(08-24-2022 02:30 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  I see the appeal. I'd sure watch. I'm still trying to imagine how all this gets negotiated without protocols going overboard and lawsuits flying. I know Miami guys like yellow, but universities aren't Legos.

Write a bigger check than the last one.

Everybody likes a pay raise

Is Burke Magnus the current Dean at Faber College?

(08-24-2022 11:51 AM)MadisonHawk Wrote:  I would recommend listening to the entire podcast (link below) which was excellent.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep...0577195357

Although there was no breaking news, it did confirm a few aspects of ESPN's thinking:

1. Big Ten. As Pete the Chop summarized, the B1G and ESPN were never aligned. ESPN wanted to continue its 50/50 split with Fox and have maximum flexibility on when to show the games. The B1G wanted three exclusive OTA windows (or perhaps an exclusive ESPN prime time window). ESPN was not willing to do that at the price NBC/CBS/Amazon were willing to do it because of their other commitments (see SEC below). Magnus said there were no ongoing discussions with the Big Ten but if expansion occurred and additional late-night windows opened up he would "pick up the phone".

2. SEC. ESPN is all in on the SEC. Magnus mentioned the possibility of a full slate of SEC games on ABC (i.e. Noon, 3:30 pm and 7:30 pm ET). Although the SEC will always have a 3:30 pm ET game on ABC, the "best" games will often be in prime time. Magnus also hinted that ESPN would increase the payments to the SEC if they go to nine conference games. Magnus also hinted that it was possible that Texas and OU could move to the SEC early (my interpretation is that perhaps this could be part of a new Big XII deal).

3. ACC. Magnus gave no indication that the grant of rights was at risk or that ESPN would unilaterally increase payments to the ACC. He did indicate that ESPN would increase payments to the ACC if there was incremental value, specifically referring to moving to nine conference games (e.g. SEC above).

4. Pac 12 and Big XII. Magnus indicated that because ESPN missed on the B1G it had the resources to bid on other rights, specifically mentioning the Pac 12 and Big XII.

The day I found out about ABC committing to the 3:30pm time slot was the day I thought that ABC (ESPN) was "all in" on the SEC and that if the Big Ten signed with them we would be second class citizens. It's one thing for the SEC to have an exclusive time slot on CBS when they are the primary conference (and before they added the MWC their only football conference). It's another thing when ABC does when they are "the worldwide leader in sports" and expected to cater to all conferences. ABC had aired several Big Ten games at 3:30pm in 2021. Had that spot been open to the Big Ten, maybe the Big Ten would have signed with them. Maybe if ABC had agreed to give the Big Ten the prime time slot exclusively and box them out of prime time, the Big Ten would have given ABC their prime time games. But they made their bed and now they must sleep in it. The Big Ten found three networks willing to fully commit (well two and one that will commit except for Notre Dame). If ABC isn't willing to commit, the Big Ten will go elsewhere.

(08-24-2022 03:44 PM)schmolik Wrote:  The day I found out about ABC committing to the 3:30pm time slot was the day I thought that ABC (ESPN) was "all in" on the SEC and that if the Big Ten signed with them we would be second class citizens. It's one thing for the SEC to have an exclusive time slot on CBS when they are the primary conference (and before they added the MWC their only football conference). It's another thing when ABC does when they are "the worldwide leader in sports" and expected to cater to all conferences. ABC had aired several Big Ten games at 3:30pm in 2021. Had that spot been open to the Big Ten, maybe the Big Ten would have signed with them. Maybe if ABC had agreed to give the Big Ten the prime time slot exclusively and box them out of prime time, the Big Ten would have given ABC their prime time games. But they made their bed and now they must sleep in it. The Big Ten found three networks willing to fully commit (well two and one that will commit except for Notre Dame). If ABC isn't willing to commit, the Big Ten will go elsewhere.

Great post.

Probably a good bit of hubris (not to mention ESPN's pre-existing business relationship with the SEC office and its member schools) that made this sort of change inevitable.

Can imagine the suits at Bristol never thought ESPN would be bumped out of its co-pilot's seat of sorts with the BIG because, "hey, we're ESPN, the Worldwide Leader. Nobody tells us no."

But clearly the B1G's administrators — with FOX execs in their ears and then eventually by their sides at the negotiating table — were done with being treated as a second-class citizen.

And so here we are.

Looking forward to reading the back-story when the smoke clears

wasn't exactly glowing about the process of 2 LA teams joining the Big Ten

(08-24-2022 11:34 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 10:58 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Interview featured on The Marchand and Ourand Show.

https://twitter.com/Ourand_SBJ/status/15...8734661634

Good find Chippewa!

Here's Magnus word for word:

"What we needed to get at the price we needed to get it at, neither of those things were available to us. And so as difficult as it was to go separate directions, it was the right decision for our company — there's no doubt about that. We are going to continue to be heavily invested in college sports. Nothing is forever in the rights buying business, so you've got to be somewhat dispassionate about (it) and stick to your process if you will. But it was hard. It was a hard decision, but I think it was the right decision for us — mostly because of what was on offer to us to buy, which is not what we were hoping for."

Two takeaways for me:

1. The B1G and FOX jointly running the negotiations was both a brilliant tactic and a cold bucket of water dropped on Magnus and his team. The plan from Day 1 obviously was to bring aboard both CBS and NBC which, with FOX, collectively could offer sweet-spot network viewing windows that ABC and ESPN more often than not wouldn't have available. And then the BIG's negotiating "team" had the gall to offer Magnus some lower-value content at a per game price well-above the pennies-on-the-dollar deal in which ESPN swindled the ACC schools. Well, yeah, that was not going to fly.

2. Mentioned this before and some (maybe or maybe not correctly) poo-pooed it ... But I'll go back to this issue that if the B1G's deal winds up being for significantly more dollars than the SEC's (and ends four years earlier to boot), it's gonna be a problem for ESPN and Greg Sankey. As much as some folks like to think so, school administrators are not just going to sit there and say, "Hey, it is what it is. We signed it, we got to live with it."

ESPN is gonna hear about it and Sankey is gonna hear about it. A lot.

In a roundabout way, this may well be where a huge expansion addition with a number of ACC schools would allow a re-working of the deal and also allow the SEC (with Disney assuming the same role FOX did in the B1G negotiations) to make perhaps the first major jump in the digital (OTT) space by partnering with Amazon or Apple. This would of course allow Disney to defray some of its costs to a deep-pocketed partner.

Again, there are ways to make this work and make everyone happy (or at least content).

Just gonna take some innovative and collaborative thinking.

It is incredibly cathartic to see ESPN being challenged by another network, or networks, and not being able to dictate which properties are in which conferences (that they own the rights to). Everything going on today with realignment is a direct result of their actions and interference with conference membership. They wanted to pursue more viewership and greater revenues; now all of these other conferences and programs are doing the same thing they set out to.

(08-24-2022 04:35 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  It is incredibly cathartic to see ESPN being challenged by another network, or networks, and not being able to dictate which properties are in which conferences (that they own the rights to). Everything going on today with realignment is a direct result of their actions and interference with conference membership. They wanted to pursue more viewership and greater revenues; now all of these other conferences and programs are doing the same thing they set out to.

Well said.

