(03-09-2016 01:36 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 01:21 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the Big 12 deal with ESPN that was signed early was done AFTER A&M had left and AFTER TCU and WVU became members of the Big 12

You are correct. It was signed a year after A&M announce they were leaving. I got caught up on the September 7th date and slept the year. Which is why posting after midnight is not a good thing.

However, it doesn't change the main point which I was addressing in that the ESPN deal was renegotiated three years prior to the current one at that time was due to end and that they got a more favorable deal even though the conference was weaker than it had been prior to realignment. Can you site a similar case prior to this?

Cheers,
Neil

No. Factors:
That was during the bubbliest part of the rights bubble--the runup to FoxSports1
ESPN got more games in the renegotiation (they had to trade some Tier 1 games to Fox)
ESPN got the deal extended, with a GOR. So nobody was going to be coming back to ESPN to sell Texas football for 10 or so years (no PAC 16, no ACC + Indy, etc.)

(03-09-2016 01:36 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 01:21 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the Big 12 deal with ESPN that was signed early was done AFTER A&M had left and AFTER TCU and WVU became members of the Big 12

You are correct. It was signed a year after A&M announce they were leaving. I got caught up on the September 7th date and slept the year. Which is why posting after midnight is not a good thing.

However, it doesn't change the main point which I was addressing in that the ESPN deal was renegotiated three years prior to the current one at that time was due to end and that they got a more favorable deal even though the conference was weaker than it had been prior to realignment. Can you site a similar case prior to this?

Cheers,
Neil

Your facts are totally wrong.

The Fox deal did NOT change. They simply signed the new deal 2 years before the old one ended. Now they did get a "signing bonus" payable before the last two years were up.

The ESPN deal expired one year after the Fox deal. It did NOT change either. Eventually when they signed the new ESPN contract, they re-worked both the ESPN and Fox deals to make it more of a shared contract instead of separate Tier I and Tier II deals.

The only "benefit" the Big 12 got was that the contract was not reduced during those last two years. And ESPN and Fox would not have been able to justify that legally because the deal, like all the college sports deals at the time, was below market.

(03-09-2016 01:31 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 07:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 10:03 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  You obviously overlooked this part of Neil's post:

"Three years does not tell the story. If someone wants to make that as their argument, I have no problem with it"

I didn't overlook it. What he seemed to do was make that disclaimer, then advance the argument based on 3 years anyway. So .... fair game to comment on that.

Keep in mind my post was to counter this specific quote made by Bullet, "Well the ACC really doesn't get better ratings in football."

There are three years of data over at Sports Media Watch and the data shows that for the past three years the ACC has gotten better football ratings. The data is what the data is.

Doesn't say it will continue to be so, only that if it does continue this way and that there is a "look-in" after every 5 years, then the ACC can make a case for an increase. Doesn't mean they will get one, just that they can make a case. ESPN may tell the ACC do it for the next 5 years, which will then have 10 year's worth of data, and we'll talk again.

Cheers,
Neil

And if you compare apples to apples, those data show the Big 12 got slightly better ratings in football. You are cherry picking certain portions of the data.

There was a KSU professor who did an analysis of the data which was posted on here previously.

(03-09-2016 08:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 01:31 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 07:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 10:03 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  You obviously overlooked this part of Neil's post:

"Three years does not tell the story. If someone wants to make that as their argument, I have no problem with it"

I didn't overlook it. What he seemed to do was make that disclaimer, then advance the argument based on 3 years anyway. So .... fair game to comment on that.

Keep in mind my post was to counter this specific quote made by Bullet, "Well the ACC really doesn't get better ratings in football."

There are three years of data over at Sports Media Watch and the data shows that for the past three years the ACC has gotten better football ratings. The data is what the data is.

Doesn't say it will continue to be so, only that if it does continue this way and that there is a "look-in" after every 5 years, then the ACC can make a case for an increase. Doesn't mean they will get one, just that they can make a case. ESPN may tell the ACC do it for the next 5 years, which will then have 10 year's worth of data, and we'll talk again.

Cheers,
Neil

And if you compare apples to apples, those data show the Big 12 got slightly better ratings in football. You are cherry picking certain portions of the data.

