According to SC AD. Pretty incredible. That partnership with ESPN sure did work out great. I can't see the ACC not following suit.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ec-network



From the link:

"Long story short, when we first started talking about the network, they said we'd probably realize a benefit in Year 3," Tanner told the board, via Gamecocks247. "Obviously it's been more successful than that. This summer we'll receive a distribution [and] I think it will be at least $5 million. I'd like to think that's on the conservative side. Each school will receive a $5 million gain."

So much for the SEC being able to make in it's first year what The Big Ten Network earns Big Ten Institutions now. Five million is definitely respectable but it is nice to finally have this so we can have rational comparisons.

Oh, those numbers mean nothing in regard to the ACC conference being created. They create a nice argument about why it should be created but that doesn't mean it will be created. If it was that easy, they would have already started it.

(02-20-2015 07:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So much for the SEC being able to make in it's first year what The Big Ten Network earns Big Ten Institutions now. Five million is definitely respectable but it is nice to finally have this so we can have rational comparisons.

Oh, those numbers mean nothing in regard to the ACC conference being created. They create a nice argument about why it should be created but that doesn't mean it will be created. If it was that easy, they would have already started it.

All of our expenses were front-loaded to the the first two years. That is why the estimates were around two million for the first year. So if the number comes in between 5 and 6 that means that by the third year we will likely be making 8.5 to 9 million and that is if we don't get some bumps in the meantime. So direct comparisons are still two years away. But it is significantly better than those not named Clay Travis had hoped.

(02-20-2015 09:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 07:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So much for the SEC being able to make in it's first year what The Big Ten Network earns Big Ten Institutions now. Five million is definitely respectable but it is nice to finally have this so we can have rational comparisons.

Oh, those numbers mean nothing in regard to the ACC conference being created. They create a nice argument about why it should be created but that doesn't mean it will be created. If it was that easy, they would have already started it.

All of our expenses were front-loaded to the the first two years. That is why the estimates were around two million for the first year. So if the number comes in between 5 and 6 that means that by the third year we will likely be making 8.5 to 9 million and that is if we don't get some bumps in the meantime. So direct comparisons are still two years away. But it is significantly better than those not named Clay Travis had hoped.

That may end up being true but the story is changing. It used to be that the SEC would earn more than the Big Ten in the very first year. That would have been your 8.5 to 9 million range but that didn't happen. So now the story is that it will happen in two or three years? We will see. For now though, it isn't.

(02-20-2015 09:09 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 07:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So much for the SEC being able to make in it's first year what The Big Ten Network earns Big Ten Institutions now. Five million is definitely respectable but it is nice to finally have this so we can have rational comparisons.

Oh, those numbers mean nothing in regard to the ACC conference being created. They create a nice argument about why it should be created but that doesn't mean it will be created. If it was that easy, they would have already started it.

All of our expenses were front-loaded to the the first two years. That is why the estimates were around two million for the first year. So if the number comes in between 5 and 6 that means that by the third year we will likely be making 8.5 to 9 million and that is if we don't get some bumps in the meantime. So direct comparisons are still two years away. But it is significantly better than those not named Clay Travis had hoped.

That may end up being true but the story is changing. It used to be that the SEC would earn more than the Big Ten in the very first year. That would have been your 8.5 to 9 million range but that didn't happen. So now the story is that it will happen in two or three years? We will see. For now though, it isn't.

H1 you won't find a single post where I or 10th either one claimed such. I think Bullet would attest to that. I fully expected between 1.5 and 3 and said as much. I'm sure there are plenty of SEC message board posters on other sites who thought it would be what Travis claimed, but I've never been one of them.

(02-20-2015 09:09 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 07:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So much for the SEC being able to make in it's first year what The Big Ten Network earns Big Ten Institutions now. Five million is definitely respectable but it is nice to finally have this so we can have rational comparisons.

Oh, those numbers mean nothing in regard to the ACC conference being created. They create a nice argument about why it should be created but that doesn't mean it will be created. If it was that easy, they would have already started it.

All of our expenses were front-loaded to the the first two years. That is why the estimates were around two million for the first year. So if the number comes in between 5 and 6 that means that by the third year we will likely be making 8.5 to 9 million and that is if we don't get some bumps in the meantime. So direct comparisons are still two years away. But it is significantly better than those not named Clay Travis had hoped.

