As Predicted By Anyone With A Brain, The ACC Is NOT Getting A TV Network

[clmssun]

Obviously the ACC doesn't believe in their Grant of Rights or they wouldn't still be suing Maryland which is all about trying to stop other schools from trying to leave the conference.

It's interesting FSU's president bolted just shortly before the announcement of this ACC network. He supposedly signed FSU up under promises of an ACC network coming into place from news accounts at the time.

Sometimes such things are unrelated, but then again sometimes they are.

He left for a better job at a better university, just as Clements left WVU for Clemson and Gee left WVU for OSU years ago. (And if UNC,UVa, or a Big Ten school, e.g., call Clements later, he'll leave Clemson...)

 

[btstimpy]

I have been Googling, and, thus far, I can find no comment suggesting that this ACC "subchannel" of WatchESPN is streaming any additional events beyond those which WatchESPN has already been streaming. This sounds like a purely cosmetic, superficial, user-friendly "ease of searching" mechanism so that ACC fans can find all of their Watch ESPN events (that have always been there) more quickly and easily.

You are correct. It is the segmentation of WatchESPN content by Conference. There is nothing stopping ESPN from adding more content from the ACC to this outlet. ESPN is showing more baseball, softball, lacrosse, soccer, and field hockey every year. They can certainly show more of this other stuff and football and basketball on WatchESPN. It has nothing to do with a traditional TV channel though that the ACC is working on with ESPN. This is their digital outlet, and they want to drive more usage through this outlet.

 

[buckaineer]

I'm afraid I disagree. By 2025, I believe the chances that Ohio St. leaves the Big Ten is < 1%. The chances that Texas is not in the Big 12 (including the possibility of the dissolution of the Big 12) is about 50%.

You disagree, but your reason is--you think so. It's not based on anything real or concrete. Your so called percentages are based on nothing, and there isn't a chance there can or will be a dissolution of the BIG 12.

Its no more likely or possible than the Big Ten dissolving or Ohio State leaving the Big Ten.

 

[buckaineer]

He left for a better job at a better university, just as Clements left WVU for Clemson and Gee left WVU for OSU years ago. (And if UNC,UVa, or a Big Ten school, e.g., call Clements later, he'll leave Clemson...)

Gee didn't leave WVU for OSU, he didn't go to OSU until years later. He did recently leave OSU and is now at WVU again. Clements didn't leave WVU after vigorously fighting against his BOT for trying to move to another league. It's debateable if its a better university.

FSU's president left at an interesting point just out of the blue, and at a time when an ACC school is leaving for the conference he moved to, and there is strife between the two conferences--right after proclaiming his adoration of the ACC for a year or more in the media.

 

[Pat125]

You disagree, but your reason is--you think so. It's not based on anything real or concrete. Your so called percentages are based on nothing, and there isn't a chance there can or will be a dissolution of the BIG 12.

Its no more likely or possible than the Big Ten dissolving or Ohio State leaving the Big Ten.

I've come to my conclusion the same way you did. Just like your belief on the stability of the Big 12 or Texas staying. We simply disagree. No biggie.

 

[Fishy]

The number of schools that have left the Big Ten - 0
The number of schools that have left the Pac 12 - 0
The number of schools that have left the SEC - 0
The number of schools that have left the Big 12 - 4

One of these things is not like the others.

 

[buckaineer]

Where do you get that the ACC imposed the exit fee upon Maryland? It was brought up, debated upon, and, passed by, the league's membership. All 12 members (at the time) were bound by the vote on it. That is not something that can be unilaterally slapped on a member institution by John Swofford. It looked more like a show of unity by the 10 who voted for it, IMHO.

To be sure, Clemson...who was having their own second thoughts about the league...would have certainly voted against it if they thought it was overly excessive.

