Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
Author Message
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #81
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(04-16-2018 03:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 11:42 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 11:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 10:32 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-14-2018 11:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I don't hide my feelings, I've said ESPN is awesome many times. I'm not afraid to criticize them either, as I am with PLUS.

Haters usually have a personal axe to grind. They are often younger, and don't remember the days before ESPN, when maybe there were two college football games on a week.

I’m 41 and my Dad was taking me to Iowa games since the late 70’s. Been to close to 1,000 college athletic events and watched every single game Iowa game growing up with “Mack” McCausland on local tv. I was doing just fine before espn. I’m doing fine without it. You love espn because LSU (SEC SECSEC) is tied in with ESPN for the rest of your life. You claim not be a conference homer ...

Wrong on at least two counts. I am an admitted conference homer - in hoops, the Big East. In football, I follow USF, they get all of my support. LSU? I like them because they are local, so root for them, but nothing like USF.

Beyond that, I've criticized the SEC many times for their deal with ESPN, which I think is way more favorable to ESPN than the SEC. Ditto for the ACC.

ESPN is awesome because I can see a bajillion college football, basketball, NBA, MLB, and other sports than I ever could growing up. To me, that's a massive plus, and well worth whatever share of my cable bill they gobble up.

IMO, the silliest criticism of ESPN comes from supporters of G5 conferences that say it "holds them back" or something. If you really have been following college football since the 1970s, you know damn well that conferences with the makeup of the current AAC and Sun Belt were completely invisible then, and that it's thanks mostly to ESPN that their exposure and visibility has increased enormously since then. Circa 1980, a school like Memphis or Tulsa or ECU could go literally years without ever having a football game on national TV, and now basically all of their games are. That's a ginormous difference in a positive direction.





G5-type conferences have never had it so good, and that's thanks mostly to ESPN.

Actually I’ll give you a conference that was doing well and could point to espn’s Propaganda as hurting them: The WAC. Decent conference with good bowls before espn downgraded them with the “Non-BCS” label in the 90’s. They were getting too good for their own good and got slapped. CUSA 1.0 was a big surprise in college football. ESPN helped destroy them as they were hitting their stride in the early 2000’s.
So there are two examples of “G5-types” who did have it better before ESPN’s shenanigans.

Even if you think ESPN 'propaganda' hurt the WAC and CUSA, the schools in those conferences make more money and get way, way, more exposure thanks to ESPN than they ever did previously.

In 1980, no current WAC or CUSA team was ever heard of in college football circles, or seen either.
Dishonest^^^ Those WAC teams are in the MWC now, and CUSA didn't exist until 1995. You know this.
04-16-2018 03:11 PM
Find all posts by this user
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #82
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(04-16-2018 03:11 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 03:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 11:42 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 11:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 10:32 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I’m 41 and my Dad was taking me to Iowa games since the late 70’s. Been to close to 1,000 college athletic events and watched every single game Iowa game growing up with “Mack” McCausland on local tv. I was doing just fine before espn. I’m doing fine without it. You love espn because LSU (SEC SECSEC) is tied in with ESPN for the rest of your life. You claim not be a conference homer ...

Wrong on at least two counts. I am an admitted conference homer - in hoops, the Big East. In football, I follow USF, they get all of my support. LSU? I like them because they are local, so root for them, but nothing like USF.

Beyond that, I've criticized the SEC many times for their deal with ESPN, which I think is way more favorable to ESPN than the SEC. Ditto for the ACC.

ESPN is awesome because I can see a bajillion college football, basketball, NBA, MLB, and other sports than I ever could growing up. To me, that's a massive plus, and well worth whatever share of my cable bill they gobble up.

IMO, the silliest criticism of ESPN comes from supporters of G5 conferences that say it "holds them back" or something. If you really have been following college football since the 1970s, you know damn well that conferences with the makeup of the current AAC and Sun Belt were completely invisible then, and that it's thanks mostly to ESPN that their exposure and visibility has increased enormously since then. Circa 1980, a school like Memphis or Tulsa or ECU could go literally years without ever having a football game on national TV, and now basically all of their games are. That's a ginormous difference in a positive direction.





G5-type conferences have never had it so good, and that's thanks mostly to ESPN.

