ESPN won the TV rights to ACC football and basketball in a bidding competition with Fox Sports that was surprisingly close, industry sources say, and as a result made the conference several million more dollars.

The back-and-forth bidding, which reached its final stages last week at the league’s spring meetings in Amelia Island, Fla., drove up ESPN’s rights fee from initial projections of about $120 million a year to $155 million, sources said, providing the ACC with more than double the revenue it was receiving from its previous football and basketball contracts.

ESPN’s increase was in response to an unexpectedly strong pursuit by Fox Sports and sources familiar with the negotiations say the bidding was neck-and-neck last week.
ACC TV rights revenue
Current deals:
Football: 7 years, $258 million with ABC/ESPN through 2010
Basketball: 10 years, $300 million with Raycom Sports through 2010-11
Average per year: $66.9 million
New deal:
Football/basketball: 12 years, $1.86 billion with ABC/ESPN through 2022-23
Average per year: $155 million
Sources: Conference Form 990 filed with the IRS, SportsBusiness Journal

The ACC broke from its spring meetings without announcing a new deal, and the conference said a formal contract had not been finalized. But industry sources pegged a pending deal with ESPN at $1.86 billion over 12 years.

That annual figure of $155 million dwarfs the average of $67 million the league was getting from its previous media deals, which expire at the end of the 2010-11 season (see chart), but falls well short of the $205 million a year that the SEC gets from its new 15-year deals with CBS and ESPN.

Link

BC ain't going ANYWHERE...

So, this would imply that the ACC should be left untouched, or minimally affected, by a potential SEC expansion plan. I assume that if 2 networks were in a bidding war for the ACC TV contract, then there must be assurances from the existing schools that they aren't going anywhere.

WOW! Major score for the ACC. Puts them in the ballpark to be financially competitive. This should also close out any further expansion talk from the ACC.

(05-17-2010 08:04 AM)orangefan Wrote:  WOW! Major score for the ACC. Puts them in the ballpark to be financially competitive. This should also close out any further expansion talk from the ACC.

Maybe there are unnamed schools that will be joining the conference in the future that helped push the TV contracts....

(05-17-2010 08:04 AM)miko33 Wrote:  So, this would imply that the ACC should be left untouched, or minimally affected, by a potential SEC expansion plan. I assume that if 2 networks were in a bidding war for the ACC TV contract, then there must be assurances from the existing schools that they aren't going anywhere.

I was thinking along the same lines. However, I don't see how the SEC expands WITHOUT going to the ACC. The SEC would not destroy their close geography. I think this points to the SEC not expanding at all. This, more than anything, is just another sign that the ACC and SEC will stay put during the next round of expansion.

(05-17-2010 08:04 AM)miko33 Wrote:  So, this would imply that the ACC should be left untouched, or minimally affected, by a potential SEC expansion plan. I assume that if 2 networks were in a bidding war for the ACC TV contract, then there must be assurances from the existing schools that they aren't going anywhere.

I have never believed there was any truth to any SEC expansion talk. They are in a long term TV deal that I do not see them wanting to reopen. I do think they want to discourage the B10 from going crazy, e.g. by expanding to 16. Their public statements about expansion are directed to this, not their actual intentions.

In addition, ESPN is now $ugar daddy to both the $EC and the ACC. There is no margin in it for them to do anything that would encourage an SEC raid of the ACC.

Does it close the book on schools moving from the ACC to the SEC? I think ACC schools would have to really consider staying put now. Better academics, better basketball, comparable money.

(05-17-2010 08:16 AM)1badbird Wrote:  Does it close the book on schools moving from the ACC to the SEC? I think ACC schools would have to really consider staying put now. Better academics, better basketball, comparable money.

Almost all of the FSU fans I have spoken with down here in Florida are adamantly opposed to going to the SEC, they LIKE being in the ACC, I would think that holds true with most of the boosters as well, especially since the ACC just got their money right.

Things may be breaking ECU's way for a change. If the B10 does raid the BE and B12, and the B12 raids the BE for Cincy and Louisville as speculated in another post, the BE almost has to add ECU to the conference. Heck, if there are no options from the ACC, ECU might have a shot at the SEC if the SEC expands.

(05-17-2010 08:30 AM)Brick City Pirate Wrote:  Heck, if there are no options from the ACC, ECU might have a shot at the SEC if the SEC expands.

(05-17-2010 08:16 AM)1badbird Wrote:  Does it close the book on schools moving from the ACC to the SEC? I think ACC schools would have to really consider staying put now. Better academics, better basketball, comparable money.

Yes, but I'm not sure it closes the book on an ACC team moving to the Big Ten.

(05-17-2010 08:13 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(05-17-2010 08:04 AM)miko33 Wrote:  So, this would imply that the ACC should be left untouched, or minimally affected, by a potential SEC expansion plan. I assume that if 2 networks were in a bidding war for the ACC TV contract, then there must be assurances from the existing schools that they aren't going anywhere.

I have never believed there was any truth to any SEC expansion talk. They are in a long term TV deal that I do not see them wanting to reopen. I do think they want to discourage the B10 from going crazy, e.g. by expanding to 16. Their public statements about expansion are directed to this, not their actual intentions.

In addition, ESPN is now $ugar daddy to both the $EC and the ACC. There is no margin in it for them to do anything that would encourage an SEC raid of the ACC.