There was a KSU professor who did an analysis of the data which was posted on here previously.

Here is that report from the KSU professor:

KSU Prof

I thought it was interesting that he himself admitted that his methods were "imperfect" and that he didn't have the ratings for all 12 games that all of the teams played in. Why would you rather accept his admitted flawed conclusions driven by incomplete data, over the tv networks data from their own rated games, which they use for the pricing that they charge advertisers.

(03-09-2016 10:00 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 08:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 01:31 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 07:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 10:03 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  You obviously overlooked this part of Neil's post:

"Three years does not tell the story. If someone wants to make that as their argument, I have no problem with it"

I didn't overlook it. What he seemed to do was make that disclaimer, then advance the argument based on 3 years anyway. So .... fair game to comment on that.

Keep in mind my post was to counter this specific quote made by Bullet, "Well the ACC really doesn't get better ratings in football."

There are three years of data over at Sports Media Watch and the data shows that for the past three years the ACC has gotten better football ratings. The data is what the data is.

Doesn't say it will continue to be so, only that if it does continue this way and that there is a "look-in" after every 5 years, then the ACC can make a case for an increase. Doesn't mean they will get one, just that they can make a case. ESPN may tell the ACC do it for the next 5 years, which will then have 10 year's worth of data, and we'll talk again.

Cheers,
Neil

And if you compare apples to apples, those data show the Big 12 got slightly better ratings in football. You are cherry picking certain portions of the data.

There was a KSU professor who did an analysis of the data which was posted on here previously.

Here is that report from the KSU professor:

KSU Prof

I thought it was interesting that he himself admitted that his methods were "imperfect" and that he didn't have the ratings for all 12 games that all of the teams played in. I aslo find it interesting that you would rather accept his admitted flawed conclusions driven by incomplete data, over the tv networks data from their own rated games, which they use for the pricing that they charge advertisers.

There is no data from the rated games showing the Big 12 behind the ACC overall on an apples to apples comparison. Now if you take the top 10 of 168 ACC games, they have been higher than the top 10 of 120 Big 12 games. If you take the top 6 ACC games per team and compare them to the top 9 Big 12 games per team then the ACC does have a better average. What the KSU professor was trying to estimate was to eliminate that bias from comparing the top 50% of ACC/Big 10/Pac 12 games to the top 75% of Big 12.

So while his is imperfect, it is vastly better than the mindless listings put out by the Texas A&M fan that keeps getting referenced.

And the leagues are getting paid on the whole inventory they sold. Not just 10 games.

When you do all those equalizations, however, its easy to see why everyone is paid pretty close. There really isn't a lot of difference between the Pac 12, ACC, Big 12 or even the Big 10 right now. The Big 10 gets the biggest games of the 4, but gets dragged down by the bottom of the league. Big 10 is #2 in ratings, but just not by a lot. Those 4 are all in the same tier. The SEC is on a separate tier. The G5 are on a separate lower tier.

(03-09-2016 10:23 AM)bullet Wrote:  ...if you take the top 10 of 168 ACC games, they have been higher than the top 10 of 120 Big 12 games.

It's a valid point. Perhaps it would be better to take the average of the top 16 or 17 ACC games vs. the average of the top 12 Big XII games.

My analysis doesn't eliminate any network listed on Sports Media Watch lists or insist there must be some rating share. It looks for those games that had a metered rating share of at least 1.5 or if it didn't then the game had to have at least 2 million viewers.

The results were given in another post, but I also did two other rungs, a rung with games between 1.50 million viewers and 1.99 million viewers (since there were no 1.5 or above games that had less than 2 million viewers) and the other with between 1.0 million viewers and 1.49 million viewers.

In the first category it was ACC - 5, B12 - 4, PAC12 - 4. Again, this was a first run through only so I might have missed some, since in the rungs I eventually cared about I found things in a second run through that I didn't find in the first. Any B12 or PAC fan can certainly go to Sports Media Watch and do their own analysis and find my misses.

Between 1.0 million and 1.49 million viewers it was ACC- 3, B12 - 4, PAC - 8.

