Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="topdecktiger" data-source="post: 129600532" data-attributes="member: 1459051">So, how did the market change in a month? That just doesn't make sense. Especially given that Bowlsby (or Boren. I can't keep track of which said what) said ESPN and Fox weren't interested in starting another network. In other words, what I'm getting at is, I don't know if they are considering expanding because they suddenly found some new numbers, or if they are just purely reacting to the ACC announcement.For some reason, you have this idea that the ACC had to contribute more money then the other leagues did to start their networks. That's not based on anything. There aren't any extra expenses for the ACC than the SEC or Big Ten. I remember in another thread, you said you heard the startup costs would be around $125 million. Well, why would the ACC's startup be more than the SEC or Big Ten? There isn't really a logical basis for that, other than just wanting to believe it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="topdecktiger, post: 129600532, member: 1459051"] So, how did the market change in a month? That just doesn't make sense. Especially given that Bowlsby (or Boren. I can't keep track of which said what) said ESPN and Fox weren't interested in starting another network. In other words, what I'm getting at is, I don't know if they are considering expanding because they suddenly found some new numbers, or if they are just purely reacting to the ACC announcement. For some reason, you have this idea that the ACC had to contribute more money then the other leagues did to start their networks. That's not based on anything. There aren't any extra expenses for the ACC than the SEC or Big Ten. I remember in another thread, you said you heard the startup costs would be around $125 million. Well, why would the ACC's startup be more than the SEC or Big Ten? There isn't really a logical basis for that, other than just wanting to believe it. [/QUOTE]

Name