I think I said this in another thread, but, regardless of whether Philips wants to talk about it, I highly doubt that the ACC adds any new members now.

For one thing, it would affect the head count. If there are schools who are counting on the leverage of the headcount for dissolution in order to achieve whatever it is that they want to achieve, adding new heads, would make things more difficult.

Second, unlike dissolution, the bylaws are clear about adding new members - it takes 3/4ths.

Does anyone think that 12 out of 15 are voting "yes" to add anyone now that we know about the 7 and their concerns?

So Philips can talk, and I'm sure that people will politely listen, but I'd be very surprised if there were any additions at this time.

(05-18-2023 09:07 AM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 08:59 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 08:51 AM)TeamRamRod1 Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 08:25 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  How many years do you think it will be, before the haves of the B1G and the SEC decide they would be better off together and form a new conference, leaving behind the less successful programs?

That wouldn't surprise me in the least.

It won't be them mutually deciding aside from as separate conferences playing in a league championship (natty) in a college Super Bowl. But just combining would not help job security for folks in the respective conference offices, starting with the commissioners. That would be a self-inflicted termination for a lot of folks, including one commish. If there's ever an "end game" consolidation into a P1 (or S1, as it's been called)...it will be driven by the network(s) and highest value schools.

Never happens. The top of the B1G won't risk leaving their current levels of wealth and snobbery to place in the bottom half of a new conference dominated by southern teams.

Oh I wasn't saying it's going to happen...certainly not on the horizon that I can see. I was simply talking about the drivers if it did...it would be the network(s) and high value schools. The B1G and SEC aren't looking to get rid of themselves and form a new consolidated S1. I may have been splitting hairs.

(05-18-2023 09:41 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  I think I said this in another thread, but, regardless of whether Philips wants to talk about it, I highly doubt that the ACC adds any new members now.

For one thing, it would affect the head count. If there are schools who are counting on the leverage of the headcount for dissolution in order to achieve whatever it is that they want to achieve, adding new heads, would make things more difficult.

Second, unlike dissolution, the bylaws are clear about adding new members - it takes 3/4ths.

Does anyone think that 12 out of 15 are voting "yes" to add anyone now that we know about the 7 and their concerns?

So Philips can talk, and I'm sure that people will politely listen, but I'd be very surprised if there were any additions at this time.

Makes perfect sense to me.

For the reasons you mention, I expect that if the ACC does add new members, it will be so other members can leave. The grant of rights would necessarily be revisited. For schools with a P2 call-up already on hold, that's the cue.

And that might be OK. A simultaneous bulk-up by the ACC as schools leave could help secure a healthy conference home for schools—perhaps on two coasts—who don't have an immediate P2 option waiting. Realignment could happen without the usual acrimony and bleeding and circling hyena 'death watch' salivating that we usually see.

A graceful transition is tough to manage. Still, if any league could manage it, it would be the ACC. The commissioner is up to the task. And there's something to be said for a long history of country-club collegiality.

(05-18-2023 08:21 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 08:14 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The thing about unequal revenue sharing is that even if expansion added $5M/school, shared unequally it could add $10M to half the schools or $20M to a few.

The thing about the seditious 7 is it looked more like 7 that would eat what they kill from a media rights perspective than an on-field success perspective. And from a timeline perspective it would make more sense if the concessions were a response to ongoing discussions rather than something that popped up on a Twitter a day before.

Which available school would cover its full payout plus immediately add $70-75M per year to the pot?

The ACCN makes about 250-300M per year with half of that distributed to the ACC. A lean addition of PAC schools with minimal market redundancy increases the in-footprint revenue by about 70% while only adding 50% more schools to split. The addition likely adds enough broad national interest to facilitate a modest out-of-footprint rate increase as well.

It’s not a huge increase overall, but if distributed unequally could give a handful of schools a nice payday. There’s also another perspective. Nothing is going to help the ACC keep up with the B1G and SEC financially. But adding revenue-neutral inventory means the next B12 contract is likely to be peanuts, so it maintains/creates a competitive gap with the B12.

(05-17-2023 11:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I struggle to imagine who the ACC could expand with that wouldn't decrease the per-school value of the conference. My USF is an example. There's nobody out there that is P - level.

The answer: UConn Olympic sports + 5-game football slate. UConn already plays 3 ACC H/H most years.

If UConn got 10 million per year from the arrangement everybody would be made whole, and the ACC could (key word) try to renegotiate with ESPN as they expand.

