(12-14-2012 03:39 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 02:41 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 10:22 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  Add no one.

Really don't think the Big 12 is anywhere near the nuclear option that some here believe it is. Remember, at the end of the day, Texas's TV rights are tied to the Big 12 conference, except for one football game per year and a handful (6-8) basketball games, for the next 12 years.

I too do not believe that they are about to omplode, but I think the issues with getting around a Grant of Rights are overblown. If Texas were to leave the Big XII, yeah the Big XII would still own their rights, but it's not like they'd be indentured servents: they Big XII would still have to pay them their share of the TV rights. So let's use the widely speculated example of Texas leaving to go to the PAC 12. The Big XII would be stuck with some equally unappealing choices:

• 1) Having the ability to keep Texas' TV rights does not absolve them from paying Texas: they still get their portion of the TV contract. And thanks to the equal sharing they shoved down Texas' throats, they can't even get out of paying them an equal share by manipulating expsoure
  
  2) After they have left to go to the PAc 12, they are now left with their TV partners promoting Texas' games against teams from the PAC 12 on BIG XII broadcasts. And they will likely be better time slots. Oh, did I mention they still have to pay them? Talk about being smacked in the face while you are kicked in the nuts. On top of that, it will simply make the Big XII look bush league.
  
  3) They can choose to have the TV provider purposely not pick up Texas games, then they avoid having to promote their games. Except now those righs revert to Tier 3. Except even with a GOR, Texas retains their Tier 3 rights. So then they not only still have to pay them an equal share of TV money, but Texas gets EVEN MORE Tier 3 content to sell. So now they'ce "stuck it" to Texas by not only paying them their equal share of $20 million, and not only are they promoting Texas while doing it, but they are giving them EXACTLY what they want in terms of more content to make income off of, all at the same time.
  
  4) Also note that if Texas went to the Pac 12, they have the very same TV contract that the Big XII does, in terms of a split Tier 1 and Tier 2 with ESPN and Fox. Makes it harder to get the TV network to work with them to blackball their broadcasts.
  

Just saying, the GOR is not all it's cracked up to be.

Insightful post. I never thought about the fact that if anyone ever left the Big 12 that the Big 12 would still have to pay that school because they own the GOR and the school left the GOR behind in the Big 12. But what conference is going to want to invite a Texas or anyone else if they cant make any money off of them because their tv rights are still owned by the Big 12?

Hypothetically, how would the numbers work if:

a) The ACC and ND agreed to a 6-game arrangement in the future, and

b) Texas and the ACC reached a similar agreement...? Meaning if the SBC wanted to "stick it to Texas" by having their partners not telecast Texas' home games versus 3 ACC schools, guess what? It would appear that the LHN has more "Tier 3" content for itself, AND an "east coast" market to broadcast to. Plus, the SBC would still have to pay Texas it's "equal TV money".

Anyone else want to take a stab at that...?

This loophole seems too large to have been overlooked. Surely if Texas left the Big XII the only way the GoR has any teeth at all would be if Texas no longer received any share of the TV revenue. As you point out, if they still get revenue then there is absolutely no deterrent to move whatsoever (in fact, maybe there is advantage to moving!). Call 'em the Short Bus Conference if you like, but I don't think they are THAT retarded!

(12-13-2012 07:08 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  So when the CYO schools vote to disband football does bigleasthomer change his username to homelesshomer?

(12-14-2012 03:39 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 02:41 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 10:22 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  Add no one.

Really don't think the Big 12 is anywhere near the nuclear option that some here believe it is. Remember, at the end of the day, Texas's TV rights are tied to the Big 12 conference, except for one football game per year and a handful (6-8) basketball games, for the next 12 years.

