(07-06-2022 07:37 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It makes a lot of sense that ESPN would be pushing this. For some reason ESPN tried to help The American raid The Big 12. The world wide leader doesn’t see much value in The Big 12 apparently.

That's because the Big 12 is a Fox commodity now, and likely CBS as well. The Big 12 has been practically Fox exclusive since Texas and OU announced their departure, that's why the ESPN head who did an interview a few weeks back didn't mention the Big 12 but Fox head Eric Shanks mentioned the Big 12 as a premier partner someone they wanted to work with going forward after it announced the hire of Brett Yormark.

(07-11-2022 02:20 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 07:37 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It makes a lot of sense that ESPN would be pushing this. For some reason ESPN tried to help The American raid The Big 12. The world wide leader doesn’t see much value in The Big 12 apparently.

That's because the Big 12 is a Fox commodity now, and likely CBS as well. The Big 12 has been practically Fox exclusive since Texas and OU announced their departure, that's why the ESPN head who did an interview a few weeks back didn't mention the Big 12 but Fox head Eric Shanks mentioned the Big 12 as a premier partner someone they wanted to work with going forward after it announced the hire of Brett Yormark.

So.... as ESPN is now making plans with the Pac10, would ESPN fund another raid of the B12? Seems to me the only way they wouldn't is if there are no properties west of the Mississippi river that ESPN wants to keep.

(07-08-2022 08:51 AM)jtwvu87 Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 07:51 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Breakout of the proposed plan:

The Pac-12 hoped to roughly double its media rights fees to $500 million annually from the current $250 million a year. Then USC/UCLA left. I think ESPN would love to keep their content with BIG12 on ESPN+ and not much more. So I believe that the Pac coudl get to the 500M-800M mark by going with ESPN for Tier 1, 2, & 3 rights and signing a GOR. It may be split 12-14 ways when all said and done. I think ESPN is givning the PAC12 their best PITCH, I hope they listen. Here is what I see happening:

Create new content in Las Vegas and market as a "champions bowl or KO game " between ACC & Pac-12. Do the same in MBB & WBB. Then allow ESPN to bid and retian all rights and sign a GOR through 2036 like the ACC. PAC Network would cease to exist. Here is what I have:

Tier 1 Rights to ESPN w/extra content and posible extra teams (San Diego State, UNLV, BOISE ST??): 500M {ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU)
-- This is huge becuase ESPN would have SEC, ACC, PAC, so we will seee Oregon, Stanford and Washington do OOC games with Alabama, Notre Dame, Florida so by going with ESPN they get OOC games with SEC, ACC, ND. "win-win" Welcome to the Family PAC!

Tier 2 & 3 Rights to ESPN: 150M-300M games to be shown on ACCN, ESPN would then sublicense some Tier 3 games to Bally RSN much like they do with the ACC.

So the PAC could be looking at a deal anywhere from 650M to 800M and become property of the ESPN family along side the SEC and ACC! this deal will keep PAC relevant moving forward. The question becomes what if the PAC says NO, does ESPN walk away or do they just bid on some rights? What does CBS and FOX do? Going to be interesting!

Not that I have any special knowledge, but I don't see $500M-$800M. They were only valued at $500M with USC and UCLA.

You are correct that 500M was with USC and UCLA, and was for Tier 1 rights only. my tally is for Tier 1 through Tier 3 rights and is basically cancels the PAC Network which has only made each school 9M total since 2018 and has cost each school a min of 10M in production facilities. I think with San Diego, Las Vegas, Fresno, and Boise (or any combo) added 650M for all three Tier rights. However it will be with ESPN only as FOX seems to be in with the BIG12 and there is a Cold war going on between FOX and ESPN.

Also that deal is with "loose partnership" with the ACC with new content of games also, as the PAC games will be shown on the ACCN and the PAC will fill out Friday Night and PAC after dark games on ESPN.

Lets say the PAC gets 650M and expand to 14 schools. they would get 46.4M, not to shabby, but not the same as if they stay at 10 it 65M, obvoiusly without San Diego or Las Vegas they probably do not get 650M. it sprobaly 450M. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.

