And one other point to reiterate. Arizona has been the most inclined to jump to the B12 and has engaged some of its aligned media in a campaign to pull the rest of the 4c4 in that direction.

If the ACC were to look West, 7 would be a very workable number from a scheduling standpoint (east teams play home and away in alternating seasons vs west while west plays one home and away annually). And minimizing market redundancy would give UW, UO, Cal+Furd, UU, CU, and one of ASU/AZ with AZ likely the odd one out.

The ACC option is the one reason why AZ is not on the same page with ASU, UU, CU.

(05-18-2023 03:25 PM)Schema Wrote:  I think when you add in the information we learned/confirmed from John Skipper regarding the fact that providers have to pay a full rate for all viewers in states that contain a member school of the ACC, expansion is definitely a possibility. I think the odds are pretty small, but if anyone leaves the Pac and things get crazy, the ACC could end up growing.

He didn't say the length of those contracts though. Do they expire in 2 years? 12 years? Is it different with every single provider? Best case scenario, it's all 13 years of the rest of the GoR, and Stanford wants to join the ACC. How much do they bring?

13.1 million households in CA
56% national average of households with cable
I don't know their in-market rate, but let's use $2

13.1 x .56 x $2 = $14.67m per year until 2036

That's $34.67m per year of value for 13 years in an absolutely 100% best-case scenario, after which they're stuck with a school in California. Or, they could bring in Cal, too, but at just $20m, then maybe Utah and...uh, ASU?

3.7m households for utah/arizona combined
56%
$2

3.7 x .56 x $2 = $4.1m per year for the 2 combined, we'll round up to $2.1m each.

So, now you have:

Stanford: $34.67m
Cal: $20m
Utah: $22.1m
ASU: $22.1m

How does this get FSU any more money?

(05-18-2023 03:59 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 02:48 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Pac schools are getting offered $20m a year right now from ESPN, and they could pay any or all of them that same amount to move to the big 12. Why would they pay MORE than $20m a year for any of them to move to the ACC? So, the Pac schools' options are: remain in the Pac with who knows what kind of deal, join the big 12 for $20m + whatever Fox will pay, or join the ACC for $15m so that the other $5m can go to FSU. Hmmm, I don't think that I'd go for door #3 in that scenario.

Having said that, Pac administrators have demonstrated such gross incompetence in the past 35 years that I think several of them might be imminently moving to the ACC!

You should already know the answer, but I'll state it anyway. ESPN is offering $20M to the Pac-12, not specific schools (they are not all the same value), and then not for all games, but something like 4 games per week, IIRC.

Look, Texas A&M is not worth as much as Alabama or Georgia, but you get that money because of the value of the TOTAL tv package. Or do you think ESPN would be offering more to the Pac-10 if the Aggies were members?

Sure, in a vacuum, lots of Pac schools are worth more than $20m. However, the ACC is locked in until 2036, the big 12 until 2031, and ESPN has the Pac and all of its schools over a barrel right now. Any schools added to the ACC will get paid whatever ESPN decides to pay them. Any P5 schools added to the big 12 get paid pro rata b/c it's in the contract. So, ESPN already has a market for any Pac school. Would they be willing to exceed that for, say, UW and UO? I think that's a resounding YES. But for anybody else? Why? Everyone else in the Pac (and the big 12 for that matter) is interchangeable. They all bring value, they're all good schools, but none of them is on the UW/UO/FSU/UNC/Clemson level. Nobody else is even close to those 5. If we have seen anything in the past few years, it's that media providers will pay a premium for premium content and they won't pay much at all for easily replaceable content.

So, again, provide us with a convincing argument as to why ESPN would pay more than $20m for any non-UW/UO Pac school to move to the ACC (or big 12). Hint: discussing the value of SEC teams is not particularly convincing to the current subject, try something else.

The PAC footprint has the highest proportion of cord cutters, but never having bad content on ESPN+ potentially has the lowest proportion of ESPN+ subscribers. If ESPN wants to transition to a streaming model, it can’t leave out the demographic that has largely set the curve on streaming trends.

(05-18-2023 04:37 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  And one other point to reiterate. Arizona has been the most inclined to jump to the B12 and has engaged some of its aligned media in a campaign to pull the rest of the 4c4 in that direction.

