Does anyone have any thoughts re timing of when the ESPN renegotiated contracts become completed and available?
The last word from Swofford I am aware of was no comment but he expects everyone will be happy.
(The early reports were of a relatively small ACC increase per team despite the increased inventory and adding 2 schools in large northeast states and despite the huge increased payouts to the PAC 12 and large increased payouts to the Big 12 (despite losing Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and A&M) subsequent to the ACC contract.)
Obviously, for the ACC, the stakes are high as can be seen in the wild speculation on this and on other boards (with one of the WVU boards being rumors central) essentially carving the ACC up among the Big 12, SEC and Big 10.
Any thoughts on the delay.
Any thoughts on the information blackout despite all the speculation.
The ACC presumably has an arbitration wildcard if the renegotiation is not satisfactory.
However, the ACC has a very long term contract with ESPN and the outcome of this renegotiation is important. If one believes the speculation, one would imagine the ACC's existence is at stake.
If there was a problem, would it not be likely that the ACC or its members would be spreading doomsday rumors of their own, or stories to reporters, to try to put some pressure on ESPN?
Should the ACC be doing something from a PR perspective to shape the debate which has gone on for some time?
Or does the silence perhaps indicate the details of a satisfactory renegotiation is being worked on?
In contrast to the ultimate insiders such as "the WV dude", no ACC insiders seem to be providing a positive counterspin.
Does that mean "doomsday" is approaching and "Catdaddy" and like minded fans will soon be joining their new colleagues at WVU in their new conference home with Iowa State, KSU, KU, Baylor, TCU, Tech, OSU and yes OK and UT?
Just speaking from the Clemson perspective IPTAY, Clemson's athletic fundraising arm, is watching with baited breath. We would like to maintain the status quo, but we will not be put in an impossible situation athletically compared to South Carolina and Georgia. A huge difference in conference paycheck would have as much effect as the difference between NCST and ECU right now, and we simply will not be put in that type situation. If the BigXII presents us a better chance of closing that gap than the ACC then that is where we will go, no if's, and's, or but's. We compete against South Carolina and Georgia, not UNC, NC State, etc.
While James Barker, our president, may tow the Swofford line that everything is fine but Barker doesn't pay the bills in the athletic department....IPTAY does. It might be a different situation if the ACC were like the B1G and had a real academic consortium, but they don't, and it ain't.
I expect the ACC to handle the TV re-negotiations just like they handled negotiations with Pittsburgh and Syracuse - specifically, you won't about them until they are done.
As for the length of the contract being a problem, keep in mind that the SEC contract is basically the same length as the ACC, so they are going through the exact same process (only one year sooner).
As for WVU fans, they are convinced that adding TCU and WVU to the Big 12 makes it a more valuable commodity than it was before losing Texas A&M and Missouri. I wouldn't hang of every word coming from WVU fans if I were you...
Any WVU fan that tells you adding TCU and WVU to the Big Texas XII makes it a more valuable commodity than Texas A&M and Missouri is a fan who's mental state should be questioned prior to voting for any elected official.
You might -- might -- be able to equate WVU to Missouri. But really, in terms of TV market value, the Big XII will miss St. Louis and Kansas City being in their footprint. WVU doesn't bring one metro that can match that, and the one possible metro area that could have provided some exposure has a school that'll be playing in the ACC in a couple of years -- PITT. I'll be "blessed" -- John Swofford really did pull of a genius of a move. I digress.
Anyone who tells you that TCU makes up for the loss of Texas A&M needs a revelation for the good Lord.
WVU fan will tell us anything to make themselves feel good, however, just know that if the ACC cracked the door open to flirt with WVU as a full-fledged member, the Mountaineer brass would jump up and down saying "Me, me!!!" like Missouri did when the B1G expaned in 2011.
(04-20-2012 04:41 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]I expect the ACC to handle the TV re-negotiations just like they handled negotiations with Pittsburgh and Syracuse - specifically, you won't about them until they are done.
As for the length of the contract being a problem, keep in mind that the SEC contract is basically the same length as the ACC, so they are going through the exact same process (only one year sooner).
As for WVU fans, they are convinced that adding TCU and WVU to the Big 12 makes it a more valuable commodity than it was before losing Texas A&M and Missouri. I wouldn't hang of every word coming from WVU fans if I were you...
