(04-25-2024 10:33 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 07:37 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 05:34 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 04:09 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 12:56 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  On the contrary—Florida St and Clemson are effectively the ACC’s T1 rights.

Of 13 regular season ACC Home games aired on ABC:

8 involved Florida St or Clemson
2 were ACC schools hosting ND
2 were ACC schools hosting SEC schools
and the other one was NC St vs UNC on Black Friday filling a time slot

Currently, yes. But do we need to go back to when the deal was first signed circa 2012 and see if your statement is always true? Or is it because those programs have been at the top of the performance heap recently? If they're gone, it's next-man-up. From 2018-2021, FSU had four losing records and only won 13/32 conference games. I can't imagine they dominated the T1 games. In fact, I forgot they were in the league!

(04-25-2024 12:56 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If ESPN kills the current deal and then renegotiates with an ACC that lacks those 2 programs, they will get that contract at a much lower rate than they are paying currently. The ACC’s T1 tv value would primarily rest in OOC games w/ ND and the SEC. The ACC programs are not the big draw. Clemson and Florida St are getting those slots because ESPN judges them to be the programs that will outperform the rest in the ratings. If Pitt, or VT, or Louisville were going to be big draws, they’d be in those slots. As it stands now, ESPN looks at even the best games for the other ACC schools as T2

You need to give up the idea of ESPN "killing" the deal, and I've already spelled it out each school would maybe only suffer $5m/year loss from the general media payout if it were renegotiated based on the concept Clemson and FSU = 24% of the value. This isn't even factoring in the exit penalties and GOR fees that the conference would receive from the traitors.

ESPN is starting with an under market contract, and I believe it's still under market after they leave. Some people simply don't grasp how little ESPN is actually paying the ACC to begin with and why the ACCN is such a monetary winner for ESPN and the conference.

So you want ESPN to pay T1 prices for T2 games? That’s what your argument boils down to and if I’m the Mouse, it’s a hard pass. It’s a lipstick on a pig proposal.

You forget that if Clemson and Florida St leave the ACC the ACC makes a pile of cash. ESPN is left on the hook for paying the ACC the same amount for a package that no longer includes their 2 flagship football brands—vastly overpaying T1 rates for what is ostensibly T2 content. Why would they want to do that when they could decline to renew the existing deal, wait for Clemson and Florida St to leave and then re-ink a deal that more accurately reflects the value of the new ACC?

I’m not ceding anything. If the ACC is going to be down it’s two best brands, and these lawsuits make it clear that they want to leave, it’s ludicrous to keep the existing contract.

Do you even know what ESPN pays for the ACC's T1 rights?

Let's start there.

I don't. Do I have to go to ACC HQ to find out?

Since ESPN owned the ACC's complete rights inventory (T1/T2/T3(after Raycom)) it will take detailed analysis of the contract to determine their T1. Failing that it would be the number of games from the ACC aired in prime time on any OTA network. In this case ABC. Then you can at least determine what % of all games for the ACC were T1.

Based on the NFL draft this year, maybe this is all about having enough money to pay NIL to QBs, Receivers, Offensive Tackles and Edge Rushers.
Top 21-6 QBs, 6 OTs (8 total 1st round), 4 Receivers (7 total 1st round), 4 Edge rushers, 1 Defensive tackle (Murphy of Texas).

(04-25-2024 12:56 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-24-2024 05:44 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-24-2024 04:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-24-2024 03:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-24-2024 03:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The ACCN makes money—wouldn’t call it a boatload. It can continue to make ESPN money too but ESPN can maximize their profits by “refinancing” while the market is in their favor.

Again, you’re fixating on the fact that ESPN is getting a good deal and ignoring the fact that they could get a better one.

I estimate that the ACCN is making ESPN about $200 Million per year.

And since ACCN profits are based on subscriber fees, they can lose Clemson and Florida St, add USF and UConn, and still earn $200M/yr will drastically reducing expenditures for T1 and T2 rights for the league.

I’m not obtuse. I understand the accounting here.

Fallacy #1: assuming that the ACC T1 contract is worth less than what ESPN is paying now. That contract was negotiated in 2010, and has been extended twice, with the option to extend it again -- all for a mere 4.5% increase per year. True, there were a few years in there when inflation was below 4.5%, but media rights, by-and-large, have grown a lot faster than that. So a reasonable person would conclude that the ACC T1 rights are undervalued - perhaps by a lot.

