+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+----- Forum: P5 Discussion (/forum-997.html)
+----- Thread: Expansion talk with regard to the ACC (/thread-920059.html)
Expansion talk with regard to the ACC - AllTideUp - 04-03-2021 09:34 PM
Here's an ESPN article from a few days ago discussing the new ACC commissioner and some of the issues facing the conference.
There's also some tidbits talking realignment.
It's interesting when this sort of talk comes from ESPN.
Quote:Given this pivotal moment for the conference, ESPN talked with 16 athletic directors and football coaches from across the league in recent weeks. Each one of them believes Phillips is the right man for the job, but they also know his influence could have ripple effects throughout the sport for years to come.
That is because the ACC's different financial trajectory compared to other Power 5 conferences leaves the new commissioner with a daunting task. Bringing in more money is a must, but to do that, the ACC must prioritize football and rewrite the league's image. To get there, Phillips' constituents will seek his guidance in the process, from reconsidering scheduling to divisional alignment, TV deals to expansion, and the league's long-term relationship with Notre Dame.
Quote:The Big 12 distributed an average of $37 million to its 10 schools, which represented a small decrease from the previous year. The futures of its TV deals, including the Longhorn Network, represent a clear inflection point on the horizon that has led some athletic directors to again ponder the possibility of another round of conference realignment, which nearly toppled the Big 12 a decade ago.
Quote:"If we don't get our TV contract in the ballpark of [the SEC and Big Ten], there will be no level playing field in the Power 5," said one ACC coach, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "There will not be a Power 5 anymore, in my opinion."
Quote:The ACC does have a check-in window on its television contract with ESPN this spring, and although the discussions between the league and network are not expected to drastically alter the current contract, Phillips views the discussions as valuable. Multiple athletic directors talked about the looming look-in window, believing everything should be on the table to help enhance the football product and make the league more attractive to TV partners.
Quote:"Everyone's thought for a long time that our league trended toward the bouncy ball rather than the pointy one," one coach said, "but college basketball is not what it was as a franchise 10 years ago. Does that hurt us? Has our league ever really looked at pushing football as the future?"
Quote:"We had the perfect ultimatum last year," one coach said. "We had them, they had nowhere to go. What would they have done? Why would we do that? Because we know that's our lifeboat out from where we're at right now. And to be honest, is that not Notre Dame's lifeboat? Can they survive if the Big Ten and the SEC start lapping everybody? Instead, we just let them run through the front door, take all of our stuff and run out the back."
Quote:Several athletic directors mentioned the Texas Longhorns, along with Big 12 rival Oklahoma, as another potential option to closing the gap with the SEC and Big Ten.
At this point, the conversations are mostly theoretical, but as the smallest and most geographically homogenous league, the Big 12 was a ripe target during the last round of conference realignment a decade ago, and is now looking at its own uncertain future with a new TV deal on the horizon and the shaky status of the Longhorn Network. That could make the Big 12's biggest brands -- the Longhorns and Sooners -- a perfect solution for the ACC or Pac-12's revenue woes and instantly transform an expanded conference into a bigger player in TV negotiations.
Quote:But Texas has outsized control in its own league along with a seemingly endless revenue stream, and past dalliances with the Pac-12 ultimately amounted to nothing. Could that change down the road if TV money and playoff expansion dominoes fall the right way? It was a common enough theme among ACC ADs to assume Phillips will at least do his due diligence.
RE: Expansion talk with regard to the ACC - AllTideUp - 04-03-2021 09:47 PM
Just from the tenor of the article, I can't decide if ESPN wants to get people used to the idea of moving Texas and Oklahoma to the ACC or if they want to prepare everyone for a demise of the ACC.
RE: Expansion talk with regard to the ACC - JRsec - 04-03-2021 10:29 PM
(04-03-2021 09:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: Just from the tenor of the article, I can't decide if ESPN wants to get people used to the idea of moving Texas and Oklahoma to the ACC or if they want to prepare everyone for a demise of the ACC.
It is a wonderful setup remark. It tells ACC people that something drastic has to happen for the deficit in revenue to be overcome. It prepares them to be conciliatory in making drastic changes in order to be competitive in revenue and football. It prepares the SEC to be aware that there could be competition besides the Big 10 for that duo. And if the Big 12 is preserved it signals the ACC members that making the deficit up can't be done by remaining in the ACC. And if Oklahoma and Texas go to either of the SEC and Big 10 it tells them that what was really bad is about to get even worse.
