if not better with ESPN being the Broadcaster and selling the Rights to Fox, ABC, CBS, and does not need Raycom at all. SEC did not need them and got a Network in like you said in 6 years. ESPN did not need Raycom and either. So, why save Raycom and added value to them that overtime will cost more to buy out because of them and allow them to see rights to Fox that need brought back if a Network is started?

Why save or allow a company that was going bankrupt anyway and no longer competitive and add value to them to spend more money to buy them out later? It is like the HP-Compaq Deal, the ACC could have bought up parts of Raycom and own their Rights now they have to wait buy them back, just another obstacle that was not needed for favoritism that SEC rejected.

To sum up, what value did Raycom bring to the ACC when SEC did not need from Raycom?
FORBES ARTICLE LINK:
The ACC ultimately signed away more rights than its competing conferences, and it did so for a smaller payout. The proposed changes to college football’s postseason are also expected to add even more pressure for conference realignment. The end of the ACC as we know it seems inevitable, and the conference has only itself to blame.
LINK:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissm...theyre-killing-the-conference/2/#222986713377

Thanks for all your time and enjoy your education and discussion.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

"Topdecktiger:
Here is a good synopsis of where the ACC is at right now. It shows how time has changed when Conference Networks were possible but now not looking good what to do based on how PAC-12 Network did not work out as expected and ESPN Retrenchment. It backs up much of what you posted as far as I am concern and again thank you.

I still stand by my position Raycom was not worth saving and Swofford made some slow and critical errors as he and the ACC Presidents took their focus off the Ball to create a Network when that was possible even before SEC. If Raycom can be part of a New Solution to create a ACC NETWORK then I will change my mind.

Still, does not mean the ACC Network be doing as good as B1G and SEC Networks after reading your Informative Posts. But Raycom was saved, ACC has fallen behind, and SEC & B1G can pounce anytime and ACC and Big-12 and Pac-12 have much work to do to close the gaps.

EXCERPT:
Speculating on the what an ACC Network could look like.
No ACC Network
The scenario no ACC fan wants to hear. Unfortunately this is not out of the question. You know ESPN low-balled the Big 10 in their recent rights deal, and has lost out to Fox for at least half of the Big 10 rights up for negotiation. How deep is ESPN hemorrhaging money? Respected media members like David Teel, Wes Durham, and Dennis Dodd have alluded that if a network doesn’t happen the ACC will get a rights increase.
Likelihood? – 10%

At the moment, absolutely no network of any kind is unlikely. Unless there’s some language in there we don’t know about, I can’t imagine a flat increase of $2-3 Million would go over all that well with ACC member schools. The increase would be nice, but where would be the growth potential be over time? Would it increase every few years? This just doesn’t seem like forward thinking, or maybe guaranteed money is the safest route?

ACC Network like the SEC Network
As I said, this was the expected model in the past. This is straight forward – New channel, get carriage at a certain rate with X number of subscribers and there you are right? Anybody checked on the Pac 12 Network recently? Pac 12 commissioner Larry Scott was hailed as a visionary a few years ago, and now there is a fair amount of frustration in the Pac 12 with his leadership. ESPN’s LonghornNetwork has been a bust. Is ESPN ready to fight more carriage battles with cable providers just a few years after after launching the SEC Network?
Likelihood? – 35%

The ACC does have a huge television footprint – from Miami to the Northeast as John Swofford likes to say. I just get the feeling the timing is wrong. ESPN has become more cost conscious, and while I think a pure ACC Network would succeed, it is not the slam-dunk the SEC Network was. Let’s face it, if not enough fans demand it you’ll end up like the Pac 12 Network. Scenarios like turning ESPNNews or ESPNU into an ACC Network are possible and could save some startup costs. The Speed Channel relaunched as Fox Sports 1 not to long ago.

States like Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina would be easy ACC Network carries. While Georgia Tech trails UGA in fans in Georgia remember there are tons of ACC Alumni (FSU, Clemson, UNC in the Atlanta metro area). Georgia would be an easy sell too, as would Kentucky. Conservatively pockets of the Northeast would carry the channel. I won’t close the book on this scenario completely.

The Hybrid ACC Network – streaming + TV
This is the model that’s gaining steam. Wes Durham has favored this model for a number of years, and there are some existing similar models. The WWE Network is subscriber based streaming network, that is starting to turn a profit having reached the break even number of subscribers of 1 Million a $9.99 at month. MLB.TV is also a possible model and maybe the likely platform model the ACC Network could follow. That service remains limited to out-of-market games for live coverage, with the ability to watch in-market games on replay. MLB’s deal with Fox reinforces the idea that if you want to watch your home team play, you’ll need a pay TV subscription.

