(06-06-2013 05:56 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 05:20 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 04:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 04:54 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 03:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  They had more than we do because of the rights the individual schools retained.

ESPN could by all right create an ACC Network and not give us a dime and there really isn't anything we could do about it because we already gave them the rights to all of our sports.

I don't think ESPN can just arbitrarily create an ACC network without the ACC, otherwise they would have created these a long time ago. I believe networks are separate entities that have to be signed off on by the network and conference

Why couldn't they? They already control all of our TV rights. If they thought the money was there how could we legally stop them?

As an aside...if the money was truly there...why haven't they already done so?

ESPN doesn't want to get sued.I don't know all of the legalities around it but it probably breaks some kind of antitrust law or something.

If it there is no law, it's just horrible for a business partnership.

Sued for what? When we agreed to the contract we gave the ESPN organization control of all of our television rights. How are we going to sue them if they take the rights we already sold them and made their own network? Better question is what real incentive does ESPN have to create an ACC Network and cut us in on the deal?

Just think about it this way, if you entered partnership with a company and they turned around and sold your product for more $$$ and you didn't receive any of it....would you stay? Even if networks could jerk conferences around like that it's bad for business.

(06-06-2013 06:09 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Just think about it this way, if you entered partnership with a company and they turned around and sold your product for more $$$ and you didn't receive any of it....would you stay?

It happens all the time in the business world. Just look at the recording industry.

What are we going to do...leave? We can't do that until 2027. Only other option we have is to give up sports.

Quote:Even if networks could jerk conferences around like that it's bad for business.

To use an argument presented by many of those here who have discounted the financial hole we are in regards to our peer conferences because of both the length and amount paid from our current contract.....who's to say ESPN isn't looking to the future when a la carte programming is the norm? Certainly it becomes more of an option in 14 years than it is in the next couple of years.

(06-06-2013 06:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 06:09 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Just think about it this way, if you entered partnership with a company and they turned around and sold your product for more $$$ and you didn't receive any of it....would you stay?

It happens all the time in the business world. Just look at the recording industry.

What are we going to do...leave? We can't do that until 2027. Only other option we have is to give up sports.

Quote:Even if networks could jerk conferences around like that it's bad for business.

To use an argument presented by many of those here who have discounted the financial hole we are in regards to our peer conferences because of both the length and amount paid from our current contract.....who's to say ESPN isn't looking to the future when a la carte programming is the norm? Certainly it becomes more of an option in 14 years than it is in the next couple of years.

Well let's see there's boycotting, pulling advertising, bad publicity, no new contracts with other conferences, etc ,etc. There a numberous ways to hit ESPN in the pocket.

(06-06-2013 06:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 06:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 06:09 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Just think about it this way, if you entered partnership with a company and they turned around and sold your product for more $$$ and you didn't receive any of it....would you stay?

It happens all the time in the business world. Just look at the recording industry.

What are we going to do...leave? We can't do that until 2027. Only other option we have is to give up sports.

Quote:Even if networks could jerk conferences around like that it's bad for business.

To use an argument presented by many of those here who have discounted the financial hole we are in regards to our peer conferences because of both the length and amount paid from our current contract.....who's to say ESPN isn't looking to the future when a la carte programming is the norm? Certainly it becomes more of an option in 14 years than it is in the next couple of years.

Well let's see there's boycotting, pulling advertising, bad publicity, no new contracts with other conferences, etc ,etc. There a numberous ways to hit ESPN in the pocket.

Ask the recording company execs how that has affected their industry.

There is a reason Michael Jackson's estate owns The Beatles songs while the remaining Beatles don't.

(06-06-2013 07:26 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 06:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 06:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 06:09 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Just think about it this way, if you entered partnership with a company and they turned around and sold your product for more $$$ and you didn't receive any of it....would you stay?

It happens all the time in the business world. Just look at the recording industry.

What are we going to do...leave? We can't do that until 2027. Only other option we have is to give up sports.

Quote:Even if networks could jerk conferences around like that it's bad for business.

To use an argument presented by many of those here who have discounted the financial hole we are in regards to our peer conferences because of both the length and amount paid from our current contract.....who's to say ESPN isn't looking to the future when a la carte programming is the norm? Certainly it becomes more of an option in 14 years than it is in the next couple of years.

Well let's see there's boycotting, pulling advertising, bad publicity, no new contracts with other conferences, etc ,etc. There a numberous ways to hit ESPN in the pocket.

Ask the recording company execs how that has affected their industry.

There is a reason Michael Jackson's estate owns The Beatles songs while the remaining Beatles don't.