That statement placed, and rightfully so, everyone's eyes on the two prizes that are the most likely to be available for movement in 2025. All of realignment will be set in motion by what Texas and Oklahoma do or do not do. Notre Dame is playing the waiting game. If Texas and Oklahoma do move it only makes Notre Dame more valuable and it gives them even more leverage.
From the time all of this got started back in 1992 it has been clear that the biggest prizes would wait because the closer we got to an end game the more bargaining leverage they would have and the more value they could realize.
RE: Expansion talk with regard to the ACC - Nerdlinger - 04-03-2021 11:02 PM
(04-03-2021 09:34 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:Quote:"We had the perfect ultimatum last year," one coach said. "We had them, they had nowhere to go. What would they have done? Why would we do that? Because we know that's our lifeboat out from where we're at right now. And to be honest, is that not Notre Dame's lifeboat? Can they survive if the Big Ten and the SEC start lapping everybody? Instead, we just let them run through the front door, take all of our stuff and run out the back."
This is a fair point. The ACC did not press its hand, as it could have.
RE: Expansion talk with regard to the ACC - DawgNBama - 04-03-2021 11:09 PM
(04-03-2021 11:02 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:(04-03-2021 09:34 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:Quote:"We had the perfect ultimatum last year," one coach said. "We had them, they had nowhere to go. What would they have done? Why would we do that? Because we know that's our lifeboat out from where we're at right now. And to be honest, is that not Notre Dame's lifeboat? Can they survive if the Big Ten and the SEC start lapping everybody? Instead, we just let them run through the front door, take all of our stuff and run out the back."
This is a fair point. The ACC did not press its hand, as it could have.
If that coach is referring to the fact that the ACC could have forced ND's hand due to Covid-19, that's something I have never thought of before, and shame on the ACC for not thinking about the big picture. It would have been rather nasty to do, but considering some stunts ND has pulled over the years, maybe...
RE: Expansion talk with regard to the ACC - Wedge - 04-03-2021 11:18 PM
If UT and OU want to stay where they are, they have almost unlimited ability to squeeze the rest of the Big 12, if they want to use that leverage. Maybe they don't. But if UT says to the Big 12, "Give us a conference revenue share equal to what SEC teams get, and the rest of you get less," how could they say no?
ND could squeeze the ACC hard, unbelievably hard, as a condition of joining as a full football member. Demand a guaranteed SEC-sized revenue share, a veto over the conference ever playing more than 8 conference games in football, a veto over any new ACC members, etc.
UT and OU could make equally big demands on the Pac-12 or ACC as well, but IMO UT just doesn't want to send its athletes on regular trips to Seattle, Pullman, Boston, Syracuse, etc. Not going to happen.
ND, UT, and OU don't have that kind of leverage with the Big Ten or SEC. The majority in either league could easily think, "We are already obscenely wealthy, and we're going to stay that way no matter what, and we don't need to give special status to anyone." If they want to join, they will be welcomed, but they'll be an equal member just like Minnesota or Ole Miss. The one "special" thing they could get is a full revenue share from day one, which some new members did not get.
RE: Expansion talk with regard to the ACC - TerryD - 04-03-2021 11:21 PM
(04-03-2021 11:09 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:(04-03-2021 11:02 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:(04-03-2021 09:34 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:Quote:"We had the perfect ultimatum last year," one coach said. "We had them, they had nowhere to go. What would they have done? Why would we do that? Because we know that's our lifeboat out from where we're at right now. And to be honest, is that not Notre Dame's lifeboat? Can they survive if the Big Ten and the SEC start lapping everybody? Instead, we just let them run through the front door, take all of our stuff and run out the back."
This is a fair point. The ACC did not press its hand, as it could have.
If that coach is referring to the fact that the ACC could have forced ND's hand due to Covid-19, that's something I have never thought of before, and shame on the ACC for not thinking about the big picture. It would have been rather nasty to do, but considering some stunts ND has pulled over the years, maybe...
As an ND fan, I appreciate what the ACC did (for its own self interest reasons) for ND last season.
I think that it was the best move for both ND and the ACC. A win/win.