The ACC gains a top-10 Olympic sports AD but avoids adding UConn football only, and they also get a 16th Olympic sport member that fits like a glove.

I'm probably in the minority but I don't think any of the P5 will fold, at least not yet. Other than the P12 expanding I think we wont see anything for 5-6 years.. Here is my unsolicited input. I have spoken. Let it be so!

BIG

20

RUTGERS
MARYLAND
PSU
OSU
MSU
MICHIGAN
INDIANA
PURDUE
ILLINOIS
NORTHWESTERN
WISCONSIN
MINNESOTA
IOWA
NEBRASKA
USC
UCLA
UNC
UVA
GA TECH
MIAMI

SEC

20

TEXAS
A&M
OKLAHOMA
ARKANSAS
MISSOURI
LSU
OLE MISS
MISS ST
ALABAMA
AUBURN
GEORGIA
SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORIDA
TENNESSEE
VANDY
KENTUCKY
NC ST
VA TECH
CLEMSOM
FSU


P12

12

WASHINGTON
WASH ST
OREGON
OREGON ST
STANFORD
CAL
UTAH
COLORADO
ARIZONA
ASU
SDSU
SMU



B12

13

IOWA ST
KANSAS
K STATE
OK STATE
BAYLOR
TX TECH
TCU
HOUSTON
BYU
UCF
TULANE
BOISE ST
GONZAGA


ACC

13

BC
CUSE
PITT
DUKE
WAKE
LOUISVILLE
UCONN
WVU
CINCY
USF
TEMPLE
MEMPHIS
^^ND** THE WILD CARD


BIG EAST

Since UConn leaves

11

CREIGHTON
DEPAUL
MARQUETTE
BUTLER
XAVIER
GEORGETOWN
SETON HALL
ST JOHNS
NOVA
PC
ST LOUIS


If the BIG wants more west coast add WASH and Oregon
SMU along with Tulane goes to the ACC. The remaing P12 neregs with the B12
BE adds Dayton and Richmond or VCU

(05-18-2023 10:00 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 09:41 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  I think I said this in another thread, but, regardless of whether Philips wants to talk about it, I highly doubt that the ACC adds any new members now.

For one thing, it would affect the head count. If there are schools who are counting on the leverage of the headcount for dissolution in order to achieve whatever it is that they want to achieve, adding new heads, would make things more difficult.

Second, unlike dissolution, the bylaws are clear about adding new members - it takes 3/4ths.

Does anyone think that 12 out of 15 are voting "yes" to add anyone now that we know about the 7 and their concerns?

So Philips can talk, and I'm sure that people will politely listen, but I'd be very surprised if there were any additions at this time.

Makes perfect sense to me.

For the reasons you mention, I expect that if the ACC does add new members, it will be so other members can leave. The grant of rights would necessarily be revisited. For schools with a P2 call-up already on hold, that's the cue.

And that might be OK. A simultaneous bulk-up by the ACC as schools leave could help secure a healthy conference home for schools—perhaps on two coasts—who don't have an immediate P2 option waiting. Realignment could happen without the usual acrimony and bleeding and circling hyena 'death watch' salivating that we usually see.

A graceful transition is tough to manage. Still, if any league could manage it, it would be the ACC. The commissioner is up to the task. And there's something to be said for a long history of country-club etiquette.

Possible.

And, I think, in the best interests of those "left behind".

Allowing schools to leave by voting the schools out, could very well be a way to prevent dissolution.

(05-18-2023 11:55 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 10:00 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 09:41 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  I think I said this in another thread, but, regardless of whether Philips wants to talk about it, I highly doubt that the ACC adds any new members now.

For one thing, it would affect the head count. If there are schools who are counting on the leverage of the headcount for dissolution in order to achieve whatever it is that they want to achieve, adding new heads, would make things more difficult.

Second, unlike dissolution, the bylaws are clear about adding new members - it takes 3/4ths.

Does anyone think that 12 out of 15 are voting "yes" to add anyone now that we know about the 7 and their concerns?

So Philips can talk, and I'm sure that people will politely listen, but I'd be very surprised if there were any additions at this time.

Makes perfect sense to me.

For the reasons you mention, I expect that if the ACC does add new members, it will be so other members can leave. The grant of rights would necessarily be revisited. For schools with a P2 call-up already on hold, that's the cue.

And that might be OK. A simultaneous bulk-up by the ACC as schools leave could help secure a healthy conference home for schools—perhaps on two coasts—who don't have an immediate P2 option waiting. Realignment could happen without the usual acrimony and bleeding and circling hyena 'death watch' salivating that we usually see.

