If the Big 12 is to survive in the long term then they need to expand and create a conference network.

But let's not assume that's going to happen. How do you think this is all going to go down?

1. Expansion to 12 with ESPN/Texas signing off on turning LHN into Big 12 Network.

2. No expansion and the powers of the league leave the league at the end of the GOR

3. No expansion and the powers of the league find a way to wiggle out of the GOR now and find homes within the next couple of years.

4. Other...

4. Other

I don't think Texas will give up the LHN. OU and maybe a couple of others leave now or later, but as long a the B12 serves a purpose for Texas, it'll be around. Besides, even if some schools are upset that they are behind the B1G/SEC in the revenue gap, there are 25 others that willing to take those spots (number of schools Boren said sent him information packets).

For reference purposes, here is how expensive it will be to start an ACCN:

MHver3 ‏@MHver3  · 5h5 hours ago
ACC network is going to cost ESPN $200 million to launch. And then cost around $1m per week to run.

ESPN is projecting a $0.50 in market subscriber fee and a $0.08 out of market subscriber fee.

It will take 3 years to show profit.

ESPN is asking ACC to cover 50% of start up and 50% of first year to run.

They want to take it out of ACC TV money and the $45m they would owe them in July.

Which would reduce ACC TV payouts by over a third of current payouts for the upcoming year.

Not exactly what member schools had in mind.

So using some easy math... assuming equal shares....
$200M/15 = $13M+ to launch
$52M/2= $26M/15 = $1.7M

If I was the ACC and that was the cost to get a network going that would keep up with the revenue gap, I would do it. It's basically like telling ESPN to just hold their yearly check once for a network. It might be too much for some schools, so maybe a loan process could be in order.

I don't think anything is gong to stop a certain few programs in the Big 12 from leaving. Now that doesn't mean that the Big 12 will go away. I actually believe they will start targeting certain AAC and MWC programs to rebuild a stronger Big 12.

Agreed. As long as there is a B12 that is pulling in ten's of millions a year from TV rights per member, there will still be plenty of AAC or MWC teams making only a million or two dying to replace them.

(05-13-2016 03:48 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  4. Other

I don't think Texas will give up the LHN. OU and maybe a couple of others leave now or later, but as long a the B12 serves a purpose for Texas, it'll be around. Besides, even if some schools are upset that they are behind the B1G/SEC in the revenue gap, there are 25 others that willing to take those spots (number of schools Boren said sent him information packets).

For reference purposes, here is how expensive it will be to start an ACCN:

MHver3 ‏@MHver3  · 5h5 hours ago
ACC network is going to cost ESPN $200 million to launch. And then cost around $1m per week to run.

ESPN is projecting a $0.50 in market subscriber fee and a $0.08 out of market subscriber fee.

It will take 3 years to show profit.

ESPN is asking ACC to cover 50% of start up and 50% of first year to run.

They want to take it out of ACC TV money and the $45m they would owe them in July.

Which would reduce ACC TV payouts by over a third of current payouts for the upcoming year.

Not exactly what member schools had in mind.

So using some easy math... assuming equal shares....
$200M/15 = $13M+ to launch
$52M/2= $26M/15 = $1.7M

If I was the ACC and that was the cost to get a network going that would keep up with the revenue gap, I would do it. It's basically like telling ESPN to just hold their yearly check once for a network. It might be too much for some schools, so maybe a loan process could be in order.

A 50 cent in market rate in NC, Florida, Virginia & SC?! I call bs there. I think that's a conservative estimate for the lowest in market rates, Mass, Penn, etc.

ESPN met with the ACC AD's at their spring meetings recently, reports say that ESPN & the ACC are "bullish" on an ACCN. I would say that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

(05-13-2016 03:48 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  4. Other

I don't think Texas will give up the LHN. OU and maybe a couple of others leave now or later, but as long a the B12 serves a purpose for Texas, it'll be around. Besides, even if some schools are upset that they are behind the B1G/SEC in the revenue gap, there are 25 others that willing to take those spots (number of schools Boren said sent him information packets).

For reference purposes, here is how expensive it will be to start an ACCN:

MHver3 ‏@MHver3  · 5h5 hours ago
ACC network is going to cost ESPN $200 million to launch. And then cost around $1m per week to run.

ESPN is projecting a $0.50 in market subscriber fee and a $0.08 out of market subscriber fee.

It will take 3 years to show profit.

ESPN is asking ACC to cover 50% of start up and 50% of first year to run.

They want to take it out of ACC TV money and the $45m they would owe them in July.

Which would reduce ACC TV payouts by over a third of current payouts for the upcoming year.

Not exactly what member schools had in mind.

So using some easy math... assuming equal shares....
$200M/15 = $13M+ to launch
$52M/2= $26M/15 = $1.7M

If I was the ACC and that was the cost to get a network going that would keep up with the revenue gap, I would do it. It's basically like telling ESPN to just hold their yearly check once for a network. It might be too much for some schools, so maybe a loan process could be in order.

I don't get your math.

Your message says ESPN wants the ACC to pay 50% of start up costs, which works out to $100 million ($200 million x 50%). And pay 50% of first years fees, which would be another $26 million ($1 million per week x 52 weeks x 50%).

So that's a total of $126 million. ESPN wants to take it out of the $45 million payment in July, so that reduces the amount the ACC would owe ESPN to $81 million. That works out to $5.4 million per team, if we use 15 teams, or $5.78 million if we use 14 and exclude Notre Dame (do they get a full share of ACCN?).

So the deal is ESPN keeps the $45 million promised for July and before ESPN pays ACC teams a penny, ESPN still gets to withhold over $5 million more per team. If the ACCN isn't expected to be profitable for the first three years, AND ESPN gets the first $81 million ($5 million per team), how long will it be before ACC teams start seeing $1 of revenue coming their way?