From Awful Announcing:

Quote:ESPN and the Atlantic Coast Conference are still gearing up to launch the ACC Network as a linear channel next year (it already exists as a digital brand), but that’s going to be expensive. At Sports Business Journal, Michael Smith dove into the ACC schools’ preparations for the network launch, which are now expected to cost $6 to $10 million per school (up from the $5 to $7 million reported last summer) and $110 to $120 million overall, four times what SEC schools spent ahead of the 2014 SEC Network launch. That launch saw some schools like Arkansas spend up to $7 million, but others like Florida spend less than a million. So why are things so expensive for the ACC?

Quote:Still, she added, “One of the things we kept hearing from the SEC was that they wish they’d invested more money on the front end instead of going back every year for another million to fix something.”

Quote:And that is part of the argument for this way of doing things. Many of the SEC schools came into the SEC Network launch with only the capability for lower-quality digital broadcasts, with some broadcasts only involving a single camera and the radio feed. For events on the linear channel, ESPN often had to bring in a production truck of its own. And Frey told Smith some SEC schools are only reaching linear standards now, and wound up with some further complications thanks to a slow buildout over time; by contrast, three to four ACC schools are already at linear standards with others coming soon, and there’s still plenty of time left before the launch. So this will certainly be higher-quality from the start, and it may save the schools money down the road.

Quote:If the reported internal revenue projections of a per-school distribution of $10-$15 million per year (for what it’s worth, ACC commissioner John Swofford insists the conference is actually more conservative than that) come true, schools will make back these startup costs quickly. But if they wind up with distribution challenges and/or fewer viewers than expected, there may be more questions asked about the strategy of spending so much in preparation for this launch.

(08-08-2018 03:10 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  From Awful Announcing:

Quote:ESPN and the Atlantic Coast Conference are still gearing up to launch the ACC Network as a linear channel next year (it already exists as a digital brand), but that’s going to be expensive. At Sports Business Journal, Michael Smith dove into the ACC schools’ preparations for the network launch, which are now expected to cost $6 to $10 million per school (up from the $5 to $7 million reported last summer) and $110 to $120 million overall, four times what SEC schools spent ahead of the 2014 SEC Network launch. That launch saw some schools like Arkansas spend up to $7 million, but others like Florida spend less than a million. So why are things so expensive for the ACC?

Quote:Still, she added, “One of the things we kept hearing from the SEC was that they wish they’d invested more money on the front end instead of going back every year for another million to fix something.”

Quote:And that is part of the argument for this way of doing things. Many of the SEC schools came into the SEC Network launch with only the capability for lower-quality digital broadcasts, with some broadcasts only involving a single camera and the radio feed. For events on the linear channel, ESPN often had to bring in a production truck of its own. And Frey told Smith some SEC schools are only reaching linear standards now, and wound up with some further complications thanks to a slow buildout over time; by contrast, three to four ACC schools are already at linear standards with others coming soon, and there’s still plenty of time left before the launch. So this will certainly be higher-quality from the start, and it may save the schools money down the road.

Quote:If the reported internal revenue projections of a per-school distribution of $10-$15 million per year (for what it’s worth, ACC commissioner John Swofford insists the conference is actually more conservative than that) come true, schools will make back these startup costs quickly. But if they wind up with distribution challenges and/or fewer viewers than expected, there may be more questions asked about the strategy of spending so much in preparation for this launch.

Florida had been ready because of the Sunshine Network that broadcast within Florida. The 10-15 million dollar figure from the start is just a daydream. They'll be lucky to net 7 by the third year. They will open with a fraction of the rate the SEC opened with, with less guaranteed coverage than the SEC had, and with far fewer overall viewers.

Swofford urges a more conservative figure wisely. Predict 6 and make 7 and everyone is happy. Predict 15 and make 7 and everyone is pissed. The ACC cheerleaders have never known when to put down their pompoms and wait for something good to happen before leading the cheers.