The flip side is that we may have to dust off some of the older theories. It's looking more and more likely that the B12 and the ACC will remain largely stable (even if the BXII loses up to 3 teams). If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would be thinking that five of the 6 BCS conferences are colluding together to dismantle the BE and the MWC conferences in order to ensure that 1) conferences will need to be a minimum size in order to be a BCS league (12 or greater) and 2) torpedo any real chance for outsiders to get into the BCS. Current BCS bowls are the Championship game, Rose, Fiesta, Sugar and Orange. The 5 big leagues get 2 slots each basically. It makes even more sense if you add in the Cotton bowl as another BCS bowl, which would allow for ND to not take one of the 2 bowl slots from the new Big 5.

For years I have been amused by posts in this forum which stated that the ACC's expansion to 12 teams was a mistake. It appears that the ACC's demise has been greatly exaggerated.

(05-17-2010 08:30 AM)Brick City Pirate Wrote:  Things may be breaking ECU's way for a change. If the B10 does raid the BE and B12, and the B12 raids the BE for Cincy and Louisville as speculated in another post, the BE almost has to add ECU to the conference. Heck, if there are no options from the ACC, ECU might have a shot at the SEC if the SEC expands.

Or the SEC breaks from ACC schools and moves to Big 12 and or BE schools within reason of their footprint.

Big 12 within reason = OU/Ok State...I don't see Texas and A&M
Big East within reason = USF/UL/WVU
NON BCS = Memphis/UCF/ECU

(05-17-2010 08:12 AM)UCF-ENG Wrote:  

(05-17-2010 08:04 AM)miko33 Wrote:  So, this would imply that the ACC should be left untouched, or minimally affected, by a potential SEC expansion plan. I assume that if 2 networks were in a bidding war for the ACC TV contract, then there must be assurances from the existing schools that they aren't going anywhere.

I was thinking along the same lines. However, I don't see how the SEC expands WITHOUT going to the ACC. The SEC would not destroy their close geography. I think this points to the SEC not expanding at all. This, more than anything, is just another sign that the ACC and SEC will stay put during the next round of expansion.

All of those contracts are set up with out clauses if conference membership changes... it protects both sides (if you expand to 16 teams or if you lose teams).

(05-17-2010 08:45 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  

(05-17-2010 08:30 AM)Brick City Pirate Wrote:  Things may be breaking ECU's way for a change. If the B10 does raid the BE and B12, and the B12 raids the BE for Cincy and Louisville as speculated in another post, the BE almost has to add ECU to the conference. Heck, if there are no options from the ACC, ECU might have a shot at the SEC if the SEC expands.

Or the SEC breaks from ACC schools and moves to Big 12 and or BE schools within reason of their footprint.

Big 12 within reason = OU/Ok State...I don't see Texas and A&M
Big East within reason = USF/UL/WVU
NON BCS = Memphis/UCF/ECU

I don't see how the dollars work out in order for the SEC to expand.

(05-17-2010 08:49 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(05-17-2010 08:12 AM)UCF-ENG Wrote:  

(05-17-2010 08:04 AM)miko33 Wrote:  So, this would imply that the ACC should be left untouched, or minimally affected, by a potential SEC expansion plan. I assume that if 2 networks were in a bidding war for the ACC TV contract, then there must be assurances from the existing schools that they aren't going anywhere.

I was thinking along the same lines. However, I don't see how the SEC expands WITHOUT going to the ACC. The SEC would not destroy their close geography. I think this points to the SEC not expanding at all. This, more than anything, is just another sign that the ACC and SEC will stay put during the next round of expansion.

All of those contracts are set up with out clauses if conference membership changes... it protects both sides (if you expand to 16 teams or if you lose teams).

They are? O-Zone is one reporter who doesn't think so & can't find any evidence of it.

(05-17-2010 08:53 AM)Bill Marsh Wrote:  They are? O-Zone is one reporter who doesn't think so & can't find any evidence of it.

When UC, UL, and USF left C-USA I remember reading an article talking about how they had to renegotiate their basketball television rights. I'm pretty sure TV and conferences have outs in there for membership changes.

(05-17-2010 08:49 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(05-17-2010 08:12 AM)UCF-ENG Wrote:  

(05-17-2010 08:04 AM)miko33 Wrote:  So, this would imply that the ACC should be left untouched, or minimally affected, by a potential SEC expansion plan. I assume that if 2 networks were in a bidding war for the ACC TV contract, then there must be assurances from the existing schools that they aren't going anywhere.

I was thinking along the same lines. However, I don't see how the SEC expands WITHOUT going to the ACC. The SEC would not destroy their close geography. I think this points to the SEC not expanding at all. This, more than anything, is just another sign that the ACC and SEC will stay put during the next round of expansion.

All of those contracts are set up with out clauses if conference membership changes... it protects both sides (if you expand to 16 teams or if you lose teams).

I do not believe the composition clauses help a conference if it expands, as the TV network has no incentive to increase the fees and plenty of arguments not to. Any increase for expansion would have to be worked out in advance. The ACC is basically now off the table as a source of SEC expansion. This would not preclude an SEC move into Texas, though, with ESPN's advance blessing. Even here, my guess is that ESPN likes the opportunity to run UT games at 3:30, which is CBS's exclusive SEC slot, so I doubt ESPN would support that move either.

(05-17-2010 08:56 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(05-17-2010 08:53 AM)Bill Marsh Wrote:  They are? O-Zone is one reporter who doesn't think so & can't find any evidence of it.

When UC, UL, and USF left C-USA I remember reading an article talking about how they had to renegotiate their basketball television rights. I'm pretty sure TV and conferences have outs in there for membership changes.

It's called a composition clause, and it's there to protect the network, not the conference.