What should we expect from the ESPN "look in" in 2017?

(07-22-2015 07:41 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  What should we expect from the ESPN "look in" in 2017?

I bet that is tied into the network

Lumber, overall revenue means nothing... Gotta look at per team distribution.

(07-22-2015 07:46 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 07:41 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  What should we expect from the ESPN "look in" in 2017?

I bet that is tied into the network

Lumber, overall revenue means nothing... Gotta look at per team distribution.

It was a fluke that the B12 kept a 12 team contract amount at 10 teams. That's my point. If WF and NC State left, I doubt the ACC would lose a dime and therefore others would make more.

As to the "look-in" it's supposed to be $2 million for no network plus whatever is agreed to by the parties. Essentially it's happy money to keep FSU, and Clemson happy. If the network does not materialize, I would expect about $3 million a team to be added in 2017/18 above and beyond the current network ratchet.

ESPN has to pay the ACC enough to keep FSU's complaints manageable. As a whole we are not worth the SEC or B10 but $3 million more a team would be near $45 million a year more.

While ESPN owned almost all content, it sold some cheap to Raycom, who then sublet some to FOX. Even though there is a contract, ESPN has to keep the following happy and in order:

1. FSU (They complain the most, but have the best football)
2. UNC (They have direct access to John Skipper, and have a huge ego)
3. ND (They have the most freedom - the girl with the richest rather)
4. Clemson (Usually a big picture player but they have a lot football upside, but they are spatially squeezed in their market by UGA, GT, Tenn, SC, and Auburn.
5. VT/UVa (ESPN can't lose Virginia, VT carries Football, and UVA basketball)
7. Duke (A brand ESPN needs)
8. Miami/Syracuse (Areas ESPN wants)
10. GT (An odd duck with ESPN)

ESPN doesn't really need to worry about keeping BC, WF, NC State, or Pitt very happy - lot's of reasons

(07-22-2015 09:43 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 07:25 AM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  If he's using 14-15 and has the B-12 ahead of the ACC then he's off his chalk. The ACC had a really good tourney (not as many teams as we need to regularly get but still), while the B-12 flamed out rather spectacularly....

You know NCAAT money is a 6-year running total, right? The ACC hadn't done that great the last several years in the NCAAT.

Well, but that will be picking up here. As stated, while we didn't get as many teams in as we should average in future, what teams were in performed strongly. It will be the ACC & B-10 at the top of the tourney-moneys heap for a long time to come-- No Doubt!

Money doesn't buy a team wins.

(07-22-2015 12:03 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I think we can all agree the ACC is in fifth place right now. But I agree this Forbes guy does poor work on this subject in general.

Yes. And truly the only reason why the ACC is 5th place is because the SEC chose the B12 as its "Champions Bowl" partner and not the ACC.

If they had chosen the ACC, the ACC would be a solid third. The OB would be a NYD Event Bowl, and the Cotton would likely be like the OB is now in the new set-up.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-24-2015 12:18 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 12:03 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I think we can all agree the ACC is in fifth place right now. But I agree this Forbes guy does poor work on this subject in general.

Yes. And truly the only reason why the ACC is 5th place is because the SEC chose the B12 as its "Champions Bowl" partner and not the ACC.

If they had chosen the ACC, the ACC would be a solid third. The OB would be a NYD Event Bowl, and the Cotton would likely be like the OB is now in the new set-up.

Cheers,
Neil

Err, not exactly... the Sugar/Orange Bowl difference translates into only about $800k per team per year. It's really the length and value of the original ESPN TV contract which locked the ACC into 5th place.

(07-24-2015 10:57 AM)ClemVegas Wrote:  Money doesn't buy a team wins.

Maybe not, but it does buy you a top 10 - top 20 ranking every year....

(07-24-2015 12:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:18 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 12:03 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I think we can all agree the ACC is in fifth place right now. But I agree this Forbes guy does poor work on this subject in general.

Yes. And truly the only reason why the ACC is 5th place is because the SEC chose the B12 as its "Champions Bowl" partner and not the ACC.

If they had chosen the ACC, the ACC would be a solid third. The OB would be a NYD Event Bowl, and the Cotton would likely be like the OB is now in the new set-up.

Cheers,
Neil

Err, not exactly... the Sugar/Orange Bowl difference translates into only about $800k per team per year. It's really the length and value of the original ESPN TV contract which locked the ACC into 5th place.

Err, not exactly correct. If the ACC was getting $40 million a year when the Sugar wasn't in the CFP, that is roughly 2.85M per team for 14 teams. So yes, that is roughly just under 900K more per team from what they minimally get now in the OB deal.

However, it doesn't appear you are factoring in that the B12 lose 1.25M per school in said deal. This results in $2M more for each ACC school over the B12.

And that difference alone makes up the TV contract difference between the two conferences.