It was like watching an old wrasslin' match where one partner is pounding his opponent the mat, then he slaps hands with another who steps in the ring to continue the beating, followed by a third partner who hammers the guy into submission.

You cannot tell me the suits at FOX, CBS and NBC haven't thoroughly enjoyed kicking ABC/ESPN in the nuts.

Just seeing Burke Magnus on that brief interview, he still looked like the guy coming to terms with getting beat at his own game. No shame in that, either. The suits at FOX and the BIG are pros, too, and they had a heck of a game plan in addition to the key advantage of available windows for content.

Can ABC/ESPN rebound?

Absolutely!

But it's not gonna be with any comparatively small moves like grabbing the largest share of Conference No. 3's media rights,

It's gonna take a big splash.

And there's probably just one way, realistically, to make that happen

(08-24-2022 03:38 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  Is Burke Magnus the current Dean at Faber College?

Did he just put the Big10 on "double secret probation"? : )

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Animal_House#Dialogue

(08-24-2022 12:57 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 12:43 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  ....
ESPN, in fact, tells us what many of us expect. It is gonna go all-in on the SEC — and like never before. So if all-in on the SEC is the approach, would it not make sense for your partner Mr. Sankey to absorb FSU and Clemson and UNC and UVA and Miami and (to keep the politicians and/or those devils at FOX and in the B1G office at bay) NC State, Virginia Tech and Georgia Tech into the SEC? More good brands, more good games, more eyeballs, more advertising revenue — all under one banner.

Just euthanize the ACC and its network and push those resources to the SEC, then grab a chunk of Conference No. 3 to extend your College Football and Basketball presence beyond the South and into additional viewing windows

Makes sense, right?

Makes perfect sense to me. Every school you list.

I'm interested in how that 'just euthanize the ACC' happens. Syracuse and Pittsburgh deserve better fates, and give the conference this—it's a survivor. Since people first began predicting the demise of the 'unstable' ACC, three other conferences have blown up. The ACC is still here and people complain that it's too stable.

Isn't it more likely that the ACC survivors and their network would be re-tasked to provide the core for Conference Number 3? Or is this actually what you meant to suggest?

Simply offer Duke, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest and a few others all but football memberships and pick up Tulane, Rice, Army, Navy, & Air Force as a B League for their football while including all other sports with the SEC. Now you are at 28 full members. Notre Dame goes all in, add Colorado, Kansas, West Virginia and Baylor and stop at 32.

Arkansas, Baylor, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida St., Louisiana St., Mississippi, Miss St. Tennessee

Clemson, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Louisville, N. Carolina, N.C. State, S. Carolina,

Boston College, Miami, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Now you have another model built for regional interests.

Check the favorites and look at what conference semis and finals would generate in revenue. It's huge.

(08-24-2022 11:51 AM)MadisonHawk Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 11:34 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 10:58 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Interview featured on The Marchand and Ourand Show.

https://twitter.com/Ourand_SBJ/status/15...8734661634

Good find Chippewa!

Here's Magnus word for word:

"What we needed to get at the price we needed to get it at, neither of those things were available to us. And so as difficult as it was to go separate directions, it was the right decision for our company — there's no doubt about that. We are going to continue to be heavily invested in college sports. Nothing is forever in the rights buying business, so you've got to be somewhat dispassionate about (it) and stick to your process if you will. But it was hard. It was a hard decision, but I think it was the right decision for us — mostly because of what was on offer to us to buy, which is not what we were hoping for."

Two takeaways for me:

1. The B1G and FOX jointly running the negotiations was both a brilliant tactic and a cold bucket of water dropped on Magnus and his team. The plan from Day 1 obviously was to bring aboard both CBS and NBC which, with FOX, collectively could offer sweet-spot network viewing windows that ABC and ESPN more often than not wouldn't have available. And then the BIG's negotiating "team" had the gall to offer some lower-value content at a per game price well-above what they're paying for the pennies-on-the-dollar deal in which ESPN swindled the ACC schools. Well, yeah, that was not going to fly.

2. Mentioned this before and some (maybe or maybe not correctly) poo-pooed it ... But I'll go back to this issue that if the B1G's deal winds up being for significantly more dollars than the SEC's (and ends four years earlier to boot), it's gonna be a problem for ESPN and Greg Sankey. As much s some people like to think so, schools are not just going to sit there and say, "Hey, it is what it is. We signed it, we got to live with it."

ESPN is gonna hear about it and Sankey is gonna hear about it. A lot.

In a roundabout way, this may well be where a huge expansion addition with a number of ACC schools would allow a re-working of the deal and also allow the SEC (with Disney assuming the same role FOX did in the B1G negotiations) to make perhaps the first major jump in the digital (OTT) space by partnering with Amazon or Apple. This would of course allow Disney to defray some of its costs to a deep-pocketed partner.

Again, there are ways to make this work and make everyone happy (or at least content).

Just gonna take some innovative and collaborative thinking.

I would recommend listening to the entire podcast (link below) which was excellent.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep...0577195357

Although there was no breaking news, it did confirm a few aspects of ESPN's thinking:

1. Big Ten. As Pete the Chop summarized, the B1G and ESPN were never aligned. ESPN wanted to continue its 50/50 split with Fox and have maximum flexibility on when to show the games. The B1G wanted three exclusive OTA windows (or perhaps an exclusive ESPN prime time window). ESPN was not willing to do that at the price NBC/CBS/Amazon were willing to do it because of their other commitments (see SEC below). Magnus said there were no ongoing discussions with the Big Ten but if expansion occurred and additional late-night windows opened up he would "pick up the phone".

2. SEC. ESPN is all in on the SEC. Magnus mentioned the possibility of a full slate of SEC games on ABC (i.e. Noon, 3:30 pm and 7:30 pm ET). Although the SEC will always have a 3:30 pm ET game on ABC, the "best" games will often be in prime time. Magnus also hinted that ESPN would increase the payments to the SEC if they go to nine conference games. Magnus also hinted that it was possible that Texas and OU could move to the SEC early (my interpretation is that perhaps this could be part of a new Big XII deal).

3. ACC. Magnus gave no indication that the grant of rights was at risk or that ESPN would unilaterally increase payments to the ACC. He did indicate that ESPN would increase payments to the ACC if there was incremental value, specifically referring to moving to nine conference games (e.g. SEC above).

4. Pac 12 and Big XII. Magnus indicated that because ESPN missed on the B1G it had the resources to bid on other rights, specifically mentioning the Pac 12 and Big XII.

If they're even considering that, they have to also be considering expansion.

If you stick the best SEC games on ABC all day then 1) you still need some content for your other networks and ESPN+. 2) There are ACC and Big 12 schools that should be in some of those ABC time slots. There's really only one way to fix that...

You have to stick a lot of big brands under the same roof...

(08-24-2022 01:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 01:39 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 01:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ESPN isn't like FOX where they can just do whatever their figurehead of Rupert Murdoch wants regardless of how much it costs.

New Fox isn't really like that anymore either--there are budget limitations. That's why NFL Thursday Night Football (2nd highest rated program on television last year, behind NFL Sunday Night Football) is not going to be on Fox anymore.

ESPN still has the deep pockets, but they do have corporate overlords (including Murdoch) who have veto power over how money gets spent (wasted).

