I think it will be announced anytime between next week and the end of June. I suppose they could wait until the ACC Summer meetings but I doubt it.

(05-03-2013 11:05 AM)krup Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:31 AM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:14 AM)krup Wrote:  The ACC doesn't have any content to start a network with so they are in a much worse position than the SEC.

ESPN owns both the SEC and ACC. How does that mean the SEC has content and the ACC has none? Do you guys think about logic before repeating rumors that don't make sense?

I would think a person such as yourself would take the time to learn know more about the landscape of college football before posting on such a subject-specific board.

Here's your answer-

The SEC has existing TV contracts with CBS and ESPN. The games that were not covered by those contracts are:

-one game per school (tier 3) that has been sold in individual local deals by that school (like the B12). The SEC schools have bought out those contracts to get the rights to those 12 games back.
-the additional 12-14 home games brought by the addition of Texas A+M and Missouri, which as of this point had NOT been added to the previous CBS/ESPN contracts by a renegotiation.

This means the SEC owned the rights to 24-26 football games and contributed those to the creation of the SEC network

On the other hand, the ACC contract with ESPN gave ESPN the rights to ALL of the football games. After Pitt and Syracuse were added, it was publicly announced that the ACC/ESPN deal was renegotiated to account for the expansion and the ACC would be getting more money, but ESPN still had rights to all of the games.

That means the ACC owns the rights to ZERO of the football games that could be shown on an ACC network.

So what you're saying is the ACC is going to create a network run by ESPN who won't pay them anything to show their content?

There's also this little detail in the ACC/ESPN contract whereby ESPN agrees to sub-license tier 2 games to Raycom Sports at a fixed price (BELOW market price)... now, what if THOSE games were to suddenly move to an ACC cable channel? That's at least as many games as the SEC controlled, and the quality of those games is at least as good, too... does the ACC retain control over those games which are currently being produced by Raycom? I don't know... but then, neither do any of you.

(05-03-2013 12:39 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  There's also this little detail in the ACC/ESPN contract whereby ESPN agrees to sub-license tier 2 games to Raycom Sports at a fixed price (BELOW market price)... now, what if THOSE games were to suddenly move to an ACC cable channel? That's at least as many games as the SEC controlled, and the quality of those games is at least as good, too... does the ACC retain control over those games which are currently being produced by Raycom? I don't know... but then, neither do any of you.

Raycom's deal is a sublicense of ESPN's rights. When the contract ends, the rights revert to ESPN not the ACC. The real question is the duration of Raycom's contract (as well as Fox's for the RSN package).

(05-03-2013 11:10 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Help me out, Krupper. Why on earth would all of those schools sign a GOR if they didn't own any of their games and therefore couldn't profit from them as you seem to be asserting?

Why don't message board people ever pay any attention at all to reality?

If that is your question you are beyond my help. The ACC owns the TV right to all of their games, which are covered by the GOR, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY LICENSED TO ESPN UNDER THAT ALREADY EXISTING CONTRACT.

(05-03-2013 12:01 PM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 11:05 AM)krup Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:31 AM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:14 AM)krup Wrote:  The ACC doesn't have any content to start a network with so they are in a much worse position than the SEC.

ESPN owns both the SEC and ACC. How does that mean the SEC has content and the ACC has none? Do you guys think about logic before repeating rumors that don't make sense?

I would think a person such as yourself would take the time to learn know more about the landscape of college football before posting on such a subject-specific board.

Here's your answer-

The SEC has existing TV contracts with CBS and ESPN. The games that were not covered by those contracts are:

-one game per school (tier 3) that has been sold in individual local deals by that school (like the B12). The SEC schools have bought out those contracts to get the rights to those 12 games back.
-the additional 12-14 home games brought by the addition of Texas A+M and Missouri, which as of this point had NOT been added to the previous CBS/ESPN contracts by a renegotiation.

This means the SEC owned the rights to 24-26 football games and contributed those to the creation of the SEC network

On the other hand, the ACC contract with ESPN gave ESPN the rights to ALL of the football games. After Pitt and Syracuse were added, it was publicly announced that the ACC/ESPN deal was renegotiated to account for the expansion and the ACC would be getting more money, but ESPN still had rights to all of the games.