Actually I’ll give you a conference that was doing well and could point to espn’s Propaganda as hurting them: The WAC. Decent conference with good bowls before espn downgraded them with the “Non-BCS” label in the 90’s. They were getting too good for their own good and got slapped. CUSA 1.0 was a big surprise in college football. ESPN helped destroy them as they were hitting their stride in the early 2000’s.
So there are two examples of “G5-types” who did have it better before ESPN’s shenanigans.

Even if you think ESPN 'propaganda' hurt the WAC and CUSA, the schools in those conferences make more money and get way, way, more exposure thanks to ESPN than they ever did previously.

In 1980, no current WAC or CUSA team was ever heard of in college football circles, or seen either.
Dishonest^^^ Those WAC teams are in the MWC now, and CUSA didn't exist until 1995. You know this.

WTF? Those are just labels. What matters are the schools.

Take any school, whether in the WAC, MWC, CUSA, now or in 1994, whenever.

They get much more exposure now, and make more money now, than they did before ESPN.
04-16-2018 04:30 PM
Find all posts by this user
Hokie Mark Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,727
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #83
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
This is an almost philosophical debate... if half of the schools in a conference get "called up", can we really say that the ones left behind were destroyed? To be sure, tradition and rivalries WERE destroyed - which is important in college football. But does that mean school A shouldn't try to better themselves because doing so might hurt school B? What if both A and B make more money and get more exposure than before, but A gets 5X as much while B gets only 2x? Doesn't that mitigate the damages?
04-16-2018 06:30 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
GTFletch Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,926
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 290
I Root For: Georgia Tech
Location: Georgia
Post: #84
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(04-14-2018 06:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I had discounted that as management prattle. But you might be right here--maybe ESPN is getting high on their own supply, as it were.

I really don't think there's any value added in replacing a locally produced pregame show specific to the Indiana PAcers (or whoever) with an NBA Today produced in Bristol. Yes you save some amount of money, (1 show instead of 22, 23 if you count the hour it fills for ESPN/2/U/News) but I don't think it amounts to much.

Having the ability to put MLB/NBA/NHL games on ESPN/2/U/News is significant, though. That's actually really bad for college sports, now that I'm absorbing the news.

If ESPN can fill timeslots with pro sports, it doesn't need college sports as much.

Thank goodness the college broadcasting model has changed to Conf Networks and that the ACC Network is with ESPN and launching in 2019! For all the ACC network haters... time to eat CROW!!!!!
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2018 06:48 PM by GTFletch.)
04-16-2018 06:46 PM
Find all posts by this user
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #85
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(04-16-2018 06:46 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  
(04-14-2018 06:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I had discounted that as management prattle. But you might be right here--maybe ESPN is getting high on their own supply, as it were.

I really don't think there's any value added in replacing a locally produced pregame show specific to the Indiana PAcers (or whoever) with an NBA Today produced in Bristol. Yes you save some amount of money, (1 show instead of 22, 23 if you count the hour it fills for ESPN/2/U/News) but I don't think it amounts to much.

Having the ability to put MLB/NBA/NHL games on ESPN/2/U/News is significant, though. That's actually really bad for college sports, now that I'm absorbing the news.

If ESPN can fill timeslots with pro sports, it doesn't need college sports as much.

Thank goodness the college broadcasting model has changed to Conf Networks and that the ACC Network is with ESPN and launching in 2019! For all the ACC network haters... time to eat CROW!!!!!

No crow eating until we see what it looks like as far as fan interest. Will it look like the B10 network or the PAC network? I'm guessing something. Good luck.
04-16-2018 09:02 PM
Find all posts by this user
Kittonhead Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #86
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(04-16-2018 04:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 03:11 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 03:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 11:42 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 11:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Wrong on at least two counts. I am an admitted conference homer - in hoops, the Big East. In football, I follow USF, they get all of my support. LSU? I like them because they are local, so root for them, but nothing like USF.

Beyond that, I've criticized the SEC many times for their deal with ESPN, which I think is way more favorable to ESPN than the SEC. Ditto for the ACC.

ESPN is awesome because I can see a bajillion college football, basketball, NBA, MLB, and other sports than I ever could growing up. To me, that's a massive plus, and well worth whatever share of my cable bill they gobble up.