I too do not believe that they are about to omplode, but I think the issues with getting around a Grant of Rights are overblown. If Texas were to leave the Big XII, yeah the Big XII would still own their rights, but it's not like they'd be indentured servents: they Big XII would still have to pay them their share of the TV rights. So let's use the widely speculated example of Texas leaving to go to the PAC 12. The Big XII would be stuck with some equally unappealing choices:

• 1) Having the ability to keep Texas' TV rights does not absolve them from paying Texas: they still get their portion of the TV contract. And thanks to the equal sharing they shoved down Texas' throats, they can't even get out of paying them an equal share by manipulating expsoure
  
  2) After they have left to go to the PAc 12, they are now left with their TV partners promoting Texas' games against teams from the PAC 12 on BIG XII broadcasts. And they will likely be better time slots. Oh, did I mention they still have to pay them? Talk about being smacked in the face while you are kicked in the nuts. On top of that, it will simply make the Big XII look bush league.
  
  3) They can choose to have the TV provider purposely not pick up Texas games, then they avoid having to promote their games. Except now those righs revert to Tier 3. Except even with a GOR, Texas retains their Tier 3 rights. So then they not only still have to pay them an equal share of TV money, but Texas gets EVEN MORE Tier 3 content to sell. So now they'ce "stuck it" to Texas by not only paying them their equal share of $20 million, and not only are they promoting Texas while doing it, but they are giving them EXACTLY what they want in terms of more content to make income off of, all at the same time.
  
  4) Also note that if Texas went to the Pac 12, they have the very same TV contract that the Big XII does, in terms of a split Tier 1 and Tier 2 with ESPN and Fox. Makes it harder to get the TV network to work with them to blackball their broadcasts.
  

Just saying, the GOR is not all it's cracked up to be.

Insightful post. I never thought about the fact that if anyone ever left the Big 12 that the Big 12 would still have to pay that school because they own the GOR and the school left the GOR behind in the Big 12. But what conference is going to want to invite a Texas or anyone else if they cant make any money off of them because their tv rights are still owned by the Big 12?

In theory Texas would take little or no tv money from the PAC (maybe a slight bump if having their road games helps tv like the acc with nd) then they still make the same or more in the new conference as they would have if they had stayed, and just ride out the GOR.

With this not being ideal for either party, the "unbreakable" contract goes to a negotiated settlement.

(12-14-2012 04:32 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  This loophole seems too large to have been overlooked. Surely if Texas left the Big XII the only way the GoR has any teeth at all would be if Texas no longer received any share of the TV revenue. As you point out, if they still get revenue then there is absolutely no deterrent to move whatsoever (in fact, maybe there is advantage to moving!). Call 'em the Short Bus Conference if you like, but I don't think they are THAT retarded!

I've always thought this was the case with GOR but nobody else seems to think it.

To me, the only way you sign your rights over is for a guaranteed payment. Others think they get signed away then you are at the mercy of the conference to give you the money. That seems like an unbelievably stupid business decision to me.

It'd be interesting to know the definitive answer to this one.

(12-14-2012 04:32 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  This loophole seems too large to have been overlooked. Surely if Texas left the Big XII the only way the GoR has any teeth at all would be if Texas no longer received any share of the TV revenue. As you point out, if they still get revenue then there is absolutely no deterrent to move whatsoever (in fact, maybe there is advantage to moving!). Call 'em the Short Bus Conference if you like, but I don't think they are THAT retarded!

I'm no lawyer, but any contract that makes you an indentured servent will not hold up in court. But that's how GOR work in every other industry. They still own them, and can do what they want, but you still have to be paid according to the contract. The "teeth" so to speak is that it prevents you from leaving to go somewhere else towel more money or perhaps get a better opportunity without the original rights holder benefiting. This works in movie studios and record labels, since you retain no rights. It works in the PAC 12 And the Big ten because the schools also assigned their third tier rights. But i can't see any way to prevent this if you specifically exclude third tier rights from it, and you insisted on equal revenue distribution (which movie studios and reford companies don't). Essentially they took an established contract status and bastardized it to fit their needs and probably defeated the purpose of doing it.

(12-14-2012 04:37 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 04:32 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  This loophole seems too large to have been overlooked. Surely if Texas left the Big XII the only way the GoR has any teeth at all would be if Texas no longer received any share of the TV revenue. As you point out, if they still get revenue then there is absolutely no deterrent to move whatsoever (in fact, maybe there is advantage to moving!). Call 'em the Short Bus Conference if you like, but I don't think they are THAT retarded!

I've always thought this was the case with GOR but nobody else seems to think it.