Just substitute ESPN here for FOX. There’s even team specific packages. MLB TV had over 3 Million Subscribers. If the ACC could just get 500,000 full subscribers at $100 a year for a Digital Channel that’s $50,000,000.
Likelihood? – 55%

From Andy Staples of SI.com in a recent article he wrote on the future of media rights.
it seems more likely any ACC Network will be a multi-platform arrangement. This would better position it for a future in which everything will be streamed. Plus, the current ACC digital offerings created by a Chicago-based tech company called Silver Chalice are among the best in sports in terms of production value and ease of access. ESPN has a blueprint to follow if it chooses to go that direction.

I’m starting to lean in this direction. The pure conference channels won’t stop making money, but it may not make sense for the ACC join a saturated market of TV Channels. I like the idea of the ACC doing something first not fourth. Isn’t that the way the Big 10 network and the SEC Championship game started? Joe Ovies at WRALSports.com wrote a series of articles on watching sports without cable.

LINK:
http://allsportsdiscussion.com/2016/04/27/speculating-on-the-future-acc-networks-format/

 

[ricflair4LIFE]

Make it simple. Put 64 teams in a hat. Make four conferences of sixteen teams each. Tell every other school in the country that they are to drop fb.

There, that was simple.

 

[topdecktiger]

1. The SEC did end its relationship with Raycom and that was confirmed by Raycom, and ESPN did not choose Raycom for any reason to help them out either. I respect you think they would have, but it did not happen and still is a reality without Raycom. Consequently, SEC allow ESPN to not CHOOSE or DUMP are the same effects. SEC signed ESPN and went about setting up a Network that took time to buy out Rights and Syndication's sell Rights like you said. They went about forming a Network without Raycom and did not need them.

2. The ACC like you said ended Raycom as a Broadcaster, but was the Conference that did CHOOSE ESPN over FOX Bid with Raycom helps, to be ACC-ESPN Broadcast Partner. The ACC had an opportunity to have ESPN just form a Network right there and then, but chose to assign Syndication to Raycom that sold them to Fox. (If What I Read In Link Is Correct If Not Defer to You If In Error). The ACC wanted Raycom but no longer needed Raycom at that time.

Ok, here's what I'm getting at. You said:

ACC had an opportunity to have ESPN just form a Network right there and then, but chose to assign Syndication to Raycom

Here's the thing. The SEC didn't just have ESPN form a Network right then and there either. The SEC signed with ESPN in 2008, and then ESPN assigned Syndication to Comcast. I don't understand why you are criticizing the ACC, when the SEC did the same thing.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

topdecktiger, post: 1287051, member: 3806"]Ok, here's what I'm getting at. You said:

ACC had an opportunity to have ESPN just form a Network right there and then, but chose to assign Syndication to Raycom
Here's the thing. The SEC didn't just have ESPN form a Network right then and there either. The SEC signed with ESPN in 2008, and then ESPN assigned Syndication to Comcast. I don't understand why you are criticizing the ACC, when the SEC did the same thing.
SEC did not do the same thing, they DUMPED Raycom completely! ACC told ESPN to include Raycom in syndication!

I thank and agree with you on many aspects that made me ponder and reconsider my opinion on what happen and how, and I can't express my gratitude anymore than when I complimented you on all your great info in your posts and my response with Links Info that augmented your own versions. Now that it is 2016 and not 2008, clearly things have changed.

Yet, nothing you posted shows me how great SEC (SEC Commish & SEC Presidents)and ESPN was in Dumping Raycom (Or Your Words NOT CHOOSING) and not needing them even for syndication???? SEC-ESPN NETWORK handle it just fine without Raycom. Is the bottom line.

And

How stupid the ACC (Swofford or/and ACC Presidents), was in saving Raycom and having Raycom involved with ESPN & FOX Negotiations, and keeping Raycom from Bankruptcy when the ACC should have been focused on forming a ACC-ESPN NETWORK at the same time SEC was doing it????

I agree and knew SEC took longer to form a Network but I blame it on the ACC not doing it. Now that time has passed to do it before SEC got it done.

Just an opinion, and backed up with SEC-ESPN NETWORK making money for SEC Schools, and ACC-ESPN NETWORK not formed making no money but made sure Raycom got some the ACC-ESPN money!

