the first time. I acknowledged that the ACCN is "profitable" in terms of annual operating costs vs. revenue. But, you're not considering the half billion+ dollars that ESPN, the ACC, and each ACC member school had to invest (and, in most cases, finance,) to implement the network in the first place. They have to actually make that money back before everyone starts celebrating buying their QBs Bugattis with their ACCN revenue. Also, you appear to not understand the difference between a linear cable network, and how a linear cable network makes money, vs. a streaming model. The entire viability of a conference network, which, remember, nobody is watching 99% of the time, is expressed in terms of carriage fees. Depending on where they live, each cable subscriber has to pay $0.75, or $0.90, or $1.50, or whatever the exact number is, whether they ever once watch the network or not. That's how a conference network generates revenue. That's why Rutgers and Maryland are in the Big 10 when neither are competitive or big draws in football - when they were added, revenue was entirely expressed in carriage fees, and NYC and DC contain a lot of subscribers. A conference network isn't generating revenue from Spurtle ads, or ads with Joe Namath hawking Medicare support services. Carriage fees are the beginning, and the end. In a streaming infrastructure, there is no such thing as a carriage fee. You pay a price for the library of content that you want to access. If you don't consume certain content, odds are that you're not going to pay for it. This can be entirely understood by looking at the "low ball" bid Apple submitted to the PAC-12 right before it imploded. Apple said, sure, we'll work with you on a broadcast deal, but it's going to be almost entirely streaming, and people are going to have to actually pay a separate fee for it, and we don't predict people will initially be too keen on paying a separate subscription price for access to PAC content, so you have to put some skin in the game here. The PAC didn't want to have an incentives-laden deal, so they walked, and then we all saw what happened. I hate to break it to everyone on the realignment board that thinks the ACCN is some gold mine, but linear conference networks are dead in the water. What we're seeing right now is the last squeeze of juice from the orange before the orange gets thrown out. The model that Apple submitted to the PAC is the future, because linear cable is in its late death throes, and the a la carte streaming-only model is the future. I hope that helps with your understanding. If not, I don't know what to tell you.