IMO, the silliest criticism of ESPN comes from supporters of G5 conferences that say it "holds them back" or something. If you really have been following college football since the 1970s, you know damn well that conferences with the makeup of the current AAC and Sun Belt were completely invisible then, and that it's thanks mostly to ESPN that their exposure and visibility has increased enormously since then. Circa 1980, a school like Memphis or Tulsa or ECU could go literally years without ever having a football game on national TV, and now basically all of their games are. That's a ginormous difference in a positive direction.





G5-type conferences have never had it so good, and that's thanks mostly to ESPN.

Actually I’ll give you a conference that was doing well and could point to espn’s Propaganda as hurting them: The WAC. Decent conference with good bowls before espn downgraded them with the “Non-BCS” label in the 90’s. They were getting too good for their own good and got slapped. CUSA 1.0 was a big surprise in college football. ESPN helped destroy them as they were hitting their stride in the early 2000’s.
So there are two examples of “G5-types” who did have it better before ESPN’s shenanigans.

Even if you think ESPN 'propaganda' hurt the WAC and CUSA, the schools in those conferences make more money and get way, way, more exposure thanks to ESPN than they ever did previously.

In 1980, no current WAC or CUSA team was ever heard of in college football circles, or seen either.
Dishonest^^^ Those WAC teams are in the MWC now, and CUSA didn't exist until 1995. You know this.

WTF? Those are just labels. What matters are the schools.

Take any school, whether in the WAC, MWC, CUSA, now or in 1994, whenever.

They get much more exposure now, and make more money now, than they did before ESPN.

Not true.

NCAA TV contract paid out 750k to each team.

SoMiss, Rice, UTEP, NMSU are making less money from TV as what they were in the early 80's. MAC is finally back to the level but of course didn't have national exposure though paid.
04-16-2018 11:47 PM
Find all posts by this user
Hokie Mark Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,727
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #87
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(04-16-2018 06:46 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  
(04-14-2018 06:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I had discounted that as management prattle. But you might be right here--maybe ESPN is getting high on their own supply, as it were.

I really don't think there's any value added in replacing a locally produced pregame show specific to the Indiana PAcers (or whoever) with an NBA Today produced in Bristol. Yes you save some amount of money, (1 show instead of 22, 23 if you count the hour it fills for ESPN/2/U/News) but I don't think it amounts to much.

Having the ability to put MLB/NBA/NHL games on ESPN/2/U/News is significant, though. That's actually really bad for college sports, now that I'm absorbing the news.

If ESPN can fill timeslots with pro sports, it doesn't need college sports as much.

Thank goodness the college broadcasting model has changed to Conf Networks and that the ACC Network is with ESPN and launching in 2019! For all the ACC network haters... time to eat CROW!!!!!

Hey, as much as I like to support the ACC and its teams, I'm not counting my crows before they hatch! I do think there are reasons to be optimistic, though.
04-17-2018 01:23 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
domer1978 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,469
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 367
I Root For: Notre Dame/Chaos
Location: California/Georgia
Post: #88
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(04-17-2018 01:23 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 06:46 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  
(04-14-2018 06:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I had discounted that as management prattle. But you might be right here--maybe ESPN is getting high on their own supply, as it were.

I really don't think there's any value added in replacing a locally produced pregame show specific to the Indiana PAcers (or whoever) with an NBA Today produced in Bristol. Yes you save some amount of money, (1 show instead of 22, 23 if you count the hour it fills for ESPN/2/U/News) but I don't think it amounts to much.

Having the ability to put MLB/NBA/NHL games on ESPN/2/U/News is significant, though. That's actually really bad for college sports, now that I'm absorbing the news.

If ESPN can fill timeslots with pro sports, it doesn't need college sports as much.

Thank goodness the college broadcasting model has changed to Conf Networks and that the ACC Network is with ESPN and launching in 2019! For all the ACC network haters... time to eat CROW!!!!!

Hey, as much as I like to support the ACC and its teams, I'm not counting my crows before they hatch! I do think there are reasons to be optimistic, though.
We still have no clue how much it will bring in. Best to wait and see and hope for the best.
04-17-2018 06:55 AM
Find all posts by this user
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #89
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(04-16-2018 09:02 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 06:46 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  
(04-14-2018 06:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I had discounted that as management prattle. But you might be right here--maybe ESPN is getting high on their own supply, as it were.