A graceful transition is tough to manage. Still, if any league could manage it, it would be the ACC. The commissioner is up to the task. And there's something to be said for a long history of country-club etiquette.

Possible.

And, I think, in the best interests of those "left behind".

Allowing schools to leave by voting the schools out, could very well be a way to prevent dissolution.

The ACC is as well set as anyone can be for a graceful transition, if the move is to the SEC inside the ESPN family and at equal distribution of the rights, 100%. That is far from a perfect scenario but is the best possible attainable one. No carrier is losing rights, just relocating them. That carrier if they approve can continue to pay the contracted rate to the rest, eliminating damages in the process. What that carrier cannot do is eliminate exit fees. Dissolution does that. But to make that exit minimally litigious an agreed upon settlement (negotiated agreement to pay a % of the exit fees) would be in order.

Do that and you can move, but only because the Rights holder loses nothing.

(05-18-2023 09:41 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  I think I said this in another thread, but, regardless of whether Philips wants to talk about it, I highly doubt that the ACC adds any new members now.

For one thing, it would affect the head count. If there are schools who are counting on the leverage of the headcount for dissolution in order to achieve whatever it is that they want to achieve, adding new heads, would make things more difficult.

Second, unlike dissolution, the bylaws are clear about adding new members - it takes 3/4ths.

Does anyone think that 12 out of 15 are voting "yes" to add anyone now that we know about the 7 and their concerns?

So Philips can talk, and I'm sure that people will politely listen, but I'd be very surprised if there were any additions at this time.

That's the politics, but the other side is the money. Nobody outside of UW/UO could possibly add anything substantial to the ACC's contract, and those 2 are so far away that I'm not sure they help, either. So, the politics don't make sense and the money doesn't make sense, the only reason to pursue it is for stability. And that only makes sense if they get rid of the rabble rousers and bring in any potential rivals (aka the big 12 and a couple from the Pac). Does Phillips think about such a Big Picture? Do his Presidents? I highly doubt it on both counts. They'd all rather bury their heads in the sand and pray that football revenues decline and basketball revenues rise sharply by 2036.

ACC/ESPN should rather offload all of Cuse' BC, Pitt, UL to the Big 12. Change WF and Duke to BBall only with a scheduling agreement in football and eligibility for ND/WF/Duke to play in the ACCCG with a reduced ACC schedule. This should increase football revenue by at least 15-20% flat. The northern programs are essentially made whole in the Big 12. Once the new CFP format is established, ND would be eligible for a NY6 QF bye having possibly played in the ACCCG.

Yormark would have a nice eastern wing: Cuse' BC Pitt, UL with UC WVU UCF. Add UConn/Memphis partial shares.

USF and FAU to backfill FSU Miami. Temple Charlotte ECU can backfill other defections to the P2 in 36'. Still a good conference that can clinch a playoff spot without FSU/Clemson.

(05-18-2023 12:58 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  ACC/ESPN should rather offload all of Cuse' BC, Pitt, UL to the Big 12. Change WF and Duke to BBall only with a scheduling agreement in football and eligibility for ND/WF/Duke to play in the ACCCG with a reduced ACC schedule. This should increase football revenue by at least 15-20% flat. The northern programs are essentially made whole in the Big 12. Once the new CFP format is established, ND would be eligible for a NY6 QF bye having possibly played in the ACCCG.

Yormark would have a nice eastern wing: Cuse' BC Pitt, UL with UC WVU UCF. Add UConn/Memphis partial shares.

USF and FAU to backfill FSU Miami. Temple Charlotte ECU can backfill other defections to the P2 in 36'. Still a good conference that can clinch a playoff spot without FSU/Clemson.

Big 12?

More likely getting a few B1G teams and becoming a sub-conference of the B1G.
GT, Duke, Wake Forest, Syracuse, Pitt, BC, Purdue, Rutgers, Northwestern, plus Navy (perhaps Temple and UConn) with Notre Dame attached.

(05-18-2023 01:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  Big 12?

More likely getting a few B1G teams and becoming a sub-conference of the B1G.
GT, Duke, Wake Forest, Syracuse, Pitt, BC, Purdue, Rutgers, Northwestern, plus Navy (perhaps Temple and UConn) with Notre Dame attached.

