(05-21-2016 02:58 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Three games also had zero chance of happening.

Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. I have never said otherwise.

Five games a year is not "great" from ND's perspective. Too many games committed to a single conference.

Not too many ND fans are that thrilled with that deal. I understand that it was what was possible and necessary for the rest of the ACC deal to have happened.

That is why I have said that the five game deal is "ok" and "tolerable".

But, five games are far from "great". Zero games would be "great" from ND's perspective.

So, three would have been "better" for ND, possible or not.

I was merely saying that. Nothing more.

(05-21-2016 03:00 PM)green Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 08:38 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  ND earns less TV money from NBC than they would if ESPN had all their games.

April 19, 2013 NBC Sports Group announced a 10-year contract extension to televise Notre Dame football games, doubling the length of its previous agreement.

NBC and Notre Dame said the extension would begin in 2016 and run through the 2025 season. Terms were not disclosed, though the current five-year contract is reportedly worth an average of $15 million annually.

David Bank, a New York-based equity research analyst who specializes in sports rights fees for RBC Capital Markets, said the new contract probably will generate "meaningfully more" revenue for Notre Dame than the previous deal. He said he couldn't estimate how much more.
-- AP

DO YOU KNOW SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW

The rumors on the ND side (no disclosure since ND is private) is that the new deal is for $22-23 million a year for the ten year 2015-25 time period.

$15 million a year was for the older five year deal signed in 2008 for the 2010-15 time period.

(05-21-2016 04:01 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(05-21-2016 02:42 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-21-2016 09:00 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 08:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 12:14 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  You do realize that we are discussing what Brando said, right?

Yes, and some of you discuss what the Dude posts as well.

The op had this in his original post:

*Why Notre Dame could join the ACC for football (plus another school for No. 16)

This business of characterizing ND as not a member of the ACC is just stupid. It's one thing for media hacks to parrot that line as they vie for hits during the off season, but anyone here with more than three months on this site knows better.

You are really going to compare Brando to the Dude, someone of who has been in sports broadcasting for decades to a dweeb that posts random crap on Twitter & a blog? I think there's a huge disparity in credibility there. I'm not saying that I agree with Brando on this point but his opinion is worth a discussion.

What is untrue with the quote that you posted? ND is NOT a football member of the ACC. Louisville is not a women's LAX or gymnastics member of the ACC. Both are members of the ACC in other sports, like basketball.

The ND deal was great for the ACC & ND at the time. What's wrong with the ACC trying to entice them to join the ACC in football? In the current landscape it would be wise not to try to devalue football. The goal should be to make ACC football stronger, bringing ND in as a football member would do that.

You asked earlier what the ACC would get out of 3 more games. For starters the ACC gains far more than 3 more games. They add 8 ND games to the TV contract which adds a substantial value. They add value to the OB contract & other bowls as well. They would add value to the CCG as well. Do you really need to ask?

Len, ND is a member of the ACC just the same as you are or Clemson, or BC. Secondly that value you are talking about adding for three games has a cost - the $15 million annual payment NBC makes to ND for 7 games and the loss of 2.5 annual appearances on a nationwide, over the air broadcast for the ACC schools. They are already a participant in all of our bowl deals so that value is already monetized.

Now let's look at it from Louisville's, NC State's, WF's, and Syracuse's standpoint for a minute - suppose ND is placed in the Coastal and they play Pitt, VA, VT, Miami, Duke, UNC, and GT and rotate the other game - that means playing ND twice in sixteen years instead of playing them every three years as it is now. Do you think they want Louisville in their division?

What if the demands of 15/16 schools results in 9 conference games? Who does ND choose to drop between USC, Stanford, Navy, etc? Who does Clemson, FSU, and GT drop?

You are approaching adding three more conference games for ND as if they are no costs, no externalities, when they are legion.

For fun lets say the three extra games and all the other changes after paying ND for their lost NBC contract nets the league $30 million on an annual basis - that's just $1.85 million per share per year.

Of course ND is a member of the ACC, but not in football. They are aligned with the ACC in football, or maybe a partial member. They certainly aren't a full football independent. Technicalities in the details.

We are talking about more than 3 games. As of now the ACC only has the rights to the 2-3 ND games per year, when the ACC is the home team. Having ND in the ACC would add value to the TV package as all of ND conference & home games would be included. That would bring great value to our TV partner, ESPN. You don't think that it would be more valuable for ESPN to have the rights to all of ND conference & home games? That's just as valuable as having 2-3 games a year?

IF ND did join fully in football, I would expect them to be placed in the Coastal. It would be nice to have ND on our schedule often but it would be hard to miss someone that has only appeared on the schedule once. The benefits to the ACC would outweigh the disadvantages to the Atlantic division. A ND vs FSU CCG would be huge. There are also other scheduling alternatives that could resolve that problem & the issues surrounding a 16 team conference.

The extra conference games would be an advantage & a disadvantage for ND. Obviously their schedule would change & they would lose some rivals. As Brando stated though, they would have a more familiar schedule from year to year & that would make it easier for their coach as they wouldn't have to prepare for a different style of play from week to week. I'm not going to get into all of the advantages & disadvantages, ND knows what they are & have chosen to be independent. If that's what they want, good for them. At the end of the contract the ACC will have to decide if they still accept the advantages & disadvantages that ND brings.

As for the deal being great for ND, I was referring to their alternatives. Going with the C7 or joining a conference for football. I think they got the best of both worlds. That 5 games could have been 8 or 9. IMO, it's still a good deal for both.

ND had Deloss Dodds and the Big 12 on the fishing line for a partial Big 12 membership that ND used to parley the ACC into dropping its "not partial member" status.

