Non-Key Tweets | Page 499 | The Boneyard

Non-Key Tweets

jlarson said:
BTM doesn't exist is why he was wrong on all of this ASU hockey stuff. He simply guesses.

People actually thought flugempire had a legit source? I know the guy loves himself some UCONN, but he doesn't have a legit source for info.
Expand ...
I think he does have a legit source.
 
The Viking said:
FWIW, Bluevod had McMurphy beat by 24 hours on the satellite camps being reversed.
Expand ...

Bluevod is the one with a legit source.

He said news was days away from breaking and then the B1G T V contract news broke. Was 100% on for the camp stuff too.
 
MH ver3 ‏@MH ver3 29m29 minutes ago
So it seems ESPN is doing some moving around of inventory. They are trying to secure CUSA rights and put them on thur and fri.

MH ver3 ‏@MH ver3 29m29 minutes ago
Seems they will be moving P5 to Saturdays to fill in the soon to missing B10 content.

MH ver3 ‏@MH ver3 28m28 minutes ago
As I said months ago: ESPN knew they couldn't offer B10 what they wanted and now are just going to stick with what they do have.

MH ver3 ‏@MH ver3 28m28 minutes ago
ESPN also now talking to B12 and ACC members about sharing a conference network as well.

MH ver3 ‏@MH ver3 26m26 minutes ago
Possibly sharing one network until a later date when they would be split. Offering ESPNnews again

MH ver3 ‏@MH ver3 24m24 minutes ago
Fox B10 deal could have big ramifications for B12 when our contract comes up-may not renew

MH ver3 ‏@MH ver3 23m23 minutes ago
There are whispers that Fox and B12 could put our rights back on the market if we would consent.

MH ver3 ‏@MH ver3 22m22 minutes ago
Lots of stuff flooding in now. I'm gonna sift through it and get back with more later.

MH ver3 ‏@MH ver3 22m22 minutes ago
ESPN wants to protect both ACC and B12 now. That is a complete 180 from before on the ACC.

MH ver3 ‏@MH ver3 21m21 minutes ago
Promise I will be back with more details later...it appears ESPN bid for B10 may have been 1-upped by fox...again.
 
MH ver3 ‏@MH ver3 28m28 minutes ago
ESPN also now talking to B12 and ACC members about sharing a conference network as well.

13ccwl.jpg


Did this start flashing on anyone else's screen?
 
Is ESPN going to pay the Big 12 and ACC more if they brand ESPNN as ACC/B12 network? No? Then why would anyone care?
 
billybud said:
Only if the network is sold with in state and out of state fees...like the SECN or BTN
Expand ...

Um everyone already has ESPNN and it's like .15 a month. Do you think they are going back to providers looking to increase? LOL.

Hey Comcast - pay us more for this network that you already have - because we are going to show the same games you already get on other networks. But we are going to change the name.

Can we please come up with things that make even a modium of sense?
 
whaler11 said:
Um everyone already has ESPNN and it's like .15 a month. Do you think they are going back to providers looking to increase? LOL.

Hey Comcast - pay us more for this network that you already have - because we are going to show the same games you already get on other networks. But we are going to change the name.

Can we please come up with things that make even a modium of sense?
Expand ...


Does not mean that ESPN News can not be repurposed if there is money in it....but ESPN has plenty of other existing alternate pay platforms on my Direct TV for a channel.

I still think a streaming solution will be the future.....
 
billybud said:
Does not mean that ESPN News can not be repurposed if there is money in it....but ESPN has plenty of other existing alternate pay platforms on my Direct TV for a channel.

I still think a streaming solution will be the future.....
Expand ...

Sure - but why would they give the ACC more money for what they already own? You know the company that lets someone leave everyday over a fraction of the money we'd be talking about.

Maybe I'll head over to the dealership and pay for my car a second time.

Do you not realize that ESPN already streams all the ACC games? For a league that is supposed to be made up of good schools, the fans do post some pretty dumb stuff.
 
C'mon Billybud...it is not that tough to figure out.

The ACC adopted a direct sales model with ESPN as their sole purchaser. When issues like conference expansion arose, the ACC selected the programs which allowed them to maximize direct sales to ESPN while increasing the ACC football pedigree/increasing the chance of an ACC playoff appearance

At the time the ACC decided on a direct sales model the jury was out on the financial effect of conference networks. The jury is back now and the networks are crushing the direct sales model. Unfortunately the ACC was never built to form a network and you cannot redesign a car once it is build. There is a winner and loser in every business decision and the direct sales model is not as profitable as the network model.