If the ACC were to look West, 7 would be a very workable number from a scheduling standpoint (east teams play home and away in alternating seasons vs west while west plays one home and away annually). And minimizing market redundancy would give UW, UO, Cal+Furd, UU, CU, and one of ASU/AZ with AZ likely the odd one out.

The ACC option is the one reason why AZ is not on the same page with ASU, UU, CU.

I'll ask you for the same explanation that I asked for the poster above: how much more than $20m + ACCN money will those 7 schools bring to the ACC when ESPN gets to determine the payment? I strongly believe that it's 0. How does bringing in 7 schools at $20m per (plus maybe an extra total $20m in ACCN revenue) help out FSU? Why would those schools take $20m per year to join a conference 3k miles away when the big 12 was very close for at least the 4c and could offer them $20m + whatever Fox was willing to pay? They'd end up at least talking to the big 12 to keep the ACC honest, and we'd have the same confusion that we have now with their current media rights negotiations, some would want the ACC, some would join the big 12, it would just be a hot mess. Which is actually quite appropriate for the Pac, I couldn't think of a better way for them to go!

Do you think every game is broadcast on ACCN?

(05-18-2023 02:48 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Pac schools are getting offered $20m a year right now from ESPN, and they could pay any or all of them that same amount to move to the big 12. Why would they pay MORE than $20m a year for any of them to move to the ACC? So, the Pac schools' options are: remain in the Pac with who knows what kind of deal, join the big 12 for $20m + whatever Fox will pay, or join the ACC for $15m so that the other $5m can go to FSU. Hmmm, I don't think that I'd go for door #3 in that scenario.

Having said that, Pac administrators have demonstrated such gross incompetence in the past 35 years that I think several of them might be imminently moving to the ACC!

Doesn’t Fox has 40% of B12 TV rights? If ESPN wants to broadcast two night time programs, they need to move seven Pac schools to B12. That’s $140 million.

ESPN needs to move only four Pac teams to the ACC for two games a week. To get to the same $140 million, ESPN pays $35 million per school.

(05-18-2023 04:51 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 03:59 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 02:48 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Pac schools are getting offered $20m a year right now from ESPN, and they could pay any or all of them that same amount to move to the big 12. Why would they pay MORE than $20m a year for any of them to move to the ACC? So, the Pac schools' options are: remain in the Pac with who knows what kind of deal, join the big 12 for $20m + whatever Fox will pay, or join the ACC for $15m so that the other $5m can go to FSU. Hmmm, I don't think that I'd go for door #3 in that scenario.

Having said that, Pac administrators have demonstrated such gross incompetence in the past 35 years that I think several of them might be imminently moving to the ACC!

You should already know the answer, but I'll state it anyway. ESPN is offering $20M to the Pac-12, not specific schools (they are not all the same value), and then not for all games, but something like 4 games per week, IIRC.

Look, Texas A&M is not worth as much as Alabama or Georgia, but you get that money because of the value of the TOTAL tv package. Or do you think ESPN would be offering more to the Pac-10 if the Aggies were members?

Sure, in a vacuum, lots of Pac schools are worth more than $20m. However, the ACC is locked in until 2036, the big 12 until 2031, and ESPN has the Pac and all of its schools over a barrel right now. Any schools added to the ACC will get paid whatever ESPN decides to pay them. Any P5 schools added to the big 12 get paid pro rata b/c it's in the contract. So, ESPN already has a market for any Pac school. Would they be willing to exceed that for, say, UW and UO? I think that's a resounding YES. But for anybody else? Why? Everyone else in the Pac (and the big 12 for that matter) is interchangeable. They all bring value, they're all good schools, but none of them is on the UW/UO/FSU/UNC/Clemson level. Nobody else is even close to those 5. If we have seen anything in the past few years, it's that media providers will pay a premium for premium content and they won't pay much at all for easily replaceable content.

So, again, provide us with a convincing argument as to why ESPN would pay more than $20m for any non-UW/UO Pac school to move to the ACC (or big 12). Hint: discussing the value of SEC teams is not particularly convincing to the current subject, try something else.

I am fairly positive that ESPN would pay for some Pac schools on a pro rata basis.

Memphis and UConn makes sense tbh. Unless there’s a crazy cross country play with the PAC schools.

