First off this is a partnership for TV viewers, not convincing the conferences. Now, The ACC owns 50% of the ACCN. It’s already been proven by several posters on the board that the ACCN will generate $0.50 more per TV viewer per month in every state the ACC adds to its conference. .25 belongs to the ACC and .25 belongs to ESPN. Let’s say the ACC and PAC come to an agreement to allow the PAC 12 to share 33% of the ACC’s profit by adding the ACCN to its membership and gain the advantage of an established college network in its member states. Helps the PAC 12 because they need the money and benefits the ACC because they own half the network. Now what do the dollars look like? The ACCN currently has 42M subscribers and could add subscriber bases in CA, WA, AZ, CO, OR and UT. The population of thee states is 67M which is 20% of the US population. Now, why does that matter? Because the number of TVs in the US is about 125M. What is 20% of that? 25M subscribers. So the ACCN could add 25M subscribers (and at 67M subscribers be one of the largest channels on TV). Now what is the $$ generated by 25M subscribers? Remember, ESPN and the ACC are 50/50 partners so, of the $0.50 per TV, the ACC gets $0.25 of that. And per the partnership with the PAC 10, the PAC 12 will take 33% of that revenue. What’s the number? $0.25* 25M TV’s = $6.25M a month. 6.25M * 12 months = $75M a year The ACC gets $50M a year and the PAC 10 gets $25M. For a partnership. 50M/14.33 = ~$3.5M extra per year for each ACC school 25M/10 = $2.5M extra per year for each Pac 10 school.. This is just added ACCN revenue separate from media right fees that could be paid by ESPN. If ESPN sees value in the partnership , then each conference could see itself $5-$10M better off than they were. Is it great? Not compared to the SEC and B1G. But… It would keep the Pac 10 schools from joining the Big XII and give the ACC schools a $ boost while waiting until 2036. None of us would turn down $5-$10M extra per year.