Maybe it's just me. But does anyone think that the 8 games the PAC has in the lowest rung somehow makes up for the their showings in the top 4 rungs?

I came to a quick conclusion it all becomes meaningless after a certain point. As I mentioned earlier, it's ratings share and viewers that advertisers (and therefore networks) are interested in. So why did I decide to use the cut-off rung of 1.5 share or at least 2 million viewers?

Because when you take the Top 5 games for each of the past three years for the ACC and B12 there is a gap of just under 46 million viewers in that grouping favoring the ACC over the B12. Now go to games ranked 6-10, there is a gap of close to 7 million viewers favoring the ACC. That gap total right there for the Top 10 games is the equivalent of 26 games of 2 million viewers over the three year period. I have no interest in re-doing what the professor from Kansas did, where his focus seemed to be on single games for individual teams while using one year's worth of data.

I was more interested in showing why the ACC as conference might have a case if (and again this is a HUGE IF) there is a "look-in" every 5 years if they keep the trend up of the last three years.

Cheers,
Neil

(03-09-2016 08:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 01:36 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 01:21 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the Big 12 deal with ESPN that was signed early was done AFTER A&M had left and AFTER TCU and WVU became members of the Big 12

You are correct. It was signed a year after A&M announce they were leaving. I got caught up on the September 7th date and slept the year. Which is why posting after midnight is not a good thing.

However, it doesn't change the main point which I was addressing in that the ESPN deal was renegotiated three years prior to the current one at that time was due to end and that they got a more favorable deal even though the conference was weaker than it had been prior to realignment. Can you site a similar case prior to this?

Cheers,
Neil

Your facts are totally wrong.

The Fox deal did NOT change. They simply signed the new deal 2 years before the old one ended. Now they did get a "signing bonus" payable before the last two years were up.

The ESPN deal expired one year after the Fox deal

Let's take this from a different approach. I think we agree that the ESPN deal was not set to expire until 2015-16 since that fact was clearly stated in the article I linked earlier.

However, you appear to believe that the separate FOX deal that was negotiated and set to begin in Fall 2012, was similar in that it was a revision to a currently running contract with FOX that would not expire until a year before the current ESPN deal at that time which would make it ending 2014-15. I think you are mistaken here.

Here is a link on the new FOX deal, from 2011.

http://lubbockonline.com/local-news/2011...uCcRvkrKM8

No mention of it being renewed early in this 2011 deal with FOX only that it would begin Fall 2012. In the ESPN deal article, it mentions that the current deal was not scheduled to end until 2015-16. And even though it wasn't announced until September 2012, it took effect immediately for the 2012-13 year to coincide with when the new FOX deal started.

Then there is this column written in 2010 that clearly states the FOX deal runs out after next year, meaning 2011-12. So the deal negotiated in 2011 was to start in 2012-13 after the old one ended.

http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2010/...-contract/

Since it was a "fresh" contract it wasn't what I was referring to as something unique that happened to both the ACC and the B12 this decade, where the change in membership clause was actually invoked by a network to initiate an increase in $$$ despite the contracts having multiple years to go.

To look at this in a different light, when the Big Ten added Nebraska, did ESPN go to them and pay them more $$$ for the addition? I don't recall seeing any articles about that. The only thing I remember the Big Ten getting out of the Nebraska add outside of potential BTN $$$ was the football championship game contract with FOX for six years.

The point I was trying to make (and it looks like I did so poorly again) is that for the first time I can recall since following these TV contracts since the 90s is the fact that two conferences (ACC and B12) had valid TV contracts in hand that used the "changed in membership" clause invoked by the network to give a them more $$$ (which as I stated previously had only been invoked in the past that I can recall in the Big East's case where they virtually cut in half the TV contract with the losses of Miami, VT, and BC).

So again, my overall point to which you were responding stands, even though in a post I wrote after midnight, screwed up the timing of the ESPN B12 renegotiated contract.

Quote:.Eventually when they signed the new ESPN contract, they re-worked both the ESPN and Fox deals to make it more of a shared contract instead of separate Tier I and Tier II deals.

