(08-10-2018 10:14 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 07:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 07:32 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-09-2018 11:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-09-2018 10:59 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  assumptions that the ACCN will make less than half what the SECN makes - is simply unknowable and pure speculation.

Who said they would make less than half? I have wondered if they could make as much as the BTN and I think that's a fair question.

Um, you did, JR (just a couple of posts before this one):

"The SEC averages around .75 for all subs... lets say you get .85 cents in footprint and .15 cents out of footprint and that you average .35 cents for the combined subs."

35 cents is less than half of 75 cents.

That's why I added my last sentence in my last post. It's a legitimate question. Does the fledgling ACCN merit a larger rate than the Big 10 Network? You tell me!

JR, you well know that this is not a meritocracy. The ACCN will get whatever they are able to get, with no regard for what the Big Ten does.

Quote:By the way at its opening the SECN had right at 70 million subscribers. Last time I checked 20 million was 50 million less than 70 million and well below half.

Not sure why you're coming at me like this, JR... what you state is true, but the ACC doesn't launch for another year... one year before launch the SEC had about the same number of subscribers (80 to 90% of those 70 million signed in the last 6 months before launch).

I've never said the ACC would definitely make as much or more than the SEC, but I don't understand why you are so insistent that it definitely won't ever make as much (when truly no one knows or can know at this point).

Mark if I decide to come at you on an issue you'll know it. I'm just trying to speak reasonably. And the reasonable part is that rates are based on how well the product has demonstrated the ability to garner actual eyeballs to an event. The SEC excels at it. The Big 10 while not at SEC levels of % of viewers watching vs total possible viewers has been consistently second. The Big 12 is just a hair behind them, but lacks the footprint size to draw the equivalent rates. So far the ACC has not demonstrated the ability to pull the percentage of actual viewers to command a similar rate. And Mark that rate doesn't come from ESPN but rather from the advertisers.

If you get 70 million subscriptions that's great. But you'll have to get a high percentage of them to actually watch if you want a higher rate. And that my friend are the immutable facts of the situation.

The stories the ACC are putting out about the SEC startup costs are exaggerated although they contain a germ of truth. We averaged about 7 to 10 million total in the start up. I do believe your payouts are estimated to high and that is based on the fact that ESPN can't give a great rate if the advertisers don't give them one.