(10-18-2016 06:19 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-18-2016 06:00 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(10-18-2016 05:10 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-18-2016 04:16 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(10-18-2016 04:02 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  That's not true. And is completely stupid.

When you need absolutely baseless, moronic reporting...look to sources from the B12 first.

I'm not saying you are wrong or anything but looking back at the ESPN contract extension there is nothing about them paying the ACC more money than they are right now. It almost sounds like ESPN is taking the safe option of not giving more money but if the ACC network hits it big than ESPN could be giving more money down the line. The GOR and Network was to make the ACC more stable and not be able to be poached. I'm guessing the ESPN was so eager to sign a network because they wouldn't have to pay more and they would get more ACC content. Just my 2 cents after reading over the ESPN/ACC contract.

If you can find me an article that shows the new income the ACC will get from ESPN I would greatly appreciate it.

The reason such a report is being clowned, is the previous contract, like like every other media contract in sports, already is set to go up every year between now and its original expiration, I believe 2026 or so. As Dasville said, nothing is known about the contract extension numbers, but unless the ACC somehow signed a contract that reduces its current contract payout, every insult levied at the author is warranted and then some. Plus, if such were true, the SAME would be true of the SEC.

why would the same be true for the SEC SEC SEC?.....just because one conference might make a deal that does not mean another would

and there is significant expense to the ACCn that ESPN has to front up and along with that right now ESPN is showing content that would be otherwise shown on ABC, ESPN, ESPN II, The Ocho or ESPNu, but in the future ESPN will not be renewing the deal with Raycom and Fox Regionals so that is another COST to ESPN to incur to bring the network online and run it and have content for it

ESPN could have just as easily have wanted to sign another deal with Raycom and Fox Regionals

the Raycom deal goes through 2027 and is for $50 million a year right to ESPN

so if ESPN is buying that out (no indication they are) that is a major cost and if ESPN signed a deal for 9 years after 2027 with the ACC (which they have) well even if they pay the ACC the same money that is 9 years when ESPN will not have the GUARANTEED income of $50 million a year from Raycom offsetting their payments to the ACC

ESPN traded that surety of income for the CHANCE to make as much or more with that content on an ACC network and the ACC will get a cut of that if it is successful

it is a bit of a stretch to think that ESPN is going to pay the freight to start and run the ACCn, give up $50 million in GUARANTEED income per year for 9 years they could most likely get from Raycom, they are going to split any profits from the ACCn with the ACC AND they are going to just keep escalating their new deal for 10 years past the current deal at the same pace it escalates now

it is called SHARED RISK....ESPN starts getting hit with major expenses in 2019 why would the ACC not share in some of that if they are going to share in the profits

also there is one thing you seem to forget....the SEC SEC SEC provided ESPN with ADDITIONAL content for the SECn that ESPN did not have the rights to and that the SEC SEC SEC teams had been selling themselves previously

in the case of the ACC and the ACCn ESPN will not have any additional content until the Raycom/Fox Regionals deal ends in 2027 unless ESPN pays to buy that out.....which there is no indication has happened

so again ESPN is incurring expenses starting now and even more so in 2019 with out any additional content provided by the ACC and after 2027 there will be additional content, but that is content that ESPN was formerly getting paid for not individual member schools....so that is still an EXPENSE to ESPN not the ACC members

All of that said and you missed the point. Espn had to do the same thing with the SEac, but back content they had already sold, and could have continued to resell, in a contract where they already had the conference locked up for another dozen years.

But please, carry on with your expertise...

the SEC SEC SEC bought that content back not ESPN

and ESPN is still the one taking all the financial risk with the ACC and if the content has been bought back from Raycom and Fox Regionals as stated that is a great deal less income for ESPN starting in 2019 and they are not going to take that hit for free

I believe there are increases to help get the ACC in the top 3-5 programs to make sure that can't fall to far behind 3-4. In addition, the schools just turned down an extra $500K from ESPN to go to 9 game schedule and stay at 8 games. I will be the first to admit, the ACC and ESPN always have had strong partnership. For example, the ACC really never broadcast ed the 40 Million extra to the ACC if no network occurred. Basically, Wes Durham stated this clause during a radio conversation. The ACC did a great job of being quiet and let the talking heads cover it. Then the surprise ACC Network announcement that caused the B12 meltdown. I think there is a perfect case study could be done on how the ACC vs B12 about how to handling contracts in public.

I don't know why this is but for some reason the Big 12 fans seem to a.) be really bad at math; b.) lack common sense; or c.) both.

Why would everyone agree to extend their GOR by 10-12 years if their revenues were not going to grow during that period? That just defies common sense.

It also defies common sense why anyone would actually believe that?

I don't know Chris Williams – or whatever his name is – from the man on the moon. He might be the sports equivalent of Edward R Murrow for all I know. However, he sacrificed any credibility he has outside of Iowa with this latest effort.

He says that his bombshell is a little reported fact that changes the entire complexion of things. If it were true, he'd be right. However, have you ask yourself why no one else has reported that fact?

Wouldn't that be germane to a story about a conference-wide television network and a long extension of the media rights? If you're into conspiracies, I can see why you would claim that ESPN would have buried it. However, why would Fox bury that information? Why would so many other media outlets play ball? What would they possibly have to gain?

More to the point, why is it that out of the hundreds and hundreds of media outlets that reported on that story, only Cyclone illustrated has access to the most important piece of information to come out of that agreement and which completely changes the entire complexion of it?