Read Maryland's countersuit. The ACC did impose the exit fee. It was brought up and voted on in the same meeting. There was supposed to be a 15 day window for evaluation and comment and that didn't happen. There was supposed to be a year long wait for a change to the bylaws that didn't happen. It was slapped on the member institutions and more than Maryland commented on the illegality and punitive nature of the change.

 

[buckaineer]

I've come to my conclusion the same way you did. Just like your belief on the stability of the Big 12 or Texas staying. We simply disagree. No biggie.

No. I came to my conclusions based on facts. Money in Texas's league, competition and strength of Texas' league and most importantly there hasn't been the slightest indication from any leader from Texas stating anything other than that they are happy with their situation and the BIG 12.

Ohio State's recently departed president on the other hand has spoken about the Big Ten keeping its hands out of OSU's pockets, and many in Buckeyeland are not happy that the rest of the league is bringing down OSU's strength of schedule.

You are making something up out of nothing, based on nothing.

 

[buckaineer]

The number of schools that have left the Big Ten - 0
The number of schools that have left the Pac 12 - 0
The number of schools that have left the SEC - 0
The number of schools that have left the Big 12 - 4

One of these things is not like the others.

WRONG

The number of teams that have left the Big Ten--1--Chicago
The number of teams that have left the SEC--2--Tulane and Georgia Tech
The number of teams that have left the ACC--2--Maryland and South Carolina

The Pac 12 may not have any departures in the past--will check on that but don't think so.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with anything. The situation in the BIG 12 is not the same as it was 4 or 5 years ago and has 0 bearing on today.

 

[Fishy]

Holy crap, you're delusional if you think Chicago and Tulane play into this conversation.

Go post somewhere else - you're way too simple for our website.

 

[buckaineer]

You ACC posters better take up this new ACC network with your conference mates. Both Syracuse and BC writers have expressed their concern and discontent with this new network-perhaps more.

The ACC could of course squelch the entire conversation by reporting that this new ACC Network has nothing to do with the imaginary ACC network you have all been trumpeting for over a year, but hasn't materialized. Of course the ACC hasn't said anything at all--completely out of character for themselves.

 

[buckaineer]

Holy crap, you're delusional if you think Chicago and Tulane play into this conversation.

Go post somewhere else - you're way too simple for our website.

Facts are facts. You are delusional if you think teams that left the BIG 12 years ago have anything to do with the schools that are in the league now or the future stability of the conference.

 

[Fishy]

What you have are hopes and dreams - not facts. You're not even in the ballpark of facts.

Facts are that Texas A&M, Colorado, Nebraska and Missouri have all left the Big 12 within the past two or three years. They replaced those schools with the likes of West Virginia and TCU. The conference got significantly weaker, not stronger.

Those schools left for a reason - the conference is entirely dependent on Texas.

The Big 12 is hanging on only because Texas wants to pursue the Longhorn Network - that's why UT, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and OSU are not in the Pac 16 right now. If the Longhorn Network fails, and it's not going well, the Big 12, like the Southwestern Conference before it, will go away.

But again, you're not bright enough for this sandbox - you have to go somewhere else.

 

[btstimpy]

You ACC posters better take up this new ACC network with your conference mates. Both Syracuse and BC writers have expressed their concern and discontent with this new network-perhaps more.

The ACC could of course squelch the entire conversation by reporting that this new ACC Network has nothing to do with the imaginary ACC network you have all been trumpeting for over a year, but hasn't materialized. Of course the ACC hasn't said anything at all--completely out of character for themselves.

I very much will enjoy Watch ESPN when I travel. I do today. Most hotels I stay in don't carry ESNU. When games I want to watch happen to be on ESPNU, Watch ESPN comes in very handy. I'm glad ESPN is making it much easier to find the ACC content. This isn't a new network. Watch ESPN has been around for several years now.

I also watch the ACC Digital Network. The ACC isn't saying anything today because there isn't anything to say. It's an ESPN announcment.

 

[Fishy]

Exactly.

This isn't a story - this is ESPN creating segments in their Apple TV app.