The only "benefit" the Big 12 got was that the contract was not reduced during those last two years. And ESPN and Fox would not have been able to justify that legally because the deal, like all the college sports deals at the time, was below market.

The articles seem to show me that the benefit was that the new amounts took effect immediately, that Fall 2012. Is there an article you can point to that shows ESPN paid the B12 only $60 million a year for 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 as the old contract was? That's a rhetorical question by the way.

Again, I don't have a problem with either the B12 or the ACC getting more $$$ (for obvious reasons). Just wanted to show that something unique happened for both the ACC and B12 and there is no guarantee that the networks will be so generous again if times get tougher.

Cheers,
Neil

here are people that have a MUCH BETTER grasp of what a "look in" is and isn't

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/..._unan.html

and here are the results of the "CBS look in" for the SEC after adding A&M and MU

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...ver-092314

so even dual first named SEC nut swinging idiot clay travis had to admit that the SEC SEC SEC got ZERO ZERO ZERO new money from CBS CBS CBS for adding A&M and MU

the ONLY thing that the SEC SEC SEC got from CBS CBS CBS was CBS CBS CBS allowed the SEC SEC SEC to show another game or other games during the same period that CBS CBS CBS is showing the SEC SEC SEC game of the week

and the really idiotic thing about what dual first name idiot clay travis is saying is that CBS CBS CBS is paying for a SINGLE GAME each week and the CCG which is also a single game

so adding more teams to the conference really does NOTHING to bring more value to the CBS contract because CBS still gets a single game each week and that is the best game (in the opinion of CBS) so adding fair to middling teams like A&M and MU to a conference generally does NOTHING for CBS because those teams are generally NOT going to be in the "game of the week" and even if the are they are just taking the place of some other game that CBS would have shown that most likely would have drawn the same ratings

and with the OOC schedules that A&M and MU play it is not like either of them are going to "bring it" for CBS in any of the non conference games that might make the CBS game of the week

and there has never been any reported or factually reported proof that ESPN gave MORE MONEY for the EXISTING second tier deal they has with the SEC SEC SEC when A&M and MU were added


so based on the fact that the SEC SEC SEC got ZERO ZERO ZERO from CBS CBS CBS for adding A&M and MU and based on the lack of evidence that ESPN ever gave more money on EXISTING contracts for the SEC adding two teams I see no reason to believe that the ACC is due for any money on a "look in" and I have yet to see any really credible proof that they will be getting several million per team if they do not get a conference network in the next 14 to 16 months

and sure there is a SINGLE article out there that was repeated as factually accurate by others about more money, but as we can see from the above story with Slive talking about "look ins" and more money from ESPN AND CBS and then the resulting whining from dual first name dunces like clay travis when CBS gave ZERO new money......well conference commissioners, university presidents, "insider sources" and dual first named dolts will "report" or say a lot of things about money and look ins and deals and new deals, but that does not mean they actually ever happen

(03-09-2016 06:54 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 08:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 01:36 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 01:21 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the Big 12 deal with ESPN that was signed early was done AFTER A&M had left and AFTER TCU and WVU became members of the Big 12

You are correct. It was signed a year after A&M announce they were leaving. I got caught up on the September 7th date and slept the year. Which is why posting after midnight is not a good thing.

However, it doesn't change the main point which I was addressing in that the ESPN deal was renegotiated three years prior to the current one at that time was due to end and that they got a more favorable deal even though the conference was weaker than it had been prior to realignment. Can you site a similar case prior to this?

Cheers,
Neil

Your facts are totally wrong.

The Fox deal did NOT change. They simply signed the new deal 2 years before the old one ended. Now they did get a "signing bonus" payable before the last two years were up.

The ESPN deal expired one year after the Fox deal

Let's take this from a different approach. I think we agree that the ESPN deal was not set to expire until 2015-16 since that fact was clearly stated in the article I linked earlier.

However, you appear to believe that the separate FOX deal that was negotiated and set to begin in Fall 2012, was similar in that it was a revision to a currently running contract with FOX that would not expire until a year before the current ESPN deal at that time which would make it ending 2014-15. I think you are mistaken here.

