(07-28-2023 07:04 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-28-2023 06:57 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(07-28-2023 06:51 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-28-2023 04:40 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 07:49 PM)esayem Wrote:  Read much?

The ACC has a pro-rata clause that was established years ago and the ACC pays more than the Big XII with the opportunity to further increase payouts due to subs in new states.

Who said what now about a hole?

You obviously don't. Big 12 distributions have consistently been better than the ACC. Now, a lot of reliable sources have said the ACC will be a little higher going forward. But we still haven't seen that in distributions.

You’re better than this. Obviously I’m not looking at the past Big XII payouts with their two soon to be gone heavyweights.

You should be, as the Big 12's new deal is basically just a continuance of the old deal, not unlike what the ACC has done a couple times. The big difference is the increasing revenues of the ACCN.

As for the insult? Why? Bullet and I have a lot of disagreements I'll admit, but he's simply stating facts here while you're appealing to emotion instead of reason with snide comments and poorly-sourced claims. And for what? So that you can claim to be a very weak 3a instead of a very strong 3b? You're better than this. Wait, maybe you're not.

Texas and Oklahoma are not in the conference and I’m talking about the future. Do you honestly believe they wouldn’t get more with them in the fold?

And please don’t play Lone Ranger here, nobody is insulted. Leave that to the mods

If Texas and OU were still around, the Big 12 would be closer to SEC and Big 10 payouts than to the ACC which is still stuck in that old deal.

(07-29-2023 04:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-28-2023 06:51 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-28-2023 04:40 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 07:49 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 03:10 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  They were dumb because Colorado didn't have a TV deal so there was always a risk of Colorado leaving.

ESPN has the ACC tied up into a high-margin TV deal until 2036 so why would they want to change that? Please explain...

The ACC-PAC merger died with ESPN's Big 12 P5 pro-rata clause. Now go climb back into your little hole.

Read much?

The ACC has a pro-rata clause that was established years ago and the ACC pays more than the Big XII with the opportunity to further increase payouts due to subs in new states.

Who said what now about a hole?

You obviously don't. Big 12 distributions have consistently been better than the ACC. Now, a lot of reliable sources have said the ACC will be a little higher going forward. But we still haven't seen that in distributions.

You’re better than this. Obviously I’m not looking at the past Big XII payouts with their two soon to be gone heavyweights.

You DO understand that the Big 12 will be making MORE under their new contract than under their old?

Yes, and I also understand inflation and the value of college football contracts generally increasing.

(07-28-2023 07:00 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-28-2023 04:46 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(07-28-2023 01:23 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-28-2023 12:44 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(07-28-2023 12:18 PM)esayem Wrote:  The Big XII projections are lower than the ACC, this has been beat to death. Commissioner Phillips just talked about the ACC being third in revenue from here on out.

The ACC can invite Pac teams and under contract ESPN will pay them pro-rata. The new states bring new subs and increase the payout from the ACCN.

There is no evidence the ACC is interested in Cincinnati and they studied WVU recently.

Big 12 CCG had 2.5x the viewers of the ACC CCG last year. The participants?

ACC: UNC vs Clemson - 3.4m viewers
Big 12: TCU vs K St - 9.4m viewers

Let's examine this again. TCU VS KSTATE had nearly 3x the viewers of UNC-Clemson in a CCG. And the previous ACC CCG had under 3m viewers, it actually had fewer viewers than the AAC CCG in 2021. 2 of the alleged top draws in the ACC were dominated in CCG ratings by a game between a Mid-tier Big 12 school and probably the 2nd worst Brand in the entire Big 12. This does not bode well ACC revenues post-2036, if anything it makes ESPN's huge investment in the ACC look like a significant overpay. I guess the only potentially good news is that the P2 aren't very likely to be salivating over ACC schools after seeing the numbers from 2022 (and 2021 wasn't great, either).

The ACC game didn't have playoff implications. Come on man, use some nuance.

Also, that had absolutely nothing to do with the facts I presented.

For 2 years in a row though? The Big 12 had 4 different teams in their CCG over a 2 year period and their ratings were consistently high. The ACC had horrid ratings. I think that is quite indicative of a problem for the ACC. Perhaps not for ESPN, as they've hedged their bets between the SEC/ACC/Big 12, and in an average year they'll mostly get good ratings between the 3. But if they're going to get ~ 23m viewers per year between the 3, you'd really like to have more than 3.4m of those.