But, I find the idea that the ACC could have "forced" ND to make a course altering decision of that magnitude over a one season scheduling problem an unsupportable one.
I think that the coaches overstate the leverage the ACC had over ND. I think that John Swofford knew this.
ND was in a tight spot, but would not have abandoned 100 plus years of football independence for a one year fix.
If pressed, it would have taken the hit and cobbled together whatever schedule it could instead.
RE: Expansion talk with regard to the ACC - BruceMcF - 04-04-2021 03:25 AM
(04-03-2021 11:09 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:(04-03-2021 11:02 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:(04-03-2021 09:34 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:Quote:"We had the perfect ultimatum last year," one coach said. "We had them, they had nowhere to go. What would they have done? Why would we do that? Because we know that's our lifeboat out from where we're at right now. And to be honest, is that not Notre Dame's lifeboat? Can they survive if the Big Ten and the SEC start lapping everybody? Instead, we just let them run through the front door, take all of our stuff and run out the back."
This is a fair point. The ACC did not press its hand, as it could have.
If that coach is referring to the fact that the ACC could have forced ND's hand due to Covid-19, that's something I have never thought of before, and shame on the ACC for not thinking about the big picture. It would have been rather nasty to do, but considering some stunts ND has pulled over the years, maybe...
It seems likely that ACC in "thinking about the bigger picture" knew full well that Notre Dame would have just muddled through if given the ultimatum to bring football in or else be left out in the cold, so were able to set aside the issue of whether they had ultimatum power or not and were able to work out an arrangement of mutual benefit to both sides.
RE: Expansion talk with regard to the ACC - Transic_nyc - 04-04-2021 03:30 AM
(04-03-2021 10:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:(04-03-2021 09:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: Just from the tenor of the article, I can't decide if ESPN wants to get people used to the idea of moving Texas and Oklahoma to the ACC or if they want to prepare everyone for a demise of the ACC.
It is a wonderful setup remark. It tells ACC people that something drastic has to happen for the deficit in revenue to be overcome. It prepares them to be conciliatory in making drastic changes in order to be competitive in revenue and football. It prepares the SEC to be aware that there could be competition besides the Big 10 for that duo. And if the Big 12 is preserved it signals the ACC members that making the deficit up can't be done by remaining in the ACC. And if Oklahoma and Texas go to either of the SEC and Big 10 it tells them that what was really bad is about to get even worse.
That statement placed, and rightfully so, everyone's eyes on the two prizes that are the most likely to be available for movement in 2025. All of realignment will be set in motion by what Texas and Oklahoma do or do not do. Notre Dame is playing the waiting game. If Texas and Oklahoma do move it only makes Notre Dame more valuable and it gives them even more leverage.
From the time all of this got started back in 1992 it has been clear that the biggest prizes would wait because the closer we got to an end game the more bargaining leverage they would have and the more value they could realize.
So after years of speculation and rumor-mongering *coughDudeofWVcough* it may come down to this:
Do Oklahoma and Texas want to be like Ohio State and Michigan; like Texas A&M and Colorado; or like Notre Dame?
Whatever decision they make, if it does then start effecting the ACC drastically, then it would come down to this:
Quote:To get there, Phillips' constituents will seek his guidance in the process, from reconsidering scheduling to divisional alignment, TV deals to expansion, and the league's long-term relationship with Notre Dame.
And here is where, potentially, the internal divisions within that conference may, ultimately, break up the unity. Not only the factions that favor football or basketball, but the various institutional profiles may also come into play.
(04-03-2021 11:18 PM)Wedge Wrote: If UT and OU want to stay where they are, they have almost unlimited ability to squeeze the rest of the Big 12, if they want to use that leverage. Maybe they don't. But if UT says to the Big 12, "Give us a conference revenue share equal to what SEC teams get, and the rest of you get less," how could they say no?
Here is where I could see the Rest of the Big 12 start angling to convince the conference to participate in the gobbling of another conference with the help of the two big gorillas of the Big Ten and SEC. They'd be loathe to give up that tasty revenue unless it's the very last option before dissolving. If they go down the unequal distribution route that starts a slow descent into irrelevance. It's one thing to be behind Oklahoma, it's another to be behind the likes of Purdue and Ole Miss. With consolidation, the rBigXII pushes that further down the road.