Oh - I'm not saying that FOX is spending whatever it wants on anything that it wants.

FOX was losing a lot of money on NFL Thursday Night Football. CBS and NBC also lost a lot of money on NFL TNF when they had that package prior to FOX. That's why none of the linear networks were willing to pay more for that package and Amazon ended up with the rights.

What I mean is that FOX is very centralized in its leadership structure compared to Disney and it's simply a much smaller and focused outfit today (and very purposely so when they sold their other assets to Disney). That's not a good or bad thing (as whether that's an advantage or not depends on the situation). It's just that Murdoch will use activist investor letters as kindling for his fireplace, whereas Disney has to deal with entire news cycles on each and every activist investor letter that it receives along with every time that it has an earnings report or releases guidance on its streaming numbers.

That's why I think it's so important to not just refer to "ESPN" in these discussions, but rather the entire Walt Disney Company. Disney is arguably the single most scrutinized public company on Earth with big-time investors calling them out every time that they think they're spending too much... yet all of these "ESPN will help the SEC get ACC schools" scenarios depend upon ESPN very publicly paying out a ton of money (e.g. hundreds of millions of dollars at a minimum and likely over a billion dollars) in order to rip up very ESPN-friendly long-term contracts with the ACC and frankly the SEC, too (as compared to what FOX/NBC/CBS are paying to the Big Ten). I'm not even talking about the legal piece of the GOR agreement (which is an entirely separate issue), but rather the very financial underpinnings of what makes sense to the Walt Disney Company.

I’ve been beating that drum for months. The only way ESPN is making any changes to the ACC deal is if it’s in ESPN’s financial interest to do so. And I struggle to figure out how it’s in their best interest to tear up an ESPN-friendly deal just so they can pay all the schools more money (in several different conferences).

(08-24-2022 03:44 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 11:51 AM)MadisonHawk Wrote:  I would recommend listening to the entire podcast (link below) which was excellent.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep...0577195357

Although there was no breaking news, it did confirm a few aspects of ESPN's thinking:

1. Big Ten. As Pete the Chop summarized, the B1G and ESPN were never aligned. ESPN wanted to continue its 50/50 split with Fox and have maximum flexibility on when to show the games. The B1G wanted three exclusive OTA windows (or perhaps an exclusive ESPN prime time window). ESPN was not willing to do that at the price NBC/CBS/Amazon were willing to do it because of their other commitments (see SEC below). Magnus said there were no ongoing discussions with the Big Ten but if expansion occurred and additional late-night windows opened up he would "pick up the phone".

2. SEC. ESPN is all in on the SEC. Magnus mentioned the possibility of a full slate of SEC games on ABC (i.e. Noon, 3:30 pm and 7:30 pm ET). Although the SEC will always have a 3:30 pm ET game on ABC, the "best" games will often be in prime time. Magnus also hinted that ESPN would increase the payments to the SEC if they go to nine conference games. Magnus also hinted that it was possible that Texas and OU could move to the SEC early (my interpretation is that perhaps this could be part of a new Big XII deal).

3. ACC. Magnus gave no indication that the grant of rights was at risk or that ESPN would unilaterally increase payments to the ACC. He did indicate that ESPN would increase payments to the ACC if there was incremental value, specifically referring to moving to nine conference games (e.g. SEC above).

4. Pac 12 and Big XII. Magnus indicated that because ESPN missed on the B1G it had the resources to bid on other rights, specifically mentioning the Pac 12 and Big XII.

The day I found out about ABC committing to the 3:30pm time slot was the day I thought that ABC (ESPN) was "all in" on the SEC and that if the Big Ten signed with them we would be second class citizens. It's one thing for the SEC to have an exclusive time slot on CBS when they are the primary conference (and before they added the MWC their only football conference). It's another thing when ABC does when they are "the worldwide leader in sports" and expected to cater to all conferences. ABC had aired several Big Ten games at 3:30pm in 2021. Had that spot been open to the Big Ten, maybe the Big Ten would have signed with them. Maybe if ABC had agreed to give the Big Ten the prime time slot exclusively and box them out of prime time, the Big Ten would have given ABC their prime time games. But they made their bed and now they must sleep in it. The Big Ten found three networks willing to fully commit (well two and one that will commit except for Notre Dame). If ABC isn't willing to commit, the Big Ten will go elsewhere.

ESPN has had a lower opinion of the value of B1G rights for awhile. They lowballed them on the BTN, then they jumped all in with the SEC and basically dared Warren to go elsewhere. I don’t know I who’s right here tbh, but I do find it interesting.

(08-24-2022 06:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 12:57 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 12:43 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  ....
ESPN, in fact, tells us what many of us expect. It is gonna go all-in on the SEC — and like never before. So if all-in on the SEC is the approach, would it not make sense for your partner Mr. Sankey to absorb FSU and Clemson and UNC and UVA and Miami and (to keep the politicians and/or those devils at FOX and in the B1G office at bay) NC State, Virginia Tech and Georgia Tech into the SEC? More good brands, more good games, more eyeballs, more advertising revenue — all under one banner.

Just euthanize the ACC and its network and push those resources to the SEC, then grab a chunk of Conference No. 3 to extend your College Football and Basketball presence beyond the South and into additional viewing windows

Makes sense, right?

Makes perfect sense to me. Every school you list.

I'm interested in how that 'just euthanize the ACC' happens. Syracuse and Pittsburgh deserve better fates, and give the conference this—it's a survivor. Since people first began predicting the demise of the 'unstable' ACC, three other conferences have blown up. The ACC is still here and people complain that it's too stable.

Isn't it more likely that the ACC survivors and their network would be re-tasked to provide the core for Conference Number 3? Or is this actually what you meant to suggest?

Simply offer Duke, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest and a few others all but football memberships and pick up Tulane, Rice, Army, Navy, & Air Force as a B League for their football while including all other sports with the SEC. Now you are at 28 full members. Notre Dame goes all in, add Colorado, Kansas, West Virginia and Baylor and stop at 32.

Arkansas, Baylor, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida St., Louisiana St., Mississippi, Miss St. Tennessee

Clemson, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Louisville, N. Carolina, N.C. State, S. Carolina,

Boston College, Miami, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Now you have another model built for regional interests.

Check the favorites and look at what conference semis and finals would generate in revenue. It's huge.

Yeah a 4 team conference playoff could be huge money, though I think we could do it with 20 or 24 just as well.

That’s one thing I’ve thought that the ACC could do, but 14 teams might not be enough.

(08-24-2022 03:44 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 11:51 AM)MadisonHawk Wrote:  I would recommend listening to the entire podcast (link below) which was excellent.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep...0577195357

Although there was no breaking news, it did confirm a few aspects of ESPN's thinking:

1. Big Ten. As Pete the Chop summarized, the B1G and ESPN were never aligned. ESPN wanted to continue its 50/50 split with Fox and have maximum flexibility on when to show the games. The B1G wanted three exclusive OTA windows (or perhaps an exclusive ESPN prime time window). ESPN was not willing to do that at the price NBC/CBS/Amazon were willing to do it because of their other commitments (see SEC below). Magnus said there were no ongoing discussions with the Big Ten but if expansion occurred and additional late-night windows opened up he would "pick up the phone".