FYI, the AAC CCG had no impact on the CFP last year. How in the world were their ratings so close to the ACC's CCG?

Let's see how it looks for 2023. Maybe the ACC pulls 10m viewers this year and all is right in the world, but if recent trends are indicative of future trends, we might be looking at a 3rd year in a row of AAC-like ratings.

What I wrote has a lot of bearing on the value of the ACC. If they can't get more than 3m viewers for the CCG, regardless of who's in it, but especially if it has UNC and Clemson, then it's really hard to see how they're getting underpaid on their current media rights deal.

Tell me VaTech, FSU, and Miami have underperformed without telling me.

Maybe you should total more than two years, idk seems like an extremely small sample size and neither of those years were impactful on the playoff picture.

When was the last time that the B1G, SEC or even Big 12 CCG had 1/3 the viewers of 3 other conferences. Then find the last time it happened 2 years in a row. That sort of thing happens to the Pac in bad years, but even the Pac nearly doubled up the ACC last year. I'm interested to see how the ACC CCG does this year; if it's another 3m stinker, I wonder when we start expressing sympathy for ESPN because they're stuck with that terrible ACC deal.

(07-29-2023 05:04 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-29-2023 04:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-28-2023 06:51 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-28-2023 04:40 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 07:49 PM)esayem Wrote:  Read much?

The ACC has a pro-rata clause that was established years ago and the ACC pays more than the Big XII with the opportunity to further increase payouts due to subs in new states.

Who said what now about a hole?

You obviously don't. Big 12 distributions have consistently been better than the ACC. Now, a lot of reliable sources have said the ACC will be a little higher going forward. But we still haven't seen that in distributions.

You’re better than this. Obviously I’m not looking at the past Big XII payouts with their two soon to be gone heavyweights.

You DO understand that the Big 12 will be making MORE under their new contract than under their old?

Yes, and I also understand inflation and the value of college football contracts generally increasing.

And yet you can't understand why the anemic TV ratings of the ACC CCG the past couple of years could be a cause for concern in certain circles.

(07-28-2023 12:44 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(07-28-2023 12:18 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-28-2023 10:11 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 07:49 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 03:10 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  They were dumb because Colorado didn't have a TV deal so there was always a risk of Colorado leaving.

ESPN has the ACC tied up into a high-margin TV deal until 2036 so why would they want to change that? Please explain...

The ACC-PAC merger died with ESPN's Big 12 P5 pro-rata clause. Now go climb back into your little hole.

Read much?

The ACC has a pro-rata clause that was established years ago and the ACC pays more than the Big XII with the opportunity to further increase payouts due to subs in new states.

Who said what now about a hole?

The Big 12 earned more revenue per school than the ACC last fiscal year so not sure where you are getting that from. The new Big 12 contract will be paying the Big 12 schools even more money so the ACC and Big 12 will have similar payouts depending on CFP/Tourney distributions going forward. In 2031 there is a chance for the Big 12 to further increase their TV contract depending on what the landscape looks like. The ACC also has an additional 5 years on their GOR, something that Washington and Oregon would not be interested in when the next B1G TV deal will be negotiated in 2029.

The ACC is in a pickle where the teams that would agree to the GOR wouldn't have the votes to get into the ACC because Clemson, FSU, and Miami at a minimum are all looking to get out of the ACC as soon as possible, not add teams completely outside of the footprint. Teams within the ACC footprint like Cincy and WVU won't be interested in joining a conference that will likely be raided in 2036.

The ACC will not add any PAC teams simply because ESPN has no desire to pay more for a per-team addition and if they do I will happily eat crow.

The Big XII projections are lower than the ACC, this has been beat to death. Commissioner Phillips just talked about the ACC being third in revenue from here on out.

The ACC can invite Pac teams and under contract ESPN will pay them pro-rata. The new states bring new subs and increase the payout from the ACCN.

There is no evidence the ACC is interested in Cincinnati and they studied WVU recently.

Big 12 CCG had 2.5x the viewers of the ACC CCG last year. The participants?

