(03-12-2013 12:31 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  No, that's definitely wrong. ESPN is just going to stand idly by while Fox waltzes in and steals all of its inventory and destroys the college sports empire on which the entire company is built. Don't you read, man?

Dude, you crack me up. Seriously, great stuff.

That was pretty hilarious. So ESPiN is built upon the ACC, and the ACC is the only reason for its survival? That's funny as hell...

(03-13-2013 07:02 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  That was pretty hilarious. So ESPiN is built upon the ACC, and the ACC is the only reason for its survival? That's funny as hell...

I didn't see ACC mentioned... he said "all of its [ESPN's] inventory and destroys the college sports empire on which the entire company is built". That's not JUST the ACC. Fox already just grabbed the C7/Big East basketball from ESPN. Maryland & Rutgers moves to the B1G is also a move from 100% ESPN to 75-80% Fox. At some point we have to assume that either (a) Fox loses money and stops poaching, or (b) ESPN loses revenue and fights for it.

AS FOR THE OP QUESTION - ESPN WILL PAY THE ACC

(03-13-2013 07:11 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 07:02 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  That was pretty hilarious. So ESPiN is built upon the ACC, and the ACC is the only reason for its survival? That's funny as hell...

I didn't see ACC mentioned... he said "all of its [ESPN's] inventory and destroys the college sports empire on which the entire company is built". That's not JUST the ACC. Fox already just grabbed the C7/Big East basketball from ESPN. Maryland & Rutgers moves to the B1G is also a move from 100% ESPN to 75-80% Fox. At some point we have to assume that either (a) Fox loses money and stops poaching, or (b) ESPN loses revenue and fights for it.

AS FOR THE OP QUESTION - ESPN WILL PAY THE ACC

The only conferences owned by both FOX and ESPiN are the B12 and P12, and the ACC is the only wholly owned by ESPiN that people are speculating about as expansion candidates for a conference partially owned by FOX. Neither the SEC or B1G have any games on FOX. So my assumption was based on the facts, not the actual words...

(03-13-2013 07:21 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  [The only conferences owned by both FOX and ESPiN are the B12 and P12, and the ACC is the only wholly owned by ESPiN that people are speculating about as expansion candidates for a conference partially owned by FOX. Neither the SEC or B1G have any games on FOX. So my assumption was based on the facts, not the actual words...

Well, you may say that is TECHNICALLY true, but Fox is half owner of the BTN, so every team that joins the B1G is another team under the Fox umbrella.

If it knocks ESPiN down a peg, I'm all for it...

(03-13-2013 01:11 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  If it knocks ESPiN down a peg, I'm all for it...

I hear ya!

(03-13-2013 01:11 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  If it knocks ESPiN down a peg, I'm all for it...

As much as I've come to despise ESPN over the past few years... I tried for a few weeks in November to live without their website, and couldn't do it. It's that much better than Fox, CBS, Yahoo, and NBC combined. ESPN truly is the best in this rotten business.

I really think that ESPN and Fox are trying to turn this into a 2-network oligopoly at this point. There's a reason that Pepsi and Coke are so profitable: they avoid competing directly whenever possible, coordinate to strangle any 3rd party, and keep fake-attack each other in their advertisements to give the public the illusion that there's competition and keep the feds off their back.

(03-12-2013 01:06 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  The ACC TV contract when renegotiated will be a fraction of the Big 4, who will continue to consolidate wealth . . . but I also agree with the statements above, that the Big XII's decisions to stay at 10 are key indicators that the TV market for college football has likely topped out. . . I have long ago accepted one thing - the folks who run the University of Texas are the smartest men in the room - and there is a reason they stuck at 10 when everyone said they had to go to 12 and have a conference championship game . . .

"the folks who run the University of Texas are the smartest men in the room"

There is so much irony in this post it's unbelievable. Change "Texas" to "Enron," and this is literally what people (including the fine folks who ran ENRON) used to say about ENRON.

Given 1. both ENRON and UTex are in the same state and 2. you're from Houston (or at least a Houston fan), I'm not sure that's the best phrase to use.

(03-12-2013 11:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think the ACC will get enough of an increase where the thoughts of the Big 12 being able to raid them (which never should have really been taken seriously in the first place) will disappear. Nothing in the near future will get the ACC on par with the Big Ten and SEC in terms of revenue, but it will probably be enough that the conference realignment panic would subside.

My God, that is an insanely stupid post. Admitting that the ACC will still be substantially behind the B1G and the SEC in terms of revenue per team and then following that up with the belief that the "conference realignment panic would subside" is beyond counterintuitive, it is silly. It really is.....and you should be embarrassed.

How can anyone say that an ACC school considering the Big 12 should have NEVER been taken seriously when this did actually happen:

http://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1364755

Haggard confirmed that as far as he knows there has been no contact between FSU and the Big 12 regarding possible expansion. However, he makes it very clear that he and the Board of Trustees would be more than open to exploring the possibility if it would mean additional revenue to the school.

"How do you not look into that option," asked Haggard. "On behalf of the Board of Trustees I can say that unanimously we would be in favor of seeing what the Big 12 might have to offer. We have to do what is in Florida State's best interest."

We can all have our opinions, and the ACC may indeed never lose another team, but anyone who suggests that the idea of an ACC team leaving for the Big 12 should have never been taken seriously is a ****ing idiot.

