If the B1G were to go all in with Fox, ESPN would have two properties in total, the ACC & the SEC. They share rights to the Big 12, and the PAC 12. If they lose the B1G or even part of the B1G, they would lose valuable content. They would need to replace that content. Those games on WatchESPN would move up into the better slots / channels. I don't know if it would be a direct financial windfall, but I could see them promote the conference more.
It would mean ESPN has to fill up that extra air time with ACC SEC B12 and P12 games which seems like it would be a good thing but it would make ESPN less likely to give up the 3rd tier content we need to start an ACC network. So, if there's not going to be an ACC network anyway, it's a good thing. If there was going to be an ACC network and it gets cancelled because ESPN needs that content, it's a bad thing.
No, it would DEFINITELY be a good thing for the ACC as that content would be worth more on their air than it would be on a start up cable channel. However, given the atmosphere on this board, I'm sure it will be spun into reason number 7,983 that John Swofford sucks and Florida State needs to defect to anywhere else, ASAP.
My guess is that, in the future, both ESPN and Fox will have a piece of all four power conferences.
According to Wes Durham of the ACC & Fox Sports ESPN owes the ACC $45 million per year if there isn't an ACCN by July 1, 2016. Wes did a radio interview on 93.9 ESPN radio here in Louisville.
Says that if there were to be an ACCN that it would be over multiple platforms & channels. It wouldn't be on 1 channel like the SECN or the B1GN.
(03-09-2016 07:24 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote: [ -> ]According to Wes Durham of the ACC & Fox Sports ESPN owes the ACC $45 million per year if there isn't an ACCN by July 1, 2016. Wes did a radio interview on 93.9 ESPN radio here in Louisville.
Says that if there were to be an ACCN that it would be over multiple platforms & channels. It wouldn't be on 1 channel like the SECN or the B1GN.
I think I'd rather have the $3million per team per year than have an ACC network spread over multiple channels and platforms. That's really no different than what we have now.
(03-10-2016 02:07 AM)ChrisLords Wrote: [ -> ] (03-09-2016 07:24 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote: [ -> ]According to Wes Durham of the ACC & Fox Sports ESPN owes the ACC $45 million per year if there isn't an ACCN by July 1, 2016. Wes did a radio interview on 93.9 ESPN radio here in Louisville.
Says that if there were to be an ACCN that it would be over multiple platforms & channels. It wouldn't be on 1 channel like the SECN or the B1GN.
I think I'd rather have the $3million per team per year than have an ACC network spread over multiple channels and platforms. That's really no different than what we have now.
+1. That's not a network... it's a collection of random broadcasts.
(03-09-2016 07:24 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote: [ -> ]According to Wes Durham of the ACC & Fox Sports ESPN owes the ACC $45 million per year if there isn't an ACCN by July 1, 2016. Wes did a radio interview on 93.9 ESPN radio here in Louisville.
Says that if there were to be an ACCN that it would be over multiple platforms & channels. It wouldn't be on 1 channel like the SECN or the B1GN.
maybe it will be on the LHN and SECN
