(02-12-2014 05:20 PM)orangefan Wrote: Some correct information mixed in with some incorrect information.
ESPN did keep the B12 together back in 2010 by agreeing to maintain the same TV payout when the B12 lost NU and CU and by creating the LHN. However, that conference TV deal has ended. ESPN did negotiate a new TV deal, but it shares that deal with FOX, who is paying half of the cost. That was an open market deal, not charity.
Keep in mind, ESPN did not do this instead of "squeezing" Texas and OU. A bidding war with FOX for a P16 contract would have made those rights way more expensive, and if FOX had won, given FOX an even stronger position in college sports. A contract with ISU, BU, KSU in the Big East or a reconstituted Big 12 would have been cheap, but it also would not have been valuable. ESPN kept the B12 together because it saved them money in the long run.
The B12 does make more money per school than any conference on the CFP and Sugar Bowl deals because they split their money 10 ways instead of 12 or 14.
B12 members are able to include 1 football and 4-5 basketball games in their Tier 3 packages. For the ACC, these games belong to ESPN, but that doesn't mean they don't have Tier 3 packages. Tier 3 also includes radio rights, coaches' shows, various internet rights, and a number of other marketing rights. Many ACC members make significant money off of these rights. It may not be LHN money, but the gap between B12 members and ACC members is smaller than TodgeRodge suggests.
The ACC TV rights have been boosted to over $20 million per school. This is based on a variety of enhancements provided to ESPN, including additional inventory from expansion, guaranteed games versus ND, the execution of a grant of rights, the addition of some Friday games, and a contract extension. However, these don't fully make up for the fact that the base contract predates the current boom that the B12 was able to take advantage of. It does not make the B12 more valuable, but it does put more money in their pocket.
1. ESPN had no say so in keeping the Big 12 together in 2010.....there was no language in the ESPN 1st tier deal that I know of that mentioned anything about needing X number of teams to keep the contract whole......it was the brand new Fox 2nd tier deal that specifically called for 10 teams at a min for the contract to be kept whole
and even if I am wrong about the ESPN contract (I do not believe that I am) that fact that you are pointing out that you believe that ESPN took action to keep the contract whole and keep the conference together proves my point......that ESPN had an opportunity either at that time to break the contract IF thee was a clause calling for X number of teams or later down the line when the contract was renegotiated 2 years early
so again some are trying to say that UT and OU and possibly others could make more money AND WOULD BE MORE VALUABLE in either the PAC 12 or the ACC, but the REALITY is ESPN had ample opportunity to make that happen and to take advantage of that "more valuable alignment" and they took every opportunity offered to NOT make that happen when the easily could have taken MULTIPLE actions to make that happen
2. the Big 12 always had two different media partners for tier 1 and tier 2 TV rights.....that is just a simple fact
the Fox tier 2 deal ended earlier than the ESPN tier 1 deal
the FOX tier 2 deal was renegotiated when the Big 12 had 10 teams including A&M and MU
the FOX tier 2 deal had specific language that required 10 teams to keep it whole which is why the Big 12 had to add 10 teams and they looked at 10 tams in conjunction with FOX and ESPN to decide on who was the best two to add
if Fox specifically had wanted 12 teams in the Big 12 they never would have signed a new second tier deal when the Big 12 only had 10 teams and if they had done so they would have required that the Big 12 go back to 12 teams
but FOX specifically signed that deal when the Big 12 had 10 teams and they specified in that contract 10 teams to keep the deal whole so FOX is content with the Big 12 at 10 teams without a doubt
3. the 1st tier ESPN deal was still in place and after the FOX 2nd tier deal was renewed the Big 12 actually made more money off of the FOX 2nd tier deal than the ESPN 1st tier deal because the ESPN deal was very old at that time and was set to expire in 2014-15
so ESPN had always split the TV rights cost with others for the Big 12 because the Big 12 always had two different partners for the two tiers and the FOX contract ended first and was renegotiated first
4. ESPN did not have to renegotiate the 1st tier deal with the Big 12 they easily could have ridden that contract to the end in 2014-2015 with the Big 12 making less for 1st tier rights than they did for 2nd tier rights
instead once it was clear that UT and OU were not going anywhere ESPN stepped up and renegotiated that contract before it ever came open in 2014-2015
by the time that contract was renegotiated ESPN already had the rights to the PAC 12 1st and 2nd tier and they either were already very close to or already had the rights to all 3 tiers for the ACC