That means the ACC owns the rights to ZERO of the football games that could be shown on an ACC network.

So what you're saying is the ACC is going to create a network run by ESPN who won't pay them anything to show their content?

I didn't say that. The ACC will still contribute the rights to ACC "non-revenue" sports and ESPN is a strong partner of theirs who wants the ACC to stay intact, so they will pay the ACC some amount of revenue each year..

What I AM saying is that thinking the ACC will make from the cable network close to what the SEC and B1G do (who bring the above PLUS football games) is ridiculous.

(05-03-2013 10:24 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:14 AM)krup Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 09:18 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Swofford said from the time the orginal deal was signed with ESPN that the ACC could set up a network if we wanted. So you have to assume there is something in the language of the contract that allows it. More than likely the language also prevents the ACC from setting up a network with anyone else other than ESPN so going completely alone or doing a deal with Fox isn't an option. I think these are both reasonable assumptions otherwise the ACC network would not be moving forward and it obviously is to anyone paying attention.

I wasn't arguing the idea that an ACC network could be viable. If you looked at that Neilsen report that was leaked on the internet a couple of years ago, based on viewership the ACC is undervalued if anything.

My issue is with the people that argue this is going to make the ACC a lot of money or keep them in the same revenue ballpark as the SEC/B1G/Pac12.

The SEC rules college football right now, yet based on reports, the lack of equity in their network is a surprise which can only be attributable to the fact that the needed games back from ESPN to have enough content to start a network.

The ACC doesn't have any content to start a network with so they are in a much worse position than the SEC.

How do you figure the ACC doesn't have any content? ESPN owns their rights just like the SEC. How is that any different? They'll choose how many games of each sport to put on the channel and move on.

You are incorrect in three ways with your "ESPN owns their rights just like the SEC." statement.

ESPN does NOT own:
1. The "first pick" SEC game each weekend which falls under the SEC/CBS deal
2. The one game per team (12 total) retained under tier 3
3, the 12-14 additional games brought by the A+M/Mizz expansion

It is number 2 and 3 that the SEC is contributing to the cable network and why they will be paid a lot more than the ACC, because ESPN already controls the rights to ALL ACC football games.

(05-03-2013 01:04 PM)krup Wrote:  ESPN does NOT own:
1. The "first pick" SEC game each weekend which falls under the SEC/CBS deal
2. The one game per team (12 total) retained under tier 3
3, the 12-14 additional games brought by the A+M/Mizz expansion

It is number 2 and 3 that the SEC is contributing to the cable network and why they will be paid a lot more than the ACC, because ESPN already controls the rights to ALL ACC football games.

ESPN absolutely owns (3).

When conferences expand, they don't get to exclude from their existing TV contracts the additional games created by expansion. If the contract has a "renegotiation clause" in it, the conference might get some extra money out of expanding, but they don't have the right to sell the "extra" games on the open market.

Go ahead, try to tell ESPN that they don't have the right to broadcast Alabama at TAMU or Notre Dame at Florida State. When you tell them that, I'll be able to hear the laughter in Bristol all the way out here in California.

(05-03-2013 01:04 PM)krup Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:24 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:14 AM)krup Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 09:18 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Swofford said from the time the orginal deal was signed with ESPN that the ACC could set up a network if we wanted. So you have to assume there is something in the language of the contract that allows it. More than likely the language also prevents the ACC from setting up a network with anyone else other than ESPN so going completely alone or doing a deal with Fox isn't an option. I think these are both reasonable assumptions otherwise the ACC network would not be moving forward and it obviously is to anyone paying attention.

I wasn't arguing the idea that an ACC network could be viable. If you looked at that Neilsen report that was leaked on the internet a couple of years ago, based on viewership the ACC is undervalued if anything.

My issue is with the people that argue this is going to make the ACC a lot of money or keep them in the same revenue ballpark as the SEC/B1G/Pac12.

The SEC rules college football right now, yet based on reports, the lack of equity in their network is a surprise which can only be attributable to the fact that the needed games back from ESPN to have enough content to start a network.

The ACC doesn't have any content to start a network with so they are in a much worse position than the SEC.