I really don't think there's any value added in replacing a locally produced pregame show specific to the Indiana PAcers (or whoever) with an NBA Today produced in Bristol. Yes you save some amount of money, (1 show instead of 22, 23 if you count the hour it fills for ESPN/2/U/News) but I don't think it amounts to much.

Having the ability to put MLB/NBA/NHL games on ESPN/2/U/News is significant, though. That's actually really bad for college sports, now that I'm absorbing the news.

If ESPN can fill timeslots with pro sports, it doesn't need college sports as much.

Thank goodness the college broadcasting model has changed to Conf Networks and that the ACC Network is with ESPN and launching in 2019! For all the ACC network haters... time to eat CROW!!!!!

No crow eating until we see what it looks like as far as fan interest. Will it look like the B10 network or the PAC network? I'm guessing something. Good luck.

Yes, the jury is still out on the commercial performance of the ACCN, we just have to wait and see until the numbers roll in.

One thing that would cause me concern if i was an ACC fan: The expectations seem to be sky-high, e.g., the FSU AD saying that ACCN revenues could be $15m per school.

Remember, the main reason the ACC has social peace these days is because Swofford calmed FSU and Clemson down a few years ago by selling them on the idea that an ACCN could satisfy their money concerns vis-a-vis the B1G and SEC.

If it doesn't, the grumbling could begin again, GOR or not.
04-17-2018 07:13 AM
Find all posts by this user
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #90
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(04-16-2018 11:47 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 04:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 03:11 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 03:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 11:42 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Actually I’ll give you a conference that was doing well and could point to espn’s Propaganda as hurting them: The WAC. Decent conference with good bowls before espn downgraded them with the “Non-BCS” label in the 90’s. They were getting too good for their own good and got slapped. CUSA 1.0 was a big surprise in college football. ESPN helped destroy them as they were hitting their stride in the early 2000’s.
So there are two examples of “G5-types” who did have it better before ESPN’s shenanigans.

Even if you think ESPN 'propaganda' hurt the WAC and CUSA, the schools in those conferences make more money and get way, way, more exposure thanks to ESPN than they ever did previously.

In 1980, no current WAC or CUSA team was ever heard of in college football circles, or seen either.
Dishonest^^^ Those WAC teams are in the MWC now, and CUSA didn't exist until 1995. You know this.

WTF? Those are just labels. What matters are the schools.

Take any school, whether in the WAC, MWC, CUSA, now or in 1994, whenever.

They get much more exposure now, and make more money now, than they did before ESPN.

Not true.

NCAA TV contract paid out 750k to each team.

SoMiss, Rice, UTEP, NMSU are making less money from TV as what they were in the early 80's. MAC is finally back to the level but of course didn't have national exposure though paid.

I'd be curious as to where you got your numbers from, as my recollection was that back then, schools were paid based on appearance, e.g., if in 1981, the USC vs Oklahoma game was televised, each school got about $750,000 for that appearance. I do know that the NCAA football TV deal for 1981 was about $30m total, so it is hard to see how teams like Southern Miss got $700,000 a year from it.

As for exposure, consider that during the 1970s, Oklahoma averaged 2 appearances on TV per year, and that is including bowl games, which IIRC they went to a bowl game almost every year. So basically, they were televised once a year. And that's Oklahoma we are talking about.
04-17-2018 07:30 AM
Find all posts by this user
Hokie Mark Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,727
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #91
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(04-17-2018 07:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 11:47 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 04:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 03:11 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 03:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Even if you think ESPN 'propaganda' hurt the WAC and CUSA, the schools in those conferences make more money and get way, way, more exposure thanks to ESPN than they ever did previously.

In 1980, no current WAC or CUSA team was ever heard of in college football circles, or seen either.
Dishonest^^^ Those WAC teams are in the MWC now, and CUSA didn't exist until 1995. You know this.

WTF? Those are just labels. What matters are the schools.

Take any school, whether in the WAC, MWC, CUSA, now or in 1994, whenever.

They get much more exposure now, and make more money now, than they did before ESPN.

Not true.

NCAA TV contract paid out 750k to each team.

SoMiss, Rice, UTEP, NMSU are making less money from TV as what they were in the early 80's. MAC is finally back to the level but of course didn't have national exposure though paid.