To me, the only way you sign your rights over is for a guaranteed payment. Others think they get signed away then you are at the mercy of the conference to give you the money. That seems like an unbelievably stupid business decision to me.

It'd be interesting to know the definitive answer to this one.

Here's the beauty of it: if you are anyone but Texas, you are essentially stuck. No one else will be worth the hassle, or can monetize tier 3 so easily. Everyone else, pretty much screwed. Tell me you're surprised?

(12-14-2012 04:44 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Here's the beauty of it: if you are anyone but Texas, you are essentially stuck. No one else will be worth the hassle, or can monetize tier 3 so easily. Everyone else, pretty much screwed. Tell me you're surprised?

Not surprised. Actually, I'm LOVING it! So basically the Cash Cow can leave whenever they want, but the rest of the Serfs are stuck as long as it pleases Texa$

(12-14-2012 05:42 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 04:44 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Here's the beauty of it: if you are anyone but Texas, you are essentially stuck. No one else will be worth the hassle, or can monetize tier 3 so easily. Everyone else, pretty much screwed. Tell me you're surprised?

Not surprised. Actually, I'm LOVING it! So basically the Cash Cow can leave whenever they want, but the rest of the Serfs are stuck as long as it pleases Texa$

Even if Texas left, the other 9 are making more off of Texas's rights than they could have without them. So there is some bit of stability in the GOR in that regard.

The 0 dollars if you leave part is the figment of message board imaginations though.

(12-14-2012 03:49 PM)ucnaticat Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 03:41 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 02:13 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-13-2012 08:47 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  thanks to one Uconn fan in particular. I dont wish anything bad on them but i dont wish anything good for them either. Regarding georgetown:

SFHusky?

By the way, got some bad news for you: we are still in a hybrid.

Hahaha. I'm not calling anyone out.


If your going to be in any sort of hybrid, better to be in a hybrid with ND, than any of the other BE schools.

How did that work out for the Big East???? ND will use the ACC just as it did the Big East. What is the value if they are not full members?

Hahaha,

It didnt work out well for the BE at all did it? And the BE is about to go out existence as a fb league. You know why? The BE leaders were NOT good business people. And they were too stupid to hammer ND down in writing, what is expected of them and not only make sure that they live up to playing the amount of games agreed too (they cant back out of this like they did with the BE) But Swofford and the Acc leaders one upped the BE again when they were able to also monetize these games with ND, to the tune of a reported, extra $2 million a year per team. Two million dollars times 14 schools equals a value of $28 million per year for the league.

(12-14-2012 04:32 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  This loophole seems too large to have been overlooked. Surely if Texas left the Big XII the only way the GoR has any teeth at all would be if Texas no longer received any share of the TV revenue. As you point out, if they still get revenue then there is absolutely no deterrent to move whatsoever (in fact, maybe there is advantage to moving!). Call 'em the Short Bus Conference if you like, but I don't think they are THAT retarded!

Texas gets no revenue if they leave the Big 12. They leave everything behind until the Big 12 deal expires.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...c-espn-fox

Quote:The deal includes a "grant of rights" agreement, meaning if a Big 12 school leaves for another league in the next 13 years, that school's media rights, including revenue, would remain with the Big 12 and not its new conference.

I bet they could get a share from their new conference for their road conference games, but a school is probably taking at least a 50% loss in revenue by leaving those rights behind. I think this looks similar to BYU probably having to finish out its contract terms with ESPN if it decides to join a conference before 2018 or when ECU had their own rights deal with ESPN that ran concurrent to C-USA's rights deal in the mid-late 90s. In the ECU case, ESPN had rights to two ECU home games every year off the top, then the C-USA package with FSN could take other ECU home games if it wanted to.

(12-14-2012 05:54 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 03:49 PM)ucnaticat Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 03:41 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 02:13 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-13-2012 08:47 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  thanks to one Uconn fan in particular. I dont wish anything bad on them but i dont wish anything good for them either. Regarding georgetown:

SFHusky?

By the way, got some bad news for you: we are still in a hybrid.

Hahaha. I'm not calling anyone out.


If your going to be in any sort of hybrid, better to be in a hybrid with ND, than any of the other BE schools.

