you still haven't addressed the equity issue, which is the only thing I was talking about.

You said the PAC members have lots of equity in the PACN, and you have offered nothing to back it up.

In turn, I've said nothing about the ACCN other than I think it will happen in 2019. You made something up ("If you think the ACC Network will be the best thing ever...") and then shot it down ("Few persons I know agree with you...). Which I guess lets you win an argument that didn't happen.

I gave you an article which discussed the network strategies for dealing with cord cutting as well as numbers of subs, their valuations, and a two year trend. I also gave you a simple math exercise which illustrates the numbers it will take for the ACCN to generate revenue. And I gave you another exercise, with numbers that favor your position, to illustrate how much equity the PACN might have.

You provided...nothing.

Finally, as point of fact, the ACCN and PACN have access to EXACTLY the same distribution and pricing options and are subject to the EXACT same drivers in the market. The difference is the PACN eats its production costs but keeps all profit, while ESPN eats the ACCN production costs but ACCN receives only half the profit.

But as you correctly point out, PACN, at least in theory, does retain the option to move toward the ACCN/SECN/BTN arrangement. The unknown there is whether there would be a buyer and if so, for how much. The other three conference networks have contracted with a major distribution partner. PAC has not.