Not to mention the perception difference versus the actual $$$.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-24-2015 12:29 PM)Otacon Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 10:57 AM)ClemVegas Wrote:  Money doesn't buy a team wins.

Maybe not, but it does buy you a top 10 - top 20 ranking every year....

Ask Florida, Tenn, SC, KY, Vandy, etc about that. Ask Texas, Michigan, USC about it.

So how do the Divisions compare regarding value? I know the contracts aren't broke down that way so let's simplify it. Since the conference networks seem to be a point of focus, let's assign a $1 value for every cable customer in each division regardless of current deals. Let's keep it simple on the content side as well and only look at Football National Championships, men's Basketball National Championships, and overall National Championships.

How does the SEC east and west divisions compare to the ACC coastal and atlantic?
What about the B1G and Pac12 divisions?

(07-24-2015 12:48 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:18 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 12:03 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I think we can all agree the ACC is in fifth place right now. But I agree this Forbes guy does poor work on this subject in general.

Yes. And truly the only reason why the ACC is 5th place is because the SEC chose the B12 as its "Champions Bowl" partner and not the ACC.

If they had chosen the ACC, the ACC would be a solid third. The OB would be a NYD Event Bowl, and the Cotton would likely be like the OB is now in the new set-up.

Cheers,
Neil

Err, not exactly... the Sugar/Orange Bowl difference translates into only about $800k per team per year. It's really the length and value of the original ESPN TV contract which locked the ACC into 5th place.

Err, not exactly correct. If the ACC was getting $40 million a year when the Sugar wasn't in the CFP, that is roughly 2.85M per team for 14 teams. So yes, that is roughly just under 900K more per team from what they minimally get now in the OB deal.

However, it doesn't appear you are factoring in that the B12 lose 1.25M per school in said deal. This results in $2M more for each ACC school over the B12.

And that difference alone makes up the TV contract difference between the two conferences.

Not to mention the perception difference versus the actual $$$.

Cheers,
Neil

Oops, you forgot to subtract the value of the Orange Bowl (unless you assume the ACC would get BOTH the Sugar Bowl AND Orange Bowl payouts?). Also, you need to divide by 15...

Thus, ($40M - $27.5M)/15 = $0.833M = $833,000 per team

(07-24-2015 02:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:48 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:18 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 12:03 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I think we can all agree the ACC is in fifth place right now. But I agree this Forbes guy does poor work on this subject in general.

Yes. And truly the only reason why the ACC is 5th place is because the SEC chose the B12 as its "Champions Bowl" partner and not the ACC.

If they had chosen the ACC, the ACC would be a solid third. The OB would be a NYD Event Bowl, and the Cotton would likely be like the OB is now in the new set-up.

Cheers,
Neil

Err, not exactly... the Sugar/Orange Bowl difference translates into only about $800k per team per year. It's really the length and value of the original ESPN TV contract which locked the ACC into 5th place.

Err, not exactly correct. If the ACC was getting $40 million a year when the Sugar wasn't in the CFP, that is roughly 2.85M per team for 14 teams. So yes, that is roughly just under 900K more per team from what they minimally get now in the OB deal.

However, it doesn't appear you are factoring in that the B12 lose 1.25M per school in said deal. This results in $2M more for each ACC school over the B12.

And that difference alone makes up the TV contract difference between the two conferences.

Not to mention the perception difference versus the actual $$$.

Cheers,
Neil

Oops, you forgot to subtract the value of the Orange Bowl (unless you assume the ACC would get BOTH the Sugar Bowl AND Orange Bowl payouts?). Also, you need to divide by 15...

Thus, ($40M - $27.5M)/15 = $0.833M = $833,000 per team

You're right that I didn't divide by 15 anymore than I divide by 11 for the B12 or 15 for the Big Ten or SEC for a conference share.

But the overall point, in case you missed it (since you appeared to me to get stuck on this 800K vs 900K mathematics thing) is the $2M difference instead of nearly 900K per team (mentioned singularly in my post). The extra $2M is the difference between what each ACC team would now be getting in comparison with the B12 had the ACC been the SEC's Sugar Bowl partner instead of the B12 and had the B12 had to settle for a Cotton Bowl deal like the ACC's current OB deal.

After all, part of what the article is focused on is comparing what each conference makes and then distributes to its members. So in the scenario presented, the ACC would be ahead of the B12 and equal or ahead of the PAC due to NCAA credits distribution, which I didn't go into, making the ACC a solid third in both actual $$$ and in terms of perception.

Capiche?

Cheers,
Neil

(07-24-2015 12:54 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:29 PM)Otacon Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 10:57 AM)ClemVegas Wrote:  Money doesn't buy a team wins.

Maybe not, but it does buy you a top 10 - top 20 ranking every year....

Ask Florida, Tenn, SC, KY, Vandy, etc about that. Ask Texas, Michigan, USC about it.

You do know Florida, USC, Texas, and Tenn have won national titles in football over the last 15 years.......no other team in the ACC outside of FSU has during that time.