It's pretty obvious that both the ACC and the Big 12 are looking up at the Big Ten, Pac-12, and soon the SEC (once they get their network up & running). It just doesn't make sense to make this an ACC vs. Big 12 issue. Bowlsby is smart to look into the possibility of an alliance to benefit both leagues. We'll see if it pans out (I hope so).

I think everybody is over-estimating the B1G and SEC future TV money.

Frank actually has sources & is in tune with this...hasn't been wrong yet. Wow, just wow

(03-14-2013 08:36 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  It's pretty obvious that both the ACC and the Big 12 are looking up at the Big Ten, Pac-12, and soon the SEC (once they get their network up & running). It just doesn't make sense to make this an ACC vs. Big 12 issue. Bowlsby is smart to look into the possibility of an alliance to benefit both leagues. We'll see if it pans out (I hope so).

Exactly, "IF" an alliance is worked out it would benefit both leagues...but it is painfully obvious that both the ACC/Big XII are look'n up to the Power/Destination Three...it is what it is...

(03-14-2013 08:40 AM)Maize Wrote:  Frank actually has sources & is in tune with this...hasn't been wrong yet. Wow, just wow

It is really simple. Frank said the idea of an ACC school thinking of going to the Big 12 should have never been taken seriously. I post direct quotes from the then chairman of the FSU Board who says the entire board is interested in hearing what the Big 12 has to say and that the option of going to the Big 12 has to be taken seriously......and you still side with Frank?!?

The PAC12 is still struggling to get Satellite/Cable deals. I don't think the B1G will get the cable penetration in NYC that they are hoping for and any rate increase to existing deals will get resistance.

(03-14-2013 08:40 AM)Maize Wrote:  Frank actually has sources & is in tune with this...hasn't been wrong yet. Wow, just wow

He was wrong on A&M. He like anyone else isn't infallible but usually has solid logic on it.

(03-14-2013 08:55 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 08:40 AM)Maize Wrote:  Frank actually has sources & is in tune with this...hasn't been wrong yet. Wow, just wow :coffee3:

It is really simple. Frank said the idea of an ACC school thinking of going to the Big 12 should have never been taken seriously. I post direct quotes from the then chairman of the FSU Board who says the entire board is interested in hearing what the Big 12 has to say and that the option of going to the Big 12 has to be taken seriously......and you still side with Frank?!?

You realize Haggard was removed shortly there after.

(03-14-2013 09:05 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 08:55 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  [quote='Maize' pid='9090029' dateline='1363268407']
Frank actually has sources & is in tune with this...hasn't been wrong yet. Wow, just wow

It is really simple. Frank said the idea of an ACC school thinking of going to the Big 12 should have never been taken seriously. I post direct quotes from the then chairman of the FSU Board who says the entire board is interested in hearing what the Big 12 has to say and that the option of going to the Big 12 has to be taken seriously......and you still side with Frank?!?

You realize Haggard was removed shortly there after.
[/quot
He was already on his way out the door, he only had a month left on the BOT & the FSU President put an end to that pretty quickly.

(03-14-2013 08:36 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  It's pretty obvious that both the ACC and the Big 12 are looking up at the Big Ten, Pac-12, and soon the SEC (once they get their network up & running). It just doesn't make sense to make this an ACC vs. Big 12 issue. Bowlsby is smart to look into the possibility of an alliance to benefit both leagues. We'll see if it pans out (I hope so).

Not sure I agree with this at all. The Pac-12, even with a network, is not really seen as a huge money maker. There is at least potential there. But the Pac-12 has yet to demonstrate either the on the field success or the off the field success to clealy show it will distance itself from the other conferences.

The SEC also brings similar questions. Although the on the field product is clearly top notch, the SEC is not making signifcantly more money than the other conferences are. The belief seems to be that the SEC will magically make more money once they have a network. However, that analysis seems to be nothing more than the Big 10 network makes money and the SEC is better than the Big 10. It ignores possible distribution issues (see Pac-12) and more importantly ignores the fact that the SEC actually owns none of its broadcast rights.

The Big 10 contributed all its Tier 2 and Tier 3 stuff to the Big Ten Network and still only holds a minority share in the Big 10 Network. It's a very profitable minority share, but a minority nonetheless. Unfortunately, the SEC owns neither its Tier 2 or Tier 3 rights. ESPN bought the Tier 2 stuff and the schools sold off their Tier 3 stuff to various third parties. How exactly is the SEC going to make money off a network it contributes nothing to?

I think the belief is that the SEC will negotitate buyouts of the existing Tier 3 deals and then bundle them in a package to ESPN. This at least means the SEC brings something to the network. The idea is that the whole is more than a sum of it parts. But one has to acknowledge several things:
(1) The SEC will spend money to buy-out existing deals. So it needs to make a certain amount of money just to break even and cover these costs. Eventually those deals would have expired, which means long-term these costs will go away. But short term, it may not be the huge financial boon some think.
(2) ESPN will likely provide much of the legwork for setting up, running, and distributing the network (much like Fox has for the Big 10). Fox got 51% of the Network (initially) to do this. ESPN will likely command a similar number. ESPN will also be providing the Tier 2 content as they already own it via their prior deals. And Tier 2 content is much more valuable than Tier 3 content. So ESPN will be contributing the overwhelming majority of content and work to the network. It won't be the same financial set-up the Big 10 Network has.

All of which isn't to say the SEC cannot make money off this set-up. But the idea the SEC will get what the Big 10 gets is laughable, even if it ends up being a more successful network. The SEC is still rock solid and should earn more than the ACC, Pac-12, or Big 12. But I don't see how it reaches Big 10 territory.