(08-19-2022 07:58 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 07:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 07:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 06:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-18-2022 12:49 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  TBH, I'm hoping ESPN pays the ACC to annex WVU, Cincy, and possibly UCF + one other, along with at least an extra $10M to $20M in TV money. I'd rather not have the Hokies fly out to Arizona on a regular basis.

Do you think ESPN will pay B1G/SEC money to add those four schools? That's what it would take to give the ACC a $10M bump. At $20M they would have to value those four schools at $120M each. I'm hoping to win the lottery, but I'm not holding my breath.

At this point ESPN does not have a choice.
FOX and the B1G are on the verge of replacing ESPN as the WWL.
If ESPN opens the ACC's GOR and the B1G is able to scoop up another couple of teams, they will have a national network with coverage on all of the OTA networks with the exception of ABC.
Content for the B1G? More than football to create a national network? Maybe Duke, Syracuse, Notre Dame and Colorado, or Duke Carolina, Syracuse and Colorado leaving Notre Dame independent but with a minimum of B1G games per year.
That gives FOX year round content with a coast to coast network.
ESPN is now behind the eight ball and is being forced to be reactive, and it's going to cost them.

What good is coast to coast if the people don't watch college football anywhere but the SE/SW and Northern Midwest. It's what we used to call a paper tiger (looks great on paper but has no teeth). ESPN landed more umph with OU and UT for actual viewers than FOX did with USC/UCLA.

Obviously the major networks feel that they have an audience or they wouldn't have given up so much air time to broadcast that product.

ESPN is on the ropes JR, they will have to do something to placate the ACC and the Big12/4 corners to have appealing content year round.

Lance,

Hasn't your position been that the GOR for the ACC is solid and immovable?

Why would ESPN need to placate the ACC? Where are the ACC schools going to go without ESPN's cooperation?

BTW, if ESPN is on the ropes then the ACC will sink with them. That contract isn't simply getting broken unilaterally by a few ACC schools. That's the bed the ACC made.

This is actually quite fascinating. This new narrative is actually less sensical than most of the self-defeating things you post. I'll give you props for that.

(08-19-2022 04:30 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-18-2022 10:25 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  ... by taking UW, UO, Cal and Stanford, after which the SEC (with ESPN's blessing) will absorb the most desirable members of the ACC while the rest of the ACC will be shuffled off to this new Big XII/Pac conglomeration?

After which ESPN will swoop in pretty much unchallenged for media rights and land the most valuable parts (if not all) of the available content?

Does such a strategy get you 8 votes for ACC dissolution?

Taking UW, UO, Cal and Stanford would finish the PAC..but it won’t happen until after 2030. IMO, expanding with USC & UCLA allowed the B1G to match the SEC (in terms of members and media payouts). Additional expansion, excluding ND, is dilutive and doesn’t really help Fox or the B1G.

If the B1G was going to expand to 20 members with invitations this year, they would have first announced USC+UCLA+Stanford in the first round. This would have put maximum pressure ND to join. ND would have lost marquee access to the California market. Depending on ND’s decision, they then could go to 20 (adding two, or all three, of Washington/Cal/Oregon).

With regards to the SEC reaction (and ESPN’s blessing), an immediate B1G expansion to 20 teams has zero impact on their ability to expand with ACC teams.

Keep up. FOX put a potential 2 billion in the contract simply for more additions and it makes the contract essentially pro rata for 4 additions soon. Why? The added inventory will take stress of off the working relationship of the 3 networks partnering.

In no way is the addition of 4 schools dilutive.

(08-19-2022 04:30 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-18-2022 10:25 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  ... by taking UW, UO, Cal and Stanford, after which the SEC (with ESPN's blessing) will absorb the most desirable members of the ACC while the rest of the ACC will be shuffled off to this new Big XII/Pac conglomeration?

After which ESPN will swoop in pretty much unchallenged for media rights and land the most valuable parts (if not all) of the available content?