Just my opinion and SEC got it done, ACC is still trying to figure it out with Raycom???

 

[topdecktiger]

You still have not explained the difference between syndicating with Comcast vs. syndicating with Raycom. You still have not shown how Raycom is preventing the ACC from forming a network.

From what you are posting, it sounds like you think Raycom prevented the ACC from getting a network before the SEC. This is false. The ACC was simply never going to get a network before the SEC. The SEC was always going to go first. The SEC has the best ratings in college football. ESPN is going to go with its strongest product first, which is the SEC. Even if the ACC had not requested Raycom in 2010, the ACC still would not have a network today, and the SEC still would have gone first.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

"topdecktiger, post: 1287108, member: 3806"]You still have not explained the difference between syndicating with Comcast vs. syndicating with Raycom.
Yes I did, SEC did not use a Small Raycom on verge of Bankruptcy in any part of forming their Network and like you posted not as a Broadcaster or Syndication Rights! SEC never told ESPN to use Raycom and Raycom was DUMPED and a SEC-ESPN NETWORK was formed and came on line later.

The ACC told ESPN they wanted to include Raycom for syndication if ESPN or FOX wanted the Deal to become ACC Broadcaster. ACC-ESPN NETWORK is not created but Raycom is still business.

Again, like you parse words between CHOSE NOT TO USE versus my DUMPING RAYCOM, what does it matter now that SEC-ESPN NETWORK uses other syndicators but Raycom is not one of them? Forbes also backs up ACC got less money and that is fact too.

Moreover, the ACC Schools are getting less money with Raycom included and that is a difference too.

You still have not shown how Raycom is preventing the ACC from forming a network.
Yes, I did I posted an additional Link that augments my argument that the ACC was worried about saving Raycom more than creating a Network unlike SEC did and ESPN did not need Raycom as a Syndicator and formed a Network.

As in the Links, Raycom went crying to the ACC and they told ESPN to include Raycom, but no ACC NETWORK today?

Since the ACC has no Network with Raycom and SEc has one without Raycom, what more proof do you need? When the ACC forms a Network prove to me Raycom helped them to do it? Until then, my opinion has more legs!

From what you are posting, it sounds like you think Raycom prevented the ACC from getting a network before the SEC. This is false.
Good now show me the ACC NETWORK???? Forbes Article refutes you too, and says ACC undercuts you until ACC gets a Network?

SEC has a NETWORK without Raycom is a reality and proof too!

The ACC was simply never going to get a network before the SEC.
Good opinion, but not factual, I contend SEC & ESPN made sure Raycom was DUMPED and never worried about that small $50 million dollar company going out business, and worked on getting a Network AND GOT ONE.

The SEC was always going to go first.
Well, I can agree except it was the ACC that told ESPn to include Raycom and never got a Network and you can't prove saving Raycom helped the ACC to get a Network either?

The SEC has the best ratings in college football.
Agree, but SEC never told ESPN to use Raycom at all and both CHOSE not to save Raycom is just as factual as those Ratings. You opinion, SEC would have done so if asked by SEC is just an opinion too. Never happen since SEc never told ESPN to use Raycom whatsoever in syndication!

ESPN is going to go with its strongest product first, which is the SEC.
No one doubts tat and agree but does not support the ACC asking ESPN to use Raycom either! ESPN was happy to follow ACC Requests as in the Links, but SEC never asked ESPN to keep Raycom.

Even if the ACC had not requested Raycom in 2010, the ACC still would not have a network today, and the SEC still would have gone first.
Woe, there is "NO IF ABOUT IT", you just confirmed that FACTS that the ACC does not have a NETWORK with Raycom and backs up my opinion, and SEC has a NETWORK without Raycom and that is FACT too, not an opinion you can refute with an "IF"?

 

[topdecktiger]

"topdecktiger, post: 1287108, member: 3806"]You still have not explained the difference between syndicating with Comcast vs. syndicating with Raycom.
Yes I did, SEC did not use a Small Raycom on verge of Bankruptcy in any part of forming their Network and like you posted not as a Broadcaster or Syndication Rights! SEC never told ESPN to use Raycom and Raycom was DUMPED and a SEC-ESPN NETWORK was formed and came on line later.

The ACC told ESPN they wanted to include Raycom for syndication if ESPN or FOX wanted the Deal to become ACC Broadcaster. ACC-ESPN NETWORK is not created but Raycom is still business.