Can't compare the two industries. It's not the same thing. There are tons of music artists but only a handful of conferences that will make money. Can't piss them off.

(06-06-2013 03:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 03:28 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  SEC didn't really have any cards to play either. Now, the ACC is not in such a robust position value-wise as the SEC, but the principle applies. They had no leverage.

They had more than we do because of the rights the individual schools retained.

ESPN could by all right create an ACC Network and not give us a dime and there really isn't anything we could do about it because we already gave them the rights to all of our sports.

ESPN can't just create an ACC network and keep all of the money because of the language in the contract. Look at the reports that if ESPN fails to create a network by 2016 that they have to increase the pay out to each school by 2 million dollars.

(06-06-2013 07:33 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 07:26 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 06:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 06:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 06:09 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Just think about it this way, if you entered partnership with a company and they turned around and sold your product for more $$$ and you didn't receive any of it....would you stay?

It happens all the time in the business world. Just look at the recording industry.

What are we going to do...leave? We can't do that until 2027. Only other option we have is to give up sports.

Quote:Even if networks could jerk conferences around like that it's bad for business.

To use an argument presented by many of those here who have discounted the financial hole we are in regards to our peer conferences because of both the length and amount paid from our current contract.....who's to say ESPN isn't looking to the future when a la carte programming is the norm? Certainly it becomes more of an option in 14 years than it is in the next couple of years.

Well let's see there's boycotting, pulling advertising, bad publicity, no new contracts with other conferences, etc ,etc. There a numberous ways to hit ESPN in the pocket.

Ask the recording company execs how that has affected their industry.

There is a reason Michael Jackson's estate owns The Beatles songs while the remaining Beatles don't.

Can't compare the two industries. It's not the same thing. There are tons of music artists but only a handful of conferences that will make money. Can't piss them off.

Keep comforting yourself with that fact.

Just like a massive increase in ESPN exposure was going to come with signing a long term deal with them it's a pipe dream.

If ESPN thought that an ACC Network was anywhere close to a moneymaker as you and others on here thought it could be there would be actual plans in place other than a lot of posturing by the ACC and a lot of foot dragging by ESPN.

(06-06-2013 07:42 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 03:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 03:28 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  SEC didn't really have any cards to play either. Now, the ACC is not in such a robust position value-wise as the SEC, but the principle applies. They had no leverage.

They had more than we do because of the rights the individual schools retained.

ESPN could by all right create an ACC Network and not give us a dime and there really isn't anything we could do about it because we already gave them the rights to all of our sports.

ESPN can't just create an ACC network and keep all of the money because of the language in the contract. Look at the reports that if ESPN fails to create a network by 2016 that they have to increase the pay out to each school by 2 million dollars.

Link?

It took Clemson's BOT taking a look at the Big XII and demanding that John Swofford come and show them the details before they knew what the contract really said. I highly doubt that a message board poster knows the true details.

(06-06-2013 07:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 07:33 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 07:26 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 06:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 06:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  It happens all the time in the business world. Just look at the recording industry.

What are we going to do...leave? We can't do that until 2027. Only other option we have is to give up sports.

To use an argument presented by many of those here who have discounted the financial hole we are in regards to our peer conferences because of both the length and amount paid from our current contract.....who's to say ESPN isn't looking to the future when a la carte programming is the norm? Certainly it becomes more of an option in 14 years than it is in the next couple of years.

Well let's see there's boycotting, pulling advertising, bad publicity, no new contracts with other conferences, etc ,etc. There a numberous ways to hit ESPN in the pocket.

Ask the recording company execs how that has affected their industry.

There is a reason Michael Jackson's estate owns The Beatles songs while the remaining Beatles don't.

Can't compare the two industries. It's not the same thing. There are tons of music artists but only a handful of conferences that will make money. Can't piss them off.

Keep comforting yourself with that fact.

Just like a massive increase in ESPN exposure was going to come with signing a long term deal with them it's a pipe dream.

If ESPN thought that an ACC Network was anywhere close to a moneymaker as you and others on here thought it could be there would be actual plans in place other than a lot of posturing by the ACC and a lot of foot dragging by ESPN.

Ummm...You do realize the SEC just signed up for a network right? After working on it for 3 years. By your logic, you would have told the SEC that ESPN was dragging their feet.

(06-06-2013 07:59 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 07:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 07:33 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 07:26 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 06:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Well let's see there's boycotting, pulling advertising, bad publicity, no new contracts with other conferences, etc ,etc. There a numberous ways to hit ESPN in the pocket.