Why would anyone ask themselves those seemingly obvious questions? It makes much more sense to just accept this wild ass claim at face value without any critical thinking whatsoever. As we all saw at the height of the Dude of West Virginia's reign, that's just how you guys seem to operate. It's also why you have been consistently humiliated at every turn as all of these insane forecasts never actually come to fruition.

Come on, buddy. Nobody can be this dumb. It was a moronic thing for that guy to write and an even crazier thing for anyone to believe.

I'm going to give this guy the benefit of the doubt and not accuse him of being an out and out liar. I'm going to say that somebody from Iowa State – in an effort to appear less cuckolded by this most recent embarrassment – whispered that in his ear and he naïvely bought it and reported it as a fact without first vetting it.

That's still really shoddy reporting but it's not as bad as the alternative.

The Big 12 is dead conference walking. The weakest of the dead, Iowa State, whose only destination is out of the Power 4 the source of this absurd rumor. Where is it written that Big 12 fans are insider sources for everything that happens in The ACC?
CJ

Good job Paco.

It's going to be hilarious when the Big 12 asks for SEC money in 2023 when negotiating their next TV deal (assuming the league is still together).

ESPN is going to point to the city of Houston and say "Big 12, why should we pay you SEC money nationally when SEC games crush Big 12 games in your biggest home market?"

Bowlsby was right. The Big 12 is going to be $20M per year per school behind the SEC in the next round. Which means the Big 12 won't exist.

(10-18-2016 05:10 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-18-2016 04:16 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(10-18-2016 04:02 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(10-18-2016 04:00 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(10-18-2016 03:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  So there's this rumor going around that the ACC has a flat payout in there new TV contract. Meaning the rate they are paid stays the same until 2036.

That can't possibly be the case


Right?

In July, the ACC recently extended its Grant of Rights through 2036. That is what launched the Big 12’s most recent look at expansion. One thing that doesn’t get reported very often though is that the ACC’s television money is not set to grow from now until 2036. Unlike what the Big 12 currently has, the ACC’s new deal does not escalate by the year, which means that particular league is of the belief that the television industry is going to continue to decline.

It was a gamble by the ACC, who is set to launch its ACC Network with ESPN in 2019.

Only time will tell if they are winners are losers here.

It is known though that for the next eight years at least, the Big 12 will be in front of the ACC when it comes to per school revenue.

When comparing the two leagues though, the question is what happens to the Big 12’s situation after 2024?

The extended Grant of Rights gives the ACC added much-needed security, but not necessarily more money.

http://cyclonefanatic.com/2016/10/willia...anking-on/

That's not true. And is completely stupid.

When you need absolutely baseless, moronic reporting...look to sources from the B12 first.

I'm not saying you are wrong or anything but looking back at the ESPN contract extension there is nothing about them paying the ACC more money than they are right now. It almost sounds like ESPN is taking the safe option of not giving more money but if the ACC network hits it big than ESPN could be giving more money down the line. The GOR and Network was to make the ACC more stable and not be able to be poached. I'm guessing the ESPN was so eager to sign a network because they wouldn't have to pay more and they would get more ACC content. Just my 2 cents after reading over the ESPN/ACC contract.

If you can find me an article that shows the new income the ACC will get from ESPN I would greatly appreciate it.

The reason such a report is being clowned, is the previous contract, like like every other media contract in sports, already is set to go up every year between now and its original expiration, I believe 2026 or so.

Let's face it: the real reason it is being clowned is because it strikes a nerve with ACC fans, all of whom are either (a) perpetually sensitive about the inferiority of their media dollars vs the SEC and B1G, or (b) are worried that fans of other ACC schools are, to the detriment of conference unity.

It is being clowned because it is a Big 12/Iowa State fanboy article without documentation or source material.

In other words, it is Bleacher Report worthy, if that.

This Big XII vs ACC fanboys is getting old. Let's face it, both are the tallest midgets in the P5. One has a perception issue of unity, the other one is too heavy on schools that are overshadow by nearby SEC and B1G schools. Both leave a lot to be desired. It's the B1G, SEC and PAC-12 followed by those two.

(10-22-2016 03:43 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  This Big XII vs ACC fanboys is getting old. Let's face it, both are the tallest midgets in the P5. One has a perception issue of unity, the other one is too heavy on schools that are overshadow by nearby SEC and B1G schools. Both leave a lot to be desired. It's the B1G, SEC and PAC-12 followed by those two.

Agreed it's getting old but it was the "battle for the P4" spot.
The ACC is actually considered better property than the Pac12.
If you adjust for multiple sports, The ACC could very well be the Premier Conference in the FBS.

1. Nothing is really public about the SECN contract with regard to payouts.

2. I doubt ESPN would handle the ACCN any differently.

3. But because nothing is out this issue can't be "proven" either way.

4. The remarks cited by the ACC announcement specifically state the payouts will go up immediately prior to the ACCN. They don't say anything about what they will or will not do afterward. So that is in keeping with the escalators built into the present ACC contract. The rest is not publicly specified.

5. Remember this board's language is more tightly moderated than most conference boards because it is an open forum area for everyone. While Paco is likely correct there was no proof for his position and using aggressive language does not a debate make no matter how serious or ridiculous the debate may be. Decorum is in order.

6. The ACC gang up mentality is still very present in this thread. I had hoped with your newfound security your old insecure behaviors would cease.

7. The OP is a fan of Colorado, and is a PAC guy, not a Big 12 guy. The source cited was a Big 12 guy. Also I think this thread was designed to troll and I'll be watching out for that with regards to the ACC's network.

Thread Closed.