Fallacy #2: confusing the impact of schools vs. tv networks when it comes to tv ratings. Yes, FSU and Clemson got the best ratings last year. They were also in the best tv slots. How much were they helped - and Miami, VT, Pitt, etc. were hurt - by that simple fact? Some of FSU's and Clemson's appeal was being on ABC, winning the ACC. When/if they leave, some other team will be on ABC, winning the ACC, maybe even going undefeated.

On the contrary—Florida St and Clemson are effectively the ACC’s T1 rights.

Of 13 regular season ACC Home games aired on ABC:

8 involved Florida St or Clemson
2 were ACC schools hosting ND
2 were ACC schools hosting SEC schools
and the other one was NC St vs UNC on Black Friday filling a time slot

If ESPN kills the current deal and then renegotiates with an ACC that lacks those 2 programs, they will get that contract at a much lower rate than they are paying currently. The ACC’s T1 tv value would primarily rest in OOC games w/ ND and the SEC. The ACC programs are not the big draw. Clemson and Florida St are getting those slots because ESPN judges them to be the programs that will outperform the rest in the ratings. If Pitt, or VT, or Louisville were going to be big draws, they’d be in those slots. As it stands now, ESPN looks at even the best games for the other ACC schools as T2

Louisville has got good timeslots before. I believe they are a team to watch.

VT is suffering what FSU went through post-Bobby Bowden, IMO. Frank Beamer, a coaching legend, completely revolutionized VT. However, one bad hire, and VT hit the skids, IMO. VT needs to tap back into the Tidewater region of Virginia once again, and that would help out a lot, IMHO.
As for Pitt, I'm honestly not sure what could be done for them in football. It would seem, though not a certainty, that Pitt's best years in football are behind them, IMO. I really don't know why that is. Notre Dame has a natural affinity for Pitt though.
You didn't mention Miami, but I will. Miami has been racking its brain on how to return to greatness. To their credit, they have not given up, although they have went through several misfires. Mario Cristobal could be part of the answer, but I believe the other part of the equation is getting a stadium much closer to campus!!! Hard to believe that my former market manager's son is one of the team's best qb prospects, but he is.

UNC is a mystery to me, but I will give them credit for going back to Mack Brown. I think mqybe UNC wants to try to figure out what went wrong in Mack Brown I, by bringing back Mack Brown for Mack Brown 2. FWIW, NC State is also a mystery.

(04-25-2024 10:33 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 07:37 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 05:34 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 04:09 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 12:56 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  On the contrary—Florida St and Clemson are effectively the ACC’s T1 rights.

Of 13 regular season ACC Home games aired on ABC:

8 involved Florida St or Clemson
2 were ACC schools hosting ND
2 were ACC schools hosting SEC schools
and the other one was NC St vs UNC on Black Friday filling a time slot

Currently, yes. But do we need to go back to when the deal was first signed circa 2012 and see if your statement is always true? Or is it because those programs have been at the top of the performance heap recently? If they're gone, it's next-man-up. From 2018-2021, FSU had four losing records and only won 13/32 conference games. I can't imagine they dominated the T1 games. In fact, I forgot they were in the league!

(04-25-2024 12:56 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If ESPN kills the current deal and then renegotiates with an ACC that lacks those 2 programs, they will get that contract at a much lower rate than they are paying currently. The ACC’s T1 tv value would primarily rest in OOC games w/ ND and the SEC. The ACC programs are not the big draw. Clemson and Florida St are getting those slots because ESPN judges them to be the programs that will outperform the rest in the ratings. If Pitt, or VT, or Louisville were going to be big draws, they’d be in those slots. As it stands now, ESPN looks at even the best games for the other ACC schools as T2

You need to give up the idea of ESPN "killing" the deal, and I've already spelled it out each school would maybe only suffer $5m/year loss from the general media payout if it were renegotiated based on the concept Clemson and FSU = 24% of the value. This isn't even factoring in the exit penalties and GOR fees that the conference would receive from the traitors.

ESPN is starting with an under market contract, and I believe it's still under market after they leave. Some people simply don't grasp how little ESPN is actually paying the ACC to begin with and why the ACCN is such a monetary winner for ESPN and the conference.