That may end up being true but the story is changing. It used to be that the SEC would earn more than the Big Ten in the very first year. That would have been your 8.5 to 9 million range but that didn't happen. So now the story is that it will happen in two or three years? We will see. For now though, it isn't.

That's the Clay Travis type idiots. JR wasn't saying that. Its pretty impressive to hit 5 in year 1. But they probably have already hit close to peak exposure. It will be interesting to see how much they make once the startup costs are behind them.

(02-20-2015 09:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:09 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 07:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So much for the SEC being able to make in it's first year what The Big Ten Network earns Big Ten Institutions now. Five million is definitely respectable but it is nice to finally have this so we can have rational comparisons.

Oh, those numbers mean nothing in regard to the ACC conference being created. They create a nice argument about why it should be created but that doesn't mean it will be created. If it was that easy, they would have already started it.

All of our expenses were front-loaded to the the first two years. That is why the estimates were around two million for the first year. So if the number comes in between 5 and 6 that means that by the third year we will likely be making 8.5 to 9 million and that is if we don't get some bumps in the meantime. So direct comparisons are still two years away. But it is significantly better than those not named Clay Travis had hoped.

That may end up being true but the story is changing. It used to be that the SEC would earn more than the Big Ten in the very first year. That would have been your 8.5 to 9 million range but that didn't happen. So now the story is that it will happen in two or three years? We will see. For now though, it isn't.

That's the Clay Travis type idiots. JR wasn't saying that. Its pretty impressive to hit 5 in year 1. But they probably have already hit close to peak exposure. It will be interesting to see how much they make once the startup costs are behind them.

Bullet, I think the normal folks with some business sense had hoped that after start up costs that we would be hitting the 7 million mark. That's why with the big front push I could see a stretch to the figures of 8.5 to 9 that I mentioned. And I think that is great news for the Big 12 quite frankly. The ACC is the one behind the 8 ball financially and if an 8 figure difference in three years pressures some changes in the present set up that could well send the schools once rumored as possible Big 12 candidates to your conference where their markets could make the morphing of the LHN into a conference network for the Big 12 profitable enough to consider. That's why as much as I talk about what might happen to the Big 12 one of the alternatives I have long held out is that the ACC is not necessarily out of the woods yet. In fact I consider the odds on which conference winds up best off to be about 50/50 in spite of what many have cited about ACC security. It seems to me that if ESPN wants to build a credible foil to the SEC's perceived dominance so that the resulting rivalry profits all of their enterprises the best way to do so would be to build around solid football brands and that is Texas and Oklahoma. Quite frankly the Big 12 would be the best possible natural rival for the SEC in football. What the SEC could use from the ACC are some basketball brands that are mid tier football schools. But hey that's just an old man's musings. We'll all have to wait to see what happens. Besides all of the models for Big 12 dissolution run into the same problems with regards to T.C.U., Tech, Kansas State, and Iowa State, while only Wake Forest seems to be a problem to place among the 14.5 ACC contingency.

(02-20-2015 09:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:09 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 07:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So much for the SEC being able to make in it's first year what The Big Ten Network earns Big Ten Institutions now. Five million is definitely respectable but it is nice to finally have this so we can have rational comparisons.

Oh, those numbers mean nothing in regard to the ACC conference being created. They create a nice argument about why it should be created but that doesn't mean it will be created. If it was that easy, they would have already started it.

All of our expenses were front-loaded to the the first two years. That is why the estimates were around two million for the first year. So if the number comes in between 5 and 6 that means that by the third year we will likely be making 8.5 to 9 million and that is if we don't get some bumps in the meantime. So direct comparisons are still two years away. But it is significantly better than those not named Clay Travis had hoped.

That may end up being true but the story is changing. It used to be that the SEC would earn more than the Big Ten in the very first year. That would have been your 8.5 to 9 million range but that didn't happen. So now the story is that it will happen in two or three years? We will see. For now though, it isn't.

That's the Clay Travis type idiots. JR wasn't saying that. Its pretty impressive to hit 5 in year 1. But they probably have already hit close to peak exposure. It will be interesting to see how much they make once the startup costs are behind them.

It is a nice number but considering they had ESPN basically creating it for them and then pushing it upon everyone within the ESPN bundle? It's not That impressive.

I don't see why they couldn't have made more with ESPN basically creating it as another ESPN channel. It's broadcast quality was better than any of the Fox channels.