(08-08-2018 03:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-08-2018 03:10 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  From Awful Announcing:

Quote:ESPN and the Atlantic Coast Conference are still gearing up to launch the ACC Network as a linear channel next year (it already exists as a digital brand), but that’s going to be expensive. At Sports Business Journal, Michael Smith dove into the ACC schools’ preparations for the network launch, which are now expected to cost $6 to $10 million per school (up from the $5 to $7 million reported last summer) and $110 to $120 million overall, four times what SEC schools spent ahead of the 2014 SEC Network launch. That launch saw some schools like Arkansas spend up to $7 million, but others like Florida spend less than a million. So why are things so expensive for the ACC?

Quote:Still, she added, “One of the things we kept hearing from the SEC was that they wish they’d invested more money on the front end instead of going back every year for another million to fix something.”

Quote:And that is part of the argument for this way of doing things. Many of the SEC schools came into the SEC Network launch with only the capability for lower-quality digital broadcasts, with some broadcasts only involving a single camera and the radio feed. For events on the linear channel, ESPN often had to bring in a production truck of its own. And Frey told Smith some SEC schools are only reaching linear standards now, and wound up with some further complications thanks to a slow buildout over time; by contrast, three to four ACC schools are already at linear standards with others coming soon, and there’s still plenty of time left before the launch. So this will certainly be higher-quality from the start, and it may save the schools money down the road.

Quote:If the reported internal revenue projections of a per-school distribution of $10-$15 million per year (for what it’s worth, ACC commissioner John Swofford insists the conference is actually more conservative than that) come true, schools will make back these startup costs quickly. But if they wind up with distribution challenges and/or fewer viewers than expected, there may be more questions asked about the strategy of spending so much in preparation for this launch.

Florida had been ready because of the Sunshine Network that broadcast within Florida. The 10-15 million dollar figure from the start is just a daydream. They'll be lucky to net 7 by the third year. They will open with a fraction of the rate the SEC opened with, with less guaranteed coverage than the SEC had, and with far fewer overall viewers.

Swofford urges a more conservative figure wisely. Predict 6 and make 7 and everyone is happy. Predict 15 and make 7 and everyone is pissed. The ACC cheerleaders have never known when to put down their pompoms and wait for something good to happen before leading the cheers.

They're certainly committing to it though.

That's a lot of money to drop on an unproven property. If the ACC breaks up then I suppose they needed to invest in that sort of infrastructure anyway because any new conference will want that.

But in the long run, ACC content is not suited for its own linear network. It would probably be better utilized on ESPN+ or something like that. There aren't a ton of big games that are national draws while the regional audience for the other games is generally limited.

(08-08-2018 04:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-08-2018 03:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-08-2018 03:10 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  From Awful Announcing:

Quote:ESPN and the Atlantic Coast Conference are still gearing up to launch the ACC Network as a linear channel next year (it already exists as a digital brand), but that’s going to be expensive. At Sports Business Journal, Michael Smith dove into the ACC schools’ preparations for the network launch, which are now expected to cost $6 to $10 million per school (up from the $5 to $7 million reported last summer) and $110 to $120 million overall, four times what SEC schools spent ahead of the 2014 SEC Network launch. That launch saw some schools like Arkansas spend up to $7 million, but others like Florida spend less than a million. So why are things so expensive for the ACC?

Quote:Still, she added, “One of the things we kept hearing from the SEC was that they wish they’d invested more money on the front end instead of going back every year for another million to fix something.”

Quote:And that is part of the argument for this way of doing things. Many of the SEC schools came into the SEC Network launch with only the capability for lower-quality digital broadcasts, with some broadcasts only involving a single camera and the radio feed. For events on the linear channel, ESPN often had to bring in a production truck of its own. And Frey told Smith some SEC schools are only reaching linear standards now, and wound up with some further complications thanks to a slow buildout over time; by contrast, three to four ACC schools are already at linear standards with others coming soon, and there’s still plenty of time left before the launch. So this will certainly be higher-quality from the start, and it may save the schools money down the road.