2. SEC. ESPN is all in on the SEC. Magnus mentioned the possibility of a full slate of SEC games on ABC (i.e. Noon, 3:30 pm and 7:30 pm ET). Although the SEC will always have a 3:30 pm ET game on ABC, the "best" games will often be in prime time. Magnus also hinted that ESPN would increase the payments to the SEC if they go to nine conference games. Magnus also hinted that it was possible that Texas and OU could move to the SEC early (my interpretation is that perhaps this could be part of a new Big XII deal).

3. ACC. Magnus gave no indication that the grant of rights was at risk or that ESPN would unilaterally increase payments to the ACC. He did indicate that ESPN would increase payments to the ACC if there was incremental value, specifically referring to moving to nine conference games (e.g. SEC above).

4. Pac 12 and Big XII. Magnus indicated that because ESPN missed on the B1G it had the resources to bid on other rights, specifically mentioning the Pac 12 and Big XII.

The day I found out about ABC committing to the 3:30pm time slot was the day I thought that ABC (ESPN) was "all in" on the SEC and that if the Big Ten signed with them we would be second class citizens. It's one thing for the SEC to have an exclusive time slot on CBS when they are the primary conference (and before they added the MWC their only football conference). It's another thing when ABC does when they are "the worldwide leader in sports" and expected to cater to all conferences. ABC had aired several Big Ten games at 3:30pm in 2021. Had that spot been open to the Big Ten, maybe the Big Ten would have signed with them. Maybe if ABC had agreed to give the Big Ten the prime time slot exclusively and box them out of prime time, the Big Ten would have given ABC their prime time games. But they made their bed and now they must sleep in it. The Big Ten found three networks willing to fully commit (well two and one that will commit except for Notre Dame). If ABC isn't willing to commit, the Big Ten will go elsewhere.

^^^ THIS ^^^
Great post.

(08-24-2022 01:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 11:34 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 10:58 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Interview featured on The Marchand and Ourand Show.

https://twitter.com/Ourand_SBJ/status/15...8734661634

Good find Chippewa!

Here's Magnus word for word:

"What we needed to get at the price we needed to get it at, neither of those things were available to us. And so as difficult as it was to go separate directions, it was the right decision for our company — there's no doubt about that. We are going to continue to be heavily invested in college sports. Nothing is forever in the rights buying business, so you've got to be somewhat dispassionate about (it) and stick to your process if you will. But it was hard. It was a hard decision, but I think it was the right decision for us — mostly because of what was on offer to us to buy, which is not what we were hoping for."

Two takeaways for me:

1. The B1G and FOX jointly running the negotiations was both a brilliant tactic and a cold bucket of water dropped on Magnus and his team. The plan from Day 1 obviously was to bring aboard both CBS and NBC which, with FOX, collectively could offer sweet-spot network viewing windows that ABC and ESPN more often than not wouldn't have available. And then the BIG's negotiating "team" had the gall to offer some lower-value content at a per game price well-above what they're paying for the pennies-on-the-dollar deal in which ESPN swindled the ACC schools. Well, yeah, that was not going to fly.

2. Mentioned this before and some (maybe or maybe not correctly) poo-pooed it ... But I'll go back to this issue that if the B1G's deal winds up being for significantly more dollars than the SEC's (and ends four years earlier to boot), it's gonna be a problem for ESPN and Greg Sankey. As much as some folks like to think so, school administrators are not just going to sit there and say, "Hey, it is what it is. We signed it, we got to live with it."

ESPN is gonna hear about it and Sankey is gonna hear about it. A lot.

In a roundabout way, this may well be where a huge expansion addition with a number of ACC schools would allow a re-working of the deal and also allow the SEC (with Disney assuming the same role FOX did in the B1G negotiations) to make perhaps the first major jump in the digital (OTT) space by partnering with Amazon or Apple. This would of course allow Disney to defray some of its costs to a deep-pocketed partner.

Again, there are ways to make this work and make everyone happy (or at least content).

Just gonna take some innovative and collaborative thinking.

The problem is that what a lot of posters try to argue will "make everyone happy" is really "make a handful of ACC schools that want to bail and the SEC happy." The "innovation and collaborative thinking" is contingent on screwing most of the ACC in order to give the "privilege" of ESPN paying more for the same teams that they already hold the rights to for the next 14 years on a much cheaper contract.

I don't see how that makes the vast majority of the ACC schools happy or, no matter how much we want to believe that ESPN loves the SEC, that they would be happy paying more money to anyone. Just listen to the podcast: ESPN is being much more cost conscious compared to before. These aren't the free-spending days of John Skipper that was obsessed with just hoovering up all content available.

The Magnus comments on the ACC actually point to the opposite of your conclusion. What I heard from him was essentially, "The ACC schools need to quit whining. ESPN took a huge risk setting up the ACC Network when we all knew cord cutting was already happening and, in exchange, we required a really long-term deal to take such risk. That long-term deal is now protecting the ACC from getting raided like other leagues. Quit whining." (Magnus talked about ESPN "taking a risk" in connection with launching the ACC Network multiple times. He was hammering home that the ACC schools knew exactly what they were signing up for with a 20-year deal. Those don't sound like the words of someone that wants to see content move off of the ACC Network.)

People need to stop thinking like fans or even university presidents in this scenario. Think like a cold-hearted Wall Street activist investor that's scrutinizing every penny that Disney is spending right now. ESPN isn't like FOX where they can just do whatever their figurehead of Rupert Murdoch wants regardless of how much it costs.

Actually Frank, I could say that only B1G guys want to deny making everyone whole financially, as "happy" has little to do with it. And what you need to think like is a CEO who wants to add a billion in profits and gain some control over an expanded post season.

All of which perfectly explains a pro Big Ten position disguised to sound like business sense, which it isn't when profits are the motive. Yes, they will pay more for additions, about 40 million each for those headed to the SEC, and about 5 million more headed to the compilation conference. But each of FOX and ESPN stand to make 1.5 billion each at the cost of 125 million more for the compilation conference and 320 million each for the 8 schools each the promote to the B1G and SEC.

And we haven't even accounted for the 1 billion each of the 3 conferences can earn from the playoffs.

So maybe Wake Forest, Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse or the 4 corners are pissed about only making 42 million each in media contract revenue. When is the last time you divided a billion 25 ways? That's 40 million each counting the conference share.

So, if a 16-school playoff is estimated to be worth 6 billion and the outlay per year to tap it costs ESPN and FOX 445 million each, and they clear a billion, and the loser schools double their money even if it is limited to 12-14 years. You tell me who the hell will complain?

Now for naysayers and pessimists let's half the 6 billion to 3 billion. ESPN and FOX still clear 300 million plus at the same payout, and the top schools only make 14.4 million more which is 94.4 million each while the compilation conference only makes 56.4 million each.

Anyone going to gripe about that? None dare call it treason if it profits Frank!

(08-25-2022 11:26 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 01:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 11:34 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 10:58 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Interview featured on The Marchand and Ourand Show.

https://twitter.com/Ourand_SBJ/status/15...8734661634

Good find Chippewa!