(02-20-2015 09:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:09 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 07:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So much for the SEC being able to make in it's first year what The Big Ten Network earns Big Ten Institutions now. Five million is definitely respectable but it is nice to finally have this so we can have rational comparisons.

Oh, those numbers mean nothing in regard to the ACC conference being created. They create a nice argument about why it should be created but that doesn't mean it will be created. If it was that easy, they would have already started it.

All of our expenses were front-loaded to the the first two years. That is why the estimates were around two million for the first year. So if the number comes in between 5 and 6 that means that by the third year we will likely be making 8.5 to 9 million and that is if we don't get some bumps in the meantime. So direct comparisons are still two years away. But it is significantly better than those not named Clay Travis had hoped.

That may end up being true but the story is changing. It used to be that the SEC would earn more than the Big Ten in the very first year. That would have been your 8.5 to 9 million range but that didn't happen. So now the story is that it will happen in two or three years? We will see. For now though, it isn't.

That's the Clay Travis type idiots. JR wasn't saying that. Its pretty impressive to hit 5 in year 1. But they probably have already hit close to peak exposure. It will be interesting to see how much they make once the startup costs are behind them.

It is a nice number but considering they had ESPN basically creating it for them and then pushing it upon everyone within the ESPN bundle? It's not That impressive.

I don't see why they couldn't have made more with ESPN basically creating it as another ESPN channel. It's broadcast quality was better than any of the Fox channels.

It really is an ESPN channel. ESPN got it on nearly everywhere at startup. The Big 10 network had a much slower rollout. The Pac 12 (Directv) and Longhorn Network (Comcast) still aren't on everywhere. They got it on Comcast and DISH without an ESPN renewal. They got it on Directv during ESPN renewal negotiations, but before ESPN got finalized. It had enough push on its own. From the comments from SEC presidents a year ago, while they expected it to be enormously successful long run, I think they are very pleasantly surprised how well it has started out.

(02-20-2015 09:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:09 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  All of our expenses were front-loaded to the the first two years. That is why the estimates were around two million for the first year. So if the number comes in between 5 and 6 that means that by the third year we will likely be making 8.5 to 9 million and that is if we don't get some bumps in the meantime. So direct comparisons are still two years away. But it is significantly better than those not named Clay Travis had hoped.

That may end up being true but the story is changing. It used to be that the SEC would earn more than the Big Ten in the very first year. That would have been your 8.5 to 9 million range but that didn't happen. So now the story is that it will happen in two or three years? We will see. For now though, it isn't.

That's the Clay Travis type idiots. JR wasn't saying that. Its pretty impressive to hit 5 in year 1. But they probably have already hit close to peak exposure. It will be interesting to see how much they make once the startup costs are behind them.

It is a nice number but considering they had ESPN basically creating it for them and then pushing it upon everyone within the ESPN bundle? It's not That impressive.

I don't see why they couldn't have made more with ESPN basically creating it as another ESPN channel. It's broadcast quality was better than any of the Fox channels.

It really is an ESPN channel. ESPN got it on nearly everywhere at startup. The Big 10 network had a much slower rollout. The Pac 12 (Directv) and Longhorn Network (Comcast) still aren't on everywhere. They got it on Comcast and DISH without an ESPN renewal. They got it on Directv during ESPN renewal negotiations, but before ESPN got finalized. It had enough push on its own. From the comments from SEC presidents a year ago, while they expected it to be enormously successful long run, I think they are very pleasantly surprised how well it has started out.

Look, I am not saying it didn't do well. I am not saying they shouldn't be pleased with it but surprised? ESPN was throwing it in with their own bundle. It was pretty damn obvious that it would succeed.

What I am saying is that this whole story of being surprised that it got this much when all the talk was about how it would immediately be on par with The Big Ten, well I just find that to be hard to believe.

It was expected to do at least what it just brought in. There were even higher expectations by many.

(02-20-2015 09:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:09 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  All of our expenses were front-loaded to the the first two years. That is why the estimates were around two million for the first year. So if the number comes in between 5 and 6 that means that by the third year we will likely be making 8.5 to 9 million and that is if we don't get some bumps in the meantime. So direct comparisons are still two years away. But it is significantly better than those not named Clay Travis had hoped.