(07-08-2022 09:20 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 08:14 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  How doe this help the ACC?

I have seen projections that the ACC will top out at $50-60M, this new aggreement allows the ACC to create money through Subscriber Fees through current carriage agreements. Since ESPN & ACC split the profits from the ACC Network you can add money by carrying Tier 2 & 3 Pac games along with MBB/WBB games. Lets say the West Coast has 40 million subscribers. Lets say 20 million are in PAC markets (probably more). The going rate is $1/subscriber per month. So that's $240million/year that cable companies will pay ESPN. How much of that will ESPN funnel to the ACC? Half? 120 million? Roughly $10 million/team? Now what if you add San Diego, Las Vegas and others via expansion? all of sudden the ACC is making 20-30 M on top of Full distribution numbers that we will see on the 2023 ACC Tax Return, or basically we could see the ACC per team going from 50-60M to 70-80M with this new aggreement!

Lets be clear the PAC could also have an ESPN+ arrangement. So the ACC is not in the driver seat, but would benefit greatly from this new deal.

I do think there would be money in this for ACC schools, but not that much. Splitting the profits is the key, it isn't like the ACC network would start bringing in $1.00 from West coast cable vs. $.10 because the Golden State suddenly developed a burning desire to watch UVA swimming, FSU beach volleyball, or the Syracuse-Wagner football game. The Western cable money would only come because ESPN bought PAC content to show on the ACC Network, so I think the cost of that investment would have to be removed before determining and splitting up the profits from the move.

So with USC/UCLA heading to the BIG10, we see that the PAC12 are scrambling and ESPN sees this as a time get the PAC on board with ESPN and lock them up. ESPN tried to help the pac with thier network and Larry Scott said NO also the PAC has been quit difficult in years past. I believe ESPN sees the PAC as valuable and is the time to get Tier1-Tier 3 rights.

Look at what is going on the next few years:
2022: BIG10 new media contract cycle
2024: SEC new ESPN Contract beigns thru 2034
2024: The Pac-12 begins a new media contract cycle
2025: The Big 12 begins a new media contract cycle
2025: Notre Dame’s last year under the current NBC contract
2026: The first season on an expanded CFP
2026: ACC next contract "look-in"

ESPN will have Tier 2 rights of the BIG10, SEC and ACC locked up, all they need is the West Coast PAC12 and their lineup is set. they have just lost Boise State and BYU to FOX/CBSSN.

Can the PAC leave ESPN and go FOX/CBS? Maybe, but I bet ESPN can offer the most Money, FOX alreay has the MTN WEST to go with the BIG10, and BIG12 brand.. The Pac-12 could hunker down with 10 or expand membership to create bulk. (If that’s the case, one option seems obvious. They might conclude that San Diego State is too good to pass up)

Based solely on the number of large media markets within its footprint, the Pac-12 has an advantage over the Big 12 even without USC and UCLA, particularly if it were to add San Diego State. That is why ESPN will pay 500M or more for all three Tier rights.

— Number of Pac-12 markets with at least one million homes in 2021, per Nielsen DMAs (with national ranking):

No. 6 Bay Area - 2.6M homes
No. 11 Phoenix - 2.1M homes
No. 12 Seattle - 2.0M homes
No. 16 Denver - 1.7M homes
No. 21 Portland - 1.3M homes
No. 27 San Diego - 1.1M homes
No. 30 Salt Lake City - 1.1M homes

If they added UNLV or the Las Vegas market (it is under 1M at 833K) they come in at #40 you have a great media market to sell to ESPN and With regard to Fresno State, Central Valley is home to 6.5 million people — it’s the equivalent of Seattle and Portland combined — and a good portion of them are Bulldogs fans.