Is there an opportunity to add multiple PAC schools under unequal revenue sharing with the ACC schools making more than they do now and the PAC schools making less than the ACC schools but more than they do now?

Nope. ACC is bitchin' about money. More mouths to feed? LOL.

(05-18-2023 04:43 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 03:25 PM)Schema Wrote:  I think when you add in the information we learned/confirmed from John Skipper regarding the fact that providers have to pay a full rate for all viewers in states that contain a member school of the ACC, expansion is definitely a possibility. I think the odds are pretty small, but if anyone leaves the Pac and things get crazy, the ACC could end up growing.

He didn't say the length of those contracts though. Do they expire in 2 years? 12 years? Is it different with every single provider? Best case scenario, it's all 13 years of the rest of the GoR, and Stanford wants to join the ACC. How much do they bring?

13.1 million households in CA
56% national average of households with cable
I don't know their in-market rate, but let's use $2

13.1 x .56 x $2 = $14.67m per year until 2036

That's $34.67m per year of value for 13 years in an absolutely 100% best-case scenario, after which they're stuck with a school in California. Or, they could bring in Cal, too, but at just $20m, then maybe Utah and...uh, ASU?

3.7m households for utah/arizona combined
56%
$2

3.7 x .56 x $2 = $4.1m per year for the 2 combined, we'll round up to $2.1m each.

So, now you have:

Stanford: $34.67m
Cal: $20m
Utah: $22.1m
ASU: $22.1m

How does this get FSU any more money?

WAY, WAY OFF. The rate isn't $2 per year, it's $1 per MONTH... $12 per year... 6X as much as you just estimated. So Stanford doesn't bring $14.67M for the ACCN, they bring in $88M/year. Add THAT to the $20M (minimum) for T1.
So, let's say they ONLY bring in $108M/year, and the ACC pays them $44M - $5M = $39M. That leaves $108-$39 = $69M. Now divide that by 14 ACC teams -- that's an extra $5M/year for each of them; if you go unequal, it could be more for FSU.

(05-18-2023 11:43 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 04:43 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  ....
So, now you have:

Stanford: $34.67m
Cal: $20m
Utah: $22.1m
ASU: $22.1m

How does this get FSU any more money?

WAY, WAY OFF. The rate isn't $2 per year, it's $1 per MONTH... $12 per year... 6X as much as you just estimated. So Stanford doesn't bring $14.67M for the ACCN, they bring in $88M/year. Add THAT to the $20M (minimum) for T1.
So, let's say they ONLY bring in $108M/year, and the ACC pays them $44M - $5M = $39M. That leaves $108-$39 = $69M. Now divide that by 14 ACC teams -- that's an extra $5M/year for each of them; if you go unequal, it could be more for FSU.

Good catch.

Wow. Accurate numbers do reshape the discussion.

If expansion with PAC schools is in the picture, it stands to reason that multiple ACC schools would want a new revenue model in place as soon as possible.

(05-18-2023 04:37 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  And one other point to reiterate. Arizona has been the most inclined to jump to the B12 and has engaged some of its aligned media in a campaign to pull the rest of the 4c4 in that direction.

Ah. That would explain some things.

Quote:If the ACC were to look West, 7 would be a very workable number from a scheduling standpoint (east teams play home and away in alternating seasons vs west while west plays one home and away annually). And minimizing market redundancy would give UW, UO, Cal+Furd, UU, CU, and one of ASU/AZ with AZ likely the odd one out.

The ACC option is the one reason why AZ is not on the same page with ASU, UU, CU.

So, for the next cycle, maybe we get this?

Pacific 7
Magnificent 7
Ironclad 7
½ Notre Dame

(05-18-2023 09:33 PM)Bluedevil16 Wrote:  Memphis and UConn makes sense tbh. Unless there’s a crazy cross country play with the PAC schools.

Any addition would have to have some academic credibility.

(05-18-2023 04:37 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  And one other point to reiterate. Arizona has been the most inclined to jump to the B12 and has engaged some of its aligned media in a campaign to pull the rest of the 4c4 in that direction.

If the ACC were to look West, 7 would be a very workable number from a scheduling standpoint (east teams play home and away in alternating seasons vs west while west plays one home and away annually). And minimizing market redundancy would give UW, UO, Cal+Furd, UU, CU, and one of ASU/AZ with AZ likely the odd one out.