How did that work out for the Big East???? ND will use the ACC just as it did the Big East. What is the value if they are not full members?

Hahaha,

It didnt work out well for the BE at all did it? And the BE is about to go out existence as a fb league. You know why? The BE leaders were NOT good business people. And they were too stupid to hammer ND down in writing, what is expected of them and not only make sure that they live up to playing the amount of games agreed too (they cant back out of this like they did with the BE) But Swofford and the Acc leaders one upped the BE again when they were able to also monetize these games with ND, to the tune of a reported, extra $2 million a year per team. Two million dollars times 14 schools equals a value of $28 million per year for the league.

Agreed. Big East leadership was non existant. I just wanted to bring up the point that you should no put too much faith in what ND brings to your conference. ND played BE teams for years and WAS scheduled to play more in the future. That did not save the BE and it won't save the ACC either. ND simply used the conference to play their olympic sports. The BE made $ on ND too. Not as much. Who's to say ND doesn't rethink the ACC for greener pastures. There is a reason the BIG only wanted them for 'all sports.' What about the new CYO? That might be a better fit for olympic sports. ND can schedule anyone, at anytime. They do not need a conference. This time last year, most Fball people thought ND was irrelevant in college fb. What a difference a year makes.

(12-13-2012 03:54 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-13-2012 03:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  ..... if the ACC does indeed get a proper network backed by ESPN, NBC, and/or Comcast ...... I say we go ahead and pick up Cincinnati and UCONN.

No. The Northeast is too crowded as is. UMASS and UCONN need to go back down, and RU needs to go back to not making bowls. If that happens, Pitt, SU, and BC go back to getting ranked in the final BCS stadnings/being on the cusp of being ranked, which is a lot better for the conference. Anyway, a lot of the potential UCONN fans are also potential Syracuse/BC fans. Yes, UCONN dominates CT, but BC and SU aren't state schools. So, although our fans tend to be in MA/NY, our fan base is MUCH more spread out than it would be if we were public. So, we do have a deecnt following in the surrounding states. It may not be as strong as it is in MA/NY, or as strong as UCONN is in CT, but it is decent none-the-less. If UCONN were to drop off, SU and BC would pick up some of the slack (to avoid confusion, we would not pick up all of the slack, or even most of the slack, but I do think that we would pick up a decent amount of it). Adding UCONN cannablizes current ACC assets. I think that I could have explained that MUCH better, but I think that you get my general point.

-Also, the ACC already has a TON of content for a channel

Sorry, but Rutgers is doing its damnedest not to go back to that. We're doing everything we can to go beyond where we are now, although the hill to climb just got steeper and taller. UMass shouldn't have moved up. They did it 15+ years too late. UConn probably did it 10 years too late. UConn is in an odd situation it can't move back down now, but it has nowhere else to go for a while, if ever. UMass still has time to back out and they should.

(12-14-2012 06:29 PM)ucnaticat Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 05:54 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 03:49 PM)ucnaticat Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 03:41 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 02:13 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  SFHusky?

By the way, got some bad news for you: we are still in a hybrid.

Hahaha. I'm not calling anyone out.


If your going to be in any sort of hybrid, better to be in a hybrid with ND, than any of the other BE schools.

How did that work out for the Big East???? ND will use the ACC just as it did the Big East. What is the value if they are not full members?

Hahaha,

It didnt work out well for the BE at all did it? And the BE is about to go out existence as a fb league. You know why? The BE leaders were NOT good business people. And they were too stupid to hammer ND down in writing, what is expected of them and not only make sure that they live up to playing the amount of games agreed too (they cant back out of this like they did with the BE) But Swofford and the Acc leaders one upped the BE again when they were able to also monetize these games with ND, to the tune of a reported, extra $2 million a year per team. Two million dollars times 14 schools equals a value of $28 million per year for the league.