Lets compare that to the BIG12— Number of Big12 markets with at least one million homes (with national ranking):

No. 5 Dallas - 2.9M homes
No. 8 Houston - 2.5M homes
No. 17 Orlando - 1.7M homes
No. 30 Salt Lake City - 1.1M homes

So you can see why ESPN wants all of the PAC and it is not even close. (ESPN has 100% SEC, 100% ACC and they want 100% PAC)

So why would the ACC Partner with ESPN? Well the ACC wants to increase the bottomline between know and 2026. The PAC Network is not making any money. So if ESPN pays for all three rights they need a place to put tier 2 games. I am 100% positive that the boat has sailed with ESPN wanting to help the the PAC Network after the PAC snubbed them in 2018. However it does make sense that the ACC Network would jump with ESPN on the chance to add ACCN in-footprint subscriber fees from out-of-footprint per-subscriber fees. You are correct I may be wrong on the ACC rate of .10 to 1.00 but lets look at what the SEC gets according to Sports Business Journal, the channel's rate card is at $1.40 per subscriber per month within the SEC's 11-state footprint and $0.25 per month outside of it. According to awfulannouncing.com, the BIG10 channel's rate card is at $1.50 per subscriber per month within the footprint and $0.10 per month outside of it. (https://twitter.com/colecubelic/status/1...twork.html)

So lets look at how USC & UCLA helps the BTN, and that’s key to their adding USC and UCLA, who play in the second-largest designated media market in the U.S. (as per Nielsen’s 2021-22 DMA rankings, the LA DMA’s estimated 5,735,230 TV homes was second only to NYC’s 7,452,620).

So a way to calculate a conservative UCLA-USC LA market impact for the BIG10 Network is as follows: keep the in-footprint and out-of-footprint fee estimates at $1.50 and $0.10, assume that BTN will receive a similar percentage of penetration in LA as it does nationally (54.3/122.4=42.7 percent), and assume that that 42.7 percent all already had BTN at the out-of-market price (so going from $0.10 to $1.50). That gives 42.7 percent home penetration * 5.73 million homes = 2.45 million homes, which multiplied by $1.40 is $3.43 million extra per month, or $41.16 million extra per year. I say this is conservative becuase I can see the whole state of california demanding BIG10 Network becuase UCLA-USC will be on the BIG10 Network.

So how can the PAC12 on the ACC Network help the ACC. Well ESPN & ACCN share profits 50/50. However ESPN will front the cost of the Tier1-Tier3 rights. ESPN may or may not sublicense PAc tier 3 rights to BALLy RSN, they could start a ESPN+ network and maybe produce the sam income that the PACN brought them. But for the ACCN. Having Tier2 games on the ACCN and taking the .10 subscriber fee from out of footprint rate to the 1.00 in foot print rate will add a ton of money, not to mention the extra advertising dollars that will come to the network. Can you imagine if the ACCN took the entire PAC10 Market (not counting San Diego & Las Vegas) 11.9M homes and were able to get 50 percent to watch or subscribe at the in footprint rate that would be 5.95M homes at an incerease of .90 cents. which woud be 5.35M in monthly revenue for an annual payout of 64.26M that would before new advertisement dollars and is really a conservative estimate I have heard it may be as high as 75-80% of that number and I can see that ESPN may charge 1.50 rate for that same content. SO I think it is a no brainer for the ACC to allow ESPN to put PAC12 games on that network. The real number from the impact may well be higher. ACCN becomes more attractive carry in the entire states of California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Utah, Colorado when they carry PAC12 content, and some of those entre states could certainly wind up as in-footprint ACCN as well.

However it is not going to make the 15 ACC schools a ton of money we are talking 1-10M increase after profits are split with ESPN and the member schools. However if you are the ACC and you can't renegotiate your TV contract until the next look-in which is 2026, getting an extra 5-10M on top of your current media payout certianly doesn't hurt.

Let's assume that Notre Dame holds steady and the ACC GoR is going to stick and no one is leaving the ACC until the 2030s. Let's also assume that the Pac decides to stay together, at least through their next media contract. At that point, I guess a partnership between the Pac and ACC is the the next best option. I think the part about it that makes me the most uneasy would be the thought of the ACCN changing names to something else. I really don't like that idea. I think it serves us best for it to remain the ACC Network and not something else like ESPNU2 or whatever else you can come up with. Maybe you could go with the ACC - Pac-12 Network, but I think that takes away from it being the home of the ACC. Who knows. Perhaps the Pac would agree to just have the games be on there and it remain the ACCN. I'm not sure I would if I were them, but maybe. CUSA had a very brief stay on the NFL Network, but that is a little different than one collegiate conference being on another's network.