Ask the recording company execs how that has affected their industry.

There is a reason Michael Jackson's estate owns The Beatles songs while the remaining Beatles don't.

Can't compare the two industries. It's not the same thing. There are tons of music artists but only a handful of conferences that will make money. Can't piss them off.

Keep comforting yourself with that fact.

Just like a massive increase in ESPN exposure was going to come with signing a long term deal with them it's a pipe dream.

If ESPN thought that an ACC Network was anywhere close to a moneymaker as you and others on here thought it could be there would be actual plans in place other than a lot of posturing by the ACC and a lot of foot dragging by ESPN.

Ummm...You do realize the SEC just signed up for a network right? After working on it for 3 years. By your logic, you would have told the SEC that ESPN was dragging their feet.

And during the entire process ESPN was acting like it was a willing partner in the deal according to media reports.

As opposed to the supposed ACC Network where ESPN has been lukewarm at best concerning an ACC Network. In fact in an article you posted earlier today you have this:

Quote: Q: The SEC is joining the Pac-12 and Big Ten by creating a conference TV network. Are we reaching the point where to be considered a major conference, everyone is going to have one?

"I don't know. It may not seem this way, but it's difficult. You really have to have compelling content. We have it here with SEC football. The ACC is investigating the feasibility and we're doing that with them. The Big 12 is constructed in a different way at the moment, which isn't to say something can't change. It may change in the ACC. I think the answer is potentially, but there has to be an underlying power to the content. No one's going to do it to lose money. I think the jury is still out relative to some others."

Hardly the ringing endorsement we saw from the Mouse the past few years concerning the SEC Network.

However I understand why you missed it since the only thing you saw in the entire article was how the new lineup might make ACC basketball more important. I suggest you start reading your news sources without the blue shades on.

(06-06-2013 07:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 07:42 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 03:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 03:28 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  SEC didn't really have any cards to play either. Now, the ACC is not in such a robust position value-wise as the SEC, but the principle applies. They had no leverage.

They had more than we do because of the rights the individual schools retained.

ESPN could by all right create an ACC Network and not give us a dime and there really isn't anything we could do about it because we already gave them the rights to all of our sports.

ESPN can't just create an ACC network and keep all of the money because of the language in the contract. Look at the reports that if ESPN fails to create a network by 2016 that they have to increase the pay out to each school by 2 million dollars.

Link?

It took Clemson's BOT taking a look at the Big XII and demanding that John Swofford come and show them the details before they knew what the contract really said. I highly doubt that a message board poster knows the true details.

"ESPN, if it says no to a channel, would increase its compensation to the ACC, pushing the per-school average to close to $20 million."

http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal...-net.aspx?

(06-05-2013 08:53 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-05-2013 08:43 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Same scenario the SEC went through. SEC had to buy back rights. SEC channel took 3+ years.

This one is a little different. SEC schools had to buy back their rights. In this case, ESPN has to settle with Raycom/Fox. Raycom had better place nice since Swofford kept them alive a few years ago.

It's definitely different. There's no reason for Raycom to play nice. They own the property and they'll most likely want fair value for it.

(06-05-2013 06:38 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-05-2013 10:38 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Looking at the glass half full, while the ACC won't get anymore money from it, it looks like Raycom is expecting the ACC to get a lot more exposure for our over the air games.

"The SEC Network just recouped third-tier content into an ESPN-run SEC Channel, so Raycom's 31 ACC football games (some of which are sublicensed to Fox) can corner the market on Southeast syndication programming on Saturday afternoons in the fall. Raycom also has 60 live men's basketball games, according to Sports Business Journal, and Fox also has some of those games, too.

Local stations in the South still need content, and Raycom's ACC lineup is basically the only game left in that regard."

Yeah, I thought about that too. What happens when there are NO SEC GAMES on regular TV or "low" basic cable? We always assume that every football fan in the South will skip meals if necessary to buy the SECN, but the thing is, they'll be able to watch ACC games AND eat! Plus, some of the best football players come from the poorest families, and they may grow up watching... the ACC! If we are patient enough, this thing can swing 180 degrees in our favor in the next 10 years.

I still think the ACC needs its own cable channel, but I do like the idea of letting the RSNs have SOME games just so kids w/o cable can watch.

That is significantly more than a half-full glass.

(06-06-2013 08:20 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 07:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 07:42 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 03:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 03:28 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  SEC didn't really have any cards to play either. Now, the ACC is not in such a robust position value-wise as the SEC, but the principle applies. They had no leverage.

They had more than we do because of the rights the individual schools retained.

