Relevance? It called to mind that ESPN has an option on the ACC contract.

The article doesn't say anything about the ACC, but could this be a harbinger?

https://awfulannouncing.com/espn/espn-re...tract.html

(03-26-2024 03:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Relevance? It called to mind that ESPN has an option on the ACC contract.

The article doesn't say anything about the ACC, but could this be a harbinger?

https://awfulannouncing.com/espn/espn-re...tract.html

Quote:However, last fall it was reported by Andrew Marchand at the New York Post that ESPN could choose to opt out of its MLB contract after the 2025 season as both sides had an opportunity to end the deal early.

Yes, that does sound eerily familiar...

Sounds like a mutual split.

Headline: ESPN reportedly leaning towards opting out of MLB contract

Nut graf: While that news could send alarm bells ringing at MLB headquarters in Rob Manfred’s office, Andrew Marchand (NY Post/Sports Media Podcast) states that ESPN doesn’t want to get out of the baseball business entirely. However, he does note that ESPN “wants to be able to get more for its $550 million annual deal” and this could include local rights

(03-26-2024 04:05 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Headline: ESPN reportedly leaning towards opting out of MLB contract

Nut graf: While that news could send alarm bells ringing at MLB headquarters in Rob Manfred’s office, Andrew Marchand (NY Post/Sports Media Podcast) states that ESPN doesn’t want to get out of the baseball business entirely. However, he does note that ESPN “wants to be able to get more for its $550 million annual deal” and this could include local rights

Well, a bunch of local RSN went belly up, and the Dbacks still don't have a TV partner because of it, so ESPN may be trying to step into THAT void.

If ESPN is able to treat MLB like this, hot on the heels of the much lower than expected deal on the CFP, then that does not bode well for any CFB Conference or school that's hoping to get them to spend one penny more than they're contractually obligated to.

I can't imagine what MLB will look like in 20 years. Maybe back down to 16 teams hopefully.

(03-26-2024 05:19 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  I can't imagine what MLB will look like in 20 years. Maybe back down to 16 teams hopefully.

Get rid of the Yankees, Dodgers, Mets, Red Sox, Cubs!

(03-26-2024 04:36 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  If ESPN is able to treat MLB like this, hot on the heels of the much lower than expected deal on the CFP, then that does not bode well for any CFB Conference or school that's hoping to get them to spend one penny more than they're contractually obligated to.

Now tell us how ESPN will stop from paying its contractually obligated pro-rata shares to the SEC if/when Greg Sankey decides to expand?

Folks in Bristol ain't the only somebodies carrying a big stick here

(03-26-2024 05:19 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  I can't imagine what MLB will look like in 20 years. Maybe back down to 16 teams hopefully.

The contracts will be cut to shreds. Ohtani will look like a genius for deferring the salary (getting robbed by his translator aside).

(03-26-2024 05:19 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  I can't imagine what MLB will look like in 20 years. Maybe back down to 16 teams hopefully.

Good luck with that. Major pro leagues don’t contract. Who was the last? Cleveland Barons, maybe?

(03-26-2024 03:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Relevance? It called to mind that ESPN has an option on the ACC contract.

The article doesn't say anything about the ACC, but could this be a harbinger?

https://awfulannouncing.com/espn/espn-re...tract.html

Huh?

(03-26-2024 05:38 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 04:36 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  If ESPN is able to treat MLB like this, hot on the heels of the much lower than expected deal on the CFP, then that does not bode well for any CFB Conference or school that's hoping to get them to spend one penny more than they're contractually obligated to.

Now tell us how ESPN will stop from paying its contractually obligated pro-rata shares to the SEC if/when Greg Sankey decides to expand?

Folks in Bristol ain't the only somebodies carrying a big stick here

IMO there is unlikely to be a conflict between the SEC and ESPN over a pro-rata. Conflicts, like in 2016 with the B12, happen when a conference is in backfill mode. ESPN looked askance at the long line of G5 fodder, that included my USF, that the B12 auditioned.

The SEC is unlikely to be adding schools in a backfill mode, which means from a desperation mode. So any schools it adds are likely going to be fine from an ESPN point of view, schools like NC, FSU or Clemson.

Or IOWs, any school that ESPN is likely to blanche at as not worth a pro-rata is also a school that I doubt the SEC would want to invite in the first place.

Maybe we'll see.

(03-26-2024 07:37 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 05:19 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  I can't imagine what MLB will look like in 20 years. Maybe back down to 16 teams hopefully.