How do you figure the ACC doesn't have any content? ESPN owns their rights just like the SEC. How is that any different? They'll choose how many games of each sport to put on the channel and move on.

You are incorrect in three ways with your "ESPN owns their rights just like the SEC." statement.

ESPN does NOT own:
1. The "first pick" SEC game each weekend which falls under the SEC/CBS deal
2. The one game per team (12 total) retained under tier 3
3, the 12-14 additional games brought by the A+M/Mizz expansion

It is number 2 and 3 that the SEC is contributing to the cable network and why they will be paid a lot more than the ACC, because ESPN already controls the rights to ALL ACC football games.

1 is correct. CBS has those rights but it's ONE game a week. I don't think 2 and 3 are correct.

Regardless, ACC has plenty of content. ESPN knows it and the ACC knows it. That's why they've entered into talks because it's time to get this thing going.

(05-03-2013 09:04 AM)krup Wrote:  This is what I know about conference cable networks so far:

-The Pac12 controlled all of the fb/bb content needed for their cable network and didn't bring in a partner to help build it, so they own 100% of their network and will get 100% of the profit (whatever that turns out to be).

-The B1G controlled all of the fb/bb content needed for their cable network but brought in Fox as a partner. They own approx 50% of the BTN and get annual payments which have been significant.

-The SEC controlled 26 of the 45 football games (12 tier-3 games plus the addtl games brought by Mizz/A+M expansion). I don't know the SEC bb situation. According to the WSJ the SEC will receive significant annual payments for the cable network, but will have 0% equity in the venture. The SEC also extended their ESPN deal TEN YEARS as part of the deal.

The ACC does not control ANY of the fb/bb content needed for their cable network (anything ESPN doesn't show gets offered to Raycom as part of their deal).

How is the ACC going to any amount comparable to the other conferences when an ACC network starts?

This is an outstanding question. The bottom line is that the so-called "SEC Network" and the forthcoming "ACC network" are no such things. They are merely the old wine of their respective 2008 (SEC) and 2010 (ACC) media deals, very bad deals, poured in to fancy new bottles, with a small amount of extra change thrown in by ESPN.

Make no mistake: ESPN (and in the SEC's case, CBS as well) has NO INTENTION of giving up the incredibly good deals it negotiated with the SEC and later the ACC. These "networks" are really ESPN networks, since those 2008/2010 contracts give ESPN a stranglehold on ACC/SEC content, content they got at what would now be FAR below the "open market value", at least in the case of the SEC.

Bottom line: Neither the SEC nor ACC will make nearly as much money from their "networks" as the PAC will from its or the B1G will from its. Unlike the PAC and B1G, who either own outright or own as equal partners, the SEC and ACC are vassals of ESPN (and CBS), and will be for decades.

(05-03-2013 01:20 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:04 PM)krup Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:24 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:14 AM)krup Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 09:18 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Swofford said from the time the orginal deal was signed with ESPN that the ACC could set up a network if we wanted. So you have to assume there is something in the language of the contract that allows it. More than likely the language also prevents the ACC from setting up a network with anyone else other than ESPN so going completely alone or doing a deal with Fox isn't an option. I think these are both reasonable assumptions otherwise the ACC network would not be moving forward and it obviously is to anyone paying attention.

I wasn't arguing the idea that an ACC network could be viable. If you looked at that Neilsen report that was leaked on the internet a couple of years ago, based on viewership the ACC is undervalued if anything.

My issue is with the people that argue this is going to make the ACC a lot of money or keep them in the same revenue ballpark as the SEC/B1G/Pac12.

The SEC rules college football right now, yet based on reports, the lack of equity in their network is a surprise which can only be attributable to the fact that the needed games back from ESPN to have enough content to start a network.

The ACC doesn't have any content to start a network with so they are in a much worse position than the SEC.

How do you figure the ACC doesn't have any content? ESPN owns their rights just like the SEC. How is that any different? They'll choose how many games of each sport to put on the channel and move on.

You are incorrect in three ways with your "ESPN owns their rights just like the SEC." statement.