ESPN could by all right create an ACC Network and not give us a dime and there really isn't anything we could do about it because we already gave them the rights to all of our sports.

ESPN can't just create an ACC network and keep all of the money because of the language in the contract. Look at the reports that if ESPN fails to create a network by 2016 that they have to increase the pay out to each school by 2 million dollars.

Link?

It took Clemson's BOT taking a look at the Big XII and demanding that John Swofford come and show them the details before they knew what the contract really said. I highly doubt that a message board poster knows the true details.

"ESPN, if it says no to a channel, would increase its compensation to the ACC, pushing the per-school average to close to $20 million."

http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal...-net.aspx?

So we get pushed closer to $20 million a year, but fall further behind the competition.

I guess it's good for Wake we have the GOR since their worthless program has a home for the next 14 years.

(06-06-2013 08:21 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-05-2013 08:53 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-05-2013 08:43 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Same scenario the SEC went through. SEC had to buy back rights. SEC channel took 3+ years.

This one is a little different. SEC schools had to buy back their rights. In this case, ESPN has to settle with Raycom/Fox. Raycom had better place nice since Swofford kept them alive a few years ago.

It's definitely different. There's no reason for Raycom to play nice. They own the property and they'll most likely want fair value for it.

Go read the history of the ACC and Raycom, then you will understand the reason for them to play nice.

(06-06-2013 08:20 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 07:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 07:42 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 03:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 03:28 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  SEC didn't really have any cards to play either. Now, the ACC is not in such a robust position value-wise as the SEC, but the principle applies. They had no leverage.

They had more than we do because of the rights the individual schools retained.

ESPN could by all right create an ACC Network and not give us a dime and there really isn't anything we could do about it because we already gave them the rights to all of our sports.

ESPN can't just create an ACC network and keep all of the money because of the language in the contract. Look at the reports that if ESPN fails to create a network by 2016 that they have to increase the pay out to each school by 2 million dollars.

Link?

It took Clemson's BOT taking a look at the Big XII and demanding that John Swofford come and show them the details before they knew what the contract really said. I highly doubt that a message board poster knows the true details.

"ESPN, if it says no to a channel, would increase its compensation to the ACC, pushing the per-school average to close to $20 million."

http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal...-net.aspx?

So that's why everyone said the new ACC deal, post-grant of rights, will be $20M? Because either there will be a network that will payout a few extra million per school on top of the already $19M (rumored post-ND addition) or there won't be a network and ESPN agreed to bump its per team payouts from $19M to $20M (post-network refusal). Doesn't really sound like a huge positive. I mean, it's extra money, but that would be chump change compared to Big Ten and SEC money.

Most on this board were saying it would be $20+M for the tv rights and then several million more just for an ACC Network, not including NCAA Tournament, bowl and football playoff monies. Doesn't seem like the tv/network monies will be in the same ballpark if this is the case and if ESPN decides a network isn't worth it.

(06-06-2013 08:25 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 08:21 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-05-2013 08:53 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-05-2013 08:43 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Same scenario the SEC went through. SEC had to buy back rights. SEC channel took 3+ years.

This one is a little different. SEC schools had to buy back their rights. In this case, ESPN has to settle with Raycom/Fox. Raycom had better place nice since Swofford kept them alive a few years ago.

It's definitely different. There's no reason for Raycom to play nice. They own the property and they'll most likely want fair value for it.

Go read the history of the ACC and Raycom, then you will understand the reason for them to play nice.

Ok, Raycom will gladly give back what they already own to make significantly less, just because you Tobacco Road schools say so.

(06-06-2013 08:33 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 08:25 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 08:21 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-05-2013 08:53 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-05-2013 08:43 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Same scenario the SEC went through. SEC had to buy back rights. SEC channel took 3+ years.

This one is a little different. SEC schools had to buy back their rights. In this case, ESPN has to settle with Raycom/Fox. Raycom had better place nice since Swofford kept them alive a few years ago.

It's definitely different. There's no reason for Raycom to play nice. They own the property and they'll most likely want fair value for it.

Go read the history of the ACC and Raycom, then you will understand the reason for them to play nice.

Ok, Raycom will gladly give back what they already own to make significantly less, just because you Tobacco Road schools say so.

Evidently you didn't didn't read either. Raycom exists because of the ACC

(06-06-2013 08:29 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 08:20 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 07:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 07:42 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 03:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  They had more than we do because of the rights the individual schools retained.

ESPN could by all right create an ACC Network and not give us a dime and there really isn't anything we could do about it because we already gave them the rights to all of our sports.

