The first post in this tread mentioned an article in the Charlotte Observer highlighting friction about UNC's special treatment in the ACC. An article in the USA Today titled "Money could push Florida State to Big 12" is exposing lack of finances being a challenge for the ACC. (Friction & Finances)

It appears UNC, Duke, & Wake and the new arrivals are about the only ones totally please with the new TV deal.

If there are only 5 schools who are pleased with the new deal the others shouldn't have voted to approve it. It doesn't matter how you slice it - the other schools could have blocked the deal getting done if they didn't like it that much.

I've just about given up on trying to compare TV deals. There just isn't enough information out there about any of them to really talk intelligently about it and even if there were it's hard to compare them because it's often apples to oranges.

(06-05-2012 10:44 PM)ndlutz Wrote:  If there are only 5 schools who are pleased with the new deal the others shouldn't have voted to approve it. It doesn't matter how you slice it - the other schools could have blocked the deal getting done if they didn't like it that much.

When the ACC signed the $155m a year deal in 2010, it seemed like a huge deal. Just look at the press from the time the deal was announced: everyone lauded Swofford and the ACC for signing what was regarded as a very lucrative deal.

But since then, with the PAC and Big 12 signing much bigger deals, and the B1G raking in huge amounts from their network, the deal now looks paltry. Basically, the market for televised college athletics skyrocketed just after the ACC signed its deal.

Of course that's not to let Swofford and our negotiators off the hook: As someone posted on another board, one of the main jobs of a CEO is to accurately predict where a market is going to go and our negotiating team and executives failed spectacularly.

In the end, i bet none of the ACC schools is happy with the post-Syracuse/Pitt renegotiated deal, but we had little choice in the matter since ESPN had us by the cojones. They didn't have to agree to anything.

It doesn't get talked about much, but the mighty SEC is in the same boat: Their 2009 deal with CBS and ESPN looked ginormous at the time but is now paltry. We'll see if they can do better renegotiating with ESPN. I doubt it.

(06-06-2012 12:02 AM)Hokie78 Wrote:  

(06-05-2012 10:44 PM)ndlutz Wrote:  If there are only 5 schools who are pleased with the new deal the others shouldn't have voted to approve it. It doesn't matter how you slice it - the other schools could have blocked the deal getting done if they didn't like it that much.

When the ACC signed the $155m a year deal in 2010, it seemed like a huge deal. Just look at the press from the time the deal was announced: everyone lauded Swofford and the ACC for signing what was regarded as a very lucrative deal.

But since then, with the PAC and Big 12 signing much bigger deals, and the B1G raking in huge amounts from their network, the deal now looks paltry. Basically, the market for televised college athletics skyrocketed just after the ACC signed its deal.

Of course that's not to let Swofford and our negotiators off the hook: As someone
posted on another board, one of the main jobs of a CEO is to accurately predict where a market is going to go and our negotiating team and executives failed spectacularly.

In the end, i bet none of the ACC schools is happy with the post-Syracuse/Pitt renegotiated deal, but we had little choice in the matter since ESPN had us by the cojones. They didn't have to agree to anything.

It doesn't get talked about much, but the mighty SEC is in the same boat: Their 2009 deal with CBS and ESPN looked ginormous at the time but is now paltry. We'll see if they can do better renegotiating with ESPN. I doubt it.

Well said!

(06-05-2012 07:30 PM)Rabonchild Wrote:  The first post in this tread mentioned an article in the Charlotte Observer highlighting friction about UNC's special treatment in the ACC. An article in the USA Today titled "Money could push Florida State to Big 12" is exposing lack of finances being a challenge for the ACC. (Friction & Finances)

It appears UNC, Duke, & Wake and the new arrivals are about the only ones totally please with the new TV deal.

It's not that everyone is pleased with the deal, but not every school goes about whining about what they just approved. Virtually every credible TV guru points out that had the ACC negotiated at the same time as teh Pac 12, the ACC would have fared better.

(06-06-2012 07:17 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  It's not that everyone is pleased with the deal, but not every school goes about whining about what they just approved. Virtually every credible TV guru points out that had the ACC negotiated at the same time as teh Pac 12, the ACC would have fared better.

IMO, that lets our ACC admins off too easily. Why was the Big 12 able to negotiate a much bigger deal with FOX just 9 months after we got our deal, and despite the fact that they had just lost Nebraska and Colorado and looked like a tottering conference?

That's because their commissioner had the vision to realize that these networks needed big-time college athletics programming more than was heretofore realized, and they bargained for those big dollars.

In contrast, our negotiators failed to see what was happening in the sports marketplace and settled for far less. No doubt about it, Swofford et al. failed to do their jobs as well as they could have.

(06-06-2012 12:08 PM)Hokie78 Wrote:  

(06-06-2012 07:17 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  It's not that everyone is pleased with the deal, but not every school goes about whining about what they just approved. Virtually every credible TV guru points out that had the ACC negotiated at the same time as teh Pac 12, the ACC would have fared better.

IMO, that lets our ACC admins off too easily. Why was the Big 12 able to negotiate a much bigger deal with FOX just 9 months after we got our deal, and despite the fact that they had just lost Nebraska and Colorado and looked like a tottering conference?

They weren't cramming any garbage like Raycom down the throats of potential suitors just to prop up an enterprise that's still doing business like it's 1988....oh and BTW happens to employ the conference commissioner's son.