FSU AD Stan Wilcox tells #FSU trustees that ACC is in "negotiations" with ESPN to create ACC network. "It will happen," he says

http://rubbingtherock.com/2014/11/21/acc...n-the-way/

The only people that believe otherwise are those that want to see the ACC fail.

I'd be shocked if the ACC didn't get a network ala the SEC. The ACC unlike the Big 12 isn't dysfunctional. It has different factions with different interests and priorities, but it works somehow.

I have no inside info, but from reading the press releases, quotes from presidents, ADs and other people of consequence, that there is a new found unity in the ACC, especially after the GOR. the old stereotype was that the ACC was run by the basketball schools (unc, duke, uva) and the football schools (fsu, Clemson) were frequently disgruntled. since the espn executive mentioned that 80% of tv revenue is football (it to be mostly basketball), it seems like the basketball schools have warmed up to the idea of emphasizing football and marketing the brand more actively and effectively. heck, duke is going to a bowl for the 3rd straight year. did anyone EVER see that one coming???

the GOR happened for several reasons, IMO. first, the $ projections must have been competitive with the other P5s. otherwise, 15 very smart presidents would not have signed up for financial suicide. second, these schools enjoy competing against one another and would rather continue than move. nobody was interested or excited about trips to Minnesota, Iowa, or Wisconsin. no offense to the B1G, but sports are very regional. I grew up in NC and I can tell you first hand that NOBODY cares about SEC football in that area, even though it's the best football conference most every year. it's all ACC basketball all year long in those parts.

it will be interesting to see how the ACC network comes to fruition.

(11-21-2014 01:43 PM)brista21 Wrote:  I'd be shocked if the ACC didn't get a network ala the SEC. The ACC unlike the Big 12 isn't dysfunctional. It has different factions with different interests and priorities, but it works somehow.

How and when they pull this off could determine Barron's legacy there. Show FSU the money, and he made good. If this thing gets held up or denied, he's about as good as a medicine show.

So does this increase the AAC and MWC exposure on ESPN and ESPN2? With every P5 having a network, except the Big 12, espn is going to have more room for some of their current G5 properties.

(11-21-2014 04:06 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  So does this increase the AAC and MWC exposure on ESPN and ESPN2? With every P5 having a network, expect the Big 12, espn is going to have more room for some of their current G5 properties.

Maybe a little, but I think it may open more of the Raycom regional sports network for the AAC, Sunbelt or CUSA (depending on how the ASN deal is structured.)

(11-21-2014 04:06 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  So does this increase the AAC and MWC exposure on ESPN and ESPN2? With every P5 having a network, except the Big 12, espn is going to have more room for some of their current G5 properties.

I don't think the conference nets are reducing the number of live games broadcast by ESPN or Fox channels.

ESPN isn't airing fewer SEC football games on ESPN channels now; they're airing the same number as before and airing an additional number on SECN. That additional number of games was syndicated in prior years. For the Pac-12, ESPN channels are broadcasting more FB and BB games than they did before the PTN, and obviously so are Fox broadcast and FS1 because they had no games under the prior contract. Games that were previously on Fox-branded RSNs are now divided between ESPN channels, Fox broadcast/FS1, and PTN. I don't know how "excess" Big Ten FB and BB were distributed prior to BTN, but I doubt they have fewer FB and BB games on ESPN now than they did pre-BTN.

(11-21-2014 02:29 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  I have no inside info, but from reading the press releases, quotes from presidents, ADs and other people of consequence, that there is a new found unity in the ACC, especially after the GOR. the old stereotype was that the ACC was run by the basketball schools (unc, duke, uva) and the football schools (fsu, Clemson) were frequently disgruntled. since the espn executive mentioned that 80% of tv revenue is football (it to be mostly basketball), it seems like the basketball schools have warmed up to the idea of emphasizing football and marketing the brand more actively and effectively. heck, duke is going to a bowl for the 3rd straight year. did anyone EVER see that one coming???

the GOR happened for several reasons, IMO. first, the $ projections must have been competitive with the other P5s. otherwise, 15 very smart presidents would not have signed up for financial suicide. second, these schools enjoy competing against one another and would rather continue than move. nobody was interested or excited about trips to Minnesota, Iowa, or Wisconsin. no offense to the B1G, but sports are very regional. I grew up in NC and I can tell you first hand that NOBODY cares about SEC football in that area, even though it's the best football conference most every year. it's all ACC basketball all year long in those parts.

it will be interesting to see how the ACC network comes to fruition.