Something like that could work with a promotion relegation system... smaller relegation in Olympics for respective sports, but two separate divisions in football. But there is no revenue model that really allows that to happen. Big 12/ACC are making comparable money, so swapping teams among those conferences is more likely.

(05-18-2023 11:37 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(05-17-2023 11:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I struggle to imagine who the ACC could expand with that wouldn't decrease the per-school value of the conference. My USF is an example. There's nobody out there that is P - level.

The answer: UConn Olympic sports + 5-game football slate. UConn already plays 3 ACC H/H most years.

If UConn got 10 million per year from the arrangement everybody would be made whole, and the ACC could (key word) try to renegotiate with ESPN as they expand.

The ACC gains a top-10 Olympic sports AD but avoids adding UConn football only, and they also get a 16th Olympic sport member that fits like a glove.

I don't know that UConn would pay a $30 million exit fee to the Big East in order to get a $10 million deal annually from the ACC. That would take several years just to earn back the investment. Now, if it's a guaranteed all-sports B12 invite (that pays over $40 million per year)? I think that's an easy outcome.

(05-18-2023 12:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 11:55 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 10:00 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 09:41 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  I think I said this in another thread, but, regardless of whether Philips wants to talk about it, I highly doubt that the ACC adds any new members now.

For one thing, it would affect the head count. If there are schools who are counting on the leverage of the headcount for dissolution in order to achieve whatever it is that they want to achieve, adding new heads, would make things more difficult.

Second, unlike dissolution, the bylaws are clear about adding new members - it takes 3/4ths.

Does anyone think that 12 out of 15 are voting "yes" to add anyone now that we know about the 7 and their concerns?

So Philips can talk, and I'm sure that people will politely listen, but I'd be very surprised if there were any additions at this time.

Makes perfect sense to me.

For the reasons you mention, I expect that if the ACC does add new members, it will be so other members can leave. The grant of rights would necessarily be revisited. For schools with a P2 call-up already on hold, that's the cue.

And that might be OK. A simultaneous bulk-up by the ACC as schools leave could help secure a healthy conference home for schools—perhaps on two coasts—who don't have an immediate P2 option waiting. Realignment could happen without the usual acrimony and bleeding and circling hyena 'death watch' salivating that we usually see.

A graceful transition is tough to manage. Still, if any league could manage it, it would be the ACC. The commissioner is up to the task. And there's something to be said for a long history of country-club etiquette.

Possible.

And, I think, in the best interests of those "left behind".

Allowing schools to leave by voting the schools out, could very well be a way to prevent dissolution.

The ACC is as well set as anyone can be for a graceful transition, if the move is to the SEC inside the ESPN family and at equal distribution of the rights, 100%. That is far from a perfect scenario but is the best possible attainable one. No carrier is losing rights, just relocating them. That carrier if they approve can continue to pay the contracted rate to the rest, eliminating damages in the process. What that carrier cannot do is eliminate exit fees. Dissolution does that. But to make that exit minimally litigious an agreed upon settlement (negotiated agreement to pay a % of the exit fees) would be in order.

Do that and you can move, but only because the Rights holder loses nothing.

So you think ESPN is going to give any ACC school that can get the invite to the SEC the same SEC distribution AND give the lower brands the same payout as they would get anyway with the inclusion of the higher value brands?

This is ESPN paying hundreds of millions of dollars more for content it already owns and is likely to keep if it does nothing.

Yes, they have some risk to lose properties to the Big 10/Fox. But that probably begins and ends with Ga Tech and UNC. Are those 2 worth hundreds of millions of dollars in excess payments?

(05-18-2023 11:42 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  BIG EAST

Since UConn leaves

11

CREIGHTON
DEPAUL
MARQUETTE
BUTLER
XAVIER
GEORGETOWN
SETON HALL
ST JOHNS
NOVA
PC
ST LOUIS


If the BIG wants more west coast add WASH and Oregon
SMU along with Tulane goes to the ACC. The remaing P12 neregs with the B12
BE adds Dayton and Richmond or VCU

If UConn leaves the Big East again, I'm not so sure we need anyone to add. We succeeded with ten members for many years. The league remains strong with or without UConn. They could add an A10 program down the road, but they aren't going anywhere.

SLU has appeared to hit a wall with Ford, unfortunately. They are projected to be a bottom-tier team next year. I wouldn't want to add them entering a rebuilding phase IMO.

(05-18-2023 01:51 PM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 12:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 11:55 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 10:00 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 09:41 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  I think I said this in another thread, but, regardless of whether Philips wants to talk about it, I highly doubt that the ACC adds any new members now.