RE: Expansion talk with regard to the ACC - schmolik - 04-04-2021 06:53 AM
Once Oklahoma's T3 contract expires, the gap between Oklahoma and Texas will widen. That's going to be a bigger issue to me than the gap between Oklahoma and Texas and the others. I think the Little Eight will accept Oklahoma and Texas getting more than they get. But will Oklahoma accept Texas getting more than they get? I highly doubt any T3 contract for OU will be anywhere near as valuable as the Longhorn Network is for UT, ESPN wouldn't make that deal for UT now.
RE: Expansion talk with regard to the ACC - AllTideUp - 04-04-2021 07:55 AM
Quote:Several athletic directors mentioned the Texas Longhorns, along with Big 12 rival Oklahoma, as another potential option to closing the gap with the SEC and Big Ten.
At this point, the conversations are mostly theoretical, but as the smallest and most geographically homogenous league, the Big 12 was a ripe target during the last round of conference realignment a decade ago, and is now looking at its own uncertain future with a new TV deal on the horizon and the shaky status of the Longhorn Network. That could make the Big 12's biggest brands -- the Longhorns and Sooners -- a perfect solution for the ACC or Pac-12's revenue woes and instantly transform an expanded conference into a bigger player in TV negotiations.
Another remark is the one bolded above.
When an ESPN piece starts talking about the "shaky status" of the LHN then you know they're no longer interested in portraying strength with such a product. They either don't like the contract or don't think the whole thing is sustainable.
That is ESPN's leverage over UT...
If Texas wants to maintain the gravy train or make up lost ground with other conferences then they'll have to consider what ESPN wants in return.
I could be wrong, but I think it would be a lot easier to talk Texas into absorbing a portion of the ACC in exchange for a stable, enduring Big 12 that is completely under the umbrella of ESPN than it would be to talk Texas into going to another league.
The SEC is the only real option for Texas to improve themselves in another conference. The others wouldn't allow for UT's business model to survive. With that said, Texas would have to give up a lot of leverage to make that sort of move. Absorbing a portion of the ACC would be ideal for them.
RE: Expansion talk with regard to the ACC - schmolik - 04-04-2021 08:14 AM
Looking at the numbers in the article:
ACC: "at least $27 million to each school" Not counting Notre Dame, $27M * 14 = $378 million.
Big 12: "an average of $37 million to its 10 schools" = $370 million.
So the overall value of the ACC is more than the overall value of the Big 12, the difference is the ACC has to split the pie 14 ways instead of 10. And the $37 million is an "average" while the $27 million is "at least". Considering Texas is making a ton of money with the LHN, I wouldn't be surprised if you took UT out that the average ACC school is quite competitive with the average Big 12 school. Now both are way behind the average Big 10 and SEC school but the fact that the Big 12 is way better than the ACC is simply false.
RE: Expansion talk with regard to the ACC - JRsec - 04-04-2021 10:34 AM
2024 to 2025: PAC 12 GOR expires. Big 12 GOR expires. PAC 12 Media Contract expires Big 12 media contract expires. SEC new media contract begins.
2023-4 Big 10 media contract expires.
2022: Oklahoma's T3 Contract expires.
So 2022 tells us if Oklahoma signs a short term extension with FOX that their eyes are likely set upon the Big 10. If they sing a short term contract with ESPN it could mean that they expect ESPN to attain rights to the Big 12, or that they are considering a move to a fully held ESPN conference.
2023-4 tells us how much the Big 10 will tack onto their fine media contract. I suspect enough to be plus or minus 2 million of the SEC's projected amount at that time. Calling the COVID season and the upcoming one flat and accounting (as I will for all conferences) for escalators for 2022-3, 2023-4, and 2024-5, that means the SEC will be around 50 million in 2024, the Big 10 around 61 million, the Big 12 around 43 million for T1 & T2, the PAC around 38 million, and the ACC around 33 million.
When the SEC's new contract begins the boost will be ~20 million taking it to 70 million. The Big 10's new contract taking it to between 68 million to 72 million depending on whether they get 10% more on a relatively new contract or 15% more. The Big 12 will be renegotiating off of 43 million. The PAC will be renegotiating off of 38 million. The ACC will be stuck until 2036 with a smaller look in bump, or with escalators, while trying to play catch up.