So, if the ACC deal had not gone through, ND would have done a partial deal with Texas and the Big 12, not either full conference membership or a C7 league.

(05-21-2016 04:45 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-21-2016 03:00 PM)green Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 08:38 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  ND earns less TV money from NBC than they would if ESPN had all their games.

April 19, 2013 NBC Sports Group announced a 10-year contract extension to televise Notre Dame football games, doubling the length of its previous agreement.

NBC and Notre Dame said the extension would begin in 2016 and run through the 2025 season. Terms were not disclosed, though the current five-year contract is reportedly worth an average of $15 million annually.

David Bank, a New York-based equity research analyst who specializes in sports rights fees for RBC Capital Markets, said the new contract probably will generate "meaningfully more" revenue for Notre Dame than the previous deal. He said he couldn't estimate how much more.
-- AP

DO YOU KNOW SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW

The rumors on the ND side (no disclosure since ND is private) is that the new deal is for $22-23 million a year for the ten year 2015-25 time period.

$15 million a year was for the older five year deal signed in 2008 for the 2010-15 time period.

Both the SEC contract and this new NBC contract with ND illustrate "length of contract" = more $ per year. Crazy that the B1G rumors are the exact opposite.

Wonder what that means?

(05-21-2016 05:11 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(05-21-2016 04:45 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-21-2016 03:00 PM)green Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 08:38 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  ND earns less TV money from NBC than they would if ESPN had all their games.

April 19, 2013 NBC Sports Group announced a 10-year contract extension to televise Notre Dame football games, doubling the length of its previous agreement.

NBC and Notre Dame said the extension would begin in 2016 and run through the 2025 season. Terms were not disclosed, though the current five-year contract is reportedly worth an average of $15 million annually.

David Bank, a New York-based equity research analyst who specializes in sports rights fees for RBC Capital Markets, said the new contract probably will generate "meaningfully more" revenue for Notre Dame than the previous deal. He said he couldn't estimate how much more.
-- AP

DO YOU KNOW SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW

The rumors on the ND side (no disclosure since ND is private) is that the new deal is for $22-23 million a year for the ten year 2015-25 time period.

$15 million a year was for the older five year deal signed in 2008 for the 2010-15 time period.

Both the SEC contract and this new NBC contract with ND illustrate "length of contract" = more $ per year. Crazy that the B1G rumors are the exact opposite.

Wonder what that means?

Sometimes $22-23 million a year is just that, but usually it's an average over a term so for ND that would be roughly:

2016 - $18 M going up a million a year to $27 M by 2025 - that averages $22.5 Million. But it might not be that way.

In general the SEC and the B10 seem to announce future money like they are living a full accrual accounting world where you recognize a revenue as soon as you can point to (like Enron), whereas the ACC lives in a modified accrual world where revenue is recognized after it is received and in hand (the most conservative way to run a business).

No one seems to touch the local politics related to the revenue either. Some schools need to appear to be behind to raise revenue, while others want to broadcast revenue as a sign of health. The ACC approach tends to allow the individual schools to play it as they need to their individual audience.

(05-20-2016 11:01 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 10:54 AM)green Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 08:37 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 08:21 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Brando seems confident that ND will be all in in about 5 years.

He cites money will be the reason for us to join which if you know anything about us that won't decide it. If money was our driving force we would have joined the Big 10 15 yrs ago. Same recycled, tired, argument that I have heard as a fan for yrs, decades.

could be wrong ...
but I maintain that the forthcoming network will do the trick ...
less money & less minutes won't sit well with an administration contemptuous of lesser draws drawing bigger paychecks & bigger pay per views ...
if you don't see it ...

COOLER HEADS PREVAIL

I would tell you that you are right if you were right but you are wrong.

WE WILL NOT GO QUIETLY INTO THE NIGHT

http://collegespun.com/acc/syracuse/fs1s...ng-network

Sports Illustrated's Pete Thamel called the network “imminent.” FOX Sports 1′s Tim Brando, who also calls ACC basketball games for Raycom Sports, doesn’t quite believe that we’ll see an ACC Network all that soon, but he does think it is coming, and the lynchpin to a launch is Notre Dame joining as a full conference member. That, he believes, will happen.
-- collegespun.com

oh TerryD ...
the pipes are calling ...
what's it gonna be boy ...

YOU OR ME

(06-02-2016 12:55 PM)green Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 11:01 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 10:54 AM)green Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 08:37 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 08:21 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Brando seems confident that ND will be all in in about 5 years.

He cites money will be the reason for us to join which if you know anything about us that won't decide it. If money was our driving force we would have joined the Big 10 15 yrs ago. Same recycled, tired, argument that I have heard as a fan for yrs, decades.

could be wrong ...
but I maintain that the forthcoming network will do the trick ...
less money & less minutes won't sit well with an administration contemptuous of lesser draws drawing bigger paychecks & bigger pay per views ...
if you don't see it ...

COOLER HEADS PREVAIL

I would tell you that you are right if you were right but you are wrong.

WE WILL NOT GO QUIETLY INTO THE NIGHT

http://collegespun.com/acc/syracuse/fs1s...ng-network

Sports Illustrated's Pete Thamel called the network “imminent.” FOX Sports 1′s Tim Brando, who also calls ACC basketball games for Raycom Sports, doesn’t quite believe that we’ll see an ACC Network all that soon, but he does think it is coming, and the lynchpin to a launch is Notre Dame joining as a full conference member. That, he believes, will happen.
-- collegespun.com

oh TerryD ...
the pipes are calling ...
what's it gonna be boy ...

YOU OR ME

Thamel may have something. Brando is clueless.

ONE OUT OF TWO AIN'T BAD (paraphrasing Meatloaf)