(05-03-2013 01:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Maybe, but I bet they'll be in line with the BIG.

More importantly, what does that money for the BIG mean? They're not winning championships in football or basketball.