Which won't happen, because ESPN will protect it's content...not let it walk away further to the competition. It's simple business, yet some just don't want to see it.

Will be interesting to see what happens if big 10 leaves. History indicates conferences take a hit when they cut off ties with ESPN. In this age of the smartphone and conference networks perhaps the damage of no espn exposure will be mitigated

(05-18-2016 12:22 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Great news for the B1G and bad news for the Big 12 and ACC. With the B1G going to a new network, that means that network will assist the B1G with expansion into new markets, new footprint and go after major brands.

Hello Texas. Hello Oklahoma. Hello Florida State. Hello the states of Virginia and North Carolina.

First thing though is to finish the TV deal. That will be done sometime this summer.

LOL
All that means s that the ACC just became a lot more valuable to ESPN.

(05-18-2016 06:11 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  It's simple since so many have been banging this drum for a long time. Football drives the bus! With that in mind the most valuable properties in the ACC are FSU and Clemson. UVA is not in the top 5 most valuable program in the conference. So why would ESPN raise the ACC's pay to almost SEC/B1G level to keep upper mid-level ACC money makers?

The WWL has the SEC, half of the Big XII, the Pac-12 as well as the ACC to eat up air space, not to mention all the G5 conferences. There isn't a huge need to keep those two teams in the ACC, at least not enough to almost double the entire leagues pay. UNC's BBall can easily be replaced with the ACC adding UConn.

Once again I know this is an ACC board but you guys are clearly blinded by your own bias. If they were willing to throw that kind of money at the ACC then they would be willing to buy a fraction of the B1G contract.

If ESPN didn't want to keep the ACC whole then why aren't F.S.U. and Clemson in the SEC where as content multipliers they would be worth far more than anywhere else including the Big 10?

The SEC has not raided the ACC because ESPN refuses to allow it or pay for it. Obviously they want the product that the ACC gives them. Sure the SEC and part of the Big 12 gives them all of the football content they could want. Throw in Clemson & Florida State and the Mouse controls 75% of the top 20 revenue producers in NCAA football.

ESPN didn't bid on the Big 10 rights package competitively because you only have 6 brands that command any national attention. They don't all play each other. So there are less than 10 T1 games in that package and ESPN has oodles of T3 to put on the tube. The cold hard fact is that other than to FOX the Big10 rights just weren't worth it to anyone else. The second half of that package is yet to be determined value wise. I'm guessing 150 million would be supremely generous. And you do realize that the first half of the rights package has not yet been signed and that the 250 million figure that has been touted is not yet set. It could be worth "up to" 250 million, but that figure is contingent upon more than a few things.

As to the value of the ACC, they give ESPN Winter and Spring content. Something that the SEC is deficient in with regards to basketball in that we really only have 1 major brand now that Donovan is gone.

The ACC's football value can be augmented with more scheduling alliances with the SEC, with more bowl contracts should the Big 12 go away, and with any kind of network endeavor, which I do believe is coming.

Top Big 10 posters that I've discussed things with think in terms of a couple of additions, not some grand twitteratti sweeping Risk like move from Kamchatka to Madagascar. IMO the Big 10 will look to solidify their Northeast position by really going hard for Notre Dame who will again ignore them. Then they will make a play for either Boston College to complete their hockey league and gain a large market victory over the ACC, or they will settle for UConn. My money is on UConn.

They will make a play for Oklahoma because they need a major football brand to bolster a weak Western Division. What they settle for there, or if they need to settle is yet to be determined.

The only AAU school in the present ACC that needs revenue is Georgia Tech. The Big 10 will never take them if they can't get to them and Virginia and North Carolina aren't budging, are not turned on by the idea of sharing their grant money with the CIC, and don't need what the Big 10 is offering. If the Big 10 ever gets into Virginia it will be with Tech and even that is very doubtful.

So the SEC isn't going on any whopper moves either. If we add anyone it will be OU and whoever we have to take to get them, or can get to pair up with them.

The biggest obstacle that the Big 10 now has to Western expansion is ESPN. Since they are not cozy with FOX and will want to protect their investments in the ACC it is highly likely that they spend some money to fully integrate Texas, obtain Oklahoma, and secure Kansas. Without those brands the Big 10 can't get much of a bump to widen the income gap by adding schools. Sew up those brands and you hem in Delany at the same time. Add some of those brands to the ACC as well as the SEC, along with any necessary tag a longs and you gain reason to boost the ACC payout. That's what I'm betting will happen.