Here's Magnus word for word:

"What we needed to get at the price we needed to get it at, neither of those things were available to us. And so as difficult as it was to go separate directions, it was the right decision for our company — there's no doubt about that. We are going to continue to be heavily invested in college sports. Nothing is forever in the rights buying business, so you've got to be somewhat dispassionate about (it) and stick to your process if you will. But it was hard. It was a hard decision, but I think it was the right decision for us — mostly because of what was on offer to us to buy, which is not what we were hoping for."

Two takeaways for me:

1. The B1G and FOX jointly running the negotiations was both a brilliant tactic and a cold bucket of water dropped on Magnus and his team. The plan from Day 1 obviously was to bring aboard both CBS and NBC which, with FOX, collectively could offer sweet-spot network viewing windows that ABC and ESPN more often than not wouldn't have available. And then the BIG's negotiating "team" had the gall to offer some lower-value content at a per game price well-above what they're paying for the pennies-on-the-dollar deal in which ESPN swindled the ACC schools. Well, yeah, that was not going to fly.

2. Mentioned this before and some (maybe or maybe not correctly) poo-pooed it ... But I'll go back to this issue that if the B1G's deal winds up being for significantly more dollars than the SEC's (and ends four years earlier to boot), it's gonna be a problem for ESPN and Greg Sankey. As much as some folks like to think so, school administrators are not just going to sit there and say, "Hey, it is what it is. We signed it, we got to live with it."

ESPN is gonna hear about it and Sankey is gonna hear about it. A lot.

In a roundabout way, this may well be where a huge expansion addition with a number of ACC schools would allow a re-working of the deal and also allow the SEC (with Disney assuming the same role FOX did in the B1G negotiations) to make perhaps the first major jump in the digital (OTT) space by partnering with Amazon or Apple. This would of course allow Disney to defray some of its costs to a deep-pocketed partner.

Again, there are ways to make this work and make everyone happy (or at least content).

Just gonna take some innovative and collaborative thinking.

The problem is that what a lot of posters try to argue will "make everyone happy" is really "make a handful of ACC schools that want to bail and the SEC happy." The "innovation and collaborative thinking" is contingent on screwing most of the ACC in order to give the "privilege" of ESPN paying more for the same teams that they already hold the rights to for the next 14 years on a much cheaper contract.

I don't see how that makes the vast majority of the ACC schools happy or, no matter how much we want to believe that ESPN loves the SEC, that they would be happy paying more money to anyone. Just listen to the podcast: ESPN is being much more cost conscious compared to before. These aren't the free-spending days of John Skipper that was obsessed with just hoovering up all content available.

The Magnus comments on the ACC actually point to the opposite of your conclusion. What I heard from him was essentially, "The ACC schools need to quit whining. ESPN took a huge risk setting up the ACC Network when we all knew cord cutting was already happening and, in exchange, we required a really long-term deal to take such risk. That long-term deal is now protecting the ACC from getting raided like other leagues. Quit whining." (Magnus talked about ESPN "taking a risk" in connection with launching the ACC Network multiple times. He was hammering home that the ACC schools knew exactly what they were signing up for with a 20-year deal. Those don't sound like the words of someone that wants to see content move off of the ACC Network.)

People need to stop thinking like fans or even university presidents in this scenario. Think like a cold-hearted Wall Street activist investor that's scrutinizing every penny that Disney is spending right now. ESPN isn't like FOX where they can just do whatever their figurehead of Rupert Murdoch wants regardless of how much it costs.

Actually Frank, I could say that only B1G guys want to deny making everyone whole financially, as "happy" has little to do with it. And what you need to think like is a CEO who wants to add a billion in profits and gain some control over an expanded post season.

All of which perfectly explains a pro Big Ten position disguised to sound like business sense, which it isn't when profits are the motive. Yes, they will pay more for additions, about 40 million each for those headed to the SEC, and about 5 million more headed to the compilation conference. But each of FOX and ESPN stand to make 1.5 billion each

I'd like to see the math here, where that money is supposed to come from.

Quote:at the cost of 125 million more for the compilation conference and 320 million each for the 8 schools each the promote to the B1G and SEC.

And we haven't even accounted for the 1 billion each of the 3 conferences can earn from the playoffs.

So maybe Wake Forest, Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse or the 4 corners are pissed about only making 42 million each in media contract revenue. When is the last time you divided a billion 25 ways? That's 40 million each counting the conference share.

So, if a 16-school playoff is estimated to be worth 6 billion and the outlay per year to tap it costs ESPN and FOX 445 million each, and they clear a billion, and the loser schools double their money even if it is limited to 12-14 years. You tell me who the hell will complain?

Now for naysayers and pessimists let's half the 6 billion to 3 billion. ESPN and FOX still clear 300 million plus at the same payout, and the top schools only make 14.4 million more which is 94.4 million each while the compilation conference only makes 56.4 million each.

Anyone going to gripe about that? None dare call it treason if it profits Frank!

But you don't have to break the ACC GOR or shuffle half of the P5 around to do that. You can just --- have a 16 team playoff, with the Big Ten and SEC claiming the lions share of the money, the 2 or 3 Tier Two conferences getting some, and the G5 getting crumbs. Jiggering a "neutral" formula to yield a 25-25-10-10-10-20 split is much easier than what you're suggesting. You can include 4 conference champs, 3, 6, whatever number the Big Ten and SEC can live with. If the Big Ten and SEC agree, they can make that happen the day after tomorrow, practically. (They probably DONT agree on things like the Rose Bowl and about one ESPN-friendly package or a split, OTA friendly package. But when those two agree, it is agreed)

A generation or two ago, my fathers' cousin must have been having fertility troubles. A Brooklyn Catholic, she did a pilgrimage to a certain church in Quebec and climbed the stairs on her knees, a devotion that was intended to bless her with a pregancy.

My father, not a diplomat, joked to her "Marie, you know there's an easier way, right?"

What my dad said was probably really insensitive to a woman who was probably trying really hard to get pregnant and couldn't, but his point stands here. If the endgame is the money from a 16 team playoff, and the non-Tier One confernences get crumbs, you can just DO THAT. No need to expand Tier One to 40 or 48 teams so that the top dozen or so schools in current Tier Two aren't left behind. You can just--leave them behind. Too bad so sad, sorry about your luck FSU, Miami, Oregon, Stanford, but Ohio State and USC and LSU, and Rutgers and Vanderbilt and Iowa and Arkansas will be just fine without you as a full partner.

(08-25-2022 11:40 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 11:26 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 01:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 11:34 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 10:58 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Interview featured on The Marchand and Ourand Show.

https://twitter.com/Ourand_SBJ/status/15...8734661634

Good find Chippewa!

Here's Magnus word for word:

"What we needed to get at the price we needed to get it at, neither of those things were available to us. And so as difficult as it was to go separate directions, it was the right decision for our company — there's no doubt about that. We are going to continue to be heavily invested in college sports. Nothing is forever in the rights buying business, so you've got to be somewhat dispassionate about (it) and stick to your process if you will. But it was hard. It was a hard decision, but I think it was the right decision for us — mostly because of what was on offer to us to buy, which is not what we were hoping for."

Two takeaways for me:

1. The B1G and FOX jointly running the negotiations was both a brilliant tactic and a cold bucket of water dropped on Magnus and his team. The plan from Day 1 obviously was to bring aboard both CBS and NBC which, with FOX, collectively could offer sweet-spot network viewing windows that ABC and ESPN more often than not wouldn't have available. And then the BIG's negotiating "team" had the gall to offer some lower-value content at a per game price well-above what they're paying for the pennies-on-the-dollar deal in which ESPN swindled the ACC schools. Well, yeah, that was not going to fly.