The PAC could see a bit more if they clean up the PACN and get network help with it prior to their new contract period. The ACC could get a modest bump out of the look in and might see how much the ACCN could actually pay if not for COVID. And nobody knows the full extent of the details of the SEC's actual contract, just the minimums.
The Big 12 will be trying to secure its position and it is much easier to build a conference around Texas and Oklahoma than it is North Carolina and Virginia (two schools who are not the revenue leaders of the conference they lead).
The Big 10 would probably like more expansion East where alumni and population are moving. Texas is great and they would take them, as would anyone, but there isn't much happening between Iowa and Texas demographically.
The SEC would like to solidify the Southeast and South Carolina and Florida would feel much more secure if they had their top money games in house. The SEC however might also like to neutralize any advantage that the Big 10 would get by expanding East if the Big 10 actually did so. So the State of North Carolina and the state of Virginia might still come into their thinking. However, since the previous realignment of 2010-2 market footprint is no longer as big of a factor and content value has taken the larger role in valuations of potential moves.
The PAC is cohesive and protected by geography and if football becomes more semi-professional and non revenue sports remain more amateur in status (even with NIL) that means that playing all sports except football and likely basketball as locally as possible will be a plus.
Only the ACC will be in a position of satisfying the needs or wants of the Big 10, SEC, or even the Big 12. But they are under a GOR until 2037. So knowing what they face, knowing what they will miss out on in terms of revenue, having different factions within their ranks, and failing the acquiring of Texas and Oklahoma (long long shot), perhaps the remarks of the commissioner were the remarks of one who is there to manage whatever must be done considering the circumstances.
Whatever happens by 2023-5 is going to be a helluva lot more dramatic than what happened in 2010-2 and that was pretty big back then.
RE: Expansion talk with regard to the ACC - ken d - 04-04-2021 12:09 PM
So, what is the significance of the look-in window this Spring in the ACC's contract? Does it mean that either party could walk away from the deal? If it's so favorable to ESPN, they wouldn't want to walk away. Does the ACC think it could do better with someone besides ESPN? Why would they think that?
RE: Expansion talk with regard to the ACC - TerryD - 04-04-2021 12:20 PM
(04-03-2021 11:09 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:(04-03-2021 11:02 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:(04-03-2021 09:34 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:Quote:"We had the perfect ultimatum last year," one coach said. "We had them, they had nowhere to go. What would they have done? Why would we do that? Because we know that's our lifeboat out from where we're at right now. And to be honest, is that not Notre Dame's lifeboat? Can they survive if the Big Ten and the SEC start lapping everybody? Instead, we just let them run through the front door, take all of our stuff and run out the back."
This is a fair point. The ACC did not press its hand, as it could have.
If that coach is referring to the fact that the ACC could have forced ND's hand due to Covid-19, that's something I have never thought of before, and shame on the ACC for not thinking about the big picture. It would have been rather nasty to do, but considering some stunts ND has pulled over the years, maybe...
(04-03-2021 11:18 PM)Wedge Wrote: If UT and OU want to stay where they are, they have almost unlimited ability to squeeze the rest of the Big 12, if they want to use that leverage. Maybe they don't. But if UT says to the Big 12, "Give us a conference revenue share equal to what SEC teams get, and the rest of you get less," how could they say no?
ND could squeeze the ACC hard, unbelievably hard, as a condition of joining as a full football member. Demand a guaranteed SEC-sized revenue share, a veto over the conference ever playing more than 8 conference games in football, a veto over any new ACC members, etc.
UT and OU could make equally big demands on the Pac-12 or ACC as well, but IMO UT just doesn't want to send its athletes on regular trips to Seattle, Pullman, Boston, Syracuse, etc. Not going to happen.
ND, UT, and OU don't have that kind of leverage with the Big Ten or SEC. The majority in either league could easily think, "We are already obscenely wealthy, and we're going to stay that way no matter what, and we don't need to give special status to anyone." If they want to join, they will be welcomed, but they'll be an equal member just like Minnesota or Ole Miss. The one "special" thing they could get is a full revenue share from day one, which some new members did not get.
(04-04-2021 12:09 PM)ken d Wrote: So, what is the significance of the look-in window this Spring in the ACC's contract? Does it mean that either party could walk away from the deal? If it's so favorable to ESPN, they wouldn't want to walk away. Does the ACC think it could do better with someone besides ESPN? Why would they think that?