Again, like you parse words between CHOSE NOT TO USE versus my DUMPING RAYCOM, what does it matter now that SEC-ESPN NETWORK uses other syndicators but Raycom is not one of them? Forbes also backs up ACC got less money and that is fact too.

Moreover, the ACC Schools are getting less money with Raycom included and that is a difference too.

You still have not shown how Raycom is preventing the ACC from forming a network.
Yes, I did I posted an additional Link that augments my argument that the ACC was worried about saving Raycom more than creating a Network unlike SEC did and ESPn did not need Raycom as a Syndicator and formed a Network.

As in the Links, Raycom went crying to the ACC and they told ESPN to include Raycom, but no ACC NETWORK today?

Since the ACC has no Network with Raycom and SEc has one without Raycom, what more proof do you need? When the ACC forms a Network prove to me Raycom helped them to do it? Until then, my opinion has more legs!

From what you are posting, it sounds like you think Raycom prevented the ACC from getting a network before the SEC. This is false.
Good now show me the ACC NETWORK???? Forbes Article refutes you too, and says ACC undercuts you until ACC gets a Network?

SEC has a NETWORK without Raycom is a reality and proof too!

The ACC was simply never going to get a network before the SEC.
Good opinion, but not factual, I contend SEC & ESPN made sure Raycom was DUMPED and never worried about that small $50 million dollar company going out business, and worked on getting a Network AND GOT ONE.

The SEC was always going to go first.
Well, I can agree except it was the ACC that told ESPn to include Raycom and never got a Network and you can't prove saving Raycom helped the ACC to get a Network either?

The SEC has the best ratings in college football.
Agree, but SEC never told ESPN to use Raycom at all and both CHOSE not to save Raycom is just as factual as those Ratings. You opinion, SEC would have done so if asked by SEC is just an opinion too. Never happen since SEc never told ESPN to use Raycom whatsoever in syndication!

ESPN is going to go with its strongest product first, which is the SEC.
No one doubts tat and agree but does not support the ACC asking ESPN to use Raycom either! ESPN was happy to follow ACC Requests as in the Links, but SEC never asked ESPN to keep Raycom.

Even if the ACC had not requested Raycom in 2010, the ACC still would not have a network today, and the SEC still would have gone first.
Woe, there is "NO IF ABOUT IT", you just confirmed that FACTS that the ACC does not have a NETWORK with Raycom and backs up my opinion, and SEC has a NETWORK without Raycom and that is FACT too, not an opinion you can refute with an "IF"?

No, you did not explain how Raycom is preventing the ACC from getting a network. From what I understand, you are saying that the ACC doesn't have a network because they decided instead to let ESPN syndicate with Raycom. Ok, well by that logic, the SEC should not have a network because they let ESPN syndicate with Comcast.

Just as Comcast didn't stop the SEC from getting a network, Raycom doesn't stop the ACC from getting a network.

So let me put it this way. Explain how the SEC was able to get a network, even though they syndicated with Comcast.

 

[NTOP]

Actually, yes, I think ND is going to be forced to. I think eventually , there will be 3 superconferences (B10, SEC, P12) in a new division of D1 football so no money has to be shared with the mid-majors. ND will have to join a league or be an Independent in a lower division with CUSA teams, Mountain West teams, etc.

The only way the ACC survives this is if Texas and ND prefer the ACC to the Big Ten. That saves the ACC and there would be 4 superconferences with what amounts to a 16 team tournament

Conference semifinals are Round of 16
Conference finals are Quarterfinals
4 Conference champs advance to Final 4

ACC North
ND
BC
Syr
Pitt
Lou

ACC Central
UVa
VT
UNC
NCSU
Duke

ACC South
Wake
Clemson
GT
FSU
Miami

ACC West
Texas
TT
OU
OKST
Kansas

4 conferences of 16 for FB only. That's about all the serious schools there are. Going to 20/league would include all sports, I'd think....leaving out Nova, G-Town, Butler, Zags, etc.for hoops. Not good. Let FB steer its own destiny.

 

[mvk112]

There will be a helluva lot of lawsuits before lower-tiered schools are cut out completely. And the networks won't allow Notre Dame to be out in the cold, even if they don't join a league. Notre Dame would get an auto bid every year before they're cut from the equation because of refusal to join a conference.