2. Mentioned this before and some (maybe or maybe not correctly) poo-pooed it ... But I'll go back to this issue that if the B1G's deal winds up being for significantly more dollars than the SEC's (and ends four years earlier to boot), it's gonna be a problem for ESPN and Greg Sankey. As much as some folks like to think so, school administrators are not just going to sit there and say, "Hey, it is what it is. We signed it, we got to live with it."

ESPN is gonna hear about it and Sankey is gonna hear about it. A lot.

In a roundabout way, this may well be where a huge expansion addition with a number of ACC schools would allow a re-working of the deal and also allow the SEC (with Disney assuming the same role FOX did in the B1G negotiations) to make perhaps the first major jump in the digital (OTT) space by partnering with Amazon or Apple. This would of course allow Disney to defray some of its costs to a deep-pocketed partner.

Again, there are ways to make this work and make everyone happy (or at least content).

Just gonna take some innovative and collaborative thinking.

The problem is that what a lot of posters try to argue will "make everyone happy" is really "make a handful of ACC schools that want to bail and the SEC happy." The "innovation and collaborative thinking" is contingent on screwing most of the ACC in order to give the "privilege" of ESPN paying more for the same teams that they already hold the rights to for the next 14 years on a much cheaper contract.

I don't see how that makes the vast majority of the ACC schools happy or, no matter how much we want to believe that ESPN loves the SEC, that they would be happy paying more money to anyone. Just listen to the podcast: ESPN is being much more cost conscious compared to before. These aren't the free-spending days of John Skipper that was obsessed with just hoovering up all content available.

The Magnus comments on the ACC actually point to the opposite of your conclusion. What I heard from him was essentially, "The ACC schools need to quit whining. ESPN took a huge risk setting up the ACC Network when we all knew cord cutting was already happening and, in exchange, we required a really long-term deal to take such risk. That long-term deal is now protecting the ACC from getting raided like other leagues. Quit whining." (Magnus talked about ESPN "taking a risk" in connection with launching the ACC Network multiple times. He was hammering home that the ACC schools knew exactly what they were signing up for with a 20-year deal. Those don't sound like the words of someone that wants to see content move off of the ACC Network.)

People need to stop thinking like fans or even university presidents in this scenario. Think like a cold-hearted Wall Street activist investor that's scrutinizing every penny that Disney is spending right now. ESPN isn't like FOX where they can just do whatever their figurehead of Rupert Murdoch wants regardless of how much it costs.

Actually Frank, I could say that only B1G guys want to deny making everyone whole financially, as "happy" has little to do with it. And what you need to think like is a CEO who wants to add a billion in profits and gain some control over an expanded post season.

All of which perfectly explains a pro Big Ten position disguised to sound like business sense, which it isn't when profits are the motive. Yes, they will pay more for additions, about 40 million each for those headed to the SEC, and about 5 million more headed to the compilation conference. But each of FOX and ESPN stand to make 1.5 billion each

I'd like to see the math here, where that money is supposed to come from.

Quote:at the cost of 125 million more for the compilation conference and 320 million each for the 8 schools each the promote to the B1G and SEC.

And we haven't even accounted for the 1 billion each of the 3 conferences can earn from the playoffs.

So maybe Wake Forest, Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse or the 4 corners are pissed about only making 42 million each in media contract revenue. When is the last time you divided a billion 25 ways? That's 40 million each counting the conference share.

So, if a 16-school playoff is estimated to be worth 6 billion and the outlay per year to tap it costs ESPN and FOX 445 million each, and they clear a billion, and the loser schools double their money even if it is limited to 12-14 years. You tell me who the hell will complain?

Now for naysayers and pessimists let's half the 6 billion to 3 billion. ESPN and FOX still clear 300 million plus at the same payout, and the top schools only make 14.4 million more which is 94.4 million each while the compilation conference only makes 56.4 million each.

Anyone going to gripe about that? None dare call it treason if it profits Frank!

But you don't have to break the ACC GOR or shuffle half of the P5 around to do that. You can just --- have a 16 team playoff, with the Big Ten and SEC claiming the lions share of the money, the 2 or 3 Tier Two conferences getting some, and the G5 getting crumbs. Jiggering a "neutral" formula to yield a 25-25-10-10-10-20 split is much easier than what you're suggesting. You can include 4 conference champs, 3, 6, whatever number the Big Ten and SEC can live with. If the Big Ten and SEC agree, they can make that happen the day after tomorrow, practically. (They probably DONT agree on things like the Rose Bowl and about one ESPN-friendly package or a split, OTA friendly package. But when those two agree, it is agreed)

A generation or two ago, my fathers' cousin must have been having fertility troubles. A Brooklyn Catholic, she did a pilgrimage to a certain church in Quebec and climbed the stairs on her knees, a devotion that was intended to bless her with a pregancy.

My father, not a diplomat, joked to her "Marie, you know there's an easier way, right?"

What my dad said was probably really insensitive to a woman who was probably trying really hard to get pregnant and couldn't, but his point stands here. If the endgame is the money from a 16 team playoff, and the non-Tier One confernences get crumbs, you can just DO THAT. No need to expand Tier One to 40 or 48 teams.

Yes, you do. The upper tier would generate its revenue from being sculpted to produce a specified number of games each week each with the highest probability of generating 5 million viewers. The compilation access conference is the cost of setting that up. If you don't design it that way it isn't as valuable to advertisers. The 16-school playoff is money unto itself, but for the networks to maximize their end both upper-level brand consolidation and the playoff need to happen. The more involved ESPN and FOX are in setting it up the more control they will derive in operating it, and as a new entity they will not be constrained by the CFP's machinations, or that of the alliance.

(08-25-2022 11:26 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 01:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 11:34 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 10:58 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Interview featured on The Marchand and Ourand Show.

https://twitter.com/Ourand_SBJ/status/15...8734661634

Good find Chippewa!

Here's Magnus word for word:

"What we needed to get at the price we needed to get it at, neither of those things were available to us. And so as difficult as it was to go separate directions, it was the right decision for our company — there's no doubt about that. We are going to continue to be heavily invested in college sports. Nothing is forever in the rights buying business, so you've got to be somewhat dispassionate about (it) and stick to your process if you will. But it was hard. It was a hard decision, but I think it was the right decision for us — mostly because of what was on offer to us to buy, which is not what we were hoping for."

Two takeaways for me:

1. The B1G and FOX jointly running the negotiations was both a brilliant tactic and a cold bucket of water dropped on Magnus and his team. The plan from Day 1 obviously was to bring aboard both CBS and NBC which, with FOX, collectively could offer sweet-spot network viewing windows that ABC and ESPN more often than not wouldn't have available. And then the BIG's negotiating "team" had the gall to offer some lower-value content at a per game price well-above what they're paying for the pennies-on-the-dollar deal in which ESPN swindled the ACC schools. Well, yeah, that was not going to fly.