Here is a link on the new FOX deal, from 2011.

http://lubbockonline.com/local-news/2011...uCcRvkrKM8

No mention of it being renewed early in this 2011 deal with FOX only that it would begin Fall 2012. In the ESPN deal article, it mentions that the current deal was not scheduled to end until 2015-16. And even though it wasn't announced until September 2012, it took effect immediately for the 2012-13 year to coincide with when the new FOX deal started.

Then there is this column written in 2010 that clearly states the FOX deal runs out after next year, meaning 2011-12. So the deal negotiated in 2011 was to start in 2012-13 after the old one ended.

http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2010/...-contract/

Since it was a "fresh" contract it wasn't what I was referring to as something unique that happened to both the ACC and the B12 this decade, where the change in membership clause was actually invoked by a network to initiate an increase in $$$ despite the contracts having multiple years to go.

To look at this in a different light, when the Big Ten added Nebraska, did ESPN go to them and pay them more $$$ for the addition? I don't recall seeing any articles about that. The only thing I remember the Big Ten getting out of the Nebraska add outside of potential BTN $$$ was the football championship game contract with FOX for six years.

The point I was trying to make (and it looks like I did so poorly again) is that for the first time I can recall since following these TV contracts since the 90s is the fact that two conferences (ACC and B12) had valid TV contracts in hand that used the "changed in membership" clause invoked by the network to give a them more $$$ (which as I stated previously had only been invoked in the past that I can recall in the Big East's case where they virtually cut in half the TV contract with the losses of Miami, VT, and BC).

So again, my overall point to which you were responding stands, even though in a post I wrote after midnight, screwed up the timing of the ESPN B12 renegotiated contract.

Quote:.Eventually when they signed the new ESPN contract, they re-worked both the ESPN and Fox deals to make it more of a shared contract instead of separate Tier I and Tier II deals.

The only "benefit" the Big 12 got was that the contract was not reduced during those last two years. And ESPN and Fox would not have been able to justify that legally because the deal, like all the college sports deals at the time, was below market.

The articles seem to show me that the benefit was that the new amounts took effect immediately, that Fall 2012. Is there an article you can point to that shows ESPN paid the B12 only $60 million a year for 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 as the old contract was? That's a rhetorical question by the way.

Again, I don't have a problem with either the B12 or the ACC getting more $$$ (for obvious reasons). Just wanted to show that something unique happened for both the ACC and B12 and there is no guarantee that the networks will be so generous again if times get tougher.

Cheers,
Neil

My memory was wrong. I thought the deals expired 1 year apart, but it was 4 years apart as you stated. It was the new contracts that came into play one year apart. So ESPN was re-worked.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...rough-2025

As for Fox, the Big 12 got the $20 million "signing bonus" right off the bat. It was part of what Texas A&M was negotiating for when they left the conference as it hadn't been distributed yet. This article mentions the "signing bonuses" from both networks.
http://www.statesman.com/news/sports/col...eal/nRpCD/

A&M was threatening to SUE for an unequal share of the money that NU and CU left when they went to the Big 10 and PAC 10

which makes the claims by the clueless all the more laughable that "Texas ran off A&M because of unequal money" (or NU for that matter because the chancellor of NU is on record as saying NU was always in favor of unequal revenue and independent netwotks and A&M was offered by Texas to be a partner in the LHN as well)

(03-09-2016 07:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 06:54 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 08:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 01:36 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 01:21 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the Big 12 deal with ESPN that was signed early was done AFTER A&M had left and AFTER TCU and WVU became members of the Big 12

You are correct. It was signed a year after A&M announce they were leaving. I got caught up on the September 7th date and slept the year. Which is why posting after midnight is not a good thing.

However, it doesn't change the main point which I was addressing in that the ESPN deal was renegotiated three years prior to the current one at that time was due to end and that they got a more favorable deal even though the conference was weaker than it had been prior to realignment. Can you site a similar case prior to this?

Cheers,
Neil

Your facts are totally wrong.

The Fox deal did NOT change. They simply signed the new deal 2 years before the old one ended. Now they did get a "signing bonus" payable before the last two years were up.