Agreed. Big East leadership was non existant. I just wanted to bring up the point that you should no put too much faith in what ND brings to your conference. ND played BE teams for years and WAS scheduled to play more in the future. That did not save the BE and it won't save the ACC either. ND simply used the conference to play their olympic sports. The BE made $ on ND too. Not as much. Who's to say ND doesn't rethink the ACC for greener pastures. There is a reason the BIG only wanted them for 'all sports.' What about the new CYO? That might be a better fit for olympic sports. ND can schedule anyone, at anytime. They do not need a conference. This time last year, most Fball people thought ND was irrelevant in college fb. What a difference a year makes.

I have no faith in ND. We are talking about sports here. ND absolutely does need a conference for their olympic sports. And they only want their olympic sports in the most prestigious conference. Thats why they left the BE for the Acc. If the Big 10 would let them park their olympic sports there, they would take that deal in a NY minute. But you answered that point in your own post.

This CYO league will not be the best fit for ND. It will not be higher profile than the Acc nor the better revenue generator. ND could have had the same deal with the BE and the Big 12 with fewer demands than what the Acc wanted and they still chose the Acc and their heavier demands over the BE and Big 12.

(12-14-2012 06:55 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(12-13-2012 03:54 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-13-2012 03:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  ..... if the ACC does indeed get a proper network backed by ESPN, NBC, and/or Comcast ...... I say we go ahead and pick up Cincinnati and UCONN.

No. The Northeast is too crowded as is. UMASS and UCONN need to go back down, and RU needs to go back to not making bowls. If that happens, Pitt, SU, and BC go back to getting ranked in the final BCS stadnings/being on the cusp of being ranked, which is a lot better for the conference. Anyway, a lot of the potential UCONN fans are also potential Syracuse/BC fans. Yes, UCONN dominates CT, but BC and SU aren't state schools. So, although our fans tend to be in MA/NY, our fan base is MUCH more spread out than it would be if we were public. So, we do have a deecnt following in the surrounding states. It may not be as strong as it is in MA/NY, or as strong as UCONN is in CT, but it is decent none-the-less. If UCONN were to drop off, SU and BC would pick up some of the slack (to avoid confusion, we would not pick up all of the slack, or even most of the slack, but I do think that we would pick up a decent amount of it). Adding UCONN cannablizes current ACC assets. I think that I could have explained that MUCH better, but I think that you get my general point.

-Also, the ACC already has a TON of content for a channel

Sorry, but Rutgers is doing its damnedest not to go back to that. We're doing everything we can to go beyond where we are now, although the hill to climb just got steeper and taller. UMass shouldn't have moved up. They did it 15+ years too late. UConn probably did it 10 years too late. UConn is in an odd situation it can't move back down now, but it has nowhere else to go for a while, if ever. UMass still has time to back out and they should.

I agree that UCONN won't drop to I-AA, but they will drop out of the picture unless we do something stupid like invite them to the ACC. As for RU, you are right, the school is going nuts to stay relevant, but it will be hard in a conference with OSU, PSU, Michigan, MSU, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Iowa, plus about 4 other universities that are on (at least) equal terms with Rutgers. If RU can climb that hill, you will be on top o fthe world. If not, then I think Syracuse will be the big dog in the northeast again (after PSU of course).

(12-14-2012 06:25 PM)mattsarz Wrote:  Texas gets no revenue if they leave the Big 12. They leave everything behind until the Big 12 deal expires.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...c-espn-fox

Here is the quote you are referring to:

ESPN Wrote:The deal includes a "grant of rights" agreement, meaning if a Big 12 school leaves for another league in the next 13 years, that school's media rights, including revenue, would remain with the Big 12 and not its new conference.

Obviously the exact legal language would have to be reviewed (which I am not priv'y to nor could I say I am qualified to interpret), but that wording can easily be interpreted as simply meaning the revenue earned from said team, still goes to the B12. Doesn't absolve them of actually paying said team their share of money earned with those rights.

(12-13-2012 03:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  ..... if the ACC does indeed get a proper network backed by ESPN, NBC, and/or Comcast ...... I say we go ahead and pick up Cincinnati and UCONN.

UC and UConn have the exact same problem that UofL had when it comes to expansion. While all are great universities and offer a lot of upsides, all three are "replacement" candidates rather than "expansion" candidates. The ACC didn't expand to take UofL; it invited UofL to replacement Maryland after the Terps accepted the Big Ten invite. UofL didn't increase the per team revenues of ACC teams and financial expansion above 14 would not have made sense unless Notre Dame was going to join the conference.