(11-21-2014 01:43 PM)brista21 Wrote:  I'd be shocked if the ACC didn't get a network ala the SEC. The ACC unlike the Big 12 isn't dysfunctional. It has different factions with different interests and priorities, but it works somehow.

I think you're correct on almost all accounts except the last bit. Almost everyone I know was watching the UNC/Duke football game last night. We do love our ACC football, too, though I'd say 25% of the UNC fan base are fair-weather football fans and are more basketball oriented. We definitely hate the local SEC football programs and actively root against South Carolina who both Clemson and us recruit against, as well as Tennessee. Trust me, our message board hates those two schools along with Duke and State.

I've read the contracts.

ESPN has until ~2016 to establish an ACC network. If they don't, they have to pay each school ~$2M a year more.

There is no "get out of your GOR" card if ESPN does not establish the network.

My gut feel is that ESPN will simply pay the extra money and that no ACC network will be created until such time as the Raycom deal expires.

(11-21-2014 04:55 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  I've read the contracts.

ESPN has until ~2016 to establish an ACC network. If they don't, they have to pay each school ~$2M a year more.

There is no "get out of your GOR" card if ESPN does not establish the network.

My gut feel is that ESPN will simply pay the extra money and that no ACC network will be created until such time as the Raycom deal expires.

Bet you a dollar it happens by 2017. Otherwise, ADs with a lot more knowledge and credibility than message board posters wouldn't make public statements like this.

(11-21-2014 04:55 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  I've read the contracts.

ESPN has until ~2016 to establish an ACC network. If they don't, they have to pay each school ~$2M a year more.

There is no "get out of your GOR" card if ESPN does not establish the network.

My gut feel is that ESPN will simply pay the extra money and that no ACC network will be created until such time as the Raycom deal expires.

The ACC has been wildly successful on WatchESPN. Raycom has struck very recent deals regarding the ACC Digital Network and the ACCDN is becoming a revenue generator.

I guess my question is, if ESPN decides to pay the $2M instead of creating a Network for/with the ACC, what is stopping the ACC from working with Raycom to create a Conference Network with their content?

(11-21-2014 04:55 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  I've read the contracts.

ESPN has until ~2016 to establish an ACC network. If they don't, they have to pay each school ~$2M a year more.

There is no "get out of your GOR" card if ESPN does not establish the network.

My gut feel is that ESPN will simply pay the extra money and that no ACC network will be created until such time as the Raycom deal expires.

So you're saying ESPN can't make more than 2 mill per team off an ACC Network? Raycom already pays ESPN over 50 mill to sublicense a handful of ACC games. It appears there's quite a bit of value in those games. Now ESPN has figured out how to make it work using the SEC network model, why wouldn't they do this?

Get ready for all the "ESPN is sooooo biased towards the ACC! It's just because they have an ACC network to promote!!

(11-21-2014 06:35 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Get ready for all the "ESPN is sooooo biased towards the ACC! It's just because they have an ACC network to promote!!

My guess is that you'll see that more in bball season. Espn has the highest rated fb and bb conferences. Fox takes a backseat in ratings all year long with that setup.

The ACC will get a Network but it wont be before some very big changes happen.

(11-21-2014 08:44 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The ACC will get a Network but it wont be before some very big changes happen.

Are you talking about your Baylor/TCU to ACC with Texas as a partial idea or something else?

(11-21-2014 09:50 PM)ringmaster Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 08:44 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The ACC will get a Network but it wont be before some very big changes happen.

Are you talking about your Baylor/TCU to ACC with Texas as a partial idea or something else?

