(06-04-2019 01:08 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 11:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 10:06 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 05:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 05:27 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I wasn't discussing what I would do, or what you would do. I was discussing what they did, and at that time they literally said they were not interested in altering their agreement because they could not afford to pay the current market value. And that number has only gone up since then. My hypothesis that they may not renew, unless the SEC gives a discount, was not that the SEC was not worth it, but that they may decide rights fees of five times what they pay now, their past actions show they had decided they could not afford it.

If they change their tune so be it, but at the time, it was most definitely their attitude, and the original comment about it didn't matter who the SEC added they would not have paid more, is correct. I know you get overly protective anytime someone says something you perceive as a slight toward the sEC (see above conversation with Cuserock), but not everything is a slight.

What I get overly reactive to is a lie, the manipulation of events that the board may not remember, and the atrociously overly optimistic spin of all things ACC dating back to my entire time on this board. There's a reason it was tagged the Rainbows and Unicorns crowd. Things are what they are. Tweaking the storyline with a word like "afford" is as dis-ingenious as it gets when it was not part of the discussions back in 2010-1. The only thing CBS stated was that they were getting nothing new out of the additions and didn't see why they should pay more. In the world of quid pro quo business dealings this is a perfectly rational position. What they gave up, was more than we could have expected. They gave up their exclusivity to the 2:30 CTZ slot for the Game of the Week to permit the SECN to air a T3 game. That was a gesture of good will.

No major business ever uses the words "can't afford". It is the kiss of death on stock sales. Even if they can't afford it they never state it.

Now what CBS may or may not do this time around or how flush or not they may be, they nevertheless are in the industry and they are quite aware of the costs of programming. If they want to remain the top Saturday time slot for Fall Sports then the inflation of programming that has occurred in the past 11 to 12 years will have to be factored in and a bonus for the product that produces the top time slot is also an industry standard.

If CBS doesn't want it FOX has been chomping at the bit to gain a Southeastern audience and ABC is waiting in the wings. So the SEC wouldn't be worrying about losing the time slot, or the exclusivity of a national platform.

That's why I called it schadenfreude and that was giving the benefit of the doubt over intentional prevarication.

Instead of trashing ACC fans you should look at what they have endured on this board since you have been here. I believe you were here long enough to remember when all the Naysayers were promoting the demise of the ACC, when Maryland left. ACC fans were "overly optimistic" that the league would stay together. The ACC stayed together.

Then when other conferences signed GOR's the board was talking about the ACC not being able to sign a GOR because everyone was looking to leave. Then suddenly it was announced that the ACC schools signed a long term GOR.

Then, when it was announced that ESPN was exploring starting up an ACCN, we heard for 3 years that ESPN would never do a network for the ACC because it wouldnt make any money. Then we heard it was taking so long because ESPN is stringing the ACC along. All the while most normal ACC fans were "overly optimistic" when they were saying that it was coming and that it was taking so long because of buying back tv inventory that was already sold. ACC fans were accused then of spinning the so-called facts..

Now its June 4th and the network is set to debut next month and now all the naysayers are saying that it cant possibly be as profitable as the SECN or BIGN, and that its going to fail. Well excuse us if we dont buy that narrative. ALL of the naysayers have been dead wrong before, so I dont understand why folks think that their theories are infallible. Or why folks get so upset when others dont except their theories when they have been so wrong before.

We'll see. But you have been no more embattled in that regard than the Old Big East was, or the Big 12, and now the PAC shares that skepticism. It is what it is. And in spite of it all nothing has changed with the status quo except this year the ACC managed to payout the same amount as the PAC, 29.5 million per school which did change 1 statistic, you were no longer solely in 5th place on media revenue.

So I'd say there have been 7 years worth of squawking about your possible demise, and that of the Big 12's, and 7 years worth of wonderful pie in the sky claims by the ACC posters predicting significant gains and constant claims of stability by Big 12 posters, and constant claims of SEC and Big 10 posters to the contrary and absolutely nothing has changed substantively.

During that time frame the SEC caught and passed the Big 10 in media revenue and the Big 10 has caught an passed the SEC in media revenue. Everyone else has stayed the same until the ACC caught but did not pass the PAC this past year.

Why has this been the case? Because 7 years is nothing in the lifespan of a conference or business. The contracts that locked it all in place have not changed with the exception of the major leap forward FOX gave the Big 10.