True...I love things like: "The Presidents are all on a gag order, but this is what I heard is going to happen....B12 is grabbing Team X,Y,Z from the ACC, who then will grab Teams A,B,C...basically It will be the Big 4 and the ACC will be the New Big East." Of course those teams are all ones which would cripple the ACC and soothe the butt hurt in the hollers of WV.
(04-20-2012 08:18 AM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ] (04-20-2012 04:41 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]I expect the ACC to handle the TV re-negotiations just like they handled negotiations with Pittsburgh and Syracuse - specifically, you won't about them until they are done.
As for the length of the contract being a problem, keep in mind that the SEC contract is basically the same length as the ACC, so they are going through the exact same process (only one year sooner).
As for WVU fans, they are convinced that adding TCU and WVU to the Big 12 makes it a more valuable commodity than it was before losing Texas A&M and Missouri. I wouldn't hang of every word coming from WVU fans if I were you...
True...I love things like: "The Presidents are all on a gag order, but this is what I heard is going to happen....B12 is grabbing Team X,Y,Z from the ACC, who then will grab Teams A,B,C...basically It will be the Big 4 and the ACC will be the New Big East." Of course those teams are all ones which would cripple the ACC and soothe the butt hurt in the hollers of WV.
I actually feel like this is when suddenly the ACC ends up adding Big 12 schools. Anytime the Big 12 or Big East are supposedly raiding a bigger fish (often the ACC) the opposite happens. Granted other than Texas and maybe Oklahoma, I'm not sure who over there the ACC would have an interest in.
(04-20-2012 04:41 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]As for WVU fans, they are convinced that adding TCU and WVU to the Big 12 makes it a more valuable commodity than it was before losing Texas A&M and Missouri. I wouldn't hang of every word coming from WVU fans if I were you...
You're looking at it the wrong way. Who cares if the Big 12 with TCU/WVU or TAMU/UM is worth more? It doesn't matter.
What matters is if the Big 12 is worth more than the ACC, and if so, by how much. That's it. The ACC is already worth less than every other major conference and can't catch up unless ESPN doubles how much they're willing to pay for close to the same product ONE year into the new deal.
(04-20-2012 10:48 AM)brista21 Wrote: [ -> ]I actually feel like this is when suddenly the ACC ends up adding Big 12 schools. Anytime the Big 12 or Big East are supposedly raiding a bigger fish (often the ACC) the opposite happens. Granted other than Texas and maybe Oklahoma, I'm not sure who over there the ACC would have an interest in.
Texas to the Atlantic, Notre Dame to the Coastal.
(04-20-2012 11:33 AM)JustAnotherName Wrote: [ -> ]You're looking at it the wrong way. Who cares if the Big 12 with TCU/WVU or TAMU/UM is worth more? It doesn't matter.
What matters is if the Big 12 is worth more than the ACC, and if so, by how much. That's it. The ACC is already worth less than every other major conference and can't catch up unless ESPN doubles how much they're willing to pay for close to the same product ONE year into the new deal.
True, but make no mistake... outside of Texas and Oklahoma, the ACC
is worth more than the Big-12. ESPN doesn't care about championships or even wins & losses - all they care about is TV ratings (which is where the ACC wins: #2 in basketball, #3 in football).
As for the TV contract - if the ACC office is smart (and hey, they did hire consultants this time!), they will focus on 2 things: 1) the current market value of BCS football games, and 2) the inventory being added by not only adding 2 teams but also 1 more conference game per year and 2 to 3 more years. (please see
What the ACC can do - TV Contract for a detailed analysis).
Q: Will the ACC get at least $16.5 to $19 million per team?
A: We'll just have to wait and see.
(04-19-2012 11:28 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote: [ -> ]Just speaking from the Clemson perspective IPTAY, Clemson's athletic fundraising arm, is watching with baited breath. We would like to maintain the status quo, but we will not be put in an impossible situation athletically compared to South Carolina and Georgia. A huge difference in conference paycheck would have as much effect as the difference between NCST and ECU right now, and we simply will not be put in that type situation. If the BigXII presents us a better chance of closing that gap than the ACC then that is where we will go, no if's, and's, or but's. We compete against South Carolina and Georgia, not UNC, NC State, etc.