So sit back and wait. It could get interesting indeed. If FOX makes a play for the PAC then they will have the ability to do what ESPN alone can do now, place 8 Big 12 schools in two conferences and end the Big 12. If FOX doesn't acquire a % of the PACN then you aren't in the supreme position strategically even if you make 43 million a year in TV revenue which btw is what your present contract plus 150 million will pay. Not 50 or 53 or any other ridiculous number. Your not adding 400 million, you are adding to your old deal which was roughly half of that.

I agree there are many ACC fans on this site, but in this thread I have not seen them making any claims that are unsubstantiated. The Big 10 is a terrific conference, but they can't by the weight of their revenue bully their way into just acquiring that of which their fans dream. They are astute businessmen and calculating presidents who are looking to grow more than football. So Bluevod, Fluguar, MHVer3 who just despises the ACC, and the Dude are nothing more than hit whores trying to squeeze out a few cents worth of ad money for their blog sites. They have no real connections, speak with no authority, and grossly over inflate any detail they get in order to inspire hits. Don't believe anything a profiteer ever tells you. JR

(05-18-2016 07:18 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 06:50 PM)krup Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 12:44 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Do this then mean the ACC Network will happen now?

I have trouble understanding how losing the B1G wouldn't make the ACC Network LESS likely. If ESPN is losing a few B1G games each Saturday, how can they start another channel that would take some ACC games away as well?

...or else the WWL tells the ACC we'll make ESPNU pretty much your conference channel for about 5 years waiting for the syndicated inventory to come on the market again but you are filling a ton more slots the Deuce and the U.

I was thinking just this for the ACC and the Big 12 with 12 members and a 9 conference game schedule.

You could then get the ESPN AB (formerly U) on expanded cable like the SEC network in ACC and Big 12 states with a channel fee bump...with a SEC/AB double dip in FL, GA, SC, KY and TX.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Mark Richt has to build Miami quickly. It could be prime-time every week with a winning team.

(05-18-2016 05:57 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 03:35 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 03:22 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 03:05 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 02:58 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I don't understand why it's so difficult for the Rutgers fan there to understand that ESPN would act to protect it's properties if the B1G came a'knockin'.

I don't understand why the ACC fans don't realize that they signed a bad contract that runs for a long time. ESPN isn't going to over pay the entire league to keep 2 teams when it already has the conference locked up for another, what 15 years?

First of all I'm a pure hater of all things ACC, but the theory behind that would be it would greatly weaken the ACC product for ESPN while increasing the strength of a competing product, and if ESPN were to lose all of the B1G they are going to need to retain as much premier product as possible. I don't think they would willingly give the ACC money for no reason, but if they are given the choice between doing it or having one of the 2 P5's they essentially own gutted by a competitor my guess is they do it.

You have good insight and are able to understand a very simple concept. Good for you!

Hey look a mod from an ACC school being a troll.

OH, REALLY? And just who was I trolling?

(05-18-2016 09:37 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 05:57 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 03:35 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 03:22 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 03:05 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  I don't understand why the ACC fans don't realize that they signed a bad contract that runs for a long time. ESPN isn't going to over pay the entire league to keep 2 teams when it already has the conference locked up for another, what 15 years?

First of all I'm a pure hater of all things ACC, but the theory behind that would be it would greatly weaken the ACC product for ESPN while increasing the strength of a competing product, and if ESPN were to lose all of the B1G they are going to need to retain as much premier product as possible. I don't think they would willingly give the ACC money for no reason, but if they are given the choice between doing it or having one of the 2 P5's they essentially own gutted by a competitor my guess is they do it.

You have good insight and are able to understand a very simple concept. Good for you!

Hey look a mod from an ACC school being a troll.

OH, REALLY? And just who was I trolling?

Don't worry, I'M the problem around here even though I'm simply the one that's had enough of guys like this...

(05-18-2016 07:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I agree there are many ACC fans on this site, but in this thread I have not seen them making any claims that are unsubstantiated.

No doubt. I was actually amazed that the guys posting in this thread, the charter members of the "rainbows and unicorns" club on the ACC board, were for once talking sense instead of their usual hyper-optimistic garbage.

(05-18-2016 07:29 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  Which won't happen, because ESPN will protect it's content...not let it walk away further to the competition. It's simple business, yet some just don't want to see it.

Delaney and their BFF, FOX may have overplayed their hand.

The B1G has some huge fan bases and they usually received the best slots weekly...now other conferences will receive those slots. The casual sports fan is kinda lazy...they'll flip to ESPN and watch whomever is on. FOX still doesn't have enough inventory to become 1B to ESPN's 1A...sure the gap will close some but the WWL will still be the WWL offering up gameday to their conferences...B1G highlights will be on right after NHL highlights.