2. Mentioned this before and some (maybe or maybe not correctly) poo-pooed it ... But I'll go back to this issue that if the B1G's deal winds up being for significantly more dollars than the SEC's (and ends four years earlier to boot), it's gonna be a problem for ESPN and Greg Sankey. As much as some folks like to think so, school administrators are not just going to sit there and say, "Hey, it is what it is. We signed it, we got to live with it."

ESPN is gonna hear about it and Sankey is gonna hear about it. A lot.

In a roundabout way, this may well be where a huge expansion addition with a number of ACC schools would allow a re-working of the deal and also allow the SEC (with Disney assuming the same role FOX did in the B1G negotiations) to make perhaps the first major jump in the digital (OTT) space by partnering with Amazon or Apple. This would of course allow Disney to defray some of its costs to a deep-pocketed partner.

Again, there are ways to make this work and make everyone happy (or at least content).

Just gonna take some innovative and collaborative thinking.

The problem is that what a lot of posters try to argue will "make everyone happy" is really "make a handful of ACC schools that want to bail and the SEC happy." The "innovation and collaborative thinking" is contingent on screwing most of the ACC in order to give the "privilege" of ESPN paying more for the same teams that they already hold the rights to for the next 14 years on a much cheaper contract.

I don't see how that makes the vast majority of the ACC schools happy or, no matter how much we want to believe that ESPN loves the SEC, that they would be happy paying more money to anyone. Just listen to the podcast: ESPN is being much more cost conscious compared to before. These aren't the free-spending days of John Skipper that was obsessed with just hoovering up all content available.

The Magnus comments on the ACC actually point to the opposite of your conclusion. What I heard from him was essentially, "The ACC schools need to quit whining. ESPN took a huge risk setting up the ACC Network when we all knew cord cutting was already happening and, in exchange, we required a really long-term deal to take such risk. That long-term deal is now protecting the ACC from getting raided like other leagues. Quit whining." (Magnus talked about ESPN "taking a risk" in connection with launching the ACC Network multiple times. He was hammering home that the ACC schools knew exactly what they were signing up for with a 20-year deal. Those don't sound like the words of someone that wants to see content move off of the ACC Network.)

People need to stop thinking like fans or even university presidents in this scenario. Think like a cold-hearted Wall Street activist investor that's scrutinizing every penny that Disney is spending right now. ESPN isn't like FOX where they can just do whatever their figurehead of Rupert Murdoch wants regardless of how much it costs.

Actually Frank, I could say that only B1G guys want to deny making everyone whole financially, as "happy" has little to do with it. And what you need to think like is a CEO who wants to add a billion in profits and gain some control over an expanded post season.

All of which perfectly explains a pro Big Ten position disguised to sound like business sense, which it isn't when profits are the motive. Yes, they will pay more for additions, about 40 million each for those headed to the SEC, and about 5 million more headed to the compilation conference. But each of FOX and ESPN stand to make 1.5 billion each at the cost of 125 million more for the compilation conference and 320 million each for the 8 schools each the promote to the B1G and SEC.

And we haven't even accounted for the 1 billion each of the 3 conferences can earn from the playoffs.

So maybe Wake Forest, Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse or the 4 corners are pissed about only making 42 million each in media contract revenue. When is the last time you divided a billion 25 ways? That's 40 million each counting the conference share.

So, if a 16-school playoff is estimated to be worth 6 billion and the outlay per year to tap it costs ESPN and FOX 445 million each, and they clear a billion, and the loser schools double their money even if it is limited to 12-14 years. You tell me who the hell will complain?

Now for naysayers and pessimists let's half the 6 billion to 3 billion. ESPN and FOX still clear 300 million plus at the same payout, and the top schools only make 14.4 million more which is 94.4 million each while the compilation conference only makes 56.4 million each.

Anyone going to gripe about that? None dare call it treason if it profits Frank!

You're throwing a lot of hypothetical numbers out here.

What we do know is that ESPN is paying about half as much for *all* of the ACC rights for the next 14 years compared to what they're paying for the SEC and what FOX/NBC/CBS are paying for the Big Ten.

This is the last full list of subscriber fee rates that I could find, but the SECN gets $0.93 per subscriber per month and ACCN gets $0.67 per month. So, while the SECN is a larger revenue driver, the ACCN is more profitable because they're getting about 75% of the revenue of the SECN with only 50% of the costs:

https://variety.com/vip/pay-tv-true-cost...234810682/

At the same time, I know that you're focused on the future playoff system being a "closed universe" with the Big Ten, SEC and maybe one or two other anointed conferences in an NFL-like setup. That may very well happen, but I'm unclear as to why either ESPN or FOX would find a future playoff to be more profitable to *them* in that closed universe compared to the current setup.

To be clear, I get that the Big Ten or SEC themselves would benefit from that closed universe because they could take advantage of, say, Clemson being in the playoff. Of course that would be great for the Big Ten and SEC! However, certainly for ESPN, whether Clemson is representing the ACC or SEC in that playoff makes no difference when they own the rights to Clemson's games for the next 14 years no matter what. I will continue to fail to see why ESPN is going to choose paying more for the rights to Clemson's games for the next 14 years (I can't emphasize that point enough) when they have them for so cheap now.

The ACC contract is the *epitome* of a profitable sports rights contract. ESPN is getting ALL of the Clemson/FSU/Miami football games, ALL of the UNC/Duke basketball games, a bunch of guaranteed non-conference Notre Dame football games... and the contract is *already* undervalued and it still has 14 years to go!. This is the cable equivalent of the CBS deal for the SEC Game of the Week where CBS was paying about 1/6th of the market value of that package. Ultimately, CBS wasn't in it to make the "SEC happy", but rather make insane profits off of that package for the next decade and a half.

That's what gets me in all of these discussions. The ACC deal for ESPN isn't "kinda sorta good for them". Instead, it's "you're not prying this contract away from my cold dead hands" INCREDIBLE for ESPN. Once again, promoting the SEC on ESPN is quite different than the Walt Disney Company *willingly* exiting the single most profitable sports deal that they have right now in a time where every single move that they make is scrutinized worldwide. Those are "bird in hand" profits that Disney has right now. We can agree to disagree that any supposed profits from a new playoff would override those bird in hand profits for ESPN.

I just see that these companies can barely look past the next quarter in terms of their profit/loss figures. As a result, I'm not buying that a business that has been under constant scrutiny and pressure for the past several years due to cord cutting (the Walt Disney Company) is giving up 14 years of cost certainty for high value ACC programming on 4 different networks (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU and ACCN) in a world where sports rights in general are increasing at a massive clip because they think that they can make more profits on a hypothetical college football playoff consisting of essentially just the Big Ten and SEC that has yet to be defined and may never even come to fruition. Heck, it would likely take until 2036 for what you've proposed to even realistically come to pass, anyway, so even if ESPN believes in the profitability of such hypothetical playoff, they can just wait for the next 14 years to bide their time for it while getting all of the ACC brands for super cheap.

Remember that ESPN isn't just a college sports network, either. I know we like to think that way here on this forum, but that's far from the case. They're likely going to need to pay *triple* what they're paying now in order to retain their NBA package within a couple of years. Note that their current NBA contract is already substantially more than what ESPN is paying all of their college conference partners *combined*. So, ESPN is about to incur a 300% increase on their largest non-NFL deal in a world where cord cutting continues and they absolutely, 100% *need* to keep the NBA as that's the league that actually is drawing in younger viewers at a much higher clip than anything else besides the NFL.