I'd be curious as to where you got your numbers from, as my recollection was that back then, schools were paid based on appearance, e.g., if in 1981, the USC vs Oklahoma game was televised, each school got about $750,000 for that appearance. I do know that the NCAA football TV deal for 1981 was about $30m total, so it is hard to see how teams like Southern Miss got $700,000 a year from it.

As for exposure, consider that during the 1970s, Oklahoma averaged 2 appearances on TV per year, and that is including bowl games, which IIRC they went to a bowl game almost every year. So basically, they were televised once a year. And that's Oklahoma we are talking about.

Twice: OU/Nebraska and the bowl... But yeah.

No way 100 teams got much from a $30M total.

Even if equally divided, that's only $300,000 each - not counting NCAA overhead.
04-17-2018 07:39 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Kittonhead Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #92
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(04-17-2018 07:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 11:47 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 04:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 03:11 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 03:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Even if you think ESPN 'propaganda' hurt the WAC and CUSA, the schools in those conferences make more money and get way, way, more exposure thanks to ESPN than they ever did previously.

In 1980, no current WAC or CUSA team was ever heard of in college football circles, or seen either.
Dishonest^^^ Those WAC teams are in the MWC now, and CUSA didn't exist until 1995. You know this.

WTF? Those are just labels. What matters are the schools.

Take any school, whether in the WAC, MWC, CUSA, now or in 1994, whenever.

They get much more exposure now, and make more money now, than they did before ESPN.

Not true.

NCAA TV contract paid out 750k to each team.

SoMiss, Rice, UTEP, NMSU are making less money from TV as what they were in the early 80's. MAC is finally back to the level but of course didn't have national exposure though paid.

I'd be curious as to where you got your numbers from, as my recollection was that back then, schools were paid based on appearance, e.g., if in 1981, the USC vs Oklahoma game was televised, each school got about $750,000 for that appearance. I do know that the NCAA football TV deal for 1981 was about $30m total, so it is hard to see how teams like Southern Miss got $700,000 a year from it.

As for exposure, consider that during the 1970s, Oklahoma averaged 2 appearances on TV per year, and that is including bowl games, which IIRC they went to a bowl game almost every year. So basically, they were televised once a year. And that's Oklahoma we are talking about.

I tried looking in the SI vault but I couldn't find it. It was in one of the early 80's article in reference to a payment Central Michigan received. Its entirely possible the amount (roughly 750k) was a combined distribution from the NCAA.

The CFA by cutting a few conferences loose was able to offer the remainder 1 million per school. CUSA and WAC members were largely part of the CFA so when they struck out to negotiate contracts they used the "salary history" to pick up 1 million per school deals (MWC had to split first before they got the 1 mill deal).

AAC is making a little more today (2 million per school) but the salaries in that conference eat it up easily.
04-17-2018 11:13 PM
Find all posts by this user
sctvman Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,097
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 46
I Root For: C of Charleston
Location: Charleston, SC
Post: #93
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
In 1981, the last year one network had the entire college football package (when ABC had it), USC was shown twice. Oklahoma (a #1-#2 game) was regionalized with a App State-Citadel game and a SWAC game, while USC-UCLA was full national.

Those days were crazy with television. There was one Saturday (October 3) that had 6 ABC regional games at 12 noon. Navy-Yale was the “lead” game at noon. Yes. Yale was the lead game.

Arkansas State-Kansas was picked as one of the regional games. 1980 was the same way. November 8 (the famous Georgia-Florida Lindsey Scott game) was the lead national game, but there were 5 other regional games going on at the same time.

North Carolina-Clemson was carried in the Carolinas. Charleston, a big SEC market even without a team in the league, was unable to see Georgia-Florida.

The most ABC ever showed at one time was 7 games, on 11/10/79. ABC and later CBS was required to show a set of 1-AA, D2 and D3 games to fit a quota before the TV was deregulated.
04-18-2018 01:01 PM
Find all posts by this user
TerpsNPhoenix Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,262
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation: 78
I Root For: Maryland & Elon
Location: North Cackalacky
Post: #94
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
Comcast prepares all-cash bid to gate-crash Disney-Fox deal

"U.S. cable operator Comcast Corp is speaking to investment banks about obtaining bridge financing for an all-cash bid to displace Walt Disney Co on its $52 billion deal to acquire most of Twenty-First Century Fox Inc’s assets..."