So, ESPN isn't going to buy the remaining BIG rights, lets say they go to NBC. So now the BIG isn't on ESPN and is making more then the SEC and ACC.

Following this conversation, you dont think the ACC and SEC (especially the SEC) aren't going to turn around and tell ESPN they have to match (not just give a little more, but match) what the BIG is getting???? They're going to be happy with more exposure and not more money? And ESPN is going to throw out more cash to fill the void with remaining G5 games that nobody watches, which means ESPN gets less revenue for advertising slots.....

Meanwhile all the affluent, humongous sized BIG alumni bases are watching their alma maters on FS1 and NBC, who's now charging more for advertising slots while BIG games are on their networks. And now more eyeballs are on FS1 and would not be otherwise, because ESPN let the BIG walk away.

All righty then........sounds like a plan.

(05-18-2016 11:55 PM)penguino Wrote:  So, ESPN isn't going to buy the remaining BIG rights, lets say they go to NBC. So now the BIG isn't on ESPN and is making more then the SEC and ACC.

Following this conversation, you dont think the ACC and SEC (especially the SEC) aren't going to turn around and tell ESPN they have to match (not just give a little more, but match) what the BIG is getting???? They're going to be happy with more exposure and not more money? And ESPN is going to throw out more cash to fill the void with remaining G5 games that nobody watches, which means ESPN gets less revenue for advertising slots.....

Meanwhile all the affluent, humongous sized BIG alumni bases are watching their alma maters on FS1 and NBC, who's now charging more for advertising slots while BIG games are on their networks. And now more eyeballs are on FS1 and would not be otherwise, because ESPN let the BIG walk away.

All righty then........sounds like a plan.

No. I don't. There are fewer than 10 T1 quality games to broadcast if you are FOX. What is NBC going to show? If the best games are on FOX the ratings won't be as high as the CBS SEC games or the ESPN ACC games. The BTN and SECN will be getting the T3. You see the problem with Big 10 telecasts is that while they play substantially well at home if they aren't involving (OSU, Mich, MSU, PSU, Neb, or Wisc.) they don't play so well nationally.

I'm not saying you have horrible games, just that beyond those first 6 there just isn't much national interest for T2. So ESPN and others took a pass at the bid level FOX made.

ESPN will most assuredly seek to keep Texas, take Oklahoma, and likely go after Kansas. Those three insure that the Big 10 can't increase the revenue gap further. With the demise of the Big 12 the SEC and ACC will pick up bowl slots. With additional product the ACC gets a bump of maybe 3 to 5 million. With a network maybe another 3 to 5 million. The Big 10 will be between 43-45 million in payout depending on how the contracts shake out. The ACC doesn't have to match it, just close the gap. I figure with all factors considered they might be able to pull around 32-34 million. I think that will be close enough.

The SEC gets a full year of revenue off of the SECN this year and without any start up costs remaining they will be looking at somewhere around the 38 to 40 million range without extra bowl revenue, or a bump for additions. The SEC will be fine.

But because the cheapest way to protect the ACC is to add UT, OU, and KU to the SEC/ACC lineup that's what I look for ESPN to try to do. Especially because if they chose to go for 8 schools they could dissolve the Big 12 by placing 4 in each of the SEC and ACC.

If the Big 12 adds then we will be in a lock down for quite awhile. And BTW if we switch to a more content driven model the advantage that the Big 10 has enjoyed so far will be somewhat flipped. The SEC has much more content. That's why I think you guys will go all out for the same brands that ESPN wants to tie down.

(05-18-2016 12:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  Negotiating talk. Trying to get the $ up.

This. If the Big Ten is not seroiusly preparing for life without ESPN, then the Mouse has them over a barrel in negotiations.

It's not likely that to top end of the Fox deal involves "the best half" of games ... for one thing, it seems like Prime Time may be a separate deal of its own ... but it could well involve the CCG and Conference tourney semi-final and final, which would lever down the reported "up to $250m" a bit if they were instead shared. And ESPN may well get some discount for the benefit of exposure.

But the Big Ten is not going to allow the discount get too steep, and prepping the AD's and coaches for a possible life outside of ESPN is part of that.

(05-19-2016 01:11 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  ESPN may well get some discount for the benefit of exposure.