While James Barker, our president, may tow the Swofford line that everything is fine but Barker doesn't pay the bills in the athletic department....IPTAY does. It might be a different situation if the ACC were like the B1G and had a real academic consortium, but they don't, and it ain't.
This TV deal is very important for the survival of the ACC. I see your point of who Clemson is competing with and the conference can't fall much further behind. As much as it pains me to say, the ACC would not be nearly as good without Clemson.
(04-20-2012 12:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ] (04-20-2012 11:33 AM)JustAnotherName Wrote: [ -> ]You're looking at it the wrong way. Who cares if the Big 12 with TCU/WVU or TAMU/UM is worth more? It doesn't matter.
What matters is if the Big 12 is worth more than the ACC, and if so, by how much. That's it. The ACC is already worth less than every other major conference and can't catch up unless ESPN doubles how much they're willing to pay for close to the same product ONE year into the new deal.
True, but make no mistake... outside of Texas and Oklahoma, the ACC is worth more than the Big-12. ESPN doesn't care about championships or even wins & losses - all they care about is TV ratings (which is where the ACC wins: #2 in basketball, #3 in football).
As for the TV contract - if the ACC office is smart (and hey, they did hire consultants this time!), they will focus on 2 things: 1) the current market value of BCS football games, and 2) the inventory being added by not only adding 2 teams but also 1 more conference game per year and 2 to 3 more years. (please see What the ACC can do - TV Contract for a detailed analysis).
Q: Will the ACC get at least $16.5 to $19 million per team?
A: We'll just have to wait and see.
I still hold out hope that the ACC is negotiating to start their own channel with ESPN/ABC as partner,similar to how Big 10 did with Fox. I would be bargaining to get the $13 mil they currently receive to be for tier 1 and 2 and then bundle all the tier 3 for the ACC channel with ESPN getting 55% of profit. With all the homes in the ACC footprint, would easily add 6-8 million per school and ESPN would make more without much more risk.
I just don't see any more big realignments happening anytime soon. Additions now will have to be HUGE deal changers in order to make it worth while... and I don't see those kinds of programs immediately available to alter all these 10+ year contracts again.
Re: the possibility of a TV channel, this is something that Raycom wanted to do with help from someone (Time Warner, Comcast, etc.) when they were competing to keep the basketball rights and regional football rights, instead of licensing things from ESPN.
ESPN has a better shot with an ACC Network compared to the dry well they drilled with the Longhorn Network because there is an interest in most of the ACC schools all throughout the states along the eastern seaboard.
Bill Byrne, the outgoing (as is being let go) AD for Texas A&M, openly wondered in an article about the SEC doing a network and like the ACC, ESPN is the primary rightsholder excluding the CBS content. Here's the rub with an ACC or SEC 24/7 network:
1) When ESPN went out and got the regional rights for the ACC and SEC, they elected to manage the SEC rights themselves and decided to hand off the ACC rights to Raycom. Partially because Raycom helped ESPN win the ACC bid, ponying up around 20% of the cash on a yearly basis. Also because ESPN did not want to compete with themselves when it came to selling syndicated content to both conferences in many markets. So if there is an ACC 24/7 Network, expect someone like Raycom to end up operating it, not ESPN. Since its ESPN's content, they'll probably maintain ownership but in a more passive role.
2) Particularly in Georgia, SC, Florida, how receptive will cable/satelite systems be to carrying possibly two conference based networks? Sports are the one area cable ops seem to rally against when there are negotiations for a channel. So if the ACC is going to do this, do it now before the SEC does it. Put them behind the 8-ball.
I would expect ESPN to negotiate the SEC first because they are going to set the upper bar. If the Big 12 and ACC get great deals first then for the SEC, the sky is the limit. If they Negotiate the SEC first, then they set the max they will pay out. Based on the ratings I'd say they finish with the SEC first. Which may be why we're hearing about an SEC network. Then finish negotiating with the ACC (hopefully with an ACC network) and then finalize the first tier Big 12 contract (if the Big 12 negotiates early).
(04-20-2012 01:16 PM)samandrea Wrote: [ -> ] (04-20-2012 12:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ] (04-20-2012 11:33 AM)JustAnotherName Wrote: [ -> ]You're looking at it the wrong way. Who cares if the Big 12 with TCU/WVU or TAMU/UM is worth more? It doesn't matter.