Quote:If the reported internal revenue projections of a per-school distribution of $10-$15 million per year (for what it’s worth, ACC commissioner John Swofford insists the conference is actually more conservative than that) come true, schools will make back these startup costs quickly. But if they wind up with distribution challenges and/or fewer viewers than expected, there may be more questions asked about the strategy of spending so much in preparation for this launch.

Florida had been ready because of the Sunshine Network that broadcast within Florida. The 10-15 million dollar figure from the start is just a daydream. They'll be lucky to net 7 by the third year. They will open with a fraction of the rate the SEC opened with, with less guaranteed coverage than the SEC had, and with far fewer overall viewers.

Swofford urges a more conservative figure wisely. Predict 6 and make 7 and everyone is happy. Predict 15 and make 7 and everyone is pissed. The ACC cheerleaders have never known when to put down their pompoms and wait for something good to happen before leading the cheers.

They're certainly committing to it though.

That's a lot of money to drop on an unproven property. If the ACC breaks up then I suppose they needed to invest in that sort of infrastructure anyway because any new conference will want that.

But in the long run, ACC content is not suited for its own linear network. It would probably be better utilized on ESPN+ or something like that. There aren't a ton of big games that are national draws while the regional audience for the other games is generally limited.

There has already been some grumbling on some of their boards because part of their inventory will be on ESPN+ which makes me believe that some of that 10-15 million dollar prediction might be tied up in part with that.

But it is very true that if the ACC for any reason didn't last that having invested in this infrastructure would help them to assimilate elsewhere with much less difficulty.

But it also could be that at some point that ESPN might want to merge the conference networks more than bundle them.

(08-08-2018 06:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-08-2018 04:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-08-2018 03:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-08-2018 03:10 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  From Awful Announcing:

Quote:ESPN and the Atlantic Coast Conference are still gearing up to launch the ACC Network as a linear channel next year (it already exists as a digital brand), but that’s going to be expensive. At Sports Business Journal, Michael Smith dove into the ACC schools’ preparations for the network launch, which are now expected to cost $6 to $10 million per school (up from the $5 to $7 million reported last summer) and $110 to $120 million overall, four times what SEC schools spent ahead of the 2014 SEC Network launch. That launch saw some schools like Arkansas spend up to $7 million, but others like Florida spend less than a million. So why are things so expensive for the ACC?

Quote:Still, she added, “One of the things we kept hearing from the SEC was that they wish they’d invested more money on the front end instead of going back every year for another million to fix something.”

Quote:And that is part of the argument for this way of doing things. Many of the SEC schools came into the SEC Network launch with only the capability for lower-quality digital broadcasts, with some broadcasts only involving a single camera and the radio feed. For events on the linear channel, ESPN often had to bring in a production truck of its own. And Frey told Smith some SEC schools are only reaching linear standards now, and wound up with some further complications thanks to a slow buildout over time; by contrast, three to four ACC schools are already at linear standards with others coming soon, and there’s still plenty of time left before the launch. So this will certainly be higher-quality from the start, and it may save the schools money down the road.

Quote:If the reported internal revenue projections of a per-school distribution of $10-$15 million per year (for what it’s worth, ACC commissioner John Swofford insists the conference is actually more conservative than that) come true, schools will make back these startup costs quickly. But if they wind up with distribution challenges and/or fewer viewers than expected, there may be more questions asked about the strategy of spending so much in preparation for this launch.

Florida had been ready because of the Sunshine Network that broadcast within Florida. The 10-15 million dollar figure from the start is just a daydream. They'll be lucky to net 7 by the third year. They will open with a fraction of the rate the SEC opened with, with less guaranteed coverage than the SEC had, and with far fewer overall viewers.

Swofford urges a more conservative figure wisely. Predict 6 and make 7 and everyone is happy. Predict 15 and make 7 and everyone is pissed. The ACC cheerleaders have never known when to put down their pompoms and wait for something good to happen before leading the cheers.