CFP will go to 8 soon, with P5 getting auto bids and 3 at-large. Notre Dame will have access to those three at large bids.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

"topdecktiger, post: 1287210, member: 3806"]No, you did not explain how Raycom is preventing the ACC from getting a network.
Yes I did, and so do the links, by explaining how SEC never told ESPN to keep Raycom and ESPN never needed to Raycom for any syndication and established a SEC-ESPN Network in 2014 with out Raycom? i ddi not use the words like you did, such "CHOSE" or "SOUNDS LIKE" or "IFS". I just pointed out SEC didn't need Raycom for SEC NETWORK.

From what I understand, you are saying that the ACC doesn't have a network because they decided instead to let ESPN syndicate with Raycom.
No No those are your words, I am saying the ACC CHOSE to saved Raycom and told ESPN to use Raycom in 2010. There was nor decided they told ESPN to include Raycom.

SEC did not do that, they just CHOSE to DUMP Raycom all together and got a NETWORK!

Both are facts in all Links posted!


Ok, well by that logic, the SEC should not have a network because they let ESPN syndicate with Comcast.
Well, you using "IFS" as you logic against 'LINKS' that make you Think otherwise!

Just as Comcast didn't stop the SEC from getting a network, Raycom doesn't stop the ACC from getting a network.

So let me put it this way. Explain how the SEC was able to get a network, even though they syndicated with Comcast.
No, you explain to me why SEC was able to get a Network without Raycom being syndicated?

Here some more LINKS To Make You Think:

SEC LINKS:
SEC SIGNS ESPN 2008:
The Southeastern Conference has signed a 15-year deal with ESPN reportedly worth more than $2 billion to televise sporting events, including football and men's and women's basketball................The deal will end the SEC's affiliation with Raycom Sports, which has aired basketball since 1986 and SEC football since 1992.
LINK:
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/news/story?id=3553033

Sports Business Journal:
August 25, 2008
ESPN will pay the Southeastern Conference a staggering $2.25 billion over the next 15 years — about $150 million a year — for the conference’s TV rights, giving the network all of the SEC’s content that was not taken by CBS, industry sources confirm.
The deal effectively ends any conversation of a conference network, and it knocks Raycom Sports (formerly Lincoln Financial and Jefferson Pilot) out of the SEC’s distribution business for the first time since 1986, when JP Sports began distributing SEC basketball...............And Raycom, which had been in talks with the SEC to the end, likely lost out because it was not able to match the size of ESPN’s bid or the number of platforms it can use.
LINK:
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/...eeks-News/ESPN-Pays-$225B-For-SEC-Rights.aspx

Hmnnnn, now you know why SEC and ESPN did not CHOOSE & DUMPED Raycom for both Broadcaster and Syndicator, as you pointed out correctly i might add!

Now why did ACC want Raycom if SEC felt raycom was not capable and allow ESPN to to dump them in SEC but the ACC wanted Raycom?

None of your "IFS," "SOUNDS LIKE", if you read why Raycom was Dumped by SEC and they got a SEC-ESPN NETWORK in 2014! But like you say, SEC was going to be first and I agree!

I'll give you the ACC Links below too.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

ACC LINKS:
ACC SIGNS ESPN JULY 8, 2010
RALEIGH, N.C. -- The Atlantic Coast Conference and ESPN have agreed to a 12-year deal that would give the network exclusive rights to conference football and men's basketball games...........It would also give ESPN syndication rights that would allow Raycom Sports to carry games and maintain its long-running regional broadcasting relationship with the league.............Partnering with ESPN ends talk for now about the ACC following the lead of the Big Ten by creating its own television network. Commissioner John Swofford said the league did its "due diligence" by researching the issue, but said the ACC opted to avoid the upfront startup costs and the financial risk in favor of utilizing ESPN's in-place broadcast and multimedia outlets."When you go with somebody for that kind of money with no financial risk and they have the extensive platforms they have to distribute your games -- plus they have the technology and the desire to be on the cutting edge with new media -- it really begs the question: Why would you need your own network?" Swofford said. The agreement marks the first time the ACC has negotiated one contract to bundle broadcasting rights for football and basketball. The previous deal brought in an average of about $72 million in TV money annually, which the league distributes evenly among its 12 members -- an average of about $6 million per school........."This is the first time we at ESPN have basically done an all-in deal with a conference where we worked to be able to acquire all their product," Skipper said. "I think that speaks to how much we value the product that's in the ACC."................"We're offering fans a choice," Skipper said. "They can watch Raycom or they can watch ESPN and we believe we'll see the overall rating go up."
LINK:
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/news/story?id=5363743

Media deal OK'd to solidify ACC,
Apr 24, 2013
PASADENA, Calif. -- The Atlantic Coast Conference presidents approved Monday a grant of media rights for the league through 2026-27, effectively halting the exodus of any schools to other conferences...................The move solidifies the future of the ACC, which had several teams that had been speculated as targets of the Big Ten..............
As for the grant of rights, "Florida State is on board," a source said." The added resources coming to the ACC schools will have a significant impact on the success of our athletic programs," Florida State president Eric J. Barron said in a statement. "We are also very pleased that we will be moving forward on the next phase of developing an ACC network. The vote of the ACC presidents will ensure that the conference will strengthen its position of leadership among Division I athletics."