However it turns out, I don't want to see the ACC lose any exposure on the network that they already have. Meaning, the Noon, 3:30, and 7:?? timeslots need to remain dedicated to ACC controlled games and the Pac simply takes on a new 10:?? timeslot. The only exception could be if the Pac is shown on the 3:30 or 7:?? timeslots in a home game against the ACC, as part of a cross conference matchup.

Just some thoughts in my head.

(07-12-2022 11:46 AM)Schema Wrote:  Let's assume that Notre Dame holds steady and the ACC GoR is going to stick and no one is leaving the ACC until the 2030s. Let's also assume that the Pac decides to stay together, at least through their next media contract. At that point, I guess a partnership between the Pac and ACC is the the next best option. I think the part about it that makes me the most uneasy would be the thought of the ACCN changing names to something else. I really don't like that idea. I think it serves us best for it to remain the ACC Network and not something else like ESPNU2 or whatever else you can come up with. Maybe you could go with the ACC - Pac-12 Network, but I think that takes away from it being the home of the ACC. Who knows. Perhaps the Pac would agree to just have the games be on there and it remain the ACCN. I'm not sure I would if I were them, but maybe. CUSA had a very brief stay on the NFL Network, but that is a little different than one collegiate conference being on another's network.

However it turns out, I don't want to see the ACC lose any exposure on the network that they already have. Meaning, the Noon, 3:30, and 7:?? timeslots need to remain dedicated to ACC controlled games and the Pac simply takes on a new 10:?? timeslot. The only exception could be if the Pac is shown on the 3:30 or 7:?? timeslots in a home game against the ACC, as part of a cross conference matchup.

Just some thoughts in my head.

I could see ACC PAC branding. But I would assume there would be regional feeds for key time slots. I would hope the partnership would also include a ACC/PAC challenge. Maybe 7PM could feature some of those games?

(07-12-2022 12:14 PM)swardy76 Wrote:  

(07-12-2022 11:46 AM)Schema Wrote:  Let's assume that Notre Dame holds steady and the ACC GoR is going to stick and no one is leaving the ACC until the 2030s. Let's also assume that the Pac decides to stay together, at least through their next media contract. At that point, I guess a partnership between the Pac and ACC is the the next best option. I think the part about it that makes me the most uneasy would be the thought of the ACCN changing names to something else. I really don't like that idea. I think it serves us best for it to remain the ACC Network and not something else like ESPNU2 or whatever else you can come up with. Maybe you could go with the ACC - Pac-12 Network, but I think that takes away from it being the home of the ACC. Who knows. Perhaps the Pac would agree to just have the games be on there and it remain the ACCN. I'm not sure I would if I were them, but maybe. CUSA had a very brief stay on the NFL Network, but that is a little different than one collegiate conference being on another's network.

However it turns out, I don't want to see the ACC lose any exposure on the network that they already have. Meaning, the Noon, 3:30, and 7:?? timeslots need to remain dedicated to ACC controlled games and the Pac simply takes on a new 10:?? timeslot. The only exception could be if the Pac is shown on the 3:30 or 7:?? timeslots in a home game against the ACC, as part of a cross conference matchup.

Just some thoughts in my head.

I could see ACC PAC branding. But I would assume there would be regional feeds for key time slots. I would hope the partnership would also include a ACC/PAC challenge. Maybe 7PM could feature some of those games?

How about this?

(07-12-2022 12:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  How about this?

Sure. I'm fine with the late night timeslot having some type of branding that includes the Pac. I just don't like the idea of the entire network being renamed. Of course, we have no idea what Disney has in mind if this were to become an actual thing.

(07-12-2022 01:02 PM)Schema Wrote:  

(07-12-2022 12:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  How about this?