Call me crazy, but that's not an environment where ESPN is tearing up a sweetheart ACC deal that's providing a ton of content for multiple networks for the next 14 years at an annual price that's essentially the cost of a couple of weeks of the rights to Monday Night Football.

(08-25-2022 02:25 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 01:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 01:39 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 01:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ESPN isn't like FOX where they can just do whatever their figurehead of Rupert Murdoch wants regardless of how much it costs.

New Fox isn't really like that anymore either--there are budget limitations. That's why NFL Thursday Night Football (2nd highest rated program on television last year, behind NFL Sunday Night Football) is not going to be on Fox anymore.

ESPN still has the deep pockets, but they do have corporate overlords (including Murdoch) who have veto power over how money gets spent (wasted).

Oh - I'm not saying that FOX is spending whatever it wants on anything that it wants.

FOX was losing a lot of money on NFL Thursday Night Football. CBS and NBC also lost a lot of money on NFL TNF when they had that package prior to FOX. That's why none of the linear networks were willing to pay more for that package and Amazon ended up with the rights.

What I mean is that FOX is very centralized in its leadership structure compared to Disney and it's simply a much smaller and focused outfit today (and very purposely so when they sold their other assets to Disney). That's not a good or bad thing (as whether that's an advantage or not depends on the situation). It's just that Murdoch will use activist investor letters as kindling for his fireplace, whereas Disney has to deal with entire news cycles on each and every activist investor letter that it receives along with every time that it has an earnings report or releases guidance on its streaming numbers.

That's why I think it's so important to not just refer to "ESPN" in these discussions, but rather the entire Walt Disney Company. Disney is arguably the single most scrutinized public company on Earth with big-time investors calling them out every time that they think they're spending too much... yet all of these "ESPN will help the SEC get ACC schools" scenarios depend upon ESPN very publicly paying out a ton of money (e.g. hundreds of millions of dollars at a minimum and likely over a billion dollars) in order to rip up very ESPN-friendly long-term contracts with the ACC and frankly the SEC, too (as compared to what FOX/NBC/CBS are paying to the Big Ten). I'm not even talking about the legal piece of the GOR agreement (which is an entirely separate issue), but rather the very financial underpinnings of what makes sense to the Walt Disney Company.

I’ve been beating that drum for months. The only way ESPN is making any changes to the ACC deal is if it’s in ESPN’s financial interest to do so. And I struggle to figure out how it’s in their best interest to tear up an ESPN-friendly deal just so they can pay all the schools more money (in several different conferences).

ESPN will make more money from selling ads in the SEC with FSU-SEC matchups and Clemson-SEC matchups than it did from FSU-ACC and Clemson-ACC matchups.
So if that increase is more than the extra they pay FSU and Clemson and the amount they lose in advertising on the remaining ACC, they will be favorably inclined. And since the ACC is under market, they could keep the ACC contract the same without any loss and so the remaining ACC schools would be whole.

Now I have no idea how much more they would make in SEC advertising and how much they would lose in ACC advertising. But that is how it would be in their interest, if those numbers work.

(08-25-2022 12:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 02:25 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 01:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 01:39 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 01:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ESPN isn't like FOX where they can just do whatever their figurehead of Rupert Murdoch wants regardless of how much it costs.

New Fox isn't really like that anymore either--there are budget limitations. That's why NFL Thursday Night Football (2nd highest rated program on television last year, behind NFL Sunday Night Football) is not going to be on Fox anymore.

ESPN still has the deep pockets, but they do have corporate overlords (including Murdoch) who have veto power over how money gets spent (wasted).

Oh - I'm not saying that FOX is spending whatever it wants on anything that it wants.

FOX was losing a lot of money on NFL Thursday Night Football. CBS and NBC also lost a lot of money on NFL TNF when they had that package prior to FOX. That's why none of the linear networks were willing to pay more for that package and Amazon ended up with the rights.

What I mean is that FOX is very centralized in its leadership structure compared to Disney and it's simply a much smaller and focused outfit today (and very purposely so when they sold their other assets to Disney). That's not a good or bad thing (as whether that's an advantage or not depends on the situation). It's just that Murdoch will use activist investor letters as kindling for his fireplace, whereas Disney has to deal with entire news cycles on each and every activist investor letter that it receives along with every time that it has an earnings report or releases guidance on its streaming numbers.

That's why I think it's so important to not just refer to "ESPN" in these discussions, but rather the entire Walt Disney Company. Disney is arguably the single most scrutinized public company on Earth with big-time investors calling them out every time that they think they're spending too much... yet all of these "ESPN will help the SEC get ACC schools" scenarios depend upon ESPN very publicly paying out a ton of money (e.g. hundreds of millions of dollars at a minimum and likely over a billion dollars) in order to rip up very ESPN-friendly long-term contracts with the ACC and frankly the SEC, too (as compared to what FOX/NBC/CBS are paying to the Big Ten). I'm not even talking about the legal piece of the GOR agreement (which is an entirely separate issue), but rather the very financial underpinnings of what makes sense to the Walt Disney Company.

I’ve been beating that drum for months. The only way ESPN is making any changes to the ACC deal is if it’s in ESPN’s financial interest to do so. And I struggle to figure out how it’s in their best interest to tear up an ESPN-friendly deal just so they can pay all the schools more money (in several different conferences).

ESPN will make more money from selling ads in the SEC with FSU-SEC matchups and Clemson-SEC matchups than it did from FSU-ACC and Clemson-ACC matchups.

But they'd lose the revenue they're getting from the ACC Network. If you lose FSU and Clemson, providers are going to pressure ESPN for lower rates, or just drop ACC-N entirely. You're not going to make that up selling ads on ESPN--only about 20% of ESPN's revenue comes from ads. It's all about the subscriber fees. (OTA does better with ads, but they're also heavily reliant on subscriber fees--they own-and-operate their big-city affiliates, in Fox's case where 14 of 16 NFC teams are).

Quote:So if that increase is more than the extra they pay FSU and Clemson and the amount they lose in advertising on the remaining ACC, they will be favorably inclined. And since the ACC is under market, they could keep the ACC contract the same without any loss and so the remaining ACC schools would be whole.

Now I have no idea how much more they would make in SEC advertising and how much they would lose in ACC advertising. But that is how it would be in their interest, if those numbers work.

The numbers probably don't work. The Big Ten has enough top-level inventory that three networks can get some 5M+ level games, which is rich advertising territory. But adding Florida State and Clemson doesn't give the SEC a whole new package the way adding southern California amped up the value of the Big Ten OTA packages.

Future additions pretty much have to be worth MORE than USC, UCLA and southern California, or more than Texas + Oklahoma. That's a high bar to clear.

I know McMurphy's sources say that the PAC schools are on deck for the Big Ten. Me, I don't see how the math maths. There isn't enough BTN money to make it work, Seattle and Portland and San Franscisco don't move the needle the way Los Angeles does. I don't see NBC and CBS and Fox coughing up another $250 or $300 or $400M to make this happen. And I don't see ESPN paying that kind of money for a Big Ten 10:30 window--if there were that kind of money on the table for that window, the PAC would be getting a better offer from ESPN