What Network, when Swofford signed with ESPN above he said there was need for any ACC NETWORK? ESPN Skippy said, ESPN and Raycom offer great choices no need for a Network????
Link:
http://espn.go.com/college-football...media-rights-deal-lock-schools-okd-presidents

Meanwhile...........another Swofford's Sorrow Misjudgment or great move now that the ACC has big gap in Revenues with B1G & SEC???

ACC feeling 'urgency' for TV network partnership with ESPN
May 02, 2016
Syracuse, N.Y. The Atlantic Coast Conference is watching closely as leagues such as the SEC and Big Ten cash in big from their own television networks and want in on the action. Clemson athletic director Dan Radakovich told The Clemson Insider that the ACC is feeling a sense or urgency to get a network up and running and anticipates it will be a big topic of discussion at the league's upcoming spring meetings.
"It's clear they're (Big Ten and SEC) bringing in more revenue than we are and we have to be able to help mitigate that at some point and time, and the network is a way to do that," Radakovich said.........During the 2014-15 fiscal year, the SEC generated $347 million from television rights and distributed $31.2 million to each of its schools. By 2017-18, Big Ten schools are projecting distributions of more than $40 million…….The ACC has a media rights deal with ESPN through the 2026-27 season that pays schools an estimated $20 million per year. Radakovich told Clemson Insider that the changing habits of television viewers, including 'cord cutting,' is not a concern at this time. Nielsen data indicates ESPN has lost 3.2 million subscribers in a little over a year as people have "cut the cord" by dropping their cable-TV subscriptions.
LINK:

http://www.syracuse.com/axeman/inde...rgency_for_network_partnership_with_espn.html

How is that deal allowing ACC Fans to choose between ESPN and Raycom working out now? Maybe FOX should have been the Partner???? Not ESPN!

I wonder if Swofford is happy the ACC chose to save Raycom and not have a Network way back in 2010 and all can decide for themselves. I prefer to have had the SEC & B1G Commissioner make the ACC Raycom Deal, but maybe they did after all?

I have no problem if you disagree at all Topdecktiger or anyone else, Swofford has done his best for the ACC, and they are not SEC or B1G that have been able to do better, than PAC-12, ACC, and Big-12 right now.

Clearly, based on the Links Swofford did not want a ACC Network in 2010 and said it, but he did save Raycom to give ACC fans a choice? God bless him!

 

[pittdan77]

In ten years, there probably won't be many broadcast outlets. If I'm the ACC, I'm looking at Verizon or AT&T as their anchor content providers. The kid sitting in middle school today has very little interest in broadcast television and I doubt that will change.

 

[topdecktiger]

Yes I did, and so do the links, by explaining how SEC never told ESPN to keep Raycom and ESPN never needed to Raycom for any syndication and established a SEC-ESPN Network in 2014 with out Raycom? i ddi not use the words like you did, such "CHOSE" or "SOUNDS LIKE" or "IFS". I just pointed out SEC didn't need Raycom for SEC NETWORK.

Here is what you are telling me:

Step 1: The ACC signs with ESPN and uses Raycom as a syndicator.

Step 2: ?????

Step 3: The ACC doesn't get a network.

Do you see what I'm getting at? You keep saying Raycom prevented the ACC from getting a network, but you don't explain HOW Raycom prevented the ACC from getting a network. The links you are posting are not answering the question. I want you to list, step by step, specifically how Raycom is preventing the ACC from getting a network.

No, you explain to me why SEC was able to get a Network without Raycom being syndicated?

First point. The fact that you refuse to answer the questions shows that you can't answer it.

Second point. Your question doesn't make sense. If you have a conference network, then you don't have ANY syndicator. ESPN was syndicating SEC games with Comcast prior to forming the network. In order to start the network, ESPN had to buy out the syndication package from Comcast. The exact same thing is true for the ACC. ESPN will have to buy out they syndication package from Raycom. There is no difference.