Sure. I'm fine with the late night timeslot having some type of branding that includes the Pac. I just don't like the idea of the entire network being renamed. Of course, we have no idea what Disney has in mind if this were to become an actual thing.

Disney is about to have the LHN spot with no programming to put on it. It would make sense if ESPN slid the PAC12 over into that spot.

Just add a lowercase p lol

pACCN

The PAC should add Texas Tech and OKie State and call it a day.

(07-12-2022 01:02 PM)Schema Wrote:  

(07-12-2022 12:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  How about this?

Sure. I'm fine with the late night timeslot having some type of branding that includes the Pac. I just don't like the idea of the entire network being renamed. Of course, we have no idea what Disney has in mind if this were to become an actual thing.

I think the most economical way is to keep the ACCN name and contents except for the west coast states where Pac schools are located at. For those states, either the ACCN is renamed as PACN (by ESPN) permanently or on a temporary basis wheneven Pac games are on that channel.

(07-12-2022 02:57 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Disney is about to have the LHN spot with no programming to put on it. It would make sense if ESPN slid the PAC12 over into that spot.

So, this got me thinking. Perhaps someone has already suggested this, so I apologize if so.

Let's say this happens and the LHN is rebranded as the new ESPN owned Pac-12 Network. Then, let's say the Pac decides to stay together and a partnership is formed between the ACC and the Pac. During football season, the ACC Network would give ACC schools exclusive access to the Noon, 3:30, and 7:?? timeslots. The Pac would use the 10:?? timeslot on the ACCN. Then, the Pac-12 Network would give Pac schools exclusive access to the 3:30, 7:??, and 10:?? timeslots. The ACC would use the Noon timeslot on the PACN. Both networks would have four timeslots in use each Saturday. You could carry this concept over to other sports as well. However, there would be more flexibility with the afternoon and evening timeslots depending on the volume of games each conference has on a given day.

Disney could charge the highest rate for the PACN in states within the Pac footprint, a reduced rate for the states within the ACC footprint, and the lowest rate in all other states. Additionally, they could charge the highest rate for the ACCN in states within the ACC footprint, a reduced rate for the states within the Pac footprint, and the lowest rate in all other states. This means each state within the Pac footprint AND ACC footprint would pay the highest rate for one network and medium rate for the other.

Just more thoughts in my head.

(07-12-2022 05:41 PM)Schema Wrote:  

(07-12-2022 02:57 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Disney is about to have the LHN spot with no programming to put on it. It would make sense if ESPN slid the PAC12 over into that spot.

So, this got me thinking. Perhaps someone has already suggested this, so I apologize if so.

Let's say this happens and the LHN is rebranded as the new ESPN owned Pac-12 Network. Then, let's say the Pac decides to stay together and a partnership is formed between the ACC and the Pac. During football season, the ACC Network would give ACC schools exclusive access to the Noon, 3:30, and 7:?? timeslots. The Pac would use the 10:?? timeslot on the ACCN. Then, the Pac-12 Network would give Pac schools exclusive access to the 3:30, 7:??, and 10:?? timeslots. The ACC would use the Noon timeslot on the PACN. Both networks would have four timeslots in use each Saturday. You could carry this concept over to other sports as well. However, there would be more flexibility with the afternoon and evening timeslots depending on the volume of games each conference has on a given day.

Disney could charge the highest rate for the PACN in states within the Pac footprint, a reduced rate for the states within the ACC footprint, and the lowest rate in all other states. Additionally, they could charge the highest rate for the ACCN in states within the ACC footprint, a reduced rate for the states within the Pac footprint, and the lowest rate in all other states. This means each state within the Pac footprint AND ACC footprint would pay the highest rate for one network and medium rate for the other.

Just more thoughts in my head.

I like it! I just hope someone at ESPN has thought of it...

(07-06-2022 07:33 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I just posted this on the Louisville 247 board.

The more I read of it, the more I like it.

If there is anything history has taught us re: realignment: You just don't ever turn an ESPN offer down and survive.