That may end up being true but the story is changing. It used to be that the SEC would earn more than the Big Ten in the very first year. That would have been your 8.5 to 9 million range but that didn't happen. So now the story is that it will happen in two or three years? We will see. For now though, it isn't.

That's the Clay Travis type idiots. JR wasn't saying that. Its pretty impressive to hit 5 in year 1. But they probably have already hit close to peak exposure. It will be interesting to see how much they make once the startup costs are behind them.

It is a nice number but considering they had ESPN basically creating it for them and then pushing it upon everyone within the ESPN bundle? It's not That impressive.

I don't see why they couldn't have made more with ESPN basically creating it as another ESPN channel. It's broadcast quality was better than any of the Fox channels.

It really is an ESPN channel.

It is 80% owned by ESPN, and 20% owned by the Hearst Corporation. The SEC has no equity stake, and it earns a share of net revenues, so those startup costs had to be absorbed before it got anything.

So to get $5m per school despite absorbing those costs really is impressive, no doubt about it.

As for the ACC, I don't think it means much, because the ACC doesn't have the same appeal as does the SEC.

(02-20-2015 10:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:09 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  That may end up being true but the story is changing. It used to be that the SEC would earn more than the Big Ten in the very first year. That would have been your 8.5 to 9 million range but that didn't happen. So now the story is that it will happen in two or three years? We will see. For now though, it isn't.

That's the Clay Travis type idiots. JR wasn't saying that. Its pretty impressive to hit 5 in year 1. But they probably have already hit close to peak exposure. It will be interesting to see how much they make once the startup costs are behind them.

It is a nice number but considering they had ESPN basically creating it for them and then pushing it upon everyone within the ESPN bundle? It's not That impressive.

I don't see why they couldn't have made more with ESPN basically creating it as another ESPN channel. It's broadcast quality was better than any of the Fox channels.

It really is an ESPN channel.

It is 80% owned by ESPN, and 20% owned by the Hearst Corporation. The SEC has no equity stake, and it earns a share of net revenues, so those startup costs had to be absorbed before it got anything.

So to get $5m per school despite absorbing those costs really is impressive, no doubt about it.

As for the ACC, I don't means much, because the ACC doesn't have the same appeal as does the SEC.

It will have IMO more appeal then the Pac 12 and that alone would increase the ACC Revenue stream...if it gets off the floor it will have the backing of the World Wide Leader...if it doesn't get off the floor then the ACC will get a imcrease from them in TV Revenue...

(02-21-2015 08:56 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 10:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  That's the Clay Travis type idiots. JR wasn't saying that. Its pretty impressive to hit 5 in year 1. But they probably have already hit close to peak exposure. It will be interesting to see how much they make once the startup costs are behind them.

It is a nice number but considering they had ESPN basically creating it for them and then pushing it upon everyone within the ESPN bundle? It's not That impressive.

I don't see why they couldn't have made more with ESPN basically creating it as another ESPN channel. It's broadcast quality was better than any of the Fox channels.

It really is an ESPN channel.

It is 80% owned by ESPN, and 20% owned by the Hearst Corporation. The SEC has no equity stake, and it earns a share of net revenues, so those startup costs had to be absorbed before it got anything.

So to get $5m per school despite absorbing those costs really is impressive, no doubt about it.

As for the ACC, I don't means much, because the ACC doesn't have the same appeal as does the SEC.

It will have IMO more appeal then the Pac 12 and that alone would increase the ACC Revenue stream...if it gets off the floor it will have the backing of the World Wide Leader...if it doesn't get off the floor then the ACC will get a imcrease from them in TV Revenue...

Point taken, i was too harsh: It does mean something to the ACC. But whether it means that going the network route or just selling their rights they way they (and the Big 12) do now is the better option, is undetermined.

(02-21-2015 08:56 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 10:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  That's the Clay Travis type idiots. JR wasn't saying that. Its pretty impressive to hit 5 in year 1. But they probably have already hit close to peak exposure. It will be interesting to see how much they make once the startup costs are behind them.

It is a nice number but considering they had ESPN basically creating it for them and then pushing it upon everyone within the ESPN bundle? It's not That impressive.

I don't see why they couldn't have made more with ESPN basically creating it as another ESPN channel. It's broadcast quality was better than any of the Fox channels.

It really is an ESPN channel.

It is 80% owned by ESPN, and 20% owned by the Hearst Corporation. The SEC has no equity stake, and it earns a share of net revenues, so those startup costs had to be absorbed before it got anything.