Does such a strategy get you 8 votes for ACC dissolution?

Taking UW, UO, Cal and Stanford would finish the PAC..but it won’t happen until after 2030. IMO, expanding with USC & UCLA allowed the B1G to match the SEC (in terms of members and media payouts). Additional expansion, excluding ND, is dilutive and doesn’t really help Fox or the B1G.

If the B1G was going to expand to 20 members with invitations this year, they would have first announced USC+UCLA+Stanford in the first round. This would have put maximum pressure ND to join. ND would have lost marquee access to the California market. Depending on ND’s decision, they then could go to 20 (adding two, or all three, of Washington/Cal/Oregon).

With regards to the SEC reaction (and ESPN’s blessing), an immediate B1G expansion to 20 teams has zero impact on their ability to expand with ACC teams.

Gives Warren more 10:30 games. More Friday games. More FS1 games. And if they add 2, they simply have them buy their way in over 7 years. They will still be making more than they are now and would in the Pac. Nebraska had to pay nearly $60 million. Maryland and Rutgers paid much more. So it isn't dilutive on this contract.

I think the fact that the B10 deal is to 2030-ish, is telling.

I think that's a calculation for when the ACC will be raided.

So the B10 can add a few now, and then go after the ACC schools in 2030.

I still don't think it's OR and WA - it's better for the B10, to leave the PAC mostly intact.

So B10 goes for Stanford and AZ state to add 2 new regions, and to give socal travel partners. 18

PAC backfills with BYU, SDSU, BSU, Hawaii (FB), and Gonzaga(non-FB). 11+(1+1)

SEC goes for Kansas and OK state. 18

B12 backfills with SMU, USF, and Memphis. 12

And that should stabilize all 4 til ACC realignment happens.

(08-20-2022 01:27 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  I think the fact that the B10 deal is to 2030-ish, is telling.

I think that's a calculation for when the ACC will be raided.

So the B10 can add a few now, and then go after the ACC schools in 2030.

I still don't think it's OR and WA - it's better for the B10, to leave the PAC mostly intact.

So B10 goes for Stanford and AZ state to add 2 new regions, and to give socal travel partners. 18

PAC backfills with BYU, SDSU, BSU, Hawaii (FB), and Gonzaga(non-FB). 11+(1+1)

SEC goes for Kansas and OK state. 18

B12 backfills with SMU, USF, and Memphis. 12

And that should stabilize all 4 til ACC realignment happens.

Looking at this through a different light , I'd say that taking Arizona State would be a mistake. Basketball is only big in Tucson, not Tempe. And if Oregon and Washington were added, you would be getting two very good hoops schools/markets. I'll give you Stanford since they are in the Bay Area, but the NW schools really excell in hoops, and I would be willing to wager that's what realignment is about now!!!

(08-20-2022 01:27 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  I think the fact that the B10 deal is to 2030-ish, is telling.

I think that's a calculation for when the ACC will be raided.

No, it’s not.

It’s one more year than their last GOR, perhaps suggesting expansion will occur within a year.

The BIG, like before, was going to sign a short GOR to bet on rights continuing to escalate.

If you can get schools out in 2030, it’s even more likely you get them much sooner.The closer you are to end of GOR, the worse the risk/reward to leave early. See OU and UT

(08-21-2022 02:07 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-20-2022 01:27 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  I think the fact that the B10 deal is to 2030-ish, is telling.

I think that's a calculation for when the ACC will be raided.

No, it’s not.

It’s one more year than their last GOR, perhaps suggesting expansion will occur within a year.

The BIG, like before, was going to sign a short GOR to bet on rights continuing to escalate.

It won't matter much this time. When contracts are up trends will not favor increases and technology will likely have bypassed all conventional models and streaming will likely be different, and most certainly advertising will follow the trends of the young and not the old. The young will find economic trends daunting as commodities rise and durable goods are less in demand. It's not all bad though. By 2040 things will adjust and labor should see growth and real estate should come down a bit. And inflation should level out for some time. Economic models look backwards and are often wrong. Demographics look forward and are a much more reliable predictor for those astute enough to follow them. It is where humanity is going that drives markets, not where they have been.