For one thing, it would affect the head count. If there are schools who are counting on the leverage of the headcount for dissolution in order to achieve whatever it is that they want to achieve, adding new heads, would make things more difficult.

Second, unlike dissolution, the bylaws are clear about adding new members - it takes 3/4ths.

Does anyone think that 12 out of 15 are voting "yes" to add anyone now that we know about the 7 and their concerns?

So Philips can talk, and I'm sure that people will politely listen, but I'd be very surprised if there were any additions at this time.

Makes perfect sense to me.

For the reasons you mention, I expect that if the ACC does add new members, it will be so other members can leave. The grant of rights would necessarily be revisited. For schools with a P2 call-up already on hold, that's the cue.

And that might be OK. A simultaneous bulk-up by the ACC as schools leave could help secure a healthy conference home for schools—perhaps on two coasts—who don't have an immediate P2 option waiting. Realignment could happen without the usual acrimony and bleeding and circling hyena 'death watch' salivating that we usually see.

A graceful transition is tough to manage. Still, if any league could manage it, it would be the ACC. The commissioner is up to the task. And there's something to be said for a long history of country-club etiquette.

Possible.

And, I think, in the best interests of those "left behind".

Allowing schools to leave by voting the schools out, could very well be a way to prevent dissolution.

The ACC is as well set as anyone can be for a graceful transition, if the move is to the SEC inside the ESPN family and at equal distribution of the rights, 100%. That is far from a perfect scenario but is the best possible attainable one. No carrier is losing rights, just relocating them. That carrier if they approve can continue to pay the contracted rate to the rest, eliminating damages in the process. What that carrier cannot do is eliminate exit fees. Dissolution does that. But to make that exit minimally litigious an agreed upon settlement (negotiated agreement to pay a % of the exit fees) would be in order.

Do that and you can move, but only because the Rights holder loses nothing.

So you think ESPN is going to give any ACC school that can get the invite to the SEC the same SEC distribution AND give the lower brands the same payout as they would get anyway with the inclusion of the higher value brands?

This is ESPN paying hundreds of millions of dollars more for content it already owns and is likely to keep if it does nothing.

Yes, they have some risk to lose properties to the Big 10/Fox. But that probably begins and ends with Ga Tech and UNC. Are those 2 worth hundreds of millions of dollars in excess payments?

Let's say they just moved Clemson and FSU to the SEC. That 39 millon x 2, which is the difference in pay. They easily eclipse that 78 million in T1 ad rates, and walk away with a nice profit to boot.

They now lose nothing on the rest of the ACC schools, because without Clemson and Florida State (when they are good) they have much more competitive match ups in the ACC and with the dominance gone the fans of the other schools become more invested. Now each season has an uncertain and predictable outcome. Even if the quality is lesser the enthusiasm and hope is greater. The ACC gains what the Big 12 has found, competitiveness. If they want to keep the inventory up and add two schools at ACC pro rata they've still lost nothing.

There is much more going on than nickels and dimes. ESPN has a brand line it wants to protect and a composite of schools it needs to maintain ad leverage. The only thing which hurts ESPN would be losing key schools in key states to FOX. That's why until the mid 2030's that's not happening. In the meantime, they can rearrange a couple of chairs and keep two key brands happy and make their former conference mates happier at the same time. The only real question that arises then is will the two that moved be happy where they go. Initially the money would be great and they will be competitive. But they will not dominate. And for those who really consider what does matter, the fans, it will be fine. Moving to the Big 10 where half your conference games would be North of Maryland not so much. Football and fan support is cultural and regional.

We all need to look at champion fatigue. 2/3rds of the Big 10 has poor attendance. Why? Ohio State is odds on the favorite to win every year. Ditto in the ACC in the early years with FSU. The ACC had more excitement over football before they added FSU. Now it's Clemson. In the 70's the SEC was Bama fatigued because of Bear. Dodd left in the mid 60's taking Georgia Tech with him and Bear took over. It happens everywhere. What matters is the enthusiasm of the fan bases. Get that up and you sell tickets, increase hope, and get more donors interested in investing in football. Let every season begin with the concession that team X or Y is going to in it in a cake walk and it hurts the conference as a whole.

Florida State is a valuable piece in the ACC equation. How much though did their dominance cost the middle of the conference? Now the other angle has to be considered. What if you are a conference which has just 2 or 3 schools which win titles, but none which dominate the conference or are competitive nationally? Then you have the problem of the PAC 12.