Basically, they've added a submenu.

The imaginary ACC Network is still imaginary, but it's not more anymore imaginary than it was two days ago.

 

[Pat125]

No. I came to my conclusions based on facts. Money in Texas's league, competition and strength of Texas' league and most importantly there hasn't been the slightest indication from any leader from Texas stating anything other than that they are happy with their situation and the BIG 12.

Ohio State's recently departed president on the other hand has spoken about the Big Ten keeping its hands out of OSU's pockets, and many in Buckeyeland are not happy that the rest of the league is bringing down OSU's strength of schedule.

You are making something up out of nothing, based on nothing.

Even assuming your facts, I come to the same conclusion. Your conclusions are clearly based on emotion and bias.

 

[SouthronCross]

Read Maryland's countersuit. The ACC did impose the exit fee. It was brought up and voted on in the same meeting. There was supposed to be a 15 day window for evaluation and comment and that didn't happen. There was supposed to be a year long wait for a change to the bylaws that didn't happen. It was slapped on the member institutions and more than Maryland commented on the illegality and punitive nature of the change.

Right now, it is still unclear that what you are saying is cut and dried. Maryland is alleging that it went the way that you say. Nobody knows for sure how it all went down just yet.

I have said all along, if the ACC followed its own bylaws, Maryland will pay. If the league didn't, Maryland wins.

Who else has commented on the illegality and punitive nature, aside from Maryland? If anybody has, its been under the radar, to my knowledge. Granted, I do not read every little story on this that is published.

Honest question: if something is voted on, and, passed by a 10-2 vote, how is it 'slapped' upon the league's members? That description is not accurate, IMHO.

 

[Pat125]

WRONG

The number of teams that have left the Big Ten--1--Chicago
The number of teams that have left the SEC--2--Tulane and Georgia Tech
The number of teams that have left the ACC--2--Maryland and South Carolina

The Pac 12 may not have any departures in the past--will check on that but don't think so.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with anything. The situation in the BIG 12 is not the same as it was 4 or 5 years ago and has 0 bearing on today.

Since 1936, the SEC has lost three (Sewanee, Tulane, Georgia Tech). PAC 12 lost two (Idaho, Montana). They lost three more (Oregon, Oregon St., Washington St.), but they rejoined. This was all before 1970.

 

[SouthronCross]

You ACC posters better take up this new ACC network with your conference mates. Both Syracuse and BC writers have expressed their concern and discontent with this new network-perhaps more.

When BC or Syracuse officials make comments about it, then you might be onto something. SU and BC writers = meh.

The ACC could of course squelch the entire conversation by reporting that this new ACC Network has nothing to do with the imaginary ACC network you have all been trumpeting for over a year, but hasn't materialized. Of course the ACC hasn't said anything at all--completely out of character for themselves.

What do you want the ACC to do? There is nothing to this nonsense you are posting. So there is nothing to say.

Which ACC posters on the BY have been trumpeting a new ACCN? All that we know is that it is a possibility. Nothing more at this point.

 

[buckaineer]

Even assuming your facts, I come to the same conclusion. Your conclusions are clearly based on emotion and bias.

What emotion and bias are my conclusions based on?

There is no bias in the amounts BIG 12 schools will earn as compared to others. There is no bias in statistical info that shows how strong the BIG 12 has been--and if you say it won't continue to be that is pure speculation based on nothing.

No poster has provided any information whatsoever that could possibly lead anyone to conclude that Texas is 50% more or even .0005% more likely to leave the BIG 12 than Ohio State is the Big Ten, yet they keep repeating this nonsense.

 

[buckaineer]

What do you want the ACC to do? There is nothing to this nonsense you are posting. So there is nothing to say.

Which ACC posters on the BY have been trumpeting a new ACCN? All that we know is that it is a possibility. Nothing more at this point.

