Football Tweets

JJacket said:
Can't read without a prescription
Click to expand...
To date, that “look-in” period has been viewed nationally as something of an inflection point for the ACC. Were ESPN to not pick up the option on its deal with the ACC, in theory, the league would be back on the media rights market in 2027 … or, much more likely, susceptible to a new wave of conference realignment — especially with the league’s two recent football powers, Clemson and Florida State, already suing with designs on getting out of the league. But that entire notion appears to be based on a misconception, or at least a misunderstanding of what February’s “look-in” period actually entails.

That’s because the ACC actually has twomedia rights deals with ESPN: one, its “base” deal, which was originally signed before the ACC Network was announced in 2016, and which focuses on ACC programming on Disney’s main networks (ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, etc.); and another, signed in 2016, which deals specifically with the ACC Network. Why does that discrepancy matter? Because only the “base” deal is part of February’s look-in period; the second, ACC Network-specific deal already runs through 2036 — which has not previously been reported — and overlaps with the ACC’s larger grant of rights.

Translation: Even if ESPN, for some unknown reason, opted not to finalize an extension of the “base” deal through 2036 — to be clear, it is Phillips’ and the industry’s expectation that the extension will be picked up — then the ACC would still have a media rights deal with ESPN that runs through 2036, which would seemingly protect the league from any Power 2 poaching. And what incentive would ESPN have to decline the ACC’s premier inventory?

(In FSU’s lawsuit against the ACC in Florida, the school claims Phillips unilaterally moved the “look-in” period back from 2021 to its current 2025 date.)

Instead, Phillips and the ACC are approaching the “look-in” as a way to negotiate in the margins of its base deal and maximize value for both the league and ESPN. Phillips said that could include negotiating for (among other things) better time slots for ACC games; putting more ACC games on the network’s top channels, instead of the ACC Network; and discussing “ancillary” revenue splits regarding areas like advertising and carriage fees.

“We have had very, very, very good conversations with them,” Phillips said, “and I fully expect that to get done.”
 
GTFLETCH said:
To date, that “look-in” period has been viewed nationally as something of an inflection point for the ACC. Were ESPN to not pick up the option on its deal with the ACC, in theory, the league would be back on the media rights market in 2027 … or, much more likely, susceptible to a new wave of conference realignment — especially with the league’s two recent football powers, Clemson and Florida State, already suing with designs on getting out of the league. But that entire notion appears to be based on a misconception, or at least a misunderstanding of what February’s “look-in” period actually entails.

That’s because the ACC actually has twomedia rights deals with ESPN: one, its “base” deal, which was originally signed before the ACC Network was announced in 2016, and which focuses on ACC programming on Disney’s main networks (ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, etc.); and another, signed in 2016, which deals specifically with the ACC Network. Why does that discrepancy matter? Because only the “base” deal is part of February’s look-in period; the second, ACC Network-specific deal already runs through 2036 — which has not previously been reported — and overlaps with the ACC’s larger grant of rights.

Translation: Even if ESPN, for some unknown reason, opted not to finalize an extension of the “base” deal through 2036 — to be clear, it is Phillips’ and the industry’s expectation that the extension will be picked up — then the ACC would still have a media rights deal with ESPN that runs through 2036, which would seemingly protect the league from any Power 2 poaching. And what incentive would ESPN have to decline the ACC’s premier inventory?

(In FSU’s lawsuit against the ACC in Florida, the school claims Phillips unilaterally moved the “look-in” period back from 2021 to its current 2025 date.)

Instead, Phillips and the ACC are approaching the “look-in” as a way to negotiate in the margins of its base deal and maximize value for both the league and ESPN. Phillips said that could include negotiating for (among other things) better time slots for ACC games; putting more ACC games on the network’s top channels, instead of the ACC Network; and discussing “ancillary” revenue splits regarding areas like advertising and carriage fees.

“We have had very, very, very good conversations with them,” Phillips said, “and I fully expect that to get done.”
Click to expand...
I hope Clemson and FSU end up looking like two tards humping doorknobs and are just out of all the stupid legal fees they have paid to date.
 
coit said:
Wut
Click to expand...
Weren't you the poster that thought that the number rankings of girls should be done by ranking them from 1 to whatever in order of hotness vs most posters whi felt it should be done by ranking the girls against an absolute 1-10 scale from left to right in the image?

Maybe I confused you with another poster. It might have been @beej67 maybe?
 
BuzzCzar said:
Weren't you the poster that thought that the number rankings of girls should be done by ranking them from 1 to whatever in order of hotness vs most posters whi felt it should be done by ranking the girls against an absolute 1-10 scale from left to right in the image?

Maybe I confused you with another poster. It might have been @beej67 maybe?
Click to expand...

It isn’t a hotness scale ranking. It’s the order in which you would do them.
 
coit said:
It isn’t a hotness scale ranking. It’s the order in which you would do them.
Click to expand...
So the post I made ranked the games that cyp posted, using your method, in the order that I would watch them
Then I gave the games "hotness ratings" from 0-10, in order from top to bottom, the way many posters rate the ladies in images. So, my post makes perfect sense and I correctly remembered that you were the one that treats it like a tank order of the ladies, while other treat it as a ranking of each person on a hotness scale in order from left to right - which many do, including me, and how it was intended as opposed to your way
 
gt2690b said:
And it's the American way not something coit made up
Click to expand...
So when people say, "she's a 10," they mean that she's the 10th person on a list you would do?

No, it means that they are rating her on an absolute hotness scale from 0-10, with 10 being the highest. Gtfo or stfu with your moronic poofest
 
The difference in the way people rated pics wasn't about what the ratings meant. The ratings have always been the "order," not a 1-10 hotness scale. The argument was always about whether you are numbering them as you see them in the pic, or are you numbering them as an order in which you think they are hottest. For instance, if you had 4 individuals in a pic, and your ranking was "4, 1, 2, 3" some folks interpret that as the far left is #4 (least hot), next person is #1 (hottest), next is #2, and the far right is #3. Other people take it as "person 4 (far right) in the pic is hottest, followed by person 1 (far left), then person 2, and last person 3."
 
BuzzCzar said:
So when people say, "she's a 10," they mean that she's the 10th person on a list you would do?

No, it means that they are rating her on an absolute hotness scale from 0-10, with 10 being the highest. Gtfo or stfu with your moronic poofest
Click to expand...
When there are multiple alternatives, absolute metrics take a back seat to relative metrics.

When there is a single alternative, there is no relative metric so revert to absolute metrics.

So, if one, she's a 10 (or 8 or 3 or whatever). If many, they need to know how to line up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top