So you want ESPN to pay T1 prices for T2 games? That’s what your argument boils down to and if I’m the Mouse, it’s a hard pass. It’s a lipstick on a pig proposal.

You forget that if Clemson and Florida St leave the ACC the ACC makes a pile of cash. ESPN is left on the hook for paying the ACC the same amount for a package that no longer includes their 2 flagship football brands—vastly overpaying T1 rates for what is ostensibly T2 content. Why would they want to do that when they could decline to renew the existing deal, wait for Clemson and Florida St to leave and then re-ink a deal that more accurately reflects the value of the new ACC?

I’m not ceding anything. If the ACC is going to be down it’s two best brands, and these lawsuits make it clear that they want to leave, it’s ludicrous to keep the existing contract.

Do you even know what ESPN pays for the ACC's T1 rights?

Let's start there.

I don't. Do I have to go to ACC HQ to find out?

(04-25-2024 11:07 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 12:56 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-24-2024 05:44 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-24-2024 04:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-24-2024 03:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  I estimate that the ACCN is making ESPN about $200 Million per year.

And since ACCN profits are based on subscriber fees, they can lose Clemson and Florida St, add USF and UConn, and still earn $200M/yr will drastically reducing expenditures for T1 and T2 rights for the league.

I’m not obtuse. I understand the accounting here.

Fallacy #1: assuming that the ACC T1 contract is worth less than what ESPN is paying now. That contract was negotiated in 2010, and has been extended twice, with the option to extend it again -- all for a mere 4.5% increase per year. True, there were a few years in there when inflation was below 4.5%, but media rights, by-and-large, have grown a lot faster than that. So a reasonable person would conclude that the ACC T1 rights are undervalued - perhaps by a lot.

Fallacy #2: confusing the impact of schools vs. tv networks when it comes to tv ratings. Yes, FSU and Clemson got the best ratings last year. They were also in the best tv slots. How much were they helped - and Miami, VT, Pitt, etc. were hurt - by that simple fact? Some of FSU's and Clemson's appeal was being on ABC, winning the ACC. When/if they leave, some other team will be on ABC, winning the ACC, maybe even going undefeated.

On the contrary—Florida St and Clemson are effectively the ACC’s T1 rights.

Of 13 regular season ACC Home games aired on ABC:

8 involved Florida St or Clemson
2 were ACC schools hosting ND
2 were ACC schools hosting SEC schools
and the other one was NC St vs UNC on Black Friday filling a time slot

If ESPN kills the current deal and then renegotiates with an ACC that lacks those 2 programs, they will get that contract at a much lower rate than they are paying currently. The ACC’s T1 tv value would primarily rest in OOC games w/ ND and the SEC. The ACC programs are not the big draw. Clemson and Florida St are getting those slots because ESPN judges them to be the programs that will outperform the rest in the ratings. If Pitt, or VT, or Louisville were going to be big draws, they’d be in those slots. As it stands now, ESPN looks at even the best games for the other ACC schools as T2

Louisville has got good timeslots before. I believe they are a team to watch.

VT is suffering what FSU went through post-Bobby Bowden, IMO. Frank Beamer, a coaching legend, completely revolutionized VT. However, one bad hire, and VT hit the skids, IMO. VT needs to tap back into the Tidewater region of Virginia once again, and that would help out a lot, IMHO.
As for Pitt, I'm honestly not sure what could be done for them in football. It would seem, though not a certainty, that Pitt's best years in football are behind them, IMO. I really don't know why that is. Notre Dame has a natural affinity for Pitt though.
You didn't mention Miami, but I will. Miami has been racking its brain on how to return to greatness. To their credit, they have not given up, although they have went through several misfires. Mario Cristobal could be part of the answer, but I believe the other part of the equation is getting a stadium much closer to campus!!! Hard to believe that my former market manager's son is one of the team's best qb prospects, but he is.

UNC is a mystery to me, but I will give them credit for going back to Mack Brown. I think mqybe UNC wants to try to figure out what went wrong in Mack Brown I, by bringing back Mack Brown for Mack Brown 2. FWIW, NC State is also a mystery.

Frank Beamer was able to be successful because Bill Dooley had provided a foundation from which Beamer was able to build on.

(04-25-2024 10:33 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 07:37 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 05:34 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 04:09 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 12:56 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  On the contrary—Florida St and Clemson are effectively the ACC’s T1 rights.

