Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Alsacs, post: 4296029, member: 652"]
ACC actually tried to stand up to ESPN last year.
That is why they did the alliance with Big Ten and Pac-12.

ACC doesn’t do what ESPN tells them. The ACC has no leverage. ESPN owns them.
ESPN isn’t going to give the ACC money for no reason when it can just tell the SEC to do what did to Oklahoma and Texas.
ESPN wanted the playoff expanded and the SEC commissioner leading the movement so it could freeze Fox out of it.

I said all this stuff last year.

The Big XII rights were going to go on the market. The conference wanted an increase. The Big XII rights currently were split between Fox and ESPN for football.

ESPN told the SEC go and get Texas and Oklahoma which are estimated to be between 60-80% of the Big XII value.
ESPN will make it worthwhile for the SEC to the tune of an extra 100-200 million per year and now ESPN doesn’t have to split Texas and Oklahoma with Fox and the Big XII rights aren’t going to be expensive without Texas and Oklahoma.

The ACC is good value for ESPN they own the rights for a long time and the fees are a lot cheaper than SEC or Big Ten.

On your second part those conferences aren’t going to get 32 teams. That is just stupid. The fat is going to get trimmed.

[MEDIA=twitter]1543638452331319296[/MEDIA]

The PAC-12 was looking at 500 million per year losing USC and UCLA are going to take atleast 200 million off that.

That money will go to the Big Ten as now BTN will be charging 1.50 per cable subscriber in LA. USC and UCLA paid for their own inclusion.

The ACC is on borrowed time because it can’t get on the market and ESPN owns it.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?