They're certainly committing to it though.

That's a lot of money to drop on an unproven property. If the ACC breaks up then I suppose they needed to invest in that sort of infrastructure anyway because any new conference will want that.

But in the long run, ACC content is not suited for its own linear network. It would probably be better utilized on ESPN+ or something like that. There aren't a ton of big games that are national draws while the regional audience for the other games is generally limited.

There has already been some grumbling on some of their boards because part of their inventory will be on ESPN+ which makes me believe that some of that 10-15 million dollar prediction might be tied up in part with that.

But it is very true that if the ACC for any reason didn't last that having invested in this infrastructure would help them to assimilate elsewhere with much less difficulty.

But it also could be that at some point that ESPN might want to merge the conference networks more than bundle them.

I could see ESPN doing that, but I have a hard time figuring out a fair way to pay the SEC for it.

I'm not sure adding the SEC content could inflate the sub rate throughout the ACC footprint especially considering we already have access to most of the ACC's most valuable markets.

The Awful Announcing article states that most SEC schools had to make additional investments AFTER the launch of the SEC Network. Obviously those numbers weren't included in the initial setup cost figures. Does anyone have any idea how much money we're talking about there? was that the "buy in" period I used to hear about, or was that something completely different?

(08-09-2018 11:51 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The Awful Announcing article states that most SEC schools had to make additional investments AFTER the launch of the SEC Network. Obviously those numbers weren't included in the initial setup cost figures. Does anyone have any idea how much money we're talking about there? was that the "buy in" period I used to hear about, or was that something completely different?

I don't have any specific figures, but it sounds like the ACC schools are going to be fully upgraded on day one. That seems to be a different tactic from the way the SEC approached it, but I'm not sure the dollar figures will end up being in the same ballpark. The articles doesn't seem to address it.

I do think it's interesting though that ESPN seems to want them to put that kind of investment in ahead of time rather than waiting for the network to get up and running and supplement some of those costs.

(08-09-2018 01:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-09-2018 11:51 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The Awful Announcing article states that most SEC schools had to make additional investments AFTER the launch of the SEC Network. Obviously those numbers weren't included in the initial setup cost figures. Does anyone have any idea how much money we're talking about there? was that the "buy in" period I used to hear about, or was that something completely different?

I don't have any specific figures, but it sounds like the ACC schools are going to be fully upgraded on day one. That seems to be a different tactic from the way the SEC approached it, but I'm not sure the dollar figures will end up being in the same ballpark. The articles doesn't seem to address it.

I do think it's interesting though that ESPN seems to want them to put that kind of investment in ahead of time rather than waiting for the network to get up and running and supplement some of those costs.

No doubt - but I submit that if they had to do the SEC Network all over again, knowing what they know now, they'd have done it the same way. Some things they learned from the LHN, some things they learned from the SECN...

...as for ACCN revenues, I think a lot depends on how many of the 100+ million people in the ACC footprint actually sign up for it in one form or another. I get the sense that it's already in excess of 20 million, but beyond that I don't have any good data. If there's enough demand, ESPN will get the subscription rate...

(08-09-2018 11:51 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The Awful Announcing article states that most SEC schools had to make additional investments AFTER the launch of the SEC Network. Obviously those numbers weren't included in the initial setup cost figures. Does anyone have any idea how much money we're talking about there? was that the "buy in" period I used to hear about, or was that something completely different?

It's a bit of a dodge. Most SEC schools expected to spend around 7 to 8 million to get ready, but it was left up to the schools to get it done. Some were quick and did it pretty much at once and some dragged out the process. Some got it done for less and some spent more mostly depending on their level of technology when they started.

I found the piece to be a convenient revision of the past (which is standard these days) to gloss uncertainties for the ACCN startup. Some of the responsibility fell on the SEC as we tried to get synchronized in standards and part of it was things changing with ESPN.