We all need competitive champions. But what we really need are 3 or 4 schools in each conference who do have a chance to win it all on any given year. That is why the SEC is now the most watched conference. It's not as predictable as it used to be. When Michigan is back, and Penn State is back the Big 10 will have a renaissance. What the ACC needs most is for its middle schools, UNC, Miami, Virginia Tech to rise. They haven't and that is why Clemson now sucks the air out of the room.

(05-18-2023 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 01:51 PM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 12:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 11:55 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 10:00 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Makes perfect sense to me.

For the reasons you mention, I expect that if the ACC does add new members, it will be so other members can leave. The grant of rights would necessarily be revisited. For schools with a P2 call-up already on hold, that's the cue.

And that might be OK. A simultaneous bulk-up by the ACC as schools leave could help secure a healthy conference home for schools—perhaps on two coasts—who don't have an immediate P2 option waiting. Realignment could happen without the usual acrimony and bleeding and circling hyena 'death watch' salivating that we usually see.

A graceful transition is tough to manage. Still, if any league could manage it, it would be the ACC. The commissioner is up to the task. And there's something to be said for a long history of country-club etiquette.

Possible.

And, I think, in the best interests of those "left behind".

Allowing schools to leave by voting the schools out, could very well be a way to prevent dissolution.

The ACC is as well set as anyone can be for a graceful transition, if the move is to the SEC inside the ESPN family and at equal distribution of the rights, 100%. That is far from a perfect scenario but is the best possible attainable one. No carrier is losing rights, just relocating them. That carrier if they approve can continue to pay the contracted rate to the rest, eliminating damages in the process. What that carrier cannot do is eliminate exit fees. Dissolution does that. But to make that exit minimally litigious an agreed upon settlement (negotiated agreement to pay a % of the exit fees) would be in order.

Do that and you can move, but only because the Rights holder loses nothing.

So you think ESPN is going to give any ACC school that can get the invite to the SEC the same SEC distribution AND give the lower brands the same payout as they would get anyway with the inclusion of the higher value brands?

This is ESPN paying hundreds of millions of dollars more for content it already owns and is likely to keep if it does nothing.

Yes, they have some risk to lose properties to the Big 10/Fox. But that probably begins and ends with Ga Tech and UNC. Are those 2 worth hundreds of millions of dollars in excess payments?

Let's say they just moved Clemson and FSU to the SEC. That 39 millon x 2, which is the difference in pay. They easily eclipse that 78 million in T1 ad rates, and walk away with a nice profit to boot.

They now lose nothing on the rest of the ACC schools, because without Clemson and Florida State (when they are good) they have much more competitive match ups in the ACC and with the dominance gone the fans of the other schools become more invested. Now each season has an uncertain and predictable outcome. Even if the quality is lesser the enthusiasm and hope is greater. The ACC gains what the Big 12 has found, competitiveness. If they want to keep the inventory up and add two schools at ACC pro rata they've still lost nothing.

There is much more going on than nickels and dimes. ESPN has a brand line it wants to protect and a composite of schools it needs to maintain ad leverage. The only thing which hurts ESPN would be losing key schools in key states to FOX. That's why until the mid 2030's that's not happening. In the meantime, they can rearrange a couple of chairs and keep two key brands happy and make their former conference mates happier at the same time. The only real question that arises then is will the two that moved be happy where they go. Initially the money would be great and they will be competitive. But they will not dominate. And for those who really consider what does matter, the fans, it will be fine. Moving to the Big 10 where half your conference games would be North of Maryland not so much. Football and fan support is cultural and regional.

We all need to look at champion fatigue. 2/3rds of the Big 10 has poor attendance. Why? Ohio State is odds on the favorite to win every year. Ditto in the ACC in the early years with FSU. The ACC had more excitement over football before they added FSU. Now it's Clemson. In the 70's the SEC was Bama fatigued because of Bear. Dodd left in the mid 60's taking Georgia Tech with him and Bear took over. It happens everywhere. What matters is the enthusiasm of the fan bases. Get that up and you sell tickets, increase hope, and get more donors interested in investing in football. Let every season begin with the concession that team X or Y is going to in it in a cake walk and it hurts the conference as a whole.

Florida State is a valuable piece in the ACC equation. How much though did their dominance cost the middle of the conference? Now the other angle has to be considered. What if you are a conference which has just 2 or 3 schools which win titles, but none which dominate the conference or are competitive nationally? Then you have the problem of the PAC 12.