(08-21-2022 02:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-21-2022 02:07 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-20-2022 01:27 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  I think the fact that the B10 deal is to 2030-ish, is telling.

I think that's a calculation for when the ACC will be raided.

No, it’s not.

It’s one more year than their last GOR, perhaps suggesting expansion will occur within a year.

The BIG, like before, was going to sign a short GOR to bet on rights continuing to escalate.

It won't matter much this time. When contracts are up trends will not favor increases and technology will likely have bypassed all conventional models and streaming will likely be different, and most certainly advertising will follow the trends of the young and not the old. The young will find economic trends daunting as commodities rise and durable goods are less in demand. It's not all bad though. By 2040 things will adjust and labor should see growth and real estate should come down a bit. And inflation should level out for some time. Economic models look backwards and are often wrong. Demographics look forward and are a much more reliable predictor for those astute enough to follow them. It is where humanity is going that drives markets, not where they have been.

Amen, JR.

(08-18-2022 11:40 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-18-2022 09:00 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  If ESPN needs/wants west coast content they are not going to allow their competitor to take the most valuable properties first.

Under normal circumstances , I would agree with you. But, look at what I bolded. "Under normal circumstances. " Got news for you, Wolfman: circumstances are anything but normal!!!

ESPN would be incredibly dumb to think that they could get Oregon and Washington in the ACC. That is incredibly moronic thinking, IMO, especially when you consider that the University of Oregon and the University of Washington applied for B1G membership. It doesn't get any more clear than that. But, just in case you still needed clarity, Phil Knight said himself he wanted Oregon in the B1G or the SEC . Nowhere was there any mention of the ACC . All I heard around the SEC was crickets. Stanford's rep speaks for itself, IMHO.

The only team that the ACC had a slight chance at, IMO, was Cal. But Cal is not very familiar with the ACC, and when you add the fact that very few teams in the ACC like the ACC to begin with, Cal probably told Worldwide, "Thanks, but no thanks. "
Now, that being said, I think that the ACC has a great shot at the 4 corners schools, Oregon State and Washington State, but from everything I have heard, you guys aren't too keen on those teams, so the Big 12, hardly a world beater, will probably get those teams due to the appearance that nobody else seems to be interested in them, which I believe is a huge mistake on the ACC's part.

All true but not related to what I said. The OP suggested the B1G/Fox would take UW, UO, Cal, and Stanford. If ESPN wants west coast content they want those schools. I don't think ESPN would be interested in a MWC look-alike conference so they can't allow Fox to have those schools.

FWIW, I don't think any PAC school is joining the ACC. UW, UO, Cal, and Stanford all have hopes of joining the B1G. The ACC's 14 GoR would eliminate any prospect of a B1G invite.

(08-19-2022 09:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 09:10 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 08:09 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  The BIG expanding as an OTA national conference makes consolidation of ESPN’s top brands even more critical. The way to counter is by ESPN/ABC having the best matchups. Clemson and FSU are wasted in the ACC

UW + UO + Cal + Stanford → BiG

Clemson + FSU + UNC + UVA → SEC

Your move, Kevin Warren

I don't think it will be that simple. Perhaps you build this New Big 12:

Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Colorado, San Diego State, Utah

Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian, Texas Tech

Central Florida, East Carolina, Houston, Memphis, South Florida, Tulane

Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

And this SEC:

Kentucky, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Tennessee

Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Miami, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

*Duke, *Vanderbilt, *Wake Forest, *Notre Dame (All but football)


This way ESPN sews up the largest market, the Big 12/ACC/SEC schools plus the recent additions and a few more. Segregate by value and associations and keep hoops brands tight.

These things are always messy. Its not one party pulling the strings.