So to get $5m per school despite absorbing those costs really is impressive, no doubt about it.

As for the ACC, I don't means much, because the ACC doesn't have the same appeal as does the SEC.

It will have IMO more appeal then the Pac 12 and that alone would increase the ACC Revenue stream...if it gets off the floor it will have the backing of the World Wide Leader...if it doesn't get off the floor then the ACC will get a imcrease from them in TV Revenue...

If they (the ACC) don't get a network they get a one time 2 million bump per team and the remainder of their backloaded contract. That's it. Take it for what it's worth but that leaves a significant deficit going forward, especially in earning potential. If they land a network it would most certainly pay more. I think that is where the other numbers have to be taken into consideration.

The ACC does not saturate their market, or even dominate it now. The have the largest potential viewership in the P5 and the 4th best utilized. They need the kind of interest shown by the Big 12's fan base quite frankly. If not for such a limited market size the Big 12 states tune in almost as well as the SEC and slightly better than the Big 10, but way way better than the ACC and PAC. However, their footprint is so limited that in actual numbers they lag. Hence the speculation of some posters who believe that the movement of Texas (and others) to form a Western division of the ACC might make an ACCN more viable and profitable. At least as I see it that is the fuel behind such speculation.

But having your cup of coffee over this issue makes me look for the ostrich icon to post.

considering the front loaded costs, that's a great start for SECN!

(02-21-2015 09:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-21-2015 08:56 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 10:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It is a nice number but considering they had ESPN basically creating it for them and then pushing it upon everyone within the ESPN bundle? It's not That impressive.

I don't see why they couldn't have made more with ESPN basically creating it as another ESPN channel. It's broadcast quality was better than any of the Fox channels.

It really is an ESPN channel.

It is 80% owned by ESPN, and 20% owned by the Hearst Corporation. The SEC has no equity stake, and it earns a share of net revenues, so those startup costs had to be absorbed before it got anything.

So to get $5m per school despite absorbing those costs really is impressive, no doubt about it.

As for the ACC, I don't means much, because the ACC doesn't have the same appeal as does the SEC.

It will have IMO more appeal then the Pac 12 and that alone would increase the ACC Revenue stream...if it gets off the floor it will have the backing of the World Wide Leader...if it doesn't get off the floor then the ACC will get a imcrease from them in TV Revenue...

If they (the ACC) don't get a network they get a one time 2 million bump per team and the remainder of their backloaded contract. That's it. Take it for what it's worth but that leaves a significant deficit going forward, especially in earning potential. If they land a network it would most certainly pay more. I think that is where the other numbers have to be taken into consideration.

The ACC does not saturate their market, or even dominate it now. The have the largest potential viewership in the P5 and the 4th best utilized. They need the kind of interest shown by the Big 12's fan base quite frankly. If not for such a limited market size the Big 12 states tune in almost as well as the SEC and slightly better than the Big 10, but way way better than the ACC and PAC. However, their footprint is so limited that in actual numbers they lag. Hence the speculation of some posters who believe that the movement of Texas (and others) to form a Western division of the ACC might make an ACCN more viable and profitable. At least as I see it that is the fuel behind such speculation.

But having your cup of coffee over this issue makes me look for the ostrich icon to post.

It doesn't really bother me one way or another...in the end everyone in the P5 is get'n paid...just drinking a Hot Beverage on a Cold Winter Day...

I can see the SEC making more than the B1G on their cable network, because they started it when the concept was proven, while the B1G cut their deal back when there was still uncertainty over whether a conference cable network would even be successful.

On the other hand, because of timing the B1G is going to make more money than the other conferences on the renewal of their TV deal.

It will end up with a P5 that has two tiers, with the SEC/B1G tier making significantly more than the others.

(02-21-2015 11:36 AM)krup Wrote:  I can see the SEC making more than the B1G on their cable network, because they started it when the concept was proven, while the B1G cut their deal back when there was still uncertainty over whether a conference cable network would even be successful.

On the other hand, because of timing the B1G is going to make more money than the other conferences on the renewal of their TV deal.

It will end up with a P5 that has two tiers, with the SEC/B1G tier making significantly more than the others.