The ESPN deal expired one year after the Fox deal

Let's take this from a different approach. I think we agree that the ESPN deal was not set to expire until 2015-16 since that fact was clearly stated in the article I linked earlier.

However, you appear to believe that the separate FOX deal that was negotiated and set to begin in Fall 2012, was similar in that it was a revision to a currently running contract with FOX that would not expire until a year before the current ESPN deal at that time which would make it ending 2014-15. I think you are mistaken here.

Here is a link on the new FOX deal, from 2011.

http://lubbockonline.com/local-news/2011...uCcRvkrKM8

No mention of it being renewed early in this 2011 deal with FOX only that it would begin Fall 2012. In the ESPN deal article, it mentions that the current deal was not scheduled to end until 2015-16. And even though it wasn't announced until September 2012, it took effect immediately for the 2012-13 year to coincide with when the new FOX deal started.

Then there is this column written in 2010 that clearly states the FOX deal runs out after next year, meaning 2011-12. So the deal negotiated in 2011 was to start in 2012-13 after the old one ended.

http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2010/...-contract/

Since it was a "fresh" contract it wasn't what I was referring to as something unique that happened to both the ACC and the B12 this decade, where the change in membership clause was actually invoked by a network to initiate an increase in $$$ despite the contracts having multiple years to go.

To look at this in a different light, when the Big Ten added Nebraska, did ESPN go to them and pay them more $$$ for the addition? I don't recall seeing any articles about that. The only thing I remember the Big Ten getting out of the Nebraska add outside of potential BTN $$$ was the football championship game contract with FOX for six years.

The point I was trying to make (and it looks like I did so poorly again) is that for the first time I can recall since following these TV contracts since the 90s is the fact that two conferences (ACC and B12) had valid TV contracts in hand that used the "changed in membership" clause invoked by the network to give a them more $$$ (which as I stated previously had only been invoked in the past that I can recall in the Big East's case where they virtually cut in half the TV contract with the losses of Miami, VT, and BC).

So again, my overall point to which you were responding stands, even though in a post I wrote after midnight, screwed up the timing of the ESPN B12 renegotiated contract.

Quote:.Eventually when they signed the new ESPN contract, they re-worked both the ESPN and Fox deals to make it more of a shared contract instead of separate Tier I and Tier II deals.

The only "benefit" the Big 12 got was that the contract was not reduced during those last two years. And ESPN and Fox would not have been able to justify that legally because the deal, like all the college sports deals at the time, was below market.

The articles seem to show me that the benefit was that the new amounts took effect immediately, that Fall 2012. Is there an article you can point to that shows ESPN paid the B12 only $60 million a year for 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 as the old contract was? That's a rhetorical question by the way.

Again, I don't have a problem with either the B12 or the ACC getting more $$$ (for obvious reasons). Just wanted to show that something unique happened for both the ACC and B12 and there is no guarantee that the networks will be so generous again if times get tougher.

Cheers,
Neil

My memory was wrong. I thought the deals expired 1 year apart, but it was 4 years apart as you stated. It was the new contracts that came into play one year apart. So ESPN was re-worked.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...rough-2025

As for Fox, the Big 12 got the $20 million "signing bonus" right off the bat. It was part of what Texas A&M was negotiating for when they left the conference as it hadn't been distributed yet. This article mentions the "signing bonuses" from both networks.
http://www.statesman.com/news/sports/col...eal/nRpCD/

Understood. As I often say, I have been known to be wrong before. And heaven knows, I will be wrong again soon.

Cheers,
Neil

(03-08-2016 10:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  All esoteric points in a worthless argument. There are two P5 conferences without networks. One doesn't have the market for one and the other doesn't utilize enough of the market for one. Could either change their circumstances, sure. But so far the move that would change them either doesn't exist, has been rejected, or its time has passed due to changing factors in the industry itself. Which one it is we won't know for a while. But suffice it to say that should one of these two get a network it would be a distinct advantage for them, at least with regard to the other.

Tag team apologetics. Impressive!

To this end, I've wondered if the ACC would be apt to add UCONN and or UC in an effort to stave off any potential Big12 Network as a means of self preservation.