This is the problem UC and UConn have now. Unless they significantly increase the ACC per team payout (something UofL didn't do for the ACC and was not projected to do for the Big 12), there really is no incentive for the conference to invite them unless more teams leave.

(12-15-2012 08:34 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(12-13-2012 03:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  ..... if the ACC does indeed get a proper network backed by ESPN, NBC, and/or Comcast ...... I say we go ahead and pick up Cincinnati and UCONN.

UC and UConn have the exact same problem that UofL had when it comes to expansion. While all are great universities and offer a lot of upsides, all three are "replacement" candidates rather than "expansion" candidates. The ACC didn't expand to take UofL; it invited UofL to replacement Maryland after the Terps accepted the Big Ten invite. UofL didn't increase the per team revenues of ACC teams and financial expansion above 14 would not have made sense unless Notre Dame was going to join the conference.

This is the problem UC and UConn have now. Unless they significantly increase the ACC per team payout (something UofL didn't do for the ACC and was not projected to do for the Big 12), there really is no incentive for the conference to invite them unless more teams leave.

And if more teams leave, which is a possibility, then it just further erodes the strength of the ACC, making it an even lesser league in perception (if not reality).

Unless, of course, Wake Forest decides they've had enough of the greed and madness of college athletics and decides to join the new C7 league.

Which ain't happening.

And ND isn't joining unless they are blocked in getting to the NC with champions only model, which isn't likely to happen either.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-14-2012 05:54 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 03:49 PM)ucnaticat Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 03:41 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 02:13 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-13-2012 08:47 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  thanks to one Uconn fan in particular. I dont wish anything bad on them but i dont wish anything good for them either. Regarding georgetown:

SFHusky?

By the way, got some bad news for you: we are still in a hybrid.

Hahaha. I'm not calling anyone out.


If your going to be in any sort of hybrid, better to be in a hybrid with ND, than any of the other BE schools.

How did that work out for the Big East???? ND will use the ACC just as it did the Big East. What is the value if they are not full members?

Hahaha,

It didnt work out well for the BE at all did it? And the BE is about to go out existence as a fb league. You know why? The BE leaders were NOT good business people. And they were too stupid to hammer ND down in writing, what is expected of them and not only make sure that they live up to playing the amount of games agreed too (they cant back out of this like they did with the BE) But Swofford and the Acc leaders one upped the BE again when they were able to also monetize these games with ND, to the tune of a reported, extra $2 million a year per team. Two million dollars times 14 schools equals a value of $28 million per year for the league.

While you are correct about getting the deal about playing 5 ACC teams in writing, I am still waiting for the official announcement that those games will result in an increase of $2 million per each team in the ACC.

I think this is a stretch myself, but will be happy to be proven wrong.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-13-2012 03:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  ..... if the ACC does indeed get a proper network backed by ESPN, NBC, and/or Comcast ...... I say we go ahead and pick up Cincinnati and UCONN.

Would seem unlikely that any network other than ESPN would create an ACCN since they own all of the ACC's content. The ACC and ESPN could've created a network at two separate occasions in the past 3-4 years and have not. It may or may not happen soon but I wouldn't count on it.

Would an ACCN see increased revenue with UC and UConn than without? And even if there is a projected increase would the ACC invite them? I'd think it'd have to be a pretty substantial increase in revenue to overcome the member schools apparent dislike for those 2 and their perceived weakness and how it'd negatively impact the ACC.

(12-13-2012 03:52 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  Apparently those two schools aren't worth much though. They'd be getting a better contract if they were.

(12-13-2012 03:58 PM)CardsfaninLexington Wrote:  If those teams added value then someone (i.e. Big 12 or Big 10) would've picked them up already. We don't need to add teams for the sake of adding teams. It dilutes the product. We should only expand if a program improves the competition and/or TV payout significantly (as in Notre Dame).

Neither of these arguments make any sense to me. It's likely that these two add significantly more revenue to a conference WITH a network not already in their markets than to one without a network or one with a network already in their market.