ESPN does NOT own:
1. The "first pick" SEC game each weekend which falls under the SEC/CBS deal
2. The one game per team (12 total) retained under tier 3
3, the 12-14 additional games brought by the A+M/Mizz expansion

It is number 2 and 3 that the SEC is contributing to the cable network and why they will be paid a lot more than the ACC, because ESPN already controls the rights to ALL ACC football games.

1 is correct. CBS has those rights but it's ONE game a week. I don't think 2 and 3 are correct.

Regardless, ACC has plenty of content. ESPN knows it and the ACC knows it. That's why they've entered into talks because it's time to get this thing going.

2. is absolutely correct.
3 depends on the wording of the contract. ESPN may already have the rights to those as Wedge says.

ESPN definitely already has the rights to the ACC content. Last fall ESPN issued a clarifying statement that they had the right to broadcast every ACC event.

There's also no shielding the PAC 12 from risk. If their network doesn't get sufficent carriage then it loses a load of money for the PAC schools.

(05-03-2013 01:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:20 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:04 PM)krup Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:24 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:14 AM)krup Wrote:  I wasn't arguing the idea that an ACC network could be viable. If you looked at that Neilsen report that was leaked on the internet a couple of years ago, based on viewership the ACC is undervalued if anything.

My issue is with the people that argue this is going to make the ACC a lot of money or keep them in the same revenue ballpark as the SEC/B1G/Pac12.

The SEC rules college football right now, yet based on reports, the lack of equity in their network is a surprise which can only be attributable to the fact that the needed games back from ESPN to have enough content to start a network.

The ACC doesn't have any content to start a network with so they are in a much worse position than the SEC.

How do you figure the ACC doesn't have any content? ESPN owns their rights just like the SEC. How is that any different? They'll choose how many games of each sport to put on the channel and move on.

You are incorrect in three ways with your "ESPN owns their rights just like the SEC." statement.

ESPN does NOT own:
1. The "first pick" SEC game each weekend which falls under the SEC/CBS deal
2. The one game per team (12 total) retained under tier 3
3, the 12-14 additional games brought by the A+M/Mizz expansion

It is number 2 and 3 that the SEC is contributing to the cable network and why they will be paid a lot more than the ACC, because ESPN already controls the rights to ALL ACC football games.

1 is correct. CBS has those rights but it's ONE game a week. I don't think 2 and 3 are correct.

Regardless, ACC has plenty of content. ESPN knows it and the ACC knows it. That's why they've entered into talks because it's time to get this thing going.

2. is absolutely correct.
3 depends on the wording of the contract. ESPN may already have the rights to those as Wedge says.

ESPN definitely already has the rights to the ACC content. Last fall ESPN issued a clarifying statement that they had the right to broadcast every ACC event.

Unless I'm missing something, this articles reads as if the only thing ESPN doesn't control is the CBS game:

http://www.oregonlive.com/collegefootbal..._deal.html

(05-03-2013 10:14 AM)krup Wrote:  The SEC rules college football right now, yet based on reports, the lack of equity in their network is a surprise which can only be attributable to the fact that the needed games back from ESPN to have enough content to start a network.

It's no surprise when you remember that ESPN and CBS bought up all the valuable football games in that 2008 contract that Slive was praised to high-heaven for, but what the passage of a very short period of time has proven to be an awful deal, one that gave ESPN/CBS all those games for 15 years at far below what the open-market value would be today.

ESPN and CBS had no intention of letting the SEC off that hook, so this "SEC Network", really the ESPN Network of SEC Sports, still reflects that underlying contractual reality.

Make no mistake: A significant money-gap between the B1G and SEC will open in the near future, because the B1G was smart enough not to sign an ESPN contract and instead partner with FOX.

Florida to the Big Ten.

(05-03-2013 01:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:20 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:04 PM)krup Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:24 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  How do you figure the ACC doesn't have any content? ESPN owns their rights just like the SEC. How is that any different? They'll choose how many games of each sport to put on the channel and move on.

You are incorrect in three ways with your "ESPN owns their rights just like the SEC." statement.

ESPN does NOT own:
1. The "first pick" SEC game each weekend which falls under the SEC/CBS deal
2. The one game per team (12 total) retained under tier 3
3, the 12-14 additional games brought by the A+M/Mizz expansion

It is number 2 and 3 that the SEC is contributing to the cable network and why they will be paid a lot more than the ACC, because ESPN already controls the rights to ALL ACC football games.