(08-21-2022 01:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 09:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 09:10 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 08:09 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  The BIG expanding as an OTA national conference makes consolidation of ESPN’s top brands even more critical. The way to counter is by ESPN/ABC having the best matchups. Clemson and FSU are wasted in the ACC

UW + UO + Cal + Stanford → BiG

Clemson + FSU + UNC + UVA → SEC

Your move, Kevin Warren

I don't think it will be that simple. Perhaps you build this New Big 12:

Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Colorado, San Diego State, Utah

Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian, Texas Tech

Central Florida, East Carolina, Houston, Memphis, South Florida, Tulane

Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

And this SEC:

Kentucky, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Tennessee

Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Miami, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

*Duke, *Vanderbilt, *Wake Forest, *Notre Dame (All but football)


This way ESPN sews up the largest market, the Big 12/ACC/SEC schools plus the recent additions and a few more. Segregate by value and associations and keep hoops brands tight.

These things are always messy. Its not one party pulling the strings.

Well that's technically correct. There are two parties pulling strings on mostly on different targets.

(08-19-2022 06:25 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 07:58 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 07:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 07:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 06:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  Do you think ESPN will pay B1G/SEC money to add those four schools? That's what it would take to give the ACC a $10M bump. At $20M they would have to value those four schools at $120M each. I'm hoping to win the lottery, but I'm not holding my breath.

At this point ESPN does not have a choice.
FOX and the B1G are on the verge of replacing ESPN as the WWL.
If ESPN opens the ACC's GOR and the B1G is able to scoop up another couple of teams, they will have a national network with coverage on all of the OTA networks with the exception of ABC.
Content for the B1G? More than football to create a national network? Maybe Duke, Syracuse, Notre Dame and Colorado, or Duke Carolina, Syracuse and Colorado leaving Notre Dame independent but with a minimum of B1G games per year.
That gives FOX year round content with a coast to coast network.
ESPN is now behind the eight ball and is being forced to be reactive, and it's going to cost them.

What good is coast to coast if the people don't watch college football anywhere but the SE/SW and Northern Midwest. It's what we used to call a paper tiger (looks great on paper but has no teeth). ESPN landed more umph with OU and UT for actual viewers than FOX did with USC/UCLA.

Obviously the major networks feel that they have an audience or they wouldn't have given up so much air time to broadcast that product.

ESPN is on the ropes JR, they will have to do something to placate the ACC and the Big12/4 corners to have appealing content year round.

Lance,

Hasn't your position been that the GOR for the ACC is solid and immovable?

Why would ESPN need to placate the ACC? Where are the ACC schools going to go without ESPN's cooperation?

BTW, if ESPN is on the ropes then the ACC will sink with them. That contract isn't simply getting broken unilaterally by a few ACC schools. That's the bed the ACC made.

This is actually quite fascinating. This new narrative is actually less sensical than most of the self-defeating things you post. I'll give you props for that.

The rookie leadership at ESPN got out FOXED, and they are in scramble mode.
At this point ESPN needs the ACC to be as competitive as possible.
While ESPN was collecting brands, FOX and the B1G did an end run around the Mouse and locked up OTA network distribution.
ESPN only has ABC and what many continue to say are dying cable outlets for their product, while FOX/B1G has arranged to distribute product on FOX, NBC and CBS using NFL tie-ins to boost their audiences.
Putting games on network television makes each broadcast a "big deal" and will draw because it's a national network broadcast as opposed to something broadcast on a "cable outlet".
ESPN can not afford for their ACC investment suffer for the lack of capital. Even if they feel that ACC football is not as important as the SEC, they surely need ACC product the other 9 months of the year to have top rated inventory.

If as you say, ESPN is on the ropes, and audiences shrink and the money dries up, I would imagine all of the schools in the SEC and the ACC would be searching for a new media partner and lawsuits against Disney would be flooding the court system. If ESPN goes down, not only will the ACC go down, but the SEC will too.