We all need competitive champions. But what we really need are 3 or 4 schools in each conference who do have a chance to win it all on any given year. That is why the SEC is now the most watched conference. It's not as predictable as it used to be. When Michigan is back, and Penn State is back the Big 10 will have a renaissance. What the ACC needs most is for its middle schools, UNC, Miami, Virginia Tech to rise. They haven't and that is why Clemson now sucks the air out of the room.

Quote:Let's say they just moved Clemson and FSU to the SEC. That 39 millon x 2, which is the difference in pay. They easily eclipse that 78 million in T1 ad rates, and walk away with a nice profit to boot.

Thats $80MM/year for the life of the contract. + paying inflated rates for the ACC schools. So the opportunity cost for ESPN is not only the $80MM more its paying for Clemson and FSU, its the tens of millions it's overpaying the ACC leftovers.

Quote:ESPN has a brand line it wants to protect and a composite of schools it needs to maintain ad leverage. The only thing which hurts ESPN would be losing key schools in key states to FOX.

I'd bet this isn't a huge concern to ESPN. Its why they've created a duopoly in the sport. Its them and the SEC vs Big 10 and Fox. Everything else is just filler content, and ESPN has to fill way more filler than Fox does, at a higher rate. I'd bet that there's unproveable collusion between fox and espn. I'm sure theres a hotel napkin somewhere that has the divvying split up.

The only property that the SEC is in danger of losing to the Big 10 that they probably want is UNC. Maybe UVA/Ga Tech. Everyone else is either undesireable for Big 10 expansion or not AAU members, which I think is a legitimate barrier to Big 10 membership.

(05-18-2023 02:29 PM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 01:51 PM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 12:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 11:55 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Possible.

And, I think, in the best interests of those "left behind".

Allowing schools to leave by voting the schools out, could very well be a way to prevent dissolution.

The ACC is as well set as anyone can be for a graceful transition, if the move is to the SEC inside the ESPN family and at equal distribution of the rights, 100%. That is far from a perfect scenario but is the best possible attainable one. No carrier is losing rights, just relocating them. That carrier if they approve can continue to pay the contracted rate to the rest, eliminating damages in the process. What that carrier cannot do is eliminate exit fees. Dissolution does that. But to make that exit minimally litigious an agreed upon settlement (negotiated agreement to pay a % of the exit fees) would be in order.

Do that and you can move, but only because the Rights holder loses nothing.

So you think ESPN is going to give any ACC school that can get the invite to the SEC the same SEC distribution AND give the lower brands the same payout as they would get anyway with the inclusion of the higher value brands?

This is ESPN paying hundreds of millions of dollars more for content it already owns and is likely to keep if it does nothing.

Yes, they have some risk to lose properties to the Big 10/Fox. But that probably begins and ends with Ga Tech and UNC. Are those 2 worth hundreds of millions of dollars in excess payments?

Let's say they just moved Clemson and FSU to the SEC. That 39 millon x 2, which is the difference in pay. They easily eclipse that 78 million in T1 ad rates, and walk away with a nice profit to boot.

They now lose nothing on the rest of the ACC schools, because without Clemson and Florida State (when they are good) they have much more competitive match ups in the ACC and with the dominance gone the fans of the other schools become more invested. Now each season has an uncertain and predictable outcome. Even if the quality is lesser the enthusiasm and hope is greater. The ACC gains what the Big 12 has found, competitiveness. If they want to keep the inventory up and add two schools at ACC pro rata they've still lost nothing.

There is much more going on than nickels and dimes. ESPN has a brand line it wants to protect and a composite of schools it needs to maintain ad leverage. The only thing which hurts ESPN would be losing key schools in key states to FOX. That's why until the mid 2030's that's not happening. In the meantime, they can rearrange a couple of chairs and keep two key brands happy and make their former conference mates happier at the same time. The only real question that arises then is will the two that moved be happy where they go. Initially the money would be great and they will be competitive. But they will not dominate. And for those who really consider what does matter, the fans, it will be fine. Moving to the Big 10 where half your conference games would be North of Maryland not so much. Football and fan support is cultural and regional.