I believe the "look in" is limited to whether ESPN would up its payment to the ACC.
There likely is no chance of an "early termination clause" in the ACC/ESPN deal.
RE: Expansion talk with regard to the ACC - JRsec - 04-04-2021 12:22 PM
(04-04-2021 12:09 PM)ken d Wrote: So, what is the significance of the look-in window this Spring in the ACC's contract? Does it mean that either party could walk away from the deal? If it's so favorable to ESPN, they wouldn't want to walk away. Does the ACC think it could do better with someone besides ESPN? Why would they think that?
Look in windows don't allow you out of a contract. They provide opportunities for adjustments to the contracts. The contract would be voided if the ACC voted to dissolve. There is too much yet to be considered for that to be an option at this time.
However, should the PAC move up, the SEC and Big 10 hit or come close to the 70 million mark and the ACC only get a modest bump out of the look in, it might well become a consideration by 2024-5, but only if everything else lines up against the current ACC contract. And then it would require 12 ACC schools finding sufficient enough hope to find better contracts with other conferences for it to be considered or transpire.
As I've said before if ESPN locks up all 3 tiers of the Big 12 contract we likely wind up with gridlock for realignment and the present round of contracts will be done and the ACC will simply be stuck with theirs until 2037.
But moving to more games between the Big 12 / SEC / ACC schools where ESPN keeps the money in house could enhance everyone's money a bit. And reshuffling or eradicating divisions might help the ACC & Big 12 improve their inventory value.
RE: Expansion talk with regard to the ACC - Nerdlinger - 04-04-2021 12:46 PM
(04-04-2021 03:25 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:(04-03-2021 11:09 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:(04-03-2021 11:02 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:(04-03-2021 09:34 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:Quote:"We had the perfect ultimatum last year," one coach said. "We had them, they had nowhere to go. What would they have done? Why would we do that? Because we know that's our lifeboat out from where we're at right now. And to be honest, is that not Notre Dame's lifeboat? Can they survive if the Big Ten and the SEC start lapping everybody? Instead, we just let them run through the front door, take all of our stuff and run out the back."
This is a fair point. The ACC did not press its hand, as it could have.
If that coach is referring to the fact that the ACC could have forced ND's hand due to Covid-19, that's something I have never thought of before, and shame on the ACC for not thinking about the big picture. It would have been rather nasty to do, but considering some stunts ND has pulled over the years, maybe...
It seems likely that ACC in "thinking about the bigger picture" knew full well that Notre Dame would have just muddled through if given the ultimatum to bring football in or else be left out in the cold, so were able to set aside the issue of whether they had ultimatum power or not and were able to work out an arrangement of mutual benefit to both sides.
Good counterpoint. I think you're right that ND would have just opted to muddle through, and there'd only be bad feelings all around. Maybe the ACC could have squeezed an extra FB game per year out of ND, but even that's doubtful.
RE: Expansion talk with regard to the ACC - Jared7 - 04-04-2021 12:48 PM
(04-04-2021 07:55 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: Another remark is the one bolded above.Just because Andrea Adelson includes the word "shaky" deep down in an article about the ACC doesn't mean that she speaks for ESPN execs regarding deals that don't expire until 2031. I would say that it is, in fact, "solid" until at least its expiration and especially so because "they" don't want to upset Texas in the decade leading up to expiration.
When an ESPN piece starts talking about the "shaky status" of the LHN then you know they're no longer interested in portraying strength with such a product. They either don't like the contract or don't think the whole thing is sustainable.
That is ESPN's leverage over UT...
If Texas wants to maintain the gravy train or make up lost ground with other conferences then they'll have to consider what ESPN wants in return.
Is the LHN really "shaky?" It has a Directv deal. The PacN doesn't. Nor do any of the Pac regionals. In fact, it has more distribution than any of them (almost combined) and it only involves 1 school. It's on AT&T's basic tier. Not the PacN. If you've ever visited Austin, it is extremely popular there; highlighted at every single of the many many sports bars and routinely watched by every UT fan that I know.