(08-22-2022 05:24 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 06:25 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 07:58 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 07:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 07:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  At this point ESPN does not have a choice.
FOX and the B1G are on the verge of replacing ESPN as the WWL.
If ESPN opens the ACC's GOR and the B1G is able to scoop up another couple of teams, they will have a national network with coverage on all of the OTA networks with the exception of ABC.
Content for the B1G? More than football to create a national network? Maybe Duke, Syracuse, Notre Dame and Colorado, or Duke Carolina, Syracuse and Colorado leaving Notre Dame independent but with a minimum of B1G games per year.
That gives FOX year round content with a coast to coast network.
ESPN is now behind the eight ball and is being forced to be reactive, and it's going to cost them.

What good is coast to coast if the people don't watch college football anywhere but the SE/SW and Northern Midwest. It's what we used to call a paper tiger (looks great on paper but has no teeth). ESPN landed more umph with OU and UT for actual viewers than FOX did with USC/UCLA.

Obviously the major networks feel that they have an audience or they wouldn't have given up so much air time to broadcast that product.

ESPN is on the ropes JR, they will have to do something to placate the ACC and the Big12/4 corners to have appealing content year round.

Lance,

Hasn't your position been that the GOR for the ACC is solid and immovable?

Why would ESPN need to placate the ACC? Where are the ACC schools going to go without ESPN's cooperation?

BTW, if ESPN is on the ropes then the ACC will sink with them. That contract isn't simply getting broken unilaterally by a few ACC schools. That's the bed the ACC made.

This is actually quite fascinating. This new narrative is actually less sensical than most of the self-defeating things you post. I'll give you props for that.

The rookie leadership at ESPN got out FOXED, and they are in scramble mode.
At this point ESPN needs the ACC to be as competitive as possible.
While ESPN was collecting brands, FOX and the B1G did an end run around the Mouse and locked up OTA network distribution.
ESPN only has ABC and what many continue to say are dying cable outlets for their product, while FOX/B1G has arranged to distribute product on FOX, NBC and CBS using NFL tie-ins to boost their audiences.
Putting games on network television makes each broadcast a "big deal" and will draw because it's a national network broadcast as opposed to something broadcast on a "cable outlet".
ESPN can not afford for their ACC investment suffer for the lack of capital. Even if they feel that ACC football is not as important as the SEC, they surely need ACC product the other 9 months of the year to have top rated inventory.

If as you say, ESPN is on the ropes, and audiences shrink and the money dries up, I would imagine all of the schools in the SEC and the ACC would be searching for a new media partner and lawsuits against Disney would be flooding the court system. If ESPN goes down, not only will the ACC go down, but the SEC will too.

That's funny as hell fiction! OTA's are dying due to propagandized news and crappy underfunded programming. Each of those OTA has 1 prime time slot against which each will compete with an SEC T1 game. The SEC has the most viewers. What this will prove is that the top 3 games of the SEC are consistently stronger than at least 2 of those from the Big Ten and frequently enough all of them. ESPN hands down has the best sports streaming platform. If the BTN was so valuable 3 things would have happened differently. 1. SNL Kagan's annual reports on its value would not have ceased after a 25% decline in value 4 years ago. 2. The Big Ten would not have placed a PUT for FOX to buy 10% more of it reducing the Big Ten share to 39%. 3. USC and UCLA would have had a buy in because it was BTN shares schools were buying into in order to keep investments and returns relative to existing member shares.

It's always the little things which really tell you what's going on. Disney has plenty of cash. Big 12 rights will be worth 40 million or a little more once PAC schools are added, and then 2 conferences with access will be sorted by value and Disney will control the majority of schools in a breakaway and will control the CFP and likely a new hoops tourney. It's ABC, NBC, & CBS which have issues. FOX's main channel is less impacted, but still not optimal. And while sports still work for these OTA's the number of people who just turn to one of them for any other reason continues to drop. So, it's not a long term winning strategy for anyone.