We all need to look at champion fatigue. 2/3rds of the Big 10 has poor attendance. Why? Ohio State is odds on the favorite to win every year. Ditto in the ACC in the early years with FSU. The ACC had more excitement over football before they added FSU. Now it's Clemson. In the 70's the SEC was Bama fatigued because of Bear. Dodd left in the mid 60's taking Georgia Tech with him and Bear took over. It happens everywhere. What matters is the enthusiasm of the fan bases. Get that up and you sell tickets, increase hope, and get more donors interested in investing in football. Let every season begin with the concession that team X or Y is going to in it in a cake walk and it hurts the conference as a whole.

Florida State is a valuable piece in the ACC equation. How much though did their dominance cost the middle of the conference? Now the other angle has to be considered. What if you are a conference which has just 2 or 3 schools which win titles, but none which dominate the conference or are competitive nationally? Then you have the problem of the PAC 12.

We all need competitive champions. But what we really need are 3 or 4 schools in each conference who do have a chance to win it all on any given year. That is why the SEC is now the most watched conference. It's not as predictable as it used to be. When Michigan is back, and Penn State is back the Big 10 will have a renaissance. What the ACC needs most is for its middle schools, UNC, Miami, Virginia Tech to rise. They haven't and that is why Clemson now sucks the air out of the room.

Quote:Let's say they just moved Clemson and FSU to the SEC. That 39 millon x 2, which is the difference in pay. They easily eclipse that 78 million in T1 ad rates, and walk away with a nice profit to boot.

Thats $80MM/year for the life of the contract. + paying inflated rates for the ACC schools. So the opportunity cost for ESPN is not only the $80MM more its paying for Clemson and FSU, its the tens of millions it's overpaying the ACC leftovers.

Quote:ESPN has a brand line it wants to protect and a composite of schools it needs to maintain ad leverage. The only thing which hurts ESPN would be losing key schools in key states to FOX.

I'd bet this isn't a huge concern to ESPN. Its why they've created a duopoly in the sport. Its them and the SEC vs Big 10 and Fox. Everything else is just filler content, and ESPN has to fill way more filler than Fox does, at a higher rate. I'd bet that there's unproveable collusion between fox and espn. I'm sure theres a hotel napkin somewhere that has the divvying split up.

The only property that the SEC is in danger of losing to the Big 10 that they probably want is UNC. Maybe UVA/Ga Tech. Everyone else is either undesireable for Big 10 expansion or not AAU members, which I think is a legitimate barrier to Big 10 membership.

1. They are contracted to pay the others. It isn't hurting them to honor it. And the 78 million more they are paying for Clemson and Florida State they will more than double in revenue from them vs the SEC slate.

2. Of course composition of the properties matter. Get out a map and stick a pin in all the locations of schools to which ESPN holds 100% of their rights. Now put a different colored pin in those which they hold 50% of their rights. Your map will show solidly why holding all of those schools, no matter how much or little they are paid is important to ESPN. They literally have dominant control from Virginia South and now with the exception of Kansas (50%) the main dominant viewership schools from everything South of Kansas to Texas/Mexico border. They max out ad rates in everyone of those states. This is why they will be in opposition of moves from the ACC to the Big 10 and if they have to pacify them it will be with the SEC, only because they own 100% of the SEC as well. That is their marketing strategy. Anything else they get is gravy.

(05-18-2023 11:37 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(05-17-2023 11:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I struggle to imagine who the ACC could expand with that wouldn't decrease the per-school value of the conference. My USF is an example. There's nobody out there that is P - level.

The answer: UConn Olympic sports + 5-game football slate. UConn already plays 3 ACC H/H most years.

If UConn got 10 million per year from the arrangement everybody would be made whole, and the ACC could (key word) try to renegotiate with ESPN as they expand.

The ACC gains a top-10 Olympic sports AD but avoids adding UConn football only, and they also get a 16th Olympic sport member that fits like a glove.

I think UConn would go for that, but IMO it would not move any revenue needles for the ACC.

(05-18-2023 06:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 11:37 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(05-17-2023 11:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I struggle to imagine who the ACC could expand with that wouldn't decrease the per-school value of the conference. My USF is an example. There's nobody out there that is P - level.

The answer: UConn Olympic sports + 5-game football slate. UConn already plays 3 ACC H/H most years.

If UConn got 10 million per year from the arrangement everybody would be made whole, and the ACC could (key word) try to renegotiate with ESPN as they expand.

The ACC gains a top-10 Olympic sports AD but avoids adding UConn football only, and they also get a 16th Olympic sport member that fits like a glove.

I think UConn would go for that, but IMO it would not move any revenue needles for the ACC.

Uconn would not go for that. Doesn't move any revenue needles for them either, after you factor in the Big East exit fee.