The B1G is going to make a lot more than the SEC, because they were extremely smart back in 2007, when they decided to create a network deal with FOX for half of their media rights. That made them an equity partner and they will reap the rewards from here on out. And, that deal with FOX only runs until 2026, so they can take back FOX's equity that year if they want, while the SEC is stuck with ESPN until 2035, nine years more!

Plus, whereas ESPN owns the SEC lock/stock/barrel for 20 more years, the B1G has the other half of their media rights up for grabs NEXT year, and can either sign a full-value contract or fold that into their network. They can make sure that climbing media rights fees don't make their deal obsolete in a year or two like happened to the ACC and SEC.

In contrast, the SEC stupidly signed their media rights away to ESPN/CBS in 2008, and that deal will haunt them for the next 20 years. ESPN and the SEC can repackage that deal six ways to Sunday, but the bottom line is because ESPN had the SEC rights until 2025, they had the SEC by the balls and no reason to let go, so they didn't. To give the SEC more money now via the network, they squeezed their balls for TEN more years on the deal, from 2025 to 2035.

Make no mistake: Once ESPN has you for years at what turn out to be low-ball dollars, the ONLY way you are getting more dollars now is by extending the deal for many more years, which is really just shuffling the deck chairs around so that the conference leaders who signed the bad deal can wave a few more dollars around now to make it look to restless member schools like the deal doesn't really suck so bad. But at bottom, it's the same bad deal.

Bottom line: Whatever money the SEC makes from the SECN this year, it would have been a LOT more had they not signed that 2008 ESPN deal. Biggest bonehead move ever, save arguably for Swofford signing the same type of deal with ESPN in 2010.

For being a board that talks about these issues all the time, some of the takes expressed in this thread are utterly bizarre.

Are we still beating "the ACC is weak and vulnerable" drum?

Really?

Really?

What other fairytales do it was to tell? Snow White? Cinderella? Hansel and Gretel?

That is a very strange position to take in light of how things have broken over the past few years. If anything, the results of the past few years have demonstrated the ACC's relative strength versus it's perceived strength.

The fact that the ACC doesn't dominate it's market and still draws the second best television ratings of all P5 leagues (behind only the Big Ten) tells you that it has the highest ceiling of all P5 leagues. The fact that the Big 12 dominates it's markets and is still fifth out of five tells you that it is basically maxed out.

If Texas is forced to turn the Longhorn Network into a league wide network, why not just join the Big Ten or the ACC? I can guarantee you the ACC would make room for the quartet of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

If you were a television executive or the owner of a large business, would you want the market that is relatively controlled from Miami to Boston or the one that is completely controlled from Austin to Ames, Iowa to Morgantown, West Virginia.

Come on, guys. Let's think with our brains and not our hearts.

Also, anyone who is suggesting at this point that the ACC is not going to get its television network is absolutely in denial and burying his head in the proverbial sand. There's just no other way to say it.

It was going to happen all along - which is why the Florida State BOT member who foolishly shot off his mouth initially, quickly shut his mouth and apologized. Clearly, somebody explained to him where this was headed and showed him the numbers and it became crystal clear the direction in which this was heading.

When you see that the infrastructure that ESPN had put in place and it is already delivering a $5 million profit for each SEC school, is it in any way realistic to assume that they are not going to seek to duplicate those efforts elsewhere? They are just going to turn down free money?

Not likely.

Maybe those ACC teams won't make $5 million each in year one but they will turn a profit because the infrastructure is already in place and they have access to some of the largest television markets in the country.

That is why ESPN executives are openly discussing it and why all of the ACC's key decision-makers seems so giddy. Do you really think they would be this open with their plans if it wasn't very far along?

Come on, guys. We are better than this.

The Big 12 has one puncher's chance to come out of this period ahead here and that is if the SEC or Big Ten is able to pilfer some key ACC teams, thus triggering a collapse. Otherwise, that league will definitely be number five of the five in the P5 leagues going forward. There is just no question about that. Once the new ACC network is up and running – and it will be by 2017 at the latest – even the puncher's chance goes by the wayside. I cannot imagine any alternative view on this that is realistic and honest.

The ACC better pray that ESPiN funds and promotes their network like they hope. If the ACC falls behind the other power conferences financially, it could spell their doom, as the more desirable programs head elsewhere for financial security. IMO without FSU, who was only invited to give the ACC respectability in football, the ACC would have died as a power conference long ago. It still may, since their football power is still dependent upon the Seminoles.