- Joined
- Jun 3, 2013
- Messages
- 1,359
- Reaction Score
- 2,630
It really is a brutal piece of journalism.
The headline is that they're 'right on target'.
Sentence two admits that Swofford said nothing and that the author has a 'sense', (read 'hope'), that the network will launch in 2017. And then he tries to plump up the positives.
And then Swofford slides the sticky bits right past Teel...
“If we’re going to do this,” Swofford said, “we need to do it in the right way from the beginning that gives us the opportunity to have long-term success, and that’s what we’re trying to do and time it in a way so the distribution can be good, if not great, coming out, if we go this route. The other alternative is larger rights fees (from ESPN).”
And boom. They have nothing.
The issue for the ACC is that they signed their deal and never made provisions for a network. Now, they want ESPN to put more money into something they already own and then have it compete on some level with an already solid business, the SEC Network. It's not working by anyone's rational measure.
The tell is the 'alternative' - asking ESPN for more money.
Well, good luck.
The larger rights fees Swofford is referring to could be the $2M consolation prize that each school gets if there is no ACCN. The reality is that the ACC is a spectator in these negotiations. ESPN has to calculate the lesser of two evils—the cost to recover the third tier rights they sold off and launch the network, or pay the consolation prize.