On the other hand, it doesn't really have ads - mostly just promos of later shows or "Longhorn Legend" piffle. It only really shows 1 football game per year. It still doesn't feature other Big 12 schools; giving us no incentive whatsoever to watch it unless our schools' teams are playing on it and then only if we can stomach the nauseating homerism. Just this week, it televised the UT-A&M tennis match (UT won) but not the UT-TCU tennis match (UT lost). I don't think it makes money and instead represents a direct subsidy from Disney to UT. Unlike the first 2 years or so, ESPN doesn't try to shove it down everyone's throats anymore.
I think Andrea is making a mistake, though, in describing it as "shaky." And I think it represents UT's leverage over ESPN; not the other way around. And any conference which wants to poach Texas is going to have to deal with it.
RE: Expansion talk with regard to the ACC - ken d - 04-04-2021 01:07 PM
(04-04-2021 12:48 PM)Jared7 Wrote:(04-04-2021 07:55 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: Another remark is the one bolded above.Just because Andrea Adelson includes the word "shaky" deep down in an article about the ACC doesn't mean that she speaks for ESPN execs regarding deals that don't expire until 2031. I would say that it is, in fact, "solid" until at least its expiration and especially so because "they" don't want to upset Texas in the decade leading up to expiration.
When an ESPN piece starts talking about the "shaky status" of the LHN then you know they're no longer interested in portraying strength with such a product. They either don't like the contract or don't think the whole thing is sustainable.
That is ESPN's leverage over UT...
If Texas wants to maintain the gravy train or make up lost ground with other conferences then they'll have to consider what ESPN wants in return.
Is the LHN really "shaky?" It has a Directv deal. The PacN doesn't. Nor do any of the Pac regionals. In fact, it has more distribution than any of them (almost combined) and it only involves 1 school. It's on AT&T's basic tier. Not the PacN. If you've ever visited Austin, it is extremely popular there; highlighted at every single of the many many sports bars and routinely watched by every UT fan that I know.
On the other hand, it doesn't really have ads - mostly just promos of later shows or "Longhorn Legend" piffle. It only really shows 1 football game per year. It still doesn't feature other Big 12 schools; giving us no incentive whatsoever to watch it unless our schools' teams are playing on it and then only if we can stomach the nauseating homerism. Just this week, it televised the UT-A&M tennis match (UT won) but not the UT-TCU tennis match (UT lost). I don't think it makes money and instead represents a direct subsidy from Disney to UT. Unlike the first 2 years or so, ESPN doesn't try to shove it down everyone's throats anymore.
I think Andrea is making a mistake, though, in describing it as "shaky." And I think it represents UT's leverage over ESPN; not the other way around. And any conference which wants to poach Texas is going to have to deal with it.
If that's all that's being aired on the LHN, then clearly that contract is just ESPN's way of giving Texas SEC-like money while keeping them in the Big 12. If that's the case, then OU would either have to get a similar deal from ESPN or look seriously at going to either the SEC or B1G if they want anything close to financial parity with those two and UT.
The Big 12 is still top to bottom a strong league in both football and basketball, and I suspect ESPN wouldn't mind them OU and Texas staying where they are with ESPN eventually owning all their rights. In fact, I think they would prefer it. That would potentially leave the ACC as a P-4 1/2 instead of a P-5 in the long run.
RE: Expansion talk with regard to the ACC - Wedge - 04-04-2021 01:17 PM
(04-04-2021 12:48 PM)Jared7 Wrote: Is the LHN really "shaky?" It has a Directv deal. The PacN doesn't.
That was significant in 2011 -- but that was 10 years ago. Since then, DirecTV has been losing customers faster than a restaurant where every diner gets food poisoning.
DirecTV is losing customers at a much faster rate than cable. They have been losing 3 million customers a year: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2020-01-31/att-directv-subscriber-loss-sunday-ticket
It's so bad that AT&T finally surrendered to the inevitable and announced that, because DirecTV has been a drag on AT&T's stock price, they are spinning DirecTV off into a new company. DirecTV is now worth only one-third of what AT&T paid for it six years ago. AT&T has lost $32 billion on DirecTV: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2021/02/25/directv-att-losing-millions-customers/6825386002/
(04-04-2021 12:48 PM)Jared7 Wrote: I don't think it makes money and instead represents a direct subsidy from Disney to UT.
This is correct. LHN is Disney's way of paying UT more than the other Big 12 schools while maintaining the façade that the conference TV money is being split equally.