market uncertainty. As I posted elsewhere, I think the B1G data point is important in that it is the first deal since cord-cutting has had a measurable impact. There was some initial speculation that the B1G contract would take a hit as a result; but they didn't and that gives the ACC some ammo. ESPN also has two examples/models in hand with the LHN and SECN. They know what it costs to produce them and what kind of revenue they can produce. The PAC has a unique model as well.

There are also the PAC/BTN ownership models. Does the ACC want an ownership stake?

I go back to Babcock's statement to the effect that we will see why it has taken awhile when we see the final deal. I don't think the ACCN will be a carbon copy of another network, and may even have its own unique aspects.

I understand but don't share the Tier 3 concern to the extent as some others. Per the article I've linked in the past, the ACC can broadcast anything ESPN/Raycom doesn't. Unless ESPN is showing it, nothing prevents VT from streaming women's LAX for a fee or for free. Non-revenue sport content is not locked in an ESPN vault.

Should the ACC have retained the football/basketball content leaking over to ESPN 3? Probably. But that's content I suspect they anticipated would either be in an ACCN or subject to increased rights fees. Again, why the bump in fees if there is no action? Should it have been retained by the individual schools? No. That decision by the Big 12 may ultimately kill it and that decision by the PAC is hamstringing its ability to adapt to the market it has found itself in.

Regardless of how I come across, I greatly appreciate your perspectives and insights. It makes me think and I won't be surprised if a good chunk of it comes to pass.


[Post edited by daveinop at 05/05/2016 10:51AM]