(03-10-2016 11:59 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Or both.

There are not enough college football fans in New England to support two big time college football teams, and we already have Boston College.

(03-10-2016 11:57 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  ...I've wondered if the ACC would be apt to add UCONN and or UC in an effort to stave off any potential Big12 Network as a means of self preservation.

Shoot myself so there won't be any bullets left in the gun? No thanks!

The ACC could add Cincy and BYU for football only to block the big 12. Go with 4 pods of

UNC, Duke, UVA, Vtech

NC State, Wake, Cincy, Lville

Clem, Gtech, FSU, Miami

BC, Cuse, Pitt, BYU

rotate the 4 pods every year and play a 7-1 format with ND playing 5 games.

(03-10-2016 12:24 PM)bluesox Wrote:  The ACC could add Cincy and BYU for football only to block the big 12...

Shoot myself so there won't be any bullets left in the gun? No thanks!

(03-10-2016 12:24 PM)bluesox Wrote:  The ACC could add Cincy and BYU for football only to block the big 12. Go with 4 pods of

UNC, Duke, UVA, Vtech

NC State, Wake, Cincy, Lville

Clem, Gtech, FSU, Miami

BC, Cuse, Pitt, BYU

rotate the 4 pods every year and play a 7-1 format with ND playing 5 games.

never mind the fact that pods won't work for a CCG and the Big 10 and SEC are not going to change their mind on that for the ACC specifically

(03-09-2016 07:05 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  here are people that have a MUCH BETTER grasp of what a "look in" is and isn't

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/..._unan.html

and here are the results of the "CBS look in" for the SEC after adding A&M and MU

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...ver-092314

so even dual first named SEC nut swinging idiot clay travis had to admit that the SEC SEC SEC got ZERO ZERO ZERO new money from CBS CBS CBS for adding A&M and MU

the ONLY thing that the SEC SEC SEC got from CBS CBS CBS was CBS CBS CBS allowed the SEC SEC SEC to show another game or other games during the same period that CBS CBS CBS is showing the SEC SEC SEC game of the week

and the really idiotic thing about what dual first name idiot clay travis is saying is that CBS CBS CBS is paying for a SINGLE GAME each week and the CCG which is also a single game

so adding more teams to the conference really does NOTHING to bring more value to the CBS contract because CBS still gets a single game each week and that is the best game (in the opinion of CBS) so adding fair to middling teams like A&M and MU to a conference generally does NOTHING for CBS because those teams are generally NOT going to be in the "game of the week" and even if the are they are just taking the place of some other game that CBS would have shown that most likely would have drawn the same ratings

and with the OOC schedules that A&M and MU play it is not like either of them are going to "bring it" for CBS in any of the non conference games that might make the CBS game of the week

and there has never been any reported or factually reported proof that ESPN gave MORE MONEY for the EXISTING second tier deal they has with the SEC SEC SEC when A&M and MU were added


so based on the fact that the SEC SEC SEC got ZERO ZERO ZERO from CBS CBS CBS for adding A&M and MU and based on the lack of evidence that ESPN ever gave more money on EXISTING contracts for the SEC adding two teams I see no reason to believe that the ACC is due for any money on a "look in" and I have yet to see any really credible proof that they will be getting several million per team if they do not get a conference network in the next 14 to 16 months

and sure there is a SINGLE article out there that was repeated as factually accurate by others about more money, but as we can see from the above story with Slive talking about "look ins" and more money from ESPN AND CBS and then the resulting whining from dual first name dunces like clay travis when CBS gave ZERO new money......well conference commissioners, university presidents, "insider sources" and dual first named dolts will "report" or say a lot of things about money and look ins and deals and new deals, but that does not mean they actually ever happen

Didn't the SEC get the SECN for adding A&M & Missouri?

Wes Durham confirmed in an on air interview here that ESPN would owe the ACC $45 million per year if there isn't an ACCN by July 1, 2016.

http://louisvillesportslive.net/lsl-podc...ob-hughes/

Is the ACC guaranteed a bump from the 5 & 10 year look-in, no. It just means that it's reevaluated. No change is the likely outcome.