What matters is if the Big 12 is worth more than the ACC, and if so, by how much. That's it. The ACC is already worth less than every other major conference and can't catch up unless ESPN doubles how much they're willing to pay for close to the same product ONE year into the new deal.
True, but make no mistake... outside of Texas and Oklahoma, the ACC is worth more than the Big-12. ESPN doesn't care about championships or even wins & losses - all they care about is TV ratings (which is where the ACC wins: #2 in basketball, #3 in football).
As for the TV contract - if the ACC office is smart (and hey, they did hire consultants this time!), they will focus on 2 things: 1) the current market value of BCS football games, and 2) the inventory being added by not only adding 2 teams but also 1 more conference game per year and 2 to 3 more years. (please see What the ACC can do - TV Contract for a detailed analysis).
Q: Will the ACC get at least $16.5 to $19 million per team?
A: We'll just have to wait and see.
I still hold out hope that the ACC is negotiating to start their own channel with ESPN/ABC as partner,similar to how Big 10 did with Fox. I would be bargaining to get the $13 mil they currently receive to be for tier 1 and 2 and then bundle all the tier 3 for the ACC channel with ESPN getting 55% of profit. With all the homes in the ACC footprint, would easily add 6-8 million per school and ESPN would make more without much more risk.
I hope the ACC does start its own cable network. I think it makes too much sense for the ACC and ESPN to not do it. I think this could be a big revenue generator for both ESPN and the ACC. I think the ACC has more people in its footprint than any other conference. If it can get an ACC Network on the cable listings for many of the markets, all of the ACC schools will profit.
I do think it is mutually beneficial for both ESPN and the ACC to create this network. There are all kinds of other sports that would never be shown on the ESPN family of channels. I do think that with an ACC cable network, then Rutgers would become very attractive as New Jersey is a decent size state (9 million people) and if Rutgers and Syracuse can get the ACC network onto the cable offerings in New York city, it could get really profitable for the ACC member schools.
Question about Nielsen Ratings: Just how does ACC Football stack up against other conferences? I see lots of misinformation coming out of West Virginia, but my understanding is the ACC is 3rd (behind only the SEC and Big Ten). Does anyone have hard data?
(04-20-2012 07:58 PM)mattsarz Wrote: [ -> ]Re: the possibility of a TV channel, this is something that Raycom wanted to do with help from someone (Time Warner, Comcast, etc.) when they were competing to keep the basketball rights and regional football rights, instead of licensing things from ESPN.
ESPN has a better shot with an ACC Network compared to the dry well they drilled with the Longhorn Network because there is an interest in most of the ACC schools all throughout the states along the eastern seaboard.
Bill Byrne, the outgoing (as is being let go) AD for Texas A&M, openly wondered in an article about the SEC doing a network and like the ACC, ESPN is the primary rightsholder excluding the CBS content. Here's the rub with an ACC or SEC 24/7 network:
1) When ESPN went out and got the regional rights for the ACC and SEC, they elected to manage the SEC rights themselves and decided to hand off the ACC rights to Raycom. Partially because Raycom helped ESPN win the ACC bid, ponying up around 20% of the cash on a yearly basis. Also because ESPN did not want to compete with themselves when it came to selling syndicated content to both conferences in many markets. So if there is an ACC 24/7 Network, expect someone like Raycom to end up operating it, not ESPN. Since its ESPN's content, they'll probably maintain ownership but in a more passive role.
2) Particularly in Georgia, SC, Florida, how receptive will cable/satelite systems be to carrying possibly two conference based networks? Sports are the one area cable ops seem to rally against when there are negotiations for a channel. So if the ACC is going to do this, do it now before the SEC does it. Put them behind the 8-ball.
Excellent post Matt. And good observations about an SEC network vs an ACC network. My main concern about the long-term viability of the ACC has always revolved around the fact that they are basically a three-state conference (Maryland, Viriginia, and North Carolina) with competition for the other states in which they have a presence (Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Massachusetts, and now New York and Pennsylvania). It's why Notre Dame is so crucial to solidify the ACC as a power conference.
I also believe though that if the SEC does an ESPN sponsored network, the SEC taking A&M and getting on in the state of Texas will be the final nail in the LHN which is struggling big time already without such competition. If this proves correct, it likely makes the Big 12 extremely vulnerable.