We do know posters are denying this is an ACC network when it clearly is. ACC bloggers like Nunes and the one up at BC have also concluded that this very well be all there is as far as an ACC network. There isn't any evidence to support that there will be any other ACC network, yet posters here claim there will be.

It would be one thing to admit they don't know, but posters here are outright denying it, and denying that it is odd the ACC hasn't mentioned this recent development. I showed if you look above that it is very uncommon for the ACC not to recognize such a development and they act as though that isn't the case when anyone can look up ACC announcements and realize they announce virtually everything that happens for the conference.

Why the continued spin?

 

[Pat125]

What emotion and bias are my conclusions based on?

There is no bias in the amounts BIG 12 schools will earn as compared to others. There is no bias in statistical info that shows how strong the BIG 12 has been--and if you say it won't continue to be that is pure speculation based on nothing.

No poster has provided any information whatsoever that could possibly lead anyone to conclude that Texas is 50% more or even .0005% more likely to leave the BIG 12 than Ohio State is the Big Ten, yet they keep repeating this nonsense.

Reread your posts. They are laced with emotion and bias. I get you can quote stats on how much Big 12 schools make. They do not prove your conclusion any more than mine. The other fact is the Big 12 lost 4 teams in recent history. Yes, times have changed. My percentage for Texas leaving was > 90%, so things have improved. If the Big 10 loses 4 teams within two years, I'd surmise Ohio State's leaving the Big 10 would go to 50% or so. Anyway, we disagree. So what? No need to be so defensive.

 

[SouthronCross]

We do know posters are denying this is an ACC network when it clearly is. ACC bloggers like Nunes and the one up at BC have also concluded that this very well be all there is as far as an ACC network. There isn't any evidence to support that there will be any other ACC network, yet posters here claim there will be.

Which ACC posters here are claiming there will be an ACCN forthcoming? Name names here.

Give it a rest with the ACC bloggers nonsense. They do not have anymore of a clue about whether a dedicated ACCN would ever come to fruition than The Dude had about conference realignment.

When an announcement comes from the ACC itself about it, then you can know it for real.

It would be one thing to admit they don't know, but posters here are outright denying it, and denying that it is odd the ACC hasn't mentioned this recent development. I showed if you look above that it is very uncommon for the ACC not to recognize such a development and they act as though that isn't the case when anyone can look up ACC announcements and realize they announce virtually everything that happens for the conference.

Why the continued spin?

Again, who are these posters that are denying it? There are basically three of us ACC fans who post here pretty regularly...billybud, btstimpy, and, myself. Which of us have ever said for 100 percent certain that there will be a future ACCN? I know I haven't, and, I doubt either of them have, either.

There is nothing to spin here. The ACC hasn't said anything about it, because there is nothing to say. Nobody knows for certain whether there will be, or, won't be, an ACCN in the future.

What about this escapes you?

 

[whaler11]

I have been Googling, and, thus far, I can find no comment suggesting that this ACC "subchannel" of WatchESPN is streaming any additional events beyond those which WatchESPN has already been streaming. This sounds like a purely cosmetic, superficial, user-friendly "ease of searching" mechanism so that ACC fans can find all of their Watch ESPN events (that have always been there) more quickly and easily.

All you have to do is look at the site. These 'channels' are just folders. They happen to put enough ACC games on ESPN3 to make a folder worthwhile.

That this thread has 100 posts and goes from the Maryland lawsuit to Ohio State leaving the Big 10 is crazy.

 

[btstimpy]

All you have to do is look at the site. These 'channels' are just folders. They happen to put enough ACC games on ESPN3 to make a folder worthwhile.

That this thread has 100 posts and goes from the Maryland lawsuit to Ohio State leaving the Big 10 is crazy.

Well you have a new WVU poster on here posting nonsense so ludicrous that other posters read it and try to correct it. But after engaging in that futility three or four times each, they all give up. But it has now reached about 100 posts because the WVU poster continues to repeat the lunacy.