re: ACC Network DOA

But you are AAU and in Virginia. That makes you an ideal target for SEC expansion.

Wouldn't you say that ESPN spent a lot more money to start up the SEC Network than the Longhorn Network?

Even if those costs were recouped rather quickly for the SEC, there was still an interim period where ESPN had to carry debt associated with the SEC Network, loosely speaking.

They can't afford to put up that kind of seed money for an ACC Network.

Do you disagree with this?

quote:

---

Wouldn't you say that ESPN spent a lot more money to start up the SEC Network than the Longhorn Network? 

Even if those costs were recouped rather quickly for the SEC (Network as compared to never for the LHN), there was still an interim period where ESPN had to carry debt associated with the SEC Network, 

---

See that is how a parenthesis in a quotation works.

I never said that. Even if they don't recoup the LHN investment directly via the proposed business model it is still cheaper than doing business with super conferences. ESPN is trimming their fat, not their media rights.

With that said the failure of the LHN model means that ESPN can't just pluck off the Texas's, FSU's and Bama's and leave the Mississippi State's to rot. For the SEC it was worth floating MSU, but the ACC never had that kind of clout. It is not that conference networks aren't worth the investment, the ACC isn't worth the investment.

The entire concept of the ACC Network was a fib from the start. It didn't expand to help a network like the Big 10 or SEC, and they didn't own any Tier 3 rights like those conferences. The ACC has already sold its soul and all its media inventory to ESPN, so all ESPN has to provide is enough hush money and empty promises to keep the ACC intact.

quote:

---

I never said that. Even if they don't recoup the LHN investment directly via the proposed business model it is still cheaper than doing business with super conferences

---

That's version 2 of the same song as shutting out Fox. ESPN comes out ahead.

I agree that an ACC Network would likely remain a money-losing proposition.

I disagree that the Longhorn Network should be the first thing that pops into one's mind when considering investing millions upon millions of dollars to start a (conference) network.

I didn't realize that the ACC has already sold its Tier 3 rights to ESPN but has no contractual promise of a conference network to follow (is that what you meant?).

Yes exactly. They have nothing left to sell. The real danger is someone testing the ACC GOR because then the whole house of cards could topple. ESPN has old and deep ties to the ACC, I think we will see former Big 12-esc uneven payments in that league the more the SEC and Big 10 make to keep certain programs onboard.

Va tech, Oklahoma, Kstate or Kansas. Move Auburn and Bama to east. Miz, and Vandy to west

OU is a better choice than TAMU, MIZ, or any other choice except Texas.

quote:

---

The SEC Network was the most successful channel launch in cable history; the Longhorn Network remains the least successful cable launch in ESPN history. (If you want to give ESPN credit for playing grandmaster-level chess, did the network encourage Texas to start the Longhorn Network knowing that it would lead to the SEC Network, which will make hundreds of millions for ESPN? If so, that would be true genius level.)

---

thanks Texas!

quote:

---

Espn losing like 30 million a year on the LHN

---

I don't know about that.

The original ESPN agreement budgeted $26 million per year to the Longhorn Network, which I assume includes Texas' payout.

#4
LINK


The carriage fees alone are projected to be $25.8 million annually, according to that Clay Travis dude.
LINK

That's not counting advertising revenue.

ESPN initially invested $13 million in setting up the network.

How does that equate to losing $30 million per year?