Well we are now entering a major contract period where the Big 12, PAC, Big 10, and SEC will all have major new contracts forthcoming. There is one conference that is absent from that lineup because all 3 tiers of revenue are tied up with one network until 2037 and that's problematic for the ACC. Does it mean catastrophe? No. I think many of us, self included, have acknowledged for some time now that you are stable. But the other of the P4 will all be getting new main contracts for T1 programming and historically T3 product simply doesn't have the yield, even when in a conference network. And the dynamics of T3 conference networks aren't going to magically work any differently for the ACC than they do for the PAC, B1G, or SEC. It will still be a matter of subscriptions x advertising rates which determine your revenue.

To say you'll make within 4 or 5 years what the Big 10 and SEC makes is not being a naysayer. But to say that you are going to double those is without question pie in sky thinking.

As to whether there are substantive changes in the P5 by 2025 remains to be seen. There could be massive change, or no change. It depends on the long term projections for Texas and Oklahoma relative to the top line schools in the Big 10 and SEC and whether the increases they could make in either are worth it to them. But if either or both move to either or both of the top two conferences the revenue gap will jump and the pieces of the realignment puzzle that could alter the standings in that new world simply aren't there. Notre Dame going all in would help the ACC. But if Texas and Oklahoma move there will be no catch up moves to be had.

From there the formation of leagues becomes a realistic possibility.

Now the argument against that is that the acquired leverage would not be in the networks interests so they might discourage that movement, or might simply do another special deal with Texas and Oklahoma to cement status quo. But cementing status quo means little likelihood for any conference to change their relative position to others.

But on the flip side of that argument it has been pointed out that simply moving Texas and Oklahoma to either of the Big 10 or SEC multiplies their content value enough to make those moves profitable for networks, especially if the remaining 8 schools wind up in a conference getting paid less than the Big 12.

So by 2025 we might very well be looking at a whole new landscape in college football and if so then from there we will be postulating new perspectives for what will happen next. Some of you will get to see what happens from there. Some of us likely won't. Because the new stressors will take 10 to 20 years to create more change.

It took 20 years for the SEC to move to 14 from 12. These changes happen at glacial speed with a sudden shock at the time of movement. So my point Cuseroc is that we are where we were at the end of 2012 and very little has changed in the pecking order of the P5. If the pressure that was added 7 years ago to the pressure that started building when the SWC disbanded leads to an Oklahoma and / or Texas move then the pressure on the PAC and the ACC will be ratcheted up and that pressure is really pressure on the SEC and Big 10 because if we wind up being the significant leaders in revenue then our conferences are going to change too whether we like it or not.

The problem with this board for the whole 7 years I've been here is that posters blame other conferences for the movement. That's absurd. None of these conferences would have changed had it not been for the changing dynamics within broadcasting and the revenue involved. But change is going to continue to come our way whether we like it or not and it is not being instigated by the Big 10 or SEC. We're just trying to hang onto our positions the same as you.

It is the corporations that are changing the landscape, and will continue to do so. They have the money and we take more of it to do what they want. We can't add a single school unless they pay for it.

The problem for the ACC is they sold out cheaply and completely and for a long duration to ESPN and now ESPN's landscape is being shaped by market and innovative forces. So it is not absurd on anyone's part to note that if the ACCN does pay out at Big 10 and SEC levels that between now and 2037 the SEC, Big 10, and maybe the key schools in the Big 12 will likely all make an additional 8 million or more due to contract renewals and if that happens then no ground will have been made up by the ACC prior to contract renewal in 2037. It is what it is.

I have profound reservations that by 2040 any of us would recognize the future landscape of college sports including whether conferences will even exist in any of the present configurations they are in.

And for the record I don't trash ACC fans, just ridiculous or false claims.

I agree with this, except I would say that what ACC fans endured was far worse after Maryland left. You had witers/bloggers making up stuff about ACC schools leaving and even sharing what we thought, at the time, were intimate details about negotiations behind the scenes. All this to make a name for themselves and trying to destabilize the ACC because their school was rejected by the ACC. Nothing on that level has happened to the B12 or Pac12.

I bet fans of Big 12 and Pac-12 teams who read this board might feel differently than you do. For example, I remember back when about half the threads on this board consisted of fans of non-power teams gleefully predicting that the Big 12 would fall apart and most of its members would have to beg for invitations to the MWC or CUSA.