Cheers,
Neil
(04-21-2012 07:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]Question about Nielsen Ratings: Just how does ACC Football stack up against other conferences? I see lots of misinformation coming out of West Virginia, but my understanding is the ACC is 3rd (behind only the SEC and Big Ten). Does anyone have hard data?
Here you go. Straight from Neilson. You need to scroll down to page 6 for the NCAA. Some interesting info. The NCAA basketball tournaments bring in far more ad money than the regular season for example. The ACC is 3rd in average Football viewership and 2nd in basketball but we're barely 2nd in basketball just ahead of the SEC. Also, how the hell did the Pac 12 get the contract they got? 5th in football ratings and dead last in basketball. You have to figure Fox and ESPN are going to lose money on the Pac 12.
http://www.slideshare.net/ceobroadband/s...s-11339432
(04-21-2012 09:03 AM)omniorange Wrote: [ -> ]I also believe though that if the SEC does an ESPN sponsored network, the SEC taking A&M and getting on in the state of Texas will be the final nail in the LHN which is struggling big time already without such competition. If this proves correct, it likely makes the Big 12 extremely vulnerable.
I'm going to sound naive about this one, because cash does make the world go round, but if ESPN is willing to get the Big 12 to around $20 million per team, they might consider asking Texas to step back on the LHN fees. Whomever they are paying. Texas sells the rights to the games to IMG College, who then sells it to ESPN. 1/2 of the LHN fees get directed to the academic side of the house, the rest to the athletic dept. I don't know if there are escalators in place that say until the network reaches X number of households, UT gets only a percentage of the $11 million. If they only got, 10-20% of it, would it be better to get it guaranteed through the Big 12 deal and accept less for the LHN? Could get them carried in more places too.
If you can make Texas whole, let them keep the LHN and continue to make their risk level at zero (b/c the school owns nothing in LHN), they might be OK. They would have made $26 million (~$15 million from ABC/ESPN/FSN, ~$11 million LHN). If you get close to $20 million per team with the national TV stuff, paying $6 million for LHN might be a compromise.
LHN did have a deal for UTSA football last year, but I don't think it carried to any other UTSA sports. Maybe they try to continue that deal and add in Texas St. to try to get more schools/alums involved.
I think Texas will always need a home of some kind. I'm not sure that the Pac-12 wants them in their current state. Playing football independently and basketball in the Sun Belt or Southland doesn't make sense to me (baseball in Sun Belt? Good baseball being played there). Maybe I'm wrong.
(04-21-2012 01:23 PM)ChrisLords Wrote: [ -> ] (04-21-2012 07:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]Question about Nielsen Ratings: Just how does ACC Football stack up against other conferences? I see lots of misinformation coming out of West Virginia, but my understanding is the ACC is 3rd (behind only the SEC and Big Ten). Does anyone have hard data?
Here you go. Straight from Neilson. You need to scroll down to page 6 for the NCAA. Some interesting info. The NCAA basketball tournaments bring in far more ad money than the regular season for example. The ACC is 3rd in average Football viewership and 2nd in basketball but we're barely 2nd in basketball just ahead of the SEC. Also, how the hell did the Pac 12 get the contract they got? 5th in football ratings and dead last in basketball. You have to figure Fox and ESPN are going to lose money on the Pac 12.
http://www.slideshare.net/ceobroadband/s...s-11339432
Strikes that went against the Pac-12 under old contracts:
1) Rarely saw them on the east coast on ABC. Population density isn't equal in this country. Outside of California, the west has a lot of land, but not as many people
2) Time slots. Pac-12 on FSN had to stay out of the way of ABC. Sometimes they were pre-empted for pro sports. Other times the game you wanted to see didn't start until 10:15pm ET.
3) FSN as a network. Regional in nature. Pre-emptions galore on the east coast for pro sports.
How they did better:
1) No more FSN for football and only 22 mens basketball games on FSN. I think FSN has to clear these games in every region, even the ones they don't own.
2) Of the 44 football games on ABC, ESPN, FOX and F/X I believe every game is now national. Maybe one of the two games on ABC is regional.
3) ESPN retains the late evening slot most weeks, but FOX & F/X will put the Pac-12 on in primetime or mid-afternoon across the country.