http://www.wralsportsfan.com/unc/audio/11078739/ (Raleigh radio station)

TV contract remarks start at approx. 8 min to approx. 17 min.

Notes:

#1 - Both ESPN and FOX bid on the current deal and they both wanted to involve Raycom as part of the deal (for over the air syndication)

#2 - Fox and ESPN were not willing to partner at the time because NBC/Comcast was not in the marketplace

#3 - Noted 'Timing and Circumstance' associated with TV deals

#4 - Pleased with their relationship with ESPN and will be enhancing that in the near future. Talked about Pitt and SU, contiguous ACC, money and exposure.

#5 - Mentions that TV contracts can be difficult to compare between conferences but he also said he believes that the ACC will be well within the ballpark of where we need to be in comparison to other conferences.

#6 - TV Execs and consultants mention that TV contracts are now driven by FB with 75-80% of the value (compared to 10 years ago when the ACC was top in terms of conference payouts).

#7 - Mentioned that the ACCs best teams have not done well on the national stage as they would like to in the post-season. Better on the field results = better TV contracts.

(05-09-2012 02:50 AM)Hoquista Wrote:  #1 - Both ESPN and FOX bid on the current deal and they both wanted to involve Raycom as part of the deal (for over the air syndication)

I actually like the Raycom broadcast teams ... especially when they had Doc Walker. But this smells rotten. Sounds like more of Swofford pushing a Raycom agenda.

(05-09-2012 02:50 AM)Hoquista Wrote:  #7 - Mentioned that the ACCs best teams have not done well on the national stage as they would like to in the post-season. Better on the field results = better TV contracts.

Don't look for that to improve unless the TV contract changes. We're on course for three (GT,CU,FSU) of the conference's 5 football name programs (+VT,Miami) to be $10 million in the hole every year against an in-state SEC rival. And to pile on, all three of those programs are more stringent academically. In GT's case, by an enormous margin.

(05-09-2012 02:50 AM)Hoquista Wrote:  http://www.wralsportsfan.com/unc/audio/11078739/ (Raleigh radio station)

TV contract remarks start at approx. 8 min to approx. 17 min.

Notes:

#1 - Both ESPN and FOX bid on the current deal and they both wanted to involve Raycom as part of the deal (for over the air syndication)

#2 - Fox and ESPN were not willing to partner at the time because NBC/Comcast was not in the marketplace

#3 - Noted 'Timing and Circumstance' associated with TV deals

#4 - Pleased with their relationship with ESPN and will be enhancing that in the near future. Talked about Pitt and SU, contiguous ACC, money and exposure.

#5 - Mentions that TV contracts can be difficult to compare between conferences but he also said he believes that the ACC will be well within the ballpark of where we need to be in comparison to other conferences.

#6 - TV Execs and consultants mention that TV contracts are now driven by FB with 75-80% of the value (compared to 10 years ago when the ACC was top in terms of conference payouts).

#7 - Mentioned that the ACCs best teams have not done well on the national stage as they would like to in the post-season. Better on the field results = better TV contracts.

Sounds like he is laying the groundwork for a less than average TV contract to me particularly with 6 and 7.

Looks like the ACC max may be $17 million per team.

Cheers,
Neil

Unfortunately Neil, I think you're correct. This interview didn't seem that promising.

We should find out soon enough. CBS Sports was reporting on Monday that the Big 12 had given the verbal "thumbs up" to extending their ABC/ESPN deal. $2.6B / 13 years. $20M per school per year on the nose when adding it to the FOX Sports cable deal. Big 12 schools also agreed to extend the grant of TV rights to the conference for the life of both TV deal.

(05-09-2012 08:18 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  We should find out soon enough. CBS Sports was reporting on Monday that the Big 12 had given the verbal "thumbs up" to extending their ABC/ESPN deal. $2.6B / 13 years. $20M per school per year on the nose when adding it to the FOX Sports cable deal. Big 12 schools also agreed to extend the grant of TV rights to the conference for the life of both TV deal.