The ACC option is the one reason why AZ is not on the same page with ASU, UU, CU.

Yeah, but that’s pure speculation. Plausible, but we don’t know this. We don’t know how strong the politics will be in keeping the Zonas together. But since the money is comparable, let’s assume Zona goes there along with SDSU. Good haul. Yormark could stop there, or add Memphis/UConn.

We need some traction on how and why the ACC members would benefit from this. Likely, you’d need three divisions still, and UO/UW have to lock themselves up for 13 years. Just doesn’t seem likely because of the latter. Plus, one of the ACC divisions will always suck, like the Coastal and Atlantic.

(05-19-2023 04:35 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 09:33 PM)Bluedevil16 Wrote:  Memphis and UConn makes sense tbh. Unless there’s a crazy cross country play with the PAC schools.

Any addition would have to have some academic credibility.

Memphis is R1, getting better state funding, climbing. They're OK.

It's easier to imagine the Tigers in the B12 for now, but they have some really feisty history with Louisville that could help the ACC get more media interest for that school.

(05-19-2023 12:14 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 11:43 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 04:43 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  ....
So, now you have:

Stanford: $34.67m
Cal: $20m
Utah: $22.1m
ASU: $22.1m

How does this get FSU any more money?

WAY, WAY OFF. The rate isn't $2 per year, it's $1 per MONTH... $12 per year... 6X as much as you just estimated. So Stanford doesn't bring $14.67M for the ACCN, they bring in $88M/year. Add THAT to the $20M (minimum) for T1.
So, let's say they ONLY bring in $108M/year, and the ACC pays them $44M - $5M = $39M. That leaves $108-$39 = $69M. Now divide that by 14 ACC teams -- that's an extra $5M/year for each of them; if you go unequal, it could be more for FSU.

Good catch.

Wow. Accurate numbers do reshape the discussion.

If expansion with PAC schools is in the picture, it stands to reason that multiple ACC schools would want a new revenue model in place as soon as possible.

$5M extra doesn’t put a dent in the disparity. Double it to $10M every year (probably not realistic) and we can call it a dent. With the downside of greater travel costs and complications for all sports and a true frankenconference often with half empty venues. Worth a shot vs the status quo just to pay the bills for a few more years? Maybe. I'd probably stick with the status quo and just ride it out.

(05-18-2023 11:43 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  WAY, WAY OFF. The rate isn't $2 per year, it's $1 per MONTH... $12 per year... 6X as much as you just estimated. So Stanford doesn't bring $14.67M for the ACCN, they bring in $88M/year. Add THAT to the $20M (minimum) for T1.
So, let's say they ONLY bring in $108M/year, and the ACC pays them $44M - $5M = $39M. That leaves $108-$39 = $69M. Now divide that by 14 ACC teams -- that's an extra $5M/year for each of them; if you go unequal, it could be more for FSU.

But...just because there are "in-footprint" rates doesn't mean a cable company has to carry it. Sure, maybe there's enough of a critical mass of customers in the Bay Area and maybe even NorCal, but do we really think there's going to be a clamor for the ACCN in LA and San Diego just to see Cal and Stanford?

(05-19-2023 06:44 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 11:43 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  WAY, WAY OFF. The rate isn't $2 per year, it's $1 per MONTH... $12 per year... 6X as much as you just estimated. So Stanford doesn't bring $14.67M for the ACCN, they bring in $88M/year. Add THAT to the $20M (minimum) for T1.
So, let's say they ONLY bring in $108M/year, and the ACC pays them $44M - $5M = $39M. That leaves $108-$39 = $69M. Now divide that by 14 ACC teams -- that's an extra $5M/year for each of them; if you go unequal, it could be more for FSU.

But...just because there are "in-footprint" rates doesn't mean a cable company has to carry it. Sure, maybe there's enough of a critical mass of customers in the Bay Area and maybe even NorCal, but do we really think there's going to be a clamor for the ACCN in LA and San Diego just to see Cal and Stanford?

The ACCN is part of the Disney package.
I guess a cable company could refuse to broadcast all Disney programming, but I doubt whether they can pick and choose like a menu at a restaurant.