so again if ESPN had desired to have UT and OU in either of those conferences they simply could have told the Big 12 that we are not going to renegotiate the 1st tier deal early and when that deal comes open in 2014-2015 we are not going to bid on it at all and we are going to publicly state that which will hurt your negotiation position with other media companies because they will know that ESPN and their buckets of money (and ABC) are not going to negotiate
if ESPN saw the value of the Big 12 constituted as it is now as weak and less desirable than the ACC or PAC 12 and especially as either of those conferences with UT or OU or both then ESPN would not care of FOX or anyone else got the Big 12 1st tier deal because that company would be paying for something that ESPN viewed as weak
just like you said a reconstituted Big 12 or AAC would be weak and not of value.....if ESPN is viewing having UT and OU in the PAC 12 and more desirable and they already have the rights to all 3 tiers of the ACC and 2 of the three tiers of the PAC 12 it would have been cheaper to simply make it financially impossible for the UT and OU to say no to moving and if UT and OU still said no to moving then ESPN could have told them fine live with an old 1st tier deal that pays less than your new 2nd tier deal until 2014-15 and do not look for us to bid on those 1st tier rights in 2014-15 and do not look for us to have you in a Sugar Bowl deal with the SEC or any other similar deal
so UT and OU and the rest of the Big 12 would have had a poor 1st tier deal until 2014-15, no 4 million per team for the Sugar Bowl and the weak negotiation position for 1st tier rights in 2014-15 with ESPN letting all that would listen know they are not bidding because they view the Big 12 as weak and not of value
but of course ESPN did the exact opposite on all counts
if ESPN had viewed UT and OU as more valuable in the PAC 12 or ACC (much more valuable as many try and say) and ESPN already had the rights to 2 tiers for the PAC 12 and all 3 tiers for the ACC then how did ESPN "save money" by going ahead and renegotiating a 1st tier deal with the Big 12 for all 10 teams 3 years early and including the Big 12 in a Sugar Bowl deal with the SEC for 40 million per conference vs giving the Big 12 no bowl deal or giving the Big 12 the 27.5 million deal for the Orange Bowl and letting the first tier deal go to the end VS renegotiating it .......well they didn't save money on that doing all of that with a 10 team Big 12
and again the argument made by some is that UT and OU in either the ACC or PAC 12 would be super hella mega major amazingly more valuable than those teams in the Big 12
so when ESPN already has deals with the ACC and PAC 12 and all they would have to do is bump those deals and get UT and OU in instead of paying for a new deal 3 YEARS EARLY with 10 teams in the Big 12 and a Sugar Bowl with the Big 12
again if the VALUE and WORTH was to have UT and OU move to the PAC 12 or ACC and ESPN has those deals with those conferences then they could afford to get UT and OU to move and they would GAIN from that by ditching 8 teams (or 6 teams if 4 teams moved) and ditching one Bowl deal entirely and leaving the Big 12 deal with their remaining 1st deal set to end in a couple of years and ESPN not interested in that deal and UT and OU gone
but again ESPN did the exact opposite they made it very financially lucrative for UT and OU to stay in the Big 12 and for the Big 12 to stay together and they did so 3 years EARLIER than they even had to plus giving the Big 12 the Sugar Bowl deal for 40 million VS the SEC VS the Orange Bowl deal for 27.5 million against random team to be determined seasonally.....and it was NOT an "open market deal" it was a deal done 3 years EARLY because at the time the 1st tier deal was renegotiated ESPN still held contractual 1st tier rights for the Big 12 until that deal ended in 2014-15......ESPN was under NO OBLIGATION or requirement to renegotiate that 1st tier deal before 2014-15 especially when that 1st tier deal had been signed years earlier when the Big 12 was 12 teams including NU, MU, CU and A&M.......it was WELL AFTER all those 4 teams were gone and after the Big 12 had added WVU and TCU and STOPPED AT 10 and made clear they were stopping at 10 that ESPN opened negotiations EARLY and renegotiated the 1st tier contract to match the length of the new FOX 2nd tier deal and more importantly to bump the money to the Big 12 significantly
and further after that ESPN went and signed a 3rd tier deal with KU
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/...-with-espn
again KU one of the valuable Big 12 members that os often mentioned as perhaps going to the Big 10 or maybe going with others to the ACC most likely or even perhaps the PAC 12 instead of either Texas Tech and or OkState
so again why is ESPN working all of these 1st tier, bowl and 3rd tier deals with the Big 12 and specifically with Big 12 teams that if gone could help break the conference if ESPN WANTED THE CONFERENCE BROKEN UP because they saw more value with UT and OU and possibly 2 others in the ACC or PAC 12
that flat makes ZERO SENSE