(08-22-2022 05:24 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 06:25 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 07:58 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 07:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-19-2022 07:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  At this point ESPN does not have a choice.
FOX and the B1G are on the verge of replacing ESPN as the WWL.
If ESPN opens the ACC's GOR and the B1G is able to scoop up another couple of teams, they will have a national network with coverage on all of the OTA networks with the exception of ABC.
Content for the B1G? More than football to create a national network? Maybe Duke, Syracuse, Notre Dame and Colorado, or Duke Carolina, Syracuse and Colorado leaving Notre Dame independent but with a minimum of B1G games per year.
That gives FOX year round content with a coast to coast network.
ESPN is now behind the eight ball and is being forced to be reactive, and it's going to cost them.

What good is coast to coast if the people don't watch college football anywhere but the SE/SW and Northern Midwest. It's what we used to call a paper tiger (looks great on paper but has no teeth). ESPN landed more umph with OU and UT for actual viewers than FOX did with USC/UCLA.

Obviously the major networks feel that they have an audience or they wouldn't have given up so much air time to broadcast that product.

ESPN is on the ropes JR, they will have to do something to placate the ACC and the Big12/4 corners to have appealing content year round.

Lance,

Hasn't your position been that the GOR for the ACC is solid and immovable?

Why would ESPN need to placate the ACC? Where are the ACC schools going to go without ESPN's cooperation?

BTW, if ESPN is on the ropes then the ACC will sink with them. That contract isn't simply getting broken unilaterally by a few ACC schools. That's the bed the ACC made.

This is actually quite fascinating. This new narrative is actually less sensical than most of the self-defeating things you post. I'll give you props for that.

The rookie leadership at ESPN got out FOXED, and they are in scramble mode.
At this point ESPN needs the ACC to be as competitive as possible.
While ESPN was collecting brands, FOX and the B1G did an end run around the Mouse and locked up OTA network distribution.
ESPN only has ABC and what many continue to say are dying cable outlets for their product, while FOX/B1G has arranged to distribute product on FOX, NBC and CBS using NFL tie-ins to boost their audiences.
Putting games on network television makes each broadcast a "big deal" and will draw because it's a national network broadcast as opposed to something broadcast on a "cable outlet".
ESPN can not afford for their ACC investment suffer for the lack of capital. Even if they feel that ACC football is not as important as the SEC, they surely need ACC product the other 9 months of the year to have top rated inventory.

If as you say, ESPN is on the ropes, and audiences shrink and the money dries up, I would imagine all of the schools in the SEC and the ACC would be searching for a new media partner and lawsuits against Disney would be flooding the court system. If ESPN goes down, not only will the ACC go down, but the SEC will too.

I didn't say that...I was quoting you.

ESPN is not on the ropes by any means, but even if they were, they certainly wouldn't have the spare cash to prop up the ACC, would they?

It's a positive thing for the Big Ten to have media access on 3 OTA networks, but it's not remotely the advantage you make it out to be. It will be good for the game of college football as a whole to have more media companies have a vested interest in discussing/covering the game. There's nothing particularly game changing about it though. Heck, NBC had almost exclusive coverage of the NHL for years and it didn't do anything for that league. They lost ground in the collective consciousness of Americans despite a built-in national fan base. Sound familiar? The NHL went back to ESPN this year and immediately had better ratings.

The Big Ten had to portion out their content the way they did to get in the same ballpark with the SEC and our contract doesn't include Texas and Oklahoma yet...don't forget that. Heck, our contract doesn't even include 9 games yet.

BTW, lawsuits? For what? If ESPN goes down hill and it hurts the SEC and ACC, well, that's just the luck of the draw. Sometimes people make bad business decisions. There's nothing illegal about that unless you think ESPN is going to fall so far they can't pay their bills. Which is absurd given that college sports is only part of the portfolio. In the event that happened, Disney would be more than happy to sell assets off in order to cover expenses. So in short, you're worrying about absolutely nothing.

Congratulations Lance, your posts are becoming more non-sensical by the moment.