1 is correct. CBS has those rights but it's ONE game a week. I don't think 2 and 3 are correct.

Regardless, ACC has plenty of content. ESPN knows it and the ACC knows it. That's why they've entered into talks because it's time to get this thing going.

2. is absolutely correct.
3 depends on the wording of the contract. ESPN may already have the rights to those as Wedge says.

ESPN definitely already has the rights to the ACC content. Last fall ESPN issued a clarifying statement that they had the right to broadcast every ACC event.

Unless I'm missing something, this articles reads as if the only thing ESPN doesn't control is the CBS game:

http://www.oregonlive.com/collegefootbal..._deal.html

For once, you're not missing anything. The SEC now works entirely for ESPN, except for the one CBS game. And as a paid employee, the SEC will get far less than the B1G will get from its network, which truly is "its" network, since it owns a 50% stake.

Don't forget the -7 games from going to a 9 game conference schedule.

(05-03-2013 01:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:20 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:04 PM)krup Wrote:  You are incorrect in three ways with your "ESPN owns their rights just like the SEC." statement.

ESPN does NOT own:
1. The "first pick" SEC game each weekend which falls under the SEC/CBS deal
2. The one game per team (12 total) retained under tier 3
3, the 12-14 additional games brought by the A+M/Mizz expansion

It is number 2 and 3 that the SEC is contributing to the cable network and why they will be paid a lot more than the ACC, because ESPN already controls the rights to ALL ACC football games.

1 is correct. CBS has those rights but it's ONE game a week. I don't think 2 and 3 are correct.

Regardless, ACC has plenty of content. ESPN knows it and the ACC knows it. That's why they've entered into talks because it's time to get this thing going.

2. is absolutely correct.
3 depends on the wording of the contract. ESPN may already have the rights to those as Wedge says.

ESPN definitely already has the rights to the ACC content. Last fall ESPN issued a clarifying statement that they had the right to broadcast every ACC event.

Unless I'm missing something, this articles reads as if the only thing ESPN doesn't control is the CBS game:

http://www.oregonlive.com/collegefootbal..._deal.html

For once, you're not missing anything. The SEC now works entirely for ESPN, except for the one CBS game. And as a paid employee, the SEC will get far less than the B1G will get from its network, which truly is "its" network, since it owns a 50% stake.

And since you don't know what the SEC is getting from this you can't really say that.

(05-03-2013 01:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Make no mistake: A significant money-gap between the B1G and SEC will open in the near future, because the B1G was smart enough not to sign an ESPN contract and instead partner with FOX.

LOL

The gift that keeps on giving.

(05-03-2013 01:36 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:20 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  1 is correct. CBS has those rights but it's ONE game a week. I don't think 2 and 3 are correct.

Regardless, ACC has plenty of content. ESPN knows it and the ACC knows it. That's why they've entered into talks because it's time to get this thing going.

2. is absolutely correct.
3 depends on the wording of the contract. ESPN may already have the rights to those as Wedge says.

ESPN definitely already has the rights to the ACC content. Last fall ESPN issued a clarifying statement that they had the right to broadcast every ACC event.

Unless I'm missing something, this articles reads as if the only thing ESPN doesn't control is the CBS game:

http://www.oregonlive.com/collegefootbal..._deal.html

For once, you're not missing anything. The SEC now works entirely for ESPN, except for the one CBS game. And as a paid employee, the SEC will get far less than the B1G will get from its network, which truly is "its" network, since it owns a 50% stake.

And since you don't know what the SEC is getting from this you can't really say that.

Nobody outside of ESPN/SEC knows the exact numbers, but we do know this: The great bulk of the SEC's value was tied up in the 2008 contract with ESPN and CBS, and unless those networks are filled with idiots, since the new content that ESPN is selling them as part of the new "network" is nowhere near as valuable as the content they already have bought, there's no way they will alter the fundamental terms of those contracts, since the terms are so favorable to them.

Therefore, whatever the SEC will be getting, it will be a lot less than it could have gotten had it taken the equity route. That's just basic finance and logic at work.