ESPN can't just create an ACC network and keep all of the money because of the language in the contract. Look at the reports that if ESPN fails to create a network by 2016 that they have to increase the pay out to each school by 2 million dollars.

Link?

It took Clemson's BOT taking a look at the Big XII and demanding that John Swofford come and show them the details before they knew what the contract really said. I highly doubt that a message board poster knows the true details.

"ESPN, if it says no to a channel, would increase its compensation to the ACC, pushing the per-school average to close to $20 million."

http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal...-net.aspx?

So that's why everyone said the new ACC deal, post-grant of rights, will be $20M? Because either there will be a network that will payout a few extra million per school on top of the already $19M (rumored post-ND addition) or there won't be a network and ESPN agreed to bump its per team payouts from $19M to $20M (post-network refusal). Doesn't really sound like a huge positive. I mean, it's extra money, but that would be chump change compared to Big Ten and SEC money.

Most on this board were saying it would be $20+M for the tv rights and then several million more just for an ACC Network, not including NCAA Tournament, bowl and football playoff monies. Doesn't seem like the tv/network monies will be in the same ballpark if this is the case and if ESPN decides a network isn't worth it.

All power conferences will be making 30+ million in the next couple of years. Of course the ACC would love to get a network, but even if it doesn't ESPN throws a little more money on the pile.

(06-06-2013 08:39 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 08:29 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 08:20 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 07:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 07:42 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  ESPN can't just create an ACC network and keep all of the money because of the language in the contract. Look at the reports that if ESPN fails to create a network by 2016 that they have to increase the pay out to each school by 2 million dollars.

Link?

It took Clemson's BOT taking a look at the Big XII and demanding that John Swofford come and show them the details before they knew what the contract really said. I highly doubt that a message board poster knows the true details.

"ESPN, if it says no to a channel, would increase its compensation to the ACC, pushing the per-school average to close to $20 million."

http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal...-net.aspx?

So that's why everyone said the new ACC deal, post-grant of rights, will be $20M? Because either there will be a network that will payout a few extra million per school on top of the already $19M (rumored post-ND addition) or there won't be a network and ESPN agreed to bump its per team payouts from $19M to $20M (post-network refusal). Doesn't really sound like a huge positive. I mean, it's extra money, but that would be chump change compared to Big Ten and SEC money.

Most on this board were saying it would be $20+M for the tv rights and then several million more just for an ACC Network, not including NCAA Tournament, bowl and football playoff monies. Doesn't seem like the tv/network monies will be in the same ballpark if this is the case and if ESPN decides a network isn't worth it.

All power conferences will be making 30+ million in the next couple of years. Of course the ACC would love to get a network, but even if it doesn't ESPN throws a little more money on the pile.

Again, what incentive do they have? They already own all of our rights until 2027 for a set amount. Explain why ESPN is going to just say "You know, we need to just give the ACC some money out of the goodness of our hearts" when the facts are they have gone out of their way to downplay everything other than hoops the ACC has accomplished athletically since signing the deal.

(06-06-2013 08:44 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 08:39 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 08:29 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 08:20 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 07:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Link?

It took Clemson's BOT taking a look at the Big XII and demanding that John Swofford come and show them the details before they knew what the contract really said. I highly doubt that a message board poster knows the true details.

"ESPN, if it says no to a channel, would increase its compensation to the ACC, pushing the per-school average to close to $20 million."

http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal...-net.aspx?

So that's why everyone said the new ACC deal, post-grant of rights, will be $20M? Because either there will be a network that will payout a few extra million per school on top of the already $19M (rumored post-ND addition) or there won't be a network and ESPN agreed to bump its per team payouts from $19M to $20M (post-network refusal). Doesn't really sound like a huge positive. I mean, it's extra money, but that would be chump change compared to Big Ten and SEC money.

Most on this board were saying it would be $20+M for the tv rights and then several million more just for an ACC Network, not including NCAA Tournament, bowl and football playoff monies. Doesn't seem like the tv/network monies will be in the same ballpark if this is the case and if ESPN decides a network isn't worth it.

All power conferences will be making 30+ million in the next couple of years. Of course the ACC would love to get a network, but even if it doesn't ESPN throws a little more money on the pile.

Again, what incentive do they have? They already own all of our rights until 2027 for a set amount. Explain why ESPN is going to just say "You know, we need to just give the ACC some money out of the goodness of our hearts" when the facts are they have gone out of their way to downplay everything other than hoops the ACC has accomplished athletically since signing the deal.

I just realized they don't have any incentive. The ACC is going to shut down tomorrow.