ESPN needs the ACC for content especially now that the BIG is off ESPN. I'm not sure how ESPN could put the ACCN on a separate channel. What would ESPN show on ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU? Isn't ESPN's prime content a lot of ACC games now?

Best case scenario for the ACC is ESPN ponies up more money for ACC games. Certainly ESPN needs the ACC more than ever so maybe they'll pay a little more. Maybe ESPN converts a channel (ESPNN) to an "ACCN" but it won't be with a network-like fee increase. IMO putting the ACC on ESPNNews and calling it "the ACC network" is nothing more than a PR move for the ACC who can then claim to have a network too.
 
@dwalks93 Let me offer an alternative narrative. The ACC had become the weakest of the Big 6 conferences. It allied itself with ESPN in order to fund expansion to weaken its major competitor on the East coast. It's first effort failed, so it had to keep going back the ESPN to fund multiple attempts. ESPN bought the ACCs inventory, in the hopes that by destroying the Big East, ESPN would profit as the ACC thrived without competition. The ACC has nothing left to sell.

I liken it to a struggling dairy farmer selling off top soil so that he keep his farm. Early on it works well, bringing an influx of cash that makes the farm look profitable. Eventually though the amount land sold impacts the performance of the already questionable core business. The only option left is keep selling soil since the land won't support the cows. Eventually, the only thing left is a hole in the ground. That's where the ACC is now. They have nothing left to sell.
 
CL82 I really enjoy your posts and I think your point has merit.

I completely agree the ACC's initial plan was no more complicated than to destroy the Big East. IMO the ACC wanted to eliminate the BE's automatic BCS bid and wanted to be the dominate conference on the east coast. However the ACC needed to destroy and absorb the BE territory and that is where the ACC wheels came off.

Destroying the BE was easy but, once it was fractured, the ACC did not recruit/retain critical programs. Where would the ACC be as far as a network if they had UConn, Rutgers, Maryland, and WVU? The above programs may not significantly increase the perception of the ACC's football competitiveness but they could have been the core of an ACC network in the mid-Atlantic and NE.

The ACC took the "dollar in hand" approach. Allowed the ACC football schools to dictate short term payouts instead of strategic building is what will eventually lead to ACC programs with option leaving.

I think the ACC still has valuable programs to sell but they can only sell their product to one distributor (ESPN) and ESPN sets the price. The ACC this year will probably make more media money than they ever have before...but it will be half of the SEC/BIG.

Ironically many of the most attractive ACC programs will probably mimic any bubble market. Make as much money as you can in the short term and then get into a more stable profitable conference when possible.
 
If it is all about money, and a team's football program is ranked by the AD revenue...$$$ may become uber important. Texas will be #1 every year.

But, if it is about having winning sports in a conference....other factors are more important.

When Minnesota, Georgia or South Carolina wins a NC in football, I'll worry.

Until then, I'll enjoy watching the Noles knowing that they have as much chance as most at making a run.
 
Vegas odds right now on 2016 NC....have Clemson and FSU at a level with Ohio State and Michigan...and above all the other Big Ten teams. As well as above SEC teams other than Alabama (who have the lowest odds of course).

If recruiting falls off in a big way, things could change. But it isn't at present. And it doesn't look like it will in the near future.

Although FSU just set a NCAA record for draftees over a three year period, 2013-14-15, 2016 is not a rebuilding year. That was last year. The caution is that FSU will play a tough schedule (early on ranked #3 by 247 sports)

"Among teams from Power Five leagues, seven of the 10 easiest schedules will be played by teams from the Big Ten Conference, while two ACC teams and one Big 12 team make up the rest of the top 10.

Here's a look at the 10 toughest and easiest schedules for the 2016 season among Power Five conference teams, according to FPI.

Toughest 2016 schedules

1. Southern Cal
2. Ole Miss
3. Florida State
4. California
5. Alabama

Easiest 2016 schedules

1. Minnesota
2. Michigan
3. Purdue
4. Maryland
5. Nebraska

 
Last edited:

Online statistics

Members online
217
Guests online
2,850
Total visitors
3,067
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,256
Messages
4,389,320
Members
10,196
Latest member
Whizzlerr


.
..
Top Bottom