Good luck with that. Major pro leagues don’t contract. Who was the last? Cleveland Barons, maybe?

Why would MLB still be a viable entity in 20 years? What would even lead to that assumption? Less people playing, less people watching, younger generation lacks interest, etc.

(03-26-2024 10:43 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 07:37 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 05:19 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  I can't imagine what MLB will look like in 20 years. Maybe back down to 16 teams hopefully.

Good luck with that. Major pro leagues don’t contract. Who was the last? Cleveland Barons, maybe?

Why would MLB still be a viable entity in 20 years? What would even lead to that assumption? Less people playing, less people watching, younger generation lacks interest, etc.

Actually it looks like the opposite

CW about to grab baseball too lol.

It's funny reading the comments in this. It always feels like those that don't care for baseball, often plan for it's funeral. Baseball fills a major gap in sports. It's every day, during the summer. I am a passionate baseball fan that acknowledges that baseball is geared to casual fans. It's a great excuse to go hang with friends and have a drink and enjoy a game, any day of the week. To say no one is watching isn't true either. Forbes has an article saying there was a 7% increase in RSN viewing last year. Baseball isn't going anywhere.

MLB Regional Sports Networks See 7% Gain For 2023 Season https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/...b1fa8a9a8a

(03-27-2024 09:17 AM)jhjhanaway Wrote:  It's funny reading the comments in this. It always feels like those that don't care for baseball, often plan for it's funeral. Baseball fills a major gap in sports. It's every day, during the summer. I am a passionate baseball fan that acknowledges that baseball is geared to casual fans. It's a great excuse to go hang with friends and have a drink and enjoy a game, any day of the week. To say no one is watching isn't true either. Forbes has an article saying there was a 7% increase in RSN viewing last year. Baseball isn't going anywhere.

MLB Regional Sports Networks See 7% Gain For 2023 Season https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/...b1fa8a9a8a

Yes, I have been reading about the demise of MLB - which I don't watch on TV btw until the playoffs, sometimes not until the WS, and have no chance to see in person - for over 30 years. It's always the same litany - baseball is an old fogie sport, too slow, doesn't appeal to today's youth, be that the youth of the 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s, and now 20s.

And yet here we are in 2024, and MLB has overall revenue of about $11b, a billion more than the always-trendy NBA (which I personally like and follow more than MLB, btw). But MLB is the second-highest revenue league in the world, behind only the NFL.

So, somebody likes baseball, LOL.

(03-26-2024 04:05 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Headline: ESPN reportedly leaning towards opting out of MLB contract

Nut graf: While that news could send alarm bells ringing at MLB headquarters in Rob Manfred’s office, Andrew Marchand (NY Post/Sports Media Podcast) states that ESPN doesn’t want to get out of the baseball business entirely. However, he does note that ESPN “wants to be able to get more for its $550 million annual deal” and this could include local rights

David Samson said a similar thing on his podcast this morning. ESPN is looking for more exclusively, most likely for ESPN+, but keeping the payment the same.

(03-26-2024 10:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 05:38 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 04:36 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  If ESPN is able to treat MLB like this, hot on the heels of the much lower than expected deal on the CFP, then that does not bode well for any CFB Conference or school that's hoping to get them to spend one penny more than they're contractually obligated to.

Now tell us how ESPN will stop from paying its contractually obligated pro-rata shares to the SEC if/when Greg Sankey decides to expand?

Folks in Bristol ain't the only somebodies carrying a big stick here

IMO there is unlikely to be a conflict between the SEC and ESPN over a pro-rata. Conflicts, like in 2016 with the B12, happen when a conference is in backfill mode. ESPN looked askance at the long line of G5 fodder, that included my USF, that the B12 auditioned.

The SEC is unlikely to be adding schools in a backfill mode, which means from a desperation mode. So any schools it adds are likely going to be fine from an ESPN point of view, schools like NC, FSU or Clemson.

Or IOWs, any school that ESPN is likely to blanche at as not worth a pro-rata is also a school that I doubt the SEC would want to invite in the first place.

Maybe we'll see.

Agreed. Even if ESPN is obligated to pay pro rata for any addition today, the SEC-ESPN deal is not forever. I believe it lasts until 2034. Any addition made today has to bring long term value that exceeds the value of the average member today or it's just another mouth to feed in the future. The addition of Texas and Oklahoma have raised that bar.