This is what it's about. To make the Disney bosses happy, ESPN has to either get some Big Ten rights at a price the bosses think is reasonable, or they have to walk away. And the Big Ten has to choose between (a) ESPN exposure for a bit less money, or (b) max money with all of the product on non-ESPN outlets.

My guess is CBS & Turner Sports may get the package. Have 8 guaranteed games on CBS and place their top basketball games on CBS while having a Thursday & Saturday package for Turner Sports, you can place it on TNT. I think Turner Sports will eventually create their own sports network. I wouldn't be shocked if truTV became Bleacher Report Television (b/r TV).

(05-19-2016 03:15 AM)Realignment Wrote:  My guess is CBS & Turner Sports may get the package. Have 8 guaranteed games on CBS and place their top basketball games on CBS while having a Thursday & Saturday package for Turner Sports, you can place it on TNT. I think Turner Sports will eventually create their own sports network. I wouldn't be shocked if truTV became Bleacher Report Television (b/r TV).

For six years? What's it going to be called after that?

This may a negotiating ploy or it may not be.

ESPN may be choosing to spend its money where it sees value for its business. Signing the top college football conference coupled with the top college basketball conference doesn't seem like a bad business model if your business is broadcasting sports.

That's not an indictment of any conference; it's a business decision.

Collectively we need to keep that in mind discussing these issues.
CJ

(05-18-2016 06:11 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  It's simple since so many have been banging this drum for a long time. Football drives the bus! With that in mind the most valuable properties in the ACC are FSU and Clemson. UVA is not in the top 5 most valuable program in the conference. So why would ESPN raise the ACC's pay to almost SEC/B1G level to keep upper mid-level ACC money makers?

The WWL has the SEC, half of the Big XII, the Pac-12 as well as the ACC to eat up air space, not to mention all the G5 conferences. There isn't a huge need to keep those two teams in the ACC, at least not enough to almost double the entire leagues pay. UNC's BBall can easily be replaced with the ACC adding UConn.

Once again I know this is an ACC board but you guys are clearly blinded by your own bias. If they were willing to throw that kind of money at the ACC then they would be willing to buy a fraction of the B1G contract.

If the ACC died tomorrow I would celebrate running around naked in the streets. That league and it's members have done more to harm ECU athletics and the university itself than any other outside group. However, if you think losing UNC and UVA doesn't dramatically decrease the value of the ACC then you are silly. UNC especially is one of if not the top dogs in hoops and is the flagship (as much as that disgusts me to say) of a large and fast growing state. So yes I think if the choices for ESPN are lose an insanely valuable property to a direct competitor or give a little bump to a pretty undervalued deal for P5 standards I think they'd give the bump. Of course the other thing that's worth mentioning is I don't think UNC is ever leaving the ACC. It's not given the same level of coverage but they run that league much in the same way Texas runs the B12. It would also be a political nightmare for them to leave Duke, NC State, and Wake in a vulnerable position.

Ha, "ESPN exposure". Is there magic pixie dust in those Cinderella Castles, after all??

I for one, would be just fine and dandy if I was "forced" to go through the back-breaking work of finding FS1 or even -- shock! horror! stever cover your eyes -- FX, to watch the Gophers play. Or FOX, now and then. I can find BTN easily enough. Shouldn't be a problem.

They could stick it on Univision, and the ratings would be the same.


So that said, I think most people agree that the Big Ten will get the most money by having the contract split between FOX and ESPN. That's what I think they'll do, at least this time. We'll see how the FOX games go. Maybe shoot for all-in on FOX next time.


And sorry NebraskaFan ... you can either choose to take me head-on, with an actual argument, or you can choose to ignore me. Doesn't matter to me either way -- I'm still gonna win.

The Mason-Dixon line for the Big Ten west of Illinois is I-80.

(05-18-2016 10:00 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 09:37 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 05:57 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 03:35 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 03:22 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  First of all I'm a pure hater of all things ACC, but the theory behind that would be it would greatly weaken the ACC product for ESPN while increasing the strength of a competing product, and if ESPN were to lose all of the B1G they are going to need to retain as much premier product as possible. I don't think they would willingly give the ACC money for no reason, but if they are given the choice between doing it or having one of the 2 P5's they essentially own gutted by a competitor my guess is they do it.

You have good insight and are able to understand a very simple concept. Good for you!

Hey look a mod from an ACC school being a troll.

OH, REALLY? And just who was I trolling?

Don't worry, I'M the problem around here even though I'm simply the one that's had enough of guys like this...

I forgot how badly the ACC folks are kicked around on this board, good for you for FINALLY standing up for that conference against the half dozen non-ACC kool-aide drinkers...