As a casual fan I have no idea. Part of me thinks the "no"
is simply a result of conventional thinking or skepticism whether an ACCN will come to pass. How many times have we heard people pontificate that ESPN would have to buy back content from Raycom?
When the current media contract was finalized, it contained a provisions to try to do an ACCN AND have a fraction of games sold to Raycom. If the thinking is that they couldn't co-exist, then why do the contract that way? I don't think someone simply forgot to do the math on content.
Various authors (and a poster or 2) have also touted the digital capabilities of Raycom. Purportedly, they are in the best shape to deal with digital content. Honestly, I wouldn't know enough to even have an opinion on the subject, but if true, Raycom could be an integral part of delivery.
That said, getting some live football content to the ACCN would make it a much easier sell to carriers. There are a few, truly terrible, ACC games that are currently available for that. ESPN could also seemingly restructure geographic/regional distribution of its content a bit to make games available. But I may be very naive on the feasibility of that.
|
(
In response to this post by HOO86)
Posted: 06/20/2016 at 9:36PM