What mature people do is to set aside about a 10% cost overrun for most any upgrade they undertake. There are always snags and nothing ever gets done by quote totals, especially since quotes are projections usually made a year or so out.

Nobody complained in the SEC because we made more than we expected from the start. I would think if the ACC estimates had been more realistic that when you made 7 million in the first full year of operation that you would be happy as well. I simply think it was foolish to project 10-15 million from the beginning.

(08-09-2018 01:24 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-09-2018 01:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-09-2018 11:51 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The Awful Announcing article states that most SEC schools had to make additional investments AFTER the launch of the SEC Network. Obviously those numbers weren't included in the initial setup cost figures. Does anyone have any idea how much money we're talking about there? was that the "buy in" period I used to hear about, or was that something completely different?

I don't have any specific figures, but it sounds like the ACC schools are going to be fully upgraded on day one. That seems to be a different tactic from the way the SEC approached it, but I'm not sure the dollar figures will end up being in the same ballpark. The articles doesn't seem to address it.

I do think it's interesting though that ESPN seems to want them to put that kind of investment in ahead of time rather than waiting for the network to get up and running and supplement some of those costs.

No doubt - but I submit that if they had to do the SEC Network all over again, knowing what they know now, they'd have done it the same way. Some things they learned from the LHN, some things they learned from the SECN...

...as for ACCN revenues, I think a lot depends on how many of the 100+ million people in the ACC footprint actually sign up for it in one form or another. I get the sense that it's already in excess of 20 million, but beyond that I don't have any good data. If there's enough demand, ESPN will get the subscription rate...

Mark there's no way to know your projected revenue without knowing your carriage rate. Until that figure is released it could be way less than you expect or the optimum figure. But lets say the rate is $1 a month which is .35 cents less than the SEC opened with, that would mean that you would be taking in 20 million a month of which .50 belongs to ESPN. When you do the math that's 8 million a year.

1 of 5 households is actually a good ratio by most standards. So everything depends on your rate. Remember the BTN gets roughly a dollar for in footprint subscriptions and FOX gets .51 cents of each one. But their average rate was .47 cents when averaging out of footprint subs with in footprint subs. The SEC averages around .75 for all subs. The question then becomes how much does the ACC get for out of footprint subscriptions and how much do they really get for in footprint subscriptions. Based on your past viewer history I don't think it's reasonable to assume you'll get the same as the BTN. So lets say you get .85 cents in footprint and .15 cents out of footprint and that you average .35 cents for the combined subs.

Your 20 million subscription would give you a base revenue per school of 6.8 million which is roughly what I expect your schools to make in the first full year's returns. So then lets say you have another 20 million subscriptions out of footprint then each school would get another 1.2 million per year bringing your total to 8 million per school.

So you can see your challenge is getting your OOC footprint subs to equal your in footprint subs if you are going to make money. Or you can really push for in footprint subs because that's where the money is.

So everything is going to depend on your rates and the number of in footprint subscriptions you get. Until the rates are known you don't even have a goal to shoot for.

The reason the SECN is not in jeopardy (even with cord cutting) is because we get very high in footprint subscription totals to go with fairly high out of footprint totals which is why we earn .25 cents for each subscription beyond our footprint.

(08-09-2018 03:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...there's no way to know your projected revenue without knowing your carriage rate...

...and that's the bottom line.

Everything else - including assumptions that the ACCN will make less than half what the SECN makes - is simply unknowable and pure speculation.

(08-09-2018 10:59 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-09-2018 03:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...there's no way to know your projected revenue without knowing your carriage rate...

...and that's the bottom line.

Everything else - including 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.

(08-09-2018 11:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-09-2018 10:59 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-09-2018 03:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...there's no way to know your projected revenue without knowing your carriage rate...

...and that's the bottom line.

Everything else - including 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.

(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:  

(08-09-2018 03:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...there's no way to know your projected revenue without knowing your carriage rate...

...and that's the bottom line.

Everything else - including 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! 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.

(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).

(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.