Actually, for multiple reasons, I am straying from the concept of TCU ending up in the ACC. Right now I would list it at 50/50. Fifty percent chance TCU ends up in the ACC, fifty percent chance they end up in the PAC. There is still some information I am not privy to and in this case it is very important.

The talk about the ACC for sure getting a Network is in regards to negotiations going well with the concept of getting Texas on board. The PAC has always been a problem. It all depends upon getting them a whole lot more money but if they can land TCU over in the PAC then that changes things. The hard part in that scenario is then the SEC.

So technically, my answer to you would be yes to both of your questions.

(11-21-2014 10:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 09:50 PM)ringmaster Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 08:44 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The ACC will get a Network but it wont be before some very big changes happen.

Are you talking about your Baylor/TCU to ACC with Texas as a partial idea or something else?

Actually, for multiple reasons, I am straying from the concept of TCU ending up in the ACC. Right now I would list it at 50/50. Fifty percent chance TCU ends up in the ACC, fifty percent chance they end up in the PAC. There is still some information I am not privy to and in this case it is very important.

The talk about the ACC for sure getting a Network is in regards to negotiations going well with the concept of getting Texas on board. The PAC has always been a problem. It all depends upon getting them a whole lot more money but if they can land TCU over in the PAC then that changes things. The hard part in that scenario is then the SEC.

So technically, my answer to you would be yes to both of your questions.

So Baylor is more likely for the ACC than TCU. I would certainly prefer them to TCU. I guess I don't understand what you're saying about the PAC needing a lot more money and how would that impact where TCU goes? What would that change for the ACC? I'm guessing OU and KU to the B1G is part of this scenario. If not TCU, then who is the 16th full member of the ACC to couple with Baylor if Texas is a partial?

(11-21-2014 11:40 PM)ringmaster Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 10:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 09:50 PM)ringmaster Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 08:44 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The ACC will get a Network but it wont be before some very big changes happen.

Are you talking about your Baylor/TCU to ACC with Texas as a partial idea or something else?

Actually, for multiple reasons, I am straying from the concept of TCU ending up in the ACC. Right now I would list it at 50/50. Fifty percent chance TCU ends up in the ACC, fifty percent chance they end up in the PAC. There is still some information I am not privy to and in this case it is very important.

The talk about the ACC for sure getting a Network is in regards to negotiations going well with the concept of getting Texas on board. The PAC has always been a problem. It all depends upon getting them a whole lot more money but if they can land TCU over in the PAC then that changes things. The hard part in that scenario is then the SEC.

So technically, my answer to you would be yes to both of your questions.

So Baylor is more likely for the ACC than TCU. I would certainly prefer them to TCU. I guess I don't understand what you're saying about the PAC needing a lot more money and how would that impact where TCU goes? What would that change for the ACC? I'm guessing OU and KU to the B1G is part of this scenario. If not TCU, then who is the 16th full member of the ACC to couple with Baylor if Texas is a partial?

If I said, Texas Tech, Iowa State and Kansas State would you say "Hell yeah that will excite the PAC!"? You would have to group a fourth school with them. Who? Houston? New Mexico? Nevada? They would need a lot of money in order to go with that plan because they would need a reason to explain it to themselves.

If you give them TCU though, then then get the bragging right of not being the conference that had to take in the G5 school. Someone is going to have to, the math doesn't lie.

The Big Ten's push into the Beltway was about as successful as it possibly could have been considering all the circumstances. For the ACC, getting West Virginia helps counter that.

As I previously considered WVU a lock for the SEC, that changes things. What State do you think the SEC wants into more than any other State that they do not have in their footprint? You know what I am getting at and you know whom that means. You also know that your own school would hate that.

That is why I say TCU to the PAC is a 50/50 proposition. To be honest though, I lean towards it being more likely than not. How much would the ACC be willing to give to keep the SEC out of North Carolina AND to see the LHN rolled into an ACC Network? ESPN would probably be very happy with the ACC for inviting UConn to the party huh?


The point is, there are still movable pieces. TCU is one of those but the cost of losing them to the PAC is worth what is gained by finalizing the Big Picture.