"Comcast is waiting for a judge to rule next month on the U.S. Department of Justice’s challenge to telecommunications provider AT&T Inc’s planned $85 billion acquisition of media conglomerate Time Warner Inc before it submits an offer to Fox, the sources said."

"Murdoch, who owns close to a 17 percent in Fox and also has voting control, had a preference at the time for a stock deal, because it made the transaction non-taxable at a Fox shareholder level. It is not clear how receptive he would be to an all-cash offer by Comcast."
05-07-2018 07:29 PM
Find all posts by this user
MissouriStateBears Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,625
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 88
I Root For: Missouri State
Location:
Post: #95
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(05-07-2018 07:29 PM)TerpsNPhoenix Wrote:  Comcast prepares all-cash bid to gate-crash Disney-Fox deal

"U.S. cable operator Comcast Corp is speaking to investment banks about obtaining bridge financing for an all-cash bid to displace Walt Disney Co on its $52 billion deal to acquire most of Twenty-First Century Fox Inc’s assets..."

"Comcast is waiting for a judge to rule next month on the U.S. Department of Justice’s challenge to telecommunications provider AT&T Inc’s planned $85 billion acquisition of media conglomerate Time Warner Inc before it submits an offer to Fox, the sources said."

"Murdoch, who owns close to a 17 percent in Fox and also has voting control, had a preference at the time for a stock deal, because it made the transaction non-taxable at a Fox shareholder level. It is not clear how receptive he would be to an all-cash offer by Comcast."

I would rather see ESPN get the FOX regionals over NBC. Especially in my area of the country. It would make a much better regional sports network with the television assets that ESPN has that could also be on the regional network.
05-07-2018 07:33 PM
Find all posts by this user
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #96
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
If an all-cash deal is a big tax hit to the Murdochs, then they won't take it. Based on their percentage ownership of Fox, they would get over $9 billion cash from an all-cash deal. Also, by getting Disney stock, their return on the sale would continue to increase in the future assuming that Disney's stock price increases.

Why wouldn't Comcast offer a stock swap? Are they worried that the Murdochs would end up with enough shares to control Comcast?

But Comcast would still "win" by forcing Disney to increase the price it's going to pay for the Fox assets.
05-07-2018 08:09 PM
Find all posts by this user
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,888
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #97
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(04-17-2018 07:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 09:02 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 06:46 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  
(04-14-2018 06:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I had discounted that as management prattle. But you might be right here--maybe ESPN is getting high on their own supply, as it were.

I really don't think there's any value added in replacing a locally produced pregame show specific to the Indiana PAcers (or whoever) with an NBA Today produced in Bristol. Yes you save some amount of money, (1 show instead of 22, 23 if you count the hour it fills for ESPN/2/U/News) but I don't think it amounts to much.

Having the ability to put MLB/NBA/NHL games on ESPN/2/U/News is significant, though. That's actually really bad for college sports, now that I'm absorbing the news.

If ESPN can fill timeslots with pro sports, it doesn't need college sports as much.

Thank goodness the college broadcasting model has changed to Conf Networks and that the ACC Network is with ESPN and launching in 2019! For all the ACC network haters... time to eat CROW!!!!!

No crow eating until we see what it looks like as far as fan interest. Will it look like the B10 network or the PAC network? I'm guessing something. Good luck.

Yes, the jury is still out on the commercial performance of the ACCN, we just have to wait and see until the numbers roll in.

One thing that would cause me concern if i was an ACC fan: The expectations seem to be sky-high, e.g., the FSU AD saying that ACCN revenues could be $15m per school.

Remember, the main reason the ACC has social peace these days is because Swofford calmed FSU and Clemson down a few years ago by selling them on the idea that an ACCN could satisfy their money concerns vis-a-vis the B1G and SEC.

If it doesn't, the grumbling could begin again, GOR or not.

There are multiple unknown factors where the ACCN is concerned. Footprint won't be one of them. Essentially the SEC and ACC footprints will be shared by both conference networks. That's a major plus for the ACC and a good boost for the SEC too. But only at the out of footprint rate for conference benefiting from the other's footprint.

Here are the variables: SEC earns in footprint a whopping $1.30 per subscription. Out of footprint the SEC still generates .25 cents per subscription and both of these are per month. The SEC's average is an industry high .74 cents for all subscriptions averaged. The Big 10 by comparison averages .47 cents for all subscriptions averaged. The PAC averages .11 cents for all subscriptions averaged.

