(04-22-2015 12:30 AM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 09:32 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  UConn might lose the ACC money, but Temple might make the ACC money? Fascinating...

#TempleRising

That comment was pure crap and we all know it. But I've long been a proponent of kicking Wake out and have said Temple is a better option than Wake.

Why don't we just offer the ND deal to UCF and USF, too. That way we further "lockdown" Florida. Yea. Yeaaah! (No. )

I mean you're offering the rest of the whole g.d. country these partial memberships...

(04-22-2015 08:37 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 07:37 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 07:59 PM)JAE_VT Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 05:42 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I wouldn't be willing to damage the big money sport in order to shore up the smaller money sport. There is something wrong with that strategy.

It all depends upon the ACCN. If someone at the ACC floats to ESPN the addition of UCONN and their small slice of NYC viewership and it helps convince ESPN to create the ACCN, then IMHO, the addition of UCONN is a no brainer. If as you and many others point out, ESPN states that the financial numbers still don't make sense, then you talk with ESPN and figure out what will. If no combination of school additions convinces ESPN to create an ACCN, then obviously the ACC stays tight and highly encourages it's membership (especially VT and Miami) to improve their football programs. Any other ACC school that can improve their programs would be great, but these two programs must get back to respectability. i.e. win at least 8 - 9 games this next season.

BTW, I still don't know how the introduction of ala carte cable plans will affect the viability of a conference network for the ACC. Does it help or inhibit a conference network?

It should also be noted that I am not convinced that adding UConn, is a no brainer for the ACC. I am just suggesting that UConn has value beyond its sad football program.

1. A la carte significantly hurts all conference networks as it adversely affects their price elasticity.

2. I'm not sold that networks actually make more money, unless there is either a significant imbalance of power or information between the conference and a network. Networks just change risk profiles.
a) I've heard that oen of the B1G's stated goals is to grow the BTN big enough to be able to credibly bid on to tier conference content. If that's true, it speaks to the liklihood of the B1G trying to address an imbalance in bargaining power. As such, the ACC might only need the credible threat of a conference network to keep the more traditional networks (ESPN, Fox, NBC, etc.) in check.
b) A significant information imbalance might have once existed, but it is quickly erroding. The networks were exposed once the B1G gambled in the BTN, and now the value of collegiate athletic rights is common knowledge.
c) Don't get me wrong. I am pro network (for a number of reasons), but it is not a magic bullet.

3. [The following is beyond the scope of your post] I don't think that UConn would add enough quality content to pay for itself as a full member. However, given the weak bargaining power of the school and balance of fans between football and basketball, UConn would be an absolute steal as a non-football member. Think about it this way: why pay 100% for 100% of its value when you can get 80-90% of its value (economic and non-economic) for ~20%? Is the remaining 10-20% of UConn's value worth ~80% of the ACC's payout? I don't think so.

That is another option...offer UConn a ND deal and offer to play 4-6 FB games a year among the conference. Heck Cuse, Pitt and BC might vol to play them almost every season. I'm sure they would take that deal if the B1G interest is minimal.

Better idea: keep UConn football out of the ACC, even as a partial.

(04-21-2015 12:53 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 11:17 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Technically ESPN didn't have to bid. Because of a stipulation in their previous contract, all they had to do was match the other bidders offer. Which they did.

What's the difference? Economically, both scenarios are close to identical.

The difference is we really don't know what the AAC was worth to ESPN. We only know what they were worth to NBC.

(04-24-2015 08:57 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 12:53 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 11:17 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Technically ESPN didn't have to bid. Because of a stipulation in their previous contract, all they had to do was match the other bidders offer. Which they did.

What's the difference? Economically, both scenarios are close to identical.

The difference is we really don't know what the AAC was worth to ESPN. We only know what they were worth to NBC.

Sure we do. It's worth slightly more than the next highest bidder. Either way, ESPN was either going to let the AAC walk or offer a shave more than the next highest bidder.

The end amount and the end victor would not have changed. It's not like ESPN would have needlessly blown NBC's offer out of the water and paid more than they needed to. It's also not like the AAC would have turned down a better offer from ESPN and gone with NBC. Nothing turned out different.

(04-24-2015 10:20 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 08:57 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 12:53 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 11:17 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Technically ESPN didn't have to bid. Because of a stipulation in their previous contract, all they had to do was match the other bidders offer. Which they did.

What's the difference? Economically, both scenarios are close to identical.

The difference is we really don't know what the AAC was worth to ESPN. We only know what they were worth to NBC.

Sure we do. It's worth slightly more than the next highest bidder. Either way, ESPN was either going to let the AAC walk or offer a shave more than the next highest bidder.

The end amount and the end victor would not have changed. It's not like ESPN would have needlessly blown NBC's offer out of the water and paid more than they needed to. It's also not like the AAC would have turned down a better offer from ESPN and gone with NBC. Nothing turned out different.

ESPN didn't know what NBC was going to offer. So they couldn't just offer a little more. With only having to match the offer, they didn't even have to tender a bid.

(04-24-2015 10:24 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 10:20 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 08:57 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 12:53 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 11:17 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Technically ESPN didn't have to bid. Because of a stipulation in their previous contract, all they had to do was match the other bidders offer. Which they did.