Of 13 regular season ACC Home games aired on ABC:

8 involved Florida St or Clemson
2 were ACC schools hosting ND
2 were ACC schools hosting SEC schools
and the other one was NC St vs UNC on Black Friday filling a time slot

Currently, yes. But do we need to go back to when the deal was first signed circa 2012 and see if your statement is always true? Or is it because those programs have been at the top of the performance heap recently? If they're gone, it's next-man-up. From 2018-2021, FSU had four losing records and only won 13/32 conference games. I can't imagine they dominated the T1 games. In fact, I forgot they were in the league!

(04-25-2024 12:56 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If ESPN kills the current deal and then renegotiates with an ACC that lacks those 2 programs, they will get that contract at a much lower rate than they are paying currently. The ACC’s T1 tv value would primarily rest in OOC games w/ ND and the SEC. The ACC programs are not the big draw. Clemson and Florida St are getting those slots because ESPN judges them to be the programs that will outperform the rest in the ratings. If Pitt, or VT, or Louisville were going to be big draws, they’d be in those slots. As it stands now, ESPN looks at even the best games for the other ACC schools as T2

You need to give up the idea of ESPN "killing" the deal, and I've already spelled it out each school would maybe only suffer $5m/year loss from the general media payout if it were renegotiated based on the concept Clemson and FSU = 24% of the value. This isn't even factoring in the exit penalties and GOR fees that the conference would receive from the traitors.

ESPN is starting with an under market contract, and I believe it's still under market after they leave. Some people simply don't grasp how little ESPN is actually paying the ACC to begin with and why the ACCN is such a monetary winner for ESPN and the conference.

So you want ESPN to pay T1 prices for T2 games? That’s what your argument boils down to and if I’m the Mouse, it’s a hard pass. It’s a lipstick on a pig proposal.

You forget that if Clemson and Florida St leave the ACC the ACC makes a pile of cash. ESPN is left on the hook for paying the ACC the same amount for a package that no longer includes their 2 flagship football brands—vastly overpaying T1 rates for what is ostensibly T2 content. Why would they want to do that when they could decline to renew the existing deal, wait for Clemson and Florida St to leave and then re-ink a deal that more accurately reflects the value of the new ACC?

I’m not ceding anything. If the ACC is going to be down it’s two best brands, and these lawsuits make it clear that they want to leave, it’s ludicrous to keep the existing contract.

Do you even know what ESPN pays for the ACC's T1 rights?

Let's start there.

I don't. Do I have to go to ACC HQ to find out?

In one sense, not anymore. Florida State publised that information in their lawsuit. If by "the ACC's T1 rights" you mean the ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPN-U football and basketbal games.

In another sense, nobody outside ESPN has that information, and that information may be subject to debate and change-over-time within ESPN, if you just mean the ABC football or ABC-and-ESPN=football part of the ESPN-ACC package. I don't think the contract values "Tier 1" and "Tier 2" separately, or defines how much of what is "Tier 1". (If Florida State plays Notre Dame on Labor Day on ESPN, that's a Tier 1 game by any reasonable definition)

Change-over-time: This is a long contract. It's very possible that if ESPN were negotiating that deal in 2014 or 2019 or 2024, you'd get different percentages-of-value between Tier 1 and Tier 2. The value of "credible but not spectacular games on ESPN2 and ESPN-U to reinforce our secondary channels" rose with the cable bundle, and is now dropping as the streaming future gets closer. The value of "college basketball inventory that fills a lot of hours with small but consistent audiences" changed over time.

ESPN's old philosophy of "buy it all and we'll figure out how to monetize and show it later" led to them signing long contracts for everythign they could get. That's changed or changing.

(04-25-2024 11:51 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  Here is a detail someone may be able to answer. Is the contract through 2036 with an ESPN option to drop in 2027. Or is the contract through 2027 with an option for ESPN to renew through 2036. In other words does ESPN do nothing, no announcement, no letter of intent to the ACC, if they plan to continue the contract. Or does ESPN have to do all that if they plan to continue? Conversely, should they plan to end the contract do they do nothing, or do they file with the ACC that intent? I've seen several people comment that if ESPN intended to extend then why haven't they already done that? Maybe it's because doing nothing is de facto renewing? Just wondering.

The contract is written through 2027, but ESPN has the option to extend through 2036