4. as pointed out by another all teams have those radio deals, stajium signage deals, vijio board advertising deals ect that is not the same as a 3rd tier TV deal for specific football and basket ball games to be on TV
5. the last time the conferences paid out was in March of 2013 and that was for the 2012 fiscal year that ended in August 2012
the Big 12 paid out 198 million total for 1st tier and 2nd tier and all NCAA distributions or an average of 19.8 million per team
The Big 12 and ESPN did not agree to the new EARLY renegotiated 1st tier deal until September of 2012 so after the fiscal year 2012 had already ended
so that 198 million payout was under the old and very low ESPN 1st tier deal that was set to expire originally in 2014-15, but that ESPN agreed to renegotiate EARLY and bump significantly and to match the number of years with the FOX deal
in June of 2013
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/bl...30111.post
FSU got 18.3 million from the ACC
and as the article states the ACCs new contract was already in place for that distribution
so again in May 2013 the Big 12 got an average of 198 million per team
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...10-schools
and as clearly stated in that article quoting Bob Bowlsby
"That moves up this next year [b]due to a signing bonus from ESPN, and then after that,
the new TV deal and the Champions Bowl kicks in."[/b]
so that 198 million does NOT include a signing bonus from ESPN (that does not sound like the actions of a media partner that would prefer UT and OU to be in a different conference) and more importantly as the article states the 198 million was BEFORE ESPN had signed the new 1st tier TV deal several years earlier than it was set to expire and significantly raised the payout for that 1st tier deal (along with a bonus for signing)
so again to make it CLEAR.....the 18.3 million for FSU was INCLUDING THE NEW 3 tier rights deal money
as stated
When the ACC extended its television deal with partner ESPN last spring, the conference told member schools to expect yearly incremental increases to their conference distribution payouts.
also from the Big 12 article
That number could reach $30 million per school soon as the money from the conference's media rights deals escalates later in the contract
and just to be fair.....from the ACC article it also states there are yearly incremental increases
so lets go over this
FSU got 18.3 million per year in June of 2013......in May of 2013 the Big 12 teams got 19.8 million.....last I checked 19.8 million > 18.3 million
the 18.3 million for FSU in June of 2013 INCLUDED the new money starting to roll in from the ESPN deal signed in the PREVIOUS SPRING
the 19.8 million for the Big 12 was under their OLD ESPN first tier deal and the new ESPN 1st tier deal (that was negotiated 3 years earlier than it was set to expire) will not be reflected until the distributions this May 2014
so again even if the ACC does get 3 million more per team for ND being added
for purposes of comparison (using last years numbers) that would get FSU 21.3 million for ALL 3 TIERS and NCAA distributions
but again the Big 12 has a new first tier deal with ESPN that will be reflected in the numbers this May 2014 and the new first tier deal was a significant increase over the past one and it has a signing bonus
and BOTH conferences have escalations in their deals over the years
so if the numbers were held the same the ACC with an additional 3 million would be 21.3 > 19.8 but it is only greater by 1.5 million......and again that is including the "3 million" for adding ND and that is NOT including the new TV contract for 1st tier for the Big 12 that the above article CLEARLY states has not kicked in for that 198 million distribution and it does not include the ESPN signing bonus AND it does not include any 3rd tier rights deal for any Big 12 team
so all the Big 12 needs is for their new 1st tier rights deal that is a significant increase over the past one that was set to expire in 2014-15, but was renegotiated early to bump them up by 1.5 million or more per team and they will be at least even with the ACC as far as distributions for TV and NCAA monies go EXCLUDING 3rd tier deals for the Big 12 teams
the old Big 12 deal was 480 million for 8 years
that is 6 million per year per team
the new Big 12 deal is 1.43 billion for 13 years
1.43 / 13 / 10 = 11 million per team
so again the Big 12 is set to get an increase in 1st tier rights of well over 1.5 million per year when their new contract kicks in starting with this years distributions in May 2014
6. I never said that the Big 12 conference gets more money for the Access Bowls and for the Playoffs......what I said is they get more money PER TEAM
again some seem to not understand what the name of the game is.....the name of the game is not to get more money PER CONFERENCE and then hand out that money to many more mouths thus diluting the per team payout
the NAME OF THE GAME is to get MORE MONEY PER CONFERENCE MEMBER INTO THE CONFERENCE MEMBERS POCKETS.....PERIOD
if the Sunbelt had 80 teams and a 400 million per year deal for 10 years that is a whopping 4 BILLION.....