ACC: UNC vs Clemson - 3.4m viewers
Big 12: TCU vs K St - 9.4m viewers

Let's examine this again. TCU VS KSTATE had nearly 3x the viewers of UNC-Clemson in a CCG. And the previous ACC CCG had under 3m viewers, it actually had fewer viewers than the AAC CCG in 2021. 2 of the alleged top draws in the ACC were dominated in CCG ratings by a game between a Mid-tier Big 12 school and probably the 2nd worst Brand in the entire Big 12. This does not bode well ACC revenues post-2036, if anything it makes ESPN's huge investment in the ACC look like a significant overpay. I guess the only potentially good news is that the P2 aren't very likely to be salivating over ACC schools after seeing the numbers from 2022 (and 2021 wasn't great, either).

I'm going back here, because this is the post you quoted me on initially. Then you claimed I'm making arguments not based on facts, but irrational passion. Let's reexamine that because you seem to be gaslighting the audience.

I stated facts and you've continually tried to rope me into some irrelevant to the topic CCG argument. I could care less and ESPN could care less because they have 12+ years to pay the conference. They didn't create a CONFERENCE NETWORK for a football title game.

(07-27-2023 02:05 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  ESPN would make more from the expansion of the ACC network


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the current teams stay in the ACC and the PAC. I do not believe that would happen. With the current landscape of money in reallignment, FSU, Clemson, Miami, Washington, and Oregon are not wanting to stay at that monertary place they would be located. So no GOR in the ACC or Big 12 for UW or Oregon.

(07-29-2023 09:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-28-2023 12:44 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(07-28-2023 12:18 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-28-2023 10:11 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 07:49 PM)esayem Wrote:  Read much?

The ACC has a pro-rata clause that was established years ago and the ACC pays more than the Big XII with the opportunity to further increase payouts due to subs in new states.

Who said what now about a hole?

The Big 12 earned more revenue per school than the ACC last fiscal year so not sure where you are getting that from. The new Big 12 contract will be paying the Big 12 schools even more money so the ACC and Big 12 will have similar payouts depending on CFP/Tourney distributions going forward. In 2031 there is a chance for the Big 12 to further increase their TV contract depending on what the landscape looks like. The ACC also has an additional 5 years on their GOR, something that Washington and Oregon would not be interested in when the next B1G TV deal will be negotiated in 2029.

The ACC is in a pickle where the teams that would agree to the GOR wouldn't have the votes to get into the ACC because Clemson, FSU, and Miami at a minimum are all looking to get out of the ACC as soon as possible, not add teams completely outside of the footprint. Teams within the ACC footprint like Cincy and WVU won't be interested in joining a conference that will likely be raided in 2036.

The ACC will not add any PAC teams simply because ESPN has no desire to pay more for a per-team addition and if they do I will happily eat crow.

The Big XII projections are lower than the ACC, this has been beat to death. Commissioner Phillips just talked about the ACC being third in revenue from here on out.

The ACC can invite Pac teams and under contract ESPN will pay them pro-rata. The new states bring new subs and increase the payout from the ACCN.

There is no evidence the ACC is interested in Cincinnati and they studied WVU recently.

Big 12 CCG had 2.5x the viewers of the ACC CCG last year. The participants?

ACC: UNC vs Clemson - 3.4m viewers
Big 12: TCU vs K St - 9.4m viewers

Let's examine this again. TCU VS KSTATE had nearly 3x the viewers of UNC-Clemson in a CCG. And the previous ACC CCG had under 3m viewers, it actually had fewer viewers than the AAC CCG in 2021. 2 of the alleged top draws in the ACC were dominated in CCG ratings by a game between a Mid-tier Big 12 school and probably the 2nd worst Brand in the entire Big 12. This does not bode well ACC revenues post-2036, if anything it makes ESPN's huge investment in the ACC look like a significant overpay. I guess the only potentially good news is that the P2 aren't very likely to be salivating over ACC schools after seeing the numbers from 2022 (and 2021 wasn't great, either).

I'm going back here, because this is the post you quoted me on initially. Then you claimed I'm making arguments not based on facts, but irrational passion. Let's reexamine that because you seem to be gaslighting the audience.

I stated facts and you've continually tried to rope me into some irrelevant to the topic CCG argument. I could care less and ESPN could care less because they have 12+ years to pay the conference. They didn't create a CONFERENCE NETWORK for a football title game.

You're absolutely right, ESPN doesn't care at all how many people watch ACC games.

(07-30-2023 12:32 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  You're absolutely right, ESPN doesn't care at all how many people watch ACC games.

Let's put it this way, it doesn't affect the existing contract either way and has no bearing on the facts I shared.