What's the difference? Economically, both scenarios are close to identical.

The difference is we really don't know what the AAC was worth to ESPN. We only know what they were worth to NBC.

Sure we do. It's worth slightly more than the next highest bidder. Either way, ESPN was either going to let the AAC walk or offer a shave more than the next highest bidder.

The end amount and the end victor would not have changed. It's not like ESPN would have needlessly blown NBC's offer out of the water and paid more than they needed to. It's also not like the AAC would have turned down a better offer from ESPN and gone with NBC. Nothing turned out different.

ESPN didn't know what NBC was going to offer. So they couldn't just offer a little more. With only having to match the offer, they didn't even have to tender a bid.

And you think that the AAC wouldn't have played the two off each other (i.e. like they actually did)?

(04-22-2015 09:56 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Why don't we just offer the ND deal to UCF and USF, too. That way we further "lockdown" Florida. Yea. Yeaaah! (No. )

I mean you're offering the rest of the whole g.d. country these partial memberships...

The ACC's got Florida as locked down as it can. UCF and USF won't help.

The ACC's management discussed a partial/transitional membership with Notre Dame 10-15 years ago. Notre Dame, as rumor has it, agreed to transition to full football membership over ten years back in 2003. The ACC declined. Notre Dame approached the ACC again in 2013-14 about joining, as the CFP was being finalized. The ACC then accepted. There is no permanent partial membership, it's a transition period. Nobody else gets a partial membership. It's not the Big East.

(04-24-2015 11:15 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 09:56 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Why don't we just offer the ND deal to UCF and USF, too. That way we further "lockdown" Florida. Yea. Yeaaah! (No. )

I mean you're offering the rest of the whole g.d. country these partial memberships...

The ACC's got Florida as locked down as it can. UCF and USF won't help.

The ACC's management discussed a partial/transitional membership with Notre Dame 10-15 years ago. Notre Dame, as rumor has it, agreed to transition to full football membership over ten years back in 2003. The ACC declined. Notre Dame approached the ACC again in 2013-14 about joining, as the CFP was being finalized. The ACC then accepted. There is no permanent partial membership, it's a transition period. Nobody else gets a partial membership. It's not the Big East.

Going to need some actual documentation to back that claim up.

(04-24-2015 10:53 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 10:24 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 10:20 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 08:57 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 12:53 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  What's the difference? Economically, both scenarios are close to identical.

The difference is we really don't know what the AAC was worth to ESPN. We only know what they were worth to NBC.

Sure we do. It's worth slightly more than the next highest bidder. Either way, ESPN was either going to let the AAC walk or offer a shave more than the next highest bidder.

The end amount and the end victor would not have changed. It's not like ESPN would have needlessly blown NBC's offer out of the water and paid more than they needed to. It's also not like the AAC would have turned down a better offer from ESPN and gone with NBC. Nothing turned out different.

ESPN didn't know what NBC was going to offer. So they couldn't just offer a little more. With only having to match the offer, they didn't even have to tender a bid.

And you think that the AAC wouldn't have played the two off each other (i.e. like they actually did)?

(i.e. no they actually didn't.) How could they play the two against each other when only one of the two actually bid? There was no bidding against each other.

Like I said for ESPN it was like shooting fish in a barrel. Next contract (assuming no major movement) I see the AAC getting a decent bump...maybe up to $7M per team in today's dollars

ESPN needs the AAC for programming.

(04-25-2015 10:25 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 10:53 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 10:24 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 10:20 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 08:57 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  The difference is we really don't know what the AAC was worth to ESPN. We only know what they were worth to NBC.

Sure we do. It's worth slightly more than the next highest bidder. Either way, ESPN was either going to let the AAC walk or offer a shave more than the next highest bidder.

The end amount and the end victor would not have changed. It's not like ESPN would have needlessly blown NBC's offer out of the water and paid more than they needed to. It's also not like the AAC would have turned down a better offer from ESPN and gone with NBC. Nothing turned out different.

ESPN didn't know what NBC was going to offer. So they couldn't just offer a little more. With only having to match the offer, they didn't even have to tender a bid.

And you think that the AAC wouldn't have played the two off each other (i.e. like they actually did)?

(i.e. no they actually didn't.) How could they play the two against each other when only one of the two actually bid? There was no bidding against each other.

ESPN put in an offer, NBC countered, ESPN matched and NBC declined to up their bid. That would be playing one against the other. So, yes, they actually did.

(04-25-2015 10:57 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Like I said for ESPN it was like shooting fish in a barrel. Next contract (assuming no major movement) I see the AAC getting a decent bump...maybe up to $7M per team in today's dollars

ESPN needs the AAC for programming.

I can't say what the market dynamics will be in a couple of years. They may very well get $7 mm, but they are low now because 1) their contract is short and these things tend to be back-loaded and 2) because nobody cares about the Tulane v. UConn game, the Tulane v. Temple game, the UConn v. Temple (football game), the Tulane v. Tulsa game, the Tulsa v. UConn game, the Tulsa v. Temple game, the ECU v. Tulsa game, the ECU v. Tulane game, the ECU v. UConn game, etc.

(04-22-2015 08:54 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Cue BC fan in 3... 2... 1...

Um.....no, just no