BILLION.....but is is only 5 million per team (which would be kick ass for the Sunbelt, but still only 25% of what major conferences are making PER TEAM per year)
see how that works...
and as a matter of fact when compared to the ACC the Big 12 DOES get more money from the Access Bowl deal
the Big 12 and SEC split 80 million evenly for 4 million per team for the 10 team Big 12......again that is more money PER TEAM (which is what matters) VS the 14 team SEC that splits that 40 million by 14
and more importantly the ACC and (team to be decided later each season) split 55 million.......55 million / 2 = 27.5 million and 27.5 million < 40 million
so the Big 12 gets MORE MONEY AS A CONFERENCE for the Sugar Bowl deal than the ACC gets for the Orange Bowl deal
http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...-agreement
The agreement was announced Thursday. ESPN will pay an average of $55 million annually for the bowl, sources said.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...2-sec-game
ESPN will pay $80 million a year to televise the Sugar Bowl, sources said. That's the same amount ESPN will pay annually for the Rose Bowl. The Orange Bowl is expected to cost $55 million, sources said.
so 80 > 55
80 / 2 > 55 / 2
80 / 2 / 10 = 4 > 55 / 2 / 14 = 1.9643
so 4 > 1.9643
and 80 > 55
so even though I did not say that the Big 12 gets more per conference the reality is the Big 12 does get more per conference VS the ACC specifically
and what I said is the Big 12 gets MORE PER TEAM......and what is important and what matters is PER TEAM NOT PER CONFERENCE
and again 50 million (some say 55 some say 57) for playoff money, but the reality is all 5 P5 conferences get the same playoff money.....but what MATTERS is the Big 12 splits that by 10 not 12 or 14
so lets do the math
ACC 27.5 million + 50 million / 14 = 5.536
Big 12 40 million + 50 million / 10 = 9 million
9 million > 5.536 million
and again PER TEAM matters
and as for the Big 10 and PAC 12 they currently get 30 million for the Rose Bowl and have for several years that is getting bumped to 80 million for an increase of 50 million or 25 million per conference
so when you compare the Big 12 to those two conferences as well
the Big 12 is getting 40 million in new money while the PAC 12 and Big 10 are getting 25 million each in new money
so 4 million in new money VS 25 / 12 or 25 / 14 = 4 million > 2.08 million > 1.786 million
so again the Big 12 has more new money coming in AS A CONFERENCE VS the Big 10 or PAC 12 in regards to the Access Bowls and more importantly PER TEAM which is what matters
only the SEC is getting 40 million in new access bowl money like the Big 12 and they still divide it by 14 (40% more) mouths....so the Big 12 comes out ahead PER TEAM which is what MATTERS
now again to be fair there is the other 27.5 million for the last access bowl slot that goes to either a Big 10, PAC 12 or SEC team or ND
lets do that math
Big 12 40 million in new access bowl money + 50 in playoff money (9 million PER TEAM)
Big 10 25 new access bowl money + 50 playoff + 27.5 (POTENTIAL access Orange Bowl money)
25 + 50 + 27.5 / 14 = 102.5 million / 14 = 7.75 million
9 > 7.322
PAC 12 25 + 50 + 27.5 = 102.5 / 12 = 8.542
9 > 8.542
SEC 40 + 50 + 27.5 = 117.5 / 14 = 8.393
9 > 8.393
ND who cares
and again ACC
50 + 27.5 (and no other chance for the second orange bowl slot so that is it) / 14
77.5 / 14 = 5.536
9 > 5.536
so again with NEW MONEY from the access bowls and the playoffs the Big 12 actually does get MORE MONEY AS A CONFERENCE than the ACC and more importantly even in the years that ANY of the conferences between the SEC, PAC 12 or Big 10 get that second access bowl slot in the Orange Bowl the Big 12 STILL gets more money PER TEAM WHICH IS WHAT MATTERS than ANY member of ANY CONFERENCE PERIOD
the math is CLEAR
7. it is
![[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRad5922YRxjbShNh7_Pov...OuMLYHkwQd]](https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRad5922YRxjbShNh7_PoveJVD4lTQ3z3k-k1pTciOuMLYHkwQd)
to make the statement that "the Big 12 may get more money but that does not make them more valuable"