ESPN was most likely consulted on getting rid of divisions and primary partners, so of course they do care. My point was CCG viewership doesn't have anything to do with the existing deal.

Any addition of PAC teams would have to have a benefit to ESPN. There would have to be some marketing synergy. Since we haven't seen much interaction between the PAC and the ACC there is limited data to draw from.
There has been the Sun bowl match up, but.............
Last year's Holiday bowl finished with about 4 Million viewers (good for 10th place in all bowl games).
https://fightingirishwire.usatoday.com/l...f-2022-23/

If adding PAC schools to the ACC makes sense to ESPN, then I would imagine the ACC Presidents would seriously consider it.

(07-30-2023 08:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  Any addition of PAC teams would have to have a benefit to ESPN. There would have to be some marketing synergy. Since we haven't seen much interaction between the PAC and the ACC there is limited data to draw from.
There has been the Sun bowl match up, but.............
Last year's Holiday bowl finished with about 4 Million viewers (good for 10th place in all bowl games).
https://fightingirishwire.usatoday.com/l...f-2022-23/

If adding PAC schools to the ACC makes sense to ESPN, then I would imagine the ACC Presidents would seriously consider it.

It has been considered and was discarded earlier in the year. I imagine the remaining Pac is trying harder now. Although I really don't see Oregon and Washington tying themselves into the ACC GOR shackles.

(07-28-2023 12:18 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-28-2023 10:11 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 07:49 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 03:10 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(07-27-2023 03:04 PM)esayem Wrote:  Hater alert

What about all the people that said “if CU was gonna leave, they would have already!”

They were dumb because Colorado didn't have a TV deal so there was always a risk of Colorado leaving.

ESPN has the ACC tied up into a high-margin TV deal until 2036 so why would they want to change that? Please explain...

The ACC-PAC merger died with ESPN's Big 12 P5 pro-rata clause. Now go climb back into your little hole.

Read much?

The ACC has a pro-rata clause that was established years ago and the ACC pays more than the Big XII with the opportunity to further increase payouts due to subs in new states.

Who said what now about a hole?

The Big 12 earned more revenue per school than the ACC last fiscal year so not sure where you are getting that from. The new Big 12 contract will be paying the Big 12 schools even more money so the ACC and Big 12 will have similar payouts depending on CFP/Tourney distributions going forward. In 2031 there is a chance for the Big 12 to further increase their TV contract depending on what the landscape looks like. The ACC also has an additional 5 years on their GOR, something that Washington and Oregon would not be interested in when the next B1G TV deal will be negotiated in 2029.

The ACC is in a pickle where the teams that would agree to the GOR wouldn't have the votes to get into the ACC because Clemson, FSU, and Miami at a minimum are all looking to get out of the ACC as soon as possible, not add teams completely outside of the footprint. Teams within the ACC footprint like Cincy and WVU won't be interested in joining a conference that will likely be raided in 2036.

The ACC will not add any PAC teams simply because ESPN has no desire to pay more for a per-team addition and if they do I will happily eat crow.

The Big XII projections are lower than the ACC, this has been beat to death. Commissioner Phillips just talked about the ACC being third in revenue from here on out.

The ACC can invite Pac teams and under contract ESPN will pay them pro-rata. The new states bring new subs and increase the payout from the ACCN.

There is no evidence the ACC is interested in Cincinnati and they studied WVU recently.

The money the ACC receives per school, is not enough to justify a school flying from the PNW to a school out east. Sorry, the ACC is not taking any PAC schools unless that money increases to B1G or SEC levels.

I said that the ACC should've considered adding the 4C and Cal+Stan (didn't believe Oregon and Washington should join the ACC). At this point with CU gone, I think it's the 5 remaining + SMU/SDSU for 20/21, but if AZ joins the B12, then pursue ASU, Cal, Stan, and Utah and maybe a non-football member for 18/20 (especially if the B12 stops at 14, I don't think they do).

If the PAC holds firm and rebounds to 10 teams (regardless of if AZ leaves or not), then my recommendation is a scheduling partnership in football with 9 PACC games:
- ND plays 5 ACC games + alternating Cal/Stan (6 games)
- 9 PAC teams not playing ND play 9 ACC teams not playing ND
- PACC matchups determined by TV partners
If the 4C schools all leave for the B12, then I think this idea burns up in flames as I don't think ACC schools want to play CSU, SDSU, SMU, and UNLV/Tulane, but I could be wrong.