Money matters....just silly folks even try to argue this point.

(07-26-2015 07:58 PM)nole Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:54 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:29 PM)Otacon Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 10:57 AM)ClemVegas Wrote:  Money doesn't buy a team wins.

Maybe not, but it does buy you a top 10 - top 20 ranking every year....

Ask Florida, Tenn, SC, KY, Vandy, etc about that. Ask Texas, Michigan, USC about it.

You do know Florida, USC, Texas, and Tenn have won national titles in football over the last 15 years.......no other team in the ACC outside of FSU has during that time.


Money matters....just silly folks even try to argue this point.

Going back the last 35 years, the National Champion usually came from a school with a huge stadium - the exceptions are BYU in 1984, GT and Colorado in 1990, Washington's half in 1991, You can make a case that despite having the large Orange Bowl, Miami rarely sold out even when winning so that's 83, 87, 88, and 2001.

Outside of Miami, the school with the smallest stadium to win the NCAA title in the last 25 is Florida State. Put another way the title has been won by a school that had an average of 90K seats with the exception of Miami and FSU for 20 of the last 23 years.

The average SEC schools has a 80K seat football stadium. The five to win a NC over the last 20 years have an average of 97K. That translates into an average $12 million advantage over the other SEC schools. In the B10 the disparity is greater. They average 72K a stadium but their national championship winning schools (even expansions) have an average 102K, translating into an average advantage over the other conference schools of $21 million.

Money does matter, but the money that matters most is the money generated by the football stadium. TV money within a conference is a wash.

(07-26-2015 11:10 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 02:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:48 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:18 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Yes. And truly the only reason why the ACC is 5th place is because the SEC chose the B12 as its "Champions Bowl" partner and not the ACC.

If they had chosen the ACC, the ACC would be a solid third. The OB would be a NYD Event Bowl, and the Cotton would likely be like the OB is now in the new set-up.

Cheers,
Neil

Err, not exactly... the Sugar/Orange Bowl difference translates into only about $800k per team per year. It's really the length and value of the original ESPN TV contract which locked the ACC into 5th place.

Err, not exactly correct. If the ACC was getting $40 million a year when the Sugar wasn't in the CFP, that is roughly 2.85M per team for 14 teams. So yes, that is roughly just under 900K more per team from what they minimally get now in the OB deal.

However, it doesn't appear you are factoring in that the B12 lose 1.25M per school in said deal. This results in $2M more for each ACC school over the B12.

And that difference alone makes up the TV contract difference between the two conferences.

Not to mention the perception difference versus the actual $$$.

Cheers,
Neil

Oops, you forgot to subtract the value of the Orange Bowl (unless you assume the ACC would get BOTH the Sugar Bowl AND Orange Bowl payouts?). Also, you need to divide by 15...

Thus, ($40M - $27.5M)/15 = $0.833M = $833,000 per team

You're right that I didn't divide by 15 anymore than I divide by 11 for the B12 or 15 for the Big Ten or SEC for a conference share.

But the overall point, in case you missed it (since you appeared to me to get stuck on this 800K vs 900K mathematics thing) is the $2M difference instead of nearly 900K per team (mentioned singularly in my post). The extra $2M is the difference between what each ACC team would now be getting in comparison with the B12 had the ACC been the SEC's Sugar Bowl partner instead of the B12 and had the B12 had to settle for a Cotton Bowl deal like the ACC's current OB deal.

After all, part of what the article is focused on is comparing what each conference makes and then distributes to its members. So in the scenario presented, the ACC would be ahead of the B12 and equal or ahead of the PAC due to NCAA credits distribution, which I didn't go into, making the ACC a solid third in both actual $$$ and in terms of perception.

Capiche?

Cheers,
Neil

So let me get this straight (and I'll use 10 and 14 teams for divisors)...

Currently ACC Big XII Diff
Contract 27.5M 40.0M
per team 1.96M 4.00M 2.04M
Swapped 40.00M 27.5M
per team 2.86M 2.75M -0.11M

So you're saying that the SWING would be just over $2 million/team?

(07-26-2015 07:58 PM)nole Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:54 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:29 PM)Otacon Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 10:57 AM)ClemVegas Wrote:  Money doesn't buy a team wins.

Maybe not, but it does buy you a top 10 - top 20 ranking every year....

Ask Florida, Tenn, SC, KY, Vandy, etc about that. Ask Texas, Michigan, USC about it.

You do know Florida, USC, Texas, and Tenn have won national titles in football over the last 15 years.......no other team in the ACC outside of FSU has during that time.


Money matters....just silly folks even try to argue this point.

i know money matters to silly people like you. It is literally all you and others talk abou ton here. You don't talk about football or much of anything else. Obsessed with how much money conferences make, even though you won't ever see any of it yourself. It is depressing.

One power confernence will have to be 5th in revenue. I can live with ACC being fifth.