(02-14-2013 08:17 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 03:32 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  How can 2-3 ND games a year on espn with ND BBall increase the contract by multiple millions per team?

It doesn't. Our Baylor friend here doesn't want to he's dead wrong and is desperately scrambling to make an excuse by throwing around figures and making erroneous claims.

You are being comical here. The rumors of ND potentially adding 1-2mm per team predated UL's entry into the ACC if I remember correctly.

(02-14-2013 08:23 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 02:58 PM)S11 Wrote:  [quote='gocards#1' pid='8962247' dateline='1360784872']

Who says I subscribe to that "no market" logic to begin with? I didn't say that I did and frankly I have been pro-UL for a while.

I know where you are quoting 3.5 from. It's this quote:

Quote:the ACC is estimating an additional $3.5 million in annual revenues per school in 2014-15 due to a number of factors – the addition of Notre Dame and Louisville, a renegotiated TV contract, the BCS playoff and a new deal with the Orange Bowl that will pair the league champion against a team from the SEC or Big Ten or Notre Dame.

http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/college/g...ity/nWLsF/

So that is 3.5mm from a combo of tv deals, playoff money, and the per school take of the Orange Bowl deal (Avg over 12 yrs ranging from 1.96mm to 2.13mm depending on how often ND appears)

UL has value but that isn't the question. The question is when and why was the ACC contract adjusted?

The ACC got a bump when they added Pitt & Cuse to go from roughly 13mm to 17mm. Then another bump when ND was added. To my knowledge that is the only change in the money and UL simply replaced UMD in the post-ND deal without the dollars going up or down in any way.

So how is that misinformed?

You claimed that by adding Louisville the ACC didn't add a penny to its TV contract, like TCU and the Big 12. You yourself just linked an article that proved otherwise. The ACC was able to renegotiate its TV contract because of the factors listed above, including the addition of Louisville, which refutes your earlier claim. That's why I said you're misinformed.

That quote is a vague quote that lumps UL's replacing UMD in with other moves. It says they expect to get 3.5mm in new revenue as the result of several moves. That quote is still true if you only regard UL as keeping the old deal from dropping. That quote appears to be true if you regard UL as adding 3 of the 3.5mm to the deal. It's vague as to which move added what amount if any.

Got another source because unless I see a report that they renegotiated it for UL (up or down) the logical conclusion is that ESPN simply agreed to pay the same money for the same amount of inventory. Did UL's addition force a renegotiation? I have not seen any report that it did that on it's own. My read on the situation is that UL simply replaced UMD and ND is what is bumping the deal as it adds non-fb inventory and raises the national appeal of the football inventory.

Every other report I have seen seems to indicate it that way and until I see something more credible I tend to chalk this up to awkward phrasing. Louisville is a valuable school and their departure is certainly felt by how much the nBE contract was devalued.