what in the hell determines VALUE other than the MONEY placed on that product.....and while the ACC may bring in more money as a conference WHO CARES when it is less money PER TEAM which is what MATTERS
(02-12-2014 09:44 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: Where did the Tier 3 money lies originate? For several years I've heard all these tales that the ACC supposedly sold their Tier 3 when that's patently untrue. http://www.scacchoops.com/tt_NewsBreaker...sp?NB=7229
NC State is getting $5 million a year for Tier 3 products and the best way to describe Tier 3 is that it's everything not in Tier 1 or 2. Now that is nothing near to what Texas is getting but NC State for example is competing in a market with 5 other schools for Tier 3 sales and is by no means number one in the NC Market. UNC is getting about $9 million IIRC and FSU is only getting about $7 million but their deal is old and will be renewed in about a year. Tier 3 media is really a function of the size of your university, it's alumni base and it's market penetration. If you have few competitors or a huge alumni base, you should make more money. But for about two years, folks from the B12 or associated with the B12 and WVa in particular keep claiming that the ACC has no Tier 3 money, and use Texas' tier 3 money for comparison. It's as if money has become a substitute for wining something.
Adding Pitt and Syracuse bumped ACC TV $2 million. Adding ND bumped ACC TV $2 million. So in 14-15 the ACC will be making about $20 million per team off ESPN. The ACC makes about $4.2 million off NCAA related distributions of which the greatest share is basketball. Each ACC team gets close to $2 million off the Orange Bowl (no need to go into the minutia over the side deal with the Capital One Bowl or when ND plays in the Bowl). I've heard $55 million off the football play off so that's almost $3.9 million per team. That's roughly $30 million per team and the ACC is guaranteed a $2 million minimum from ESPN if no network happens by 2016. That's $32 million per team minimum by 2017 and that's a TV contract look in year. (FSU projects $5 million a year from the network - that would bump that $32 to $35 million.
The B12's deal distributed $20 million last year and no teams have been added. That's their TV and their NCAA revenues. They will get $4 million a team from the Sugar Bowl and $5.5 million a team from the Playoff. That will put them at about $30 million per team by 2016. The ACC's no network guarantee and the upside of a network puts the ACC ahead of B12 average, but not by some huge amount.
However the obsession with conference per team TV money is silly when you consider the overall disparity between a team with 100-110 K seat football stadium competing against schools with a 60-70K seat football stadium. If you can sell 40 K more tickets per game, then over a season you are going to generate a minimum of $25 million more per year than the 60-70K stadium team and an extra $2-$5 million on a TV contract wont really change much. The real issue is "can you compete in your conference" because if you can't the TV money will not offset the loss of ticket sales.
there IS NO ACC NETWORK
THIS IS WHERE PEOPLE GET THAT FROM
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...cc-network
Don't expect an ACC-branded TV channel to be launched any time soon.
The biggest problem so far is a rights issue. ESPN needs to control the conference's syndicated rights to launch a channel. But those rights are tied up until 2027 through deals with Raycom and Fox Sports Net.
“There's no way an ACC network co-exists with a syndicated model,” said Chris Bevilacqua, a media consultant who worked with the Pac-12 to form a league network. “They're going to have to get those rights back.”
The Sports Business Journal goes on to report that the idea of an ACC Network wasn't even discussed much during the recent spring meetings and that the earliest the ACC would launch its own network would be in 2016 or 2017, and it might not happen then, either.
so again the ACC is going to have to PAY to get their 3rd tier rights back because they have been SOLD and then SOLD AGAIN to companies that WANT TO USE THEM
/
Why the new title game rules will spark the next round of expansion
) for all 3 tiers of the ACC