Many of the larger ACC projections were using the SEC's average rate for estimates. That's not happening. The rates will be set by upfront demand for the ACCN. If the ACC wants to max this number they'll need to push hard this next year to get their members to sign up early. That's what they need to push.

Second, while subscriptions are fine, their viewers will actually have to watch if they want their rates to stay up. Since the ACC presently lags all other P conferences in the % of viewers who actually watch games on Saturday they are going to have to make substantial improvement in this area as well.

If I had to guess I'd say that the ACCN will probably average around 30-35 cents for their rate for both in and out of footprint subscriptions. That will put them substantially ahead of the PAC but still trailing the BTN.

If they do that then 5 to 6 million is possible from the network at the open. However remember that when the network opens ESPN is no longer obligated to pay them 3 million a year for "not" having a network. So in the first year or two the ACCN might only add 2 to 3 million NET to what the ACC earns already. That may be enough to catch them up to the PAC, and perhaps pass them, but will hardly be the magic bullet they are looking for.

However, if they can continue to produce on the field, after the initial viewing % is calculated and if the subscriptions stay relatively high then it is not impractical that someday (possibly within 5 years) they will be making 10 million more per school. That's not SEC or B1G money but may put them solidly into 3rd place and keep them about 10 million behind the SEC and B1G's current projected payouts which will be approaching 55 million by that time. But that is assuming they also get a bump should they add more content via a school or two. If not they could be 15 million behind and pending any additions the SEC or B1G might add, or depending upon how much of a raise the Big 10 gets in2023 with their new contract, or how much the SEC gets for their renewed T1 deal in 2024 they could still wind up 20 million behind those two conferences in media revenue.

So the ACCN I believe will be a money maker for them. But their rate, their viewer participation %, and their initial subscription drive will all play a large part in even getting them to 10 million within 5 years. Fail in any of those areas an it might be quite a different story. And even then they have no control over the B1G's or SEC's new contracts and it's along time to 2036.
05-07-2018 08:26 PM
Find all posts by this user
Wolfman Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,459
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 181
I Root For: The Cartel
Location: Raleigh, NC
Post: #98
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
The issue I find alarming is Disney's de facto support of Fox. Disney is getting a good deal on a large amount of content but they also absorbing a huge chunk of Fox debt. Murdoch/Fox is now pursuing EU properties. There is talk of Murdoch/fox selling off more properties to Disney to increase cash and satisfy EU regulators.

I don't see Fox expanding its college sports properties. First, I don't see Disney being foolish enough to hand a competitor billions and take over billions in debt so that competitor can bid against them for properties. There has to be some non-compete language in the contracts. Second, Murdoch seems more interested in EU properties.

I also find it interesting that Disney seems committed to help Murdoch in the EU market rather than expanding its own presence there.
05-07-2018 08:44 PM
Find all posts by this user
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,888
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #99
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(05-07-2018 08:44 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  The issue I find alarming is Disney's de facto support of Fox. Disney is getting a good deal on a large amount of content but they also absorbing a huge chunk of Fox debt. Murdoch/Fox is now pursuing EU properties. There is talk of Murdoch/fox selling off more properties to Disney to increase cash and satisfy EU regulators.

I don't see Fox expanding its college sports properties. First, I don't see Disney being foolish enough to hand a competitor billions and take over billions in debt so that competitor can bid against them for properties. There has to be some non-compete language in the contracts. Second, Murdoch seems more interested in EU properties.

I also find it interesting that Disney seems committed to help Murdoch in the EU market rather than expanding its own presence there.

I didn't see FOX expanding their college sports properties either, but I didn't know they were expanding their European holdings. I'm not sure what else Disney could buy from FOX. They carefully weighed the first transaction to get government approval. It will be interesting to watch. The rumor on the West coast is that FOX may sell their remaining college sports properties to one of the streaming companies. Hmm?
(This post was last modified: 05-07-2018 09:13 PM by JRsec.)
05-07-2018 09:07 PM
Find all posts by this user
otown Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,165
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 255
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #100
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
Now things are getting interesting...... Comcast gonna make an unsolicited all cash offer for Fox to block Disney
05-08-2018 06:40 AM
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.