I read elsewhere (another board, I thnk) that the Big 12 also included expansion. Any info on that?

The information I read was that for each team added there would be a $2MM increase, up to 16 teams. I find this very hard to believe that you could add Rice, Tulane, UT-San Antonio, New Mexico State, Louisiana Tech and Colorado State and suddenly jump to $36MM/team.

** LONG POST ALERT **

Swofford has placed WAY too much emphasis on hoops and should have known the landscape was shifting towards FB. Maybe he does know and is unwilling to fully confess.

Having said that... since the windfall TV deal from the first expansion:

THE CONFERENCE FB FLAGSHIPS

FSU was declining already at the end of Bowden's tenure and FSU really took a step back when Amato left for NC State and Richt left for Georgia. Then, Florida hired an energetic guy named Urban Meyer and left FSU in its rear view.

Clemson, for as much as they want to claim "WE ARE A TOP-NOTCH FOOTBALL SCHOOL", hired Tommy Bowden. Football programs that claim to be top notch don't hire Tommy Bowden. And the program has suffered since.

The "U", having to reform in the post-Coker era hired Randy Shannon.

And to show that I'm impartial, North Carolina had NO BUSINESS hiring John Bunting. None. We also discovered that after Philip Rivers left, Chuck Amato knew nothing about running a football program, let alone a disciplined one.

While we can claim the SEC has more money to through at top notch coaches (and staff), I'm certain there were better suited candidates in the the FCS ranks who had proven themselves, and the folks in charge of hiring (ADs) have failed in identifying them. For instance, Ohio State hired Jim Tressel from Youngstown State.

Paul Johnson was out there just waiting for his opportunity....

The ACC seemingly had (or still has?) some of the most inept ADs among the "power conferences" and it shows in the hiring patterns.

This is why our "flagship" FB programs and/or top brands have suffered and it has (along with Swoff's hard-on for hoops) contributed to the ACC's inability to command a high-dollar TV contract.

BTW, since the first expansion, FSU, Clemson, and lowly Wake Forest have as many league titles. Wake Forest is not a supposed football factory, though.

BTW2, since the first expansion, Boston College has as many ACCCG appearances as FSU, and more ACCCG appearances as Clemson and Miami combined.

That leads me to...

THE ACC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME

The ACC's brass failed the league in assuming FSU, Clemson or Miami would always be on top, which lead them to select Jacksonville -- a city NOT in its footprint -- as a place for its championship game.

Then it renewed for a third year. Then it moved to Tampa for the fourth year.

The game should have been in Charlotte from the get-go because every now and then our small private schools with good coaches (Wake Forest and Boston College) will mess around and make an appearance.

What we got instead was empty seats in the upper sections in Jacksonville and Tampa.

BOWL APPEARANCES

I could type a couple of paragraphs in here, but really, do I need to....?

...

All of these factors, combined with Swoff's hard-on for hoops, have led to the demise of the ACC TV value. At least for now.

If anything, we need to send Virginia Tech a "thank you" note if the deal reaches anything near $17M per school.

(05-09-2012 09:30 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Clemson, for as much as they want to claim "WE ARE A TOP-NOTCH FOOTBALL SCHOOL", hired Tommy Bowden. Football programs that claim to be top notch don't hire Tommy Bowden. And the program has suffered since.

Stick to hoops discussions because it's obvious you don't know **** from shinola when it comes to football, especially Clemson.


Hiring Tommy Bowden was exactly what Clemson needed at the time. We floundered the entire 1990's under Hatfield and West, we had lost valuable recruiting areas, and our facilities were in piss-poor shape. Bowden came in, opened a lot of eyes and changed all of that. Without Bowden we don't have the WestZone, without the WestZone we don't have the recruiting classes we have had the past two years, and we aren't the reigning ACC Champ and hold two out of the past three ACC Atlantic titles. Bowden was the right hire at the time.

The only mistake we made with Bowden was keeping him after the 2004 season. By that time he had grown complacent, and only turned it on when he felt the heat.

We'll simply have to agree (if possible) to disagree.