I know we all have a rush to have an ACC Network deal.

But I don't think people think about one key point...the SEC's network deal required them to sign through 2034. They had to add TEN YEARS to their 2008 deal.

Remember, that 2008 deal, don't you? The one that tripled what they had been making, reset all expectations of what college rights were worth, an promised to set them out in front of all other conferences in perpetuity?

That's right, that contract paid $17M per school, or less than what any other conference was making in TV rights five years later.

Five years after that blockbuster deal, the SEC's deal was putrid. Worse than even the ACC's 2010 deal, when you factor in the value of the product.

The SEC deal is fantastic (by all accounts...we don't have actual numbers)...but they are under contract 20 years now to ESPN.

But how is that deal going to look in 2023, when other conference rights are up, and the SEC has another ten years on their deal?

The point is...when the ACC makes a deal for it's network, it is going to end up marrying ESPN for twenty years. No matter what change in the broadcast world, no matter how well the PAC network eventually does, no matter how rights values continue to grow. The ACC Network deal seals the ACC's options for two decades.

Now, I get why the SEC did it...they were stuck in a ridiculously low deal...what would have been potentially the lowest of all TV deals, for arguably the best conference. And more importantly...the SEC was never going to be of higher value than it was after it's string of national titles. They virtually had to capitalize on it, and they did it the only way they could.

Does that make sense for the ACC? Does it make sense for the ACC to lock in it's pay and all it's options for the next 20 years based on it's value today? It's definitely a more valuable property than it was 2-3 years ago, but is the ACC at it's peak potential? Is this the value you want to lock in at?

That's not to say that an ACC Network isn't appropriate, but it's a big freaking decision...and throwing an extra $3-4M per team...probably isn't worth it. The SEC (and potentially ACC) don't own a shred of their networks...while the PAC and BTN have a 100% and 50% stake respectively.

If you're giving up the option to do that, you better be damn sure you're getting plenty back in return.

We've seen how quickly good deals look terrible in this area. When you're talking about locking up your future for twenty years, I don't see the rush to get something done this year versus 1-2 years from now.

I'm sure that ESPN would be VERY happy to lock the ACC up for twenty years at it's still-undervalued rates. Every year that ticks by, and puts the ACC a year closer to free agency, works to the ACC's favor.

I just don't get the rush.

The ACC deal will be more entangling...NBC and Raycom are involved.

(05-14-2015 12:31 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  The ACC deal will be more entangling...NBC and Raycom are involved.

NBC? Trying to buy old ND games? Obviously not hockey.

(05-14-2015 12:23 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I know we all have a rush to have an ACC Network deal.

But I don't think people think about one key point...the SEC's network deal required them to sign through 2034. They had to add TEN YEARS to their 2008 deal.

Remember, that 2008 deal, don't you? The one that tripled what they had been making, reset all expectations of what college rights were worth, an promised to set them out in front of all other conferences in perpetuity?

That's right, that contract paid $17M per school, or less than what any other conference was making in TV rights five years later.

Five years after that blockbuster deal, the SEC's deal was putrid. Worse than even the ACC's 2010 deal, when you factor in the value of the product.

The SEC deal is fantastic (by all accounts...we don't have actual numbers)...but they are under contract 20 years now to ESPN.

But how is that deal going to look in 2023, when other conference rights are up, and the SEC has another ten years on their deal?

The point is...when the ACC makes a deal for it's network, it is going to end up marrying ESPN for twenty years. No matter what change in the broadcast world, no matter how well the PAC network eventually does, no matter how rights values continue to grow. The ACC Network deal seals the ACC's options for two decades.

Now, I get why the SEC did it...they were stuck in a ridiculously low deal...what would have been potentially the lowest of all TV deals, for arguably the best conference. And more importantly...the SEC was never going to be of higher value than it was after it's string of national titles. They virtually had to capitalize on it, and they did it the only way they could.

Does that make sense for the ACC? Does it make sense for the ACC to lock in it's pay and all it's options for the next 20 years based on it's value today? It's definitely a more valuable property than it was 2-3 years ago, but is the ACC at it's peak potential? Is this the value you want to lock in at?

That's not to say that an ACC Network isn't appropriate, but it's a big freaking decision...and throwing an extra $3-4M per team...probably isn't worth it. The SEC (and potentially ACC) don't own a shred of their networks...while the PAC and BTN have a 100% and 50% stake respectively.

If you're giving up the option to do that, you better be damn sure you're getting plenty back in return.

We've seen how quickly good deals look terrible in this area. When you're talking about locking up your future for twenty years, I don't see the rush to get something done this year versus 1-2 years from now.

I'm sure that ESPN would be VERY happy to lock the ACC up for twenty years at it's still-undervalued rates. Every year that ticks by, and puts the ACC a year closer to free agency, works to the ACC's favor.

I just don't get the rush.

The moment the ACC loses another member is the moment that.........?

Is there a link that says the SEC is "stuck" with that pre-extension valuation for their rights for every year until 2034?

(05-14-2015 12:34 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 12:31 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  The ACC deal will be more entangling...NBC and Raycom are involved.

NBC? Trying to buy old ND games? Obviously not hockey.

Some smoke that NBC is involved (obviously they badly need college games)...ND is the consigliore

(05-14-2015 12:43 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Is there a link that says the SEC is "stuck" with that pre-extension valuation for their rights for every year until 2034?

That's not what Lou is suggesting... he stating that the SEC is locked into their current contract through 2034. It might be the best contract right now, but will it still be the best 10 years from now... with 10 more to go?

So there isn't a link?

(05-14-2015 01:10 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 12:34 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 12:31 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  The ACC deal will be more entangling...NBC and Raycom are involved.

NBC? Trying to buy old ND games? Obviously not hockey.

Some smoke that NBC is involved (obviously they badly need college games)...ND is the consigliore

What smoke?

http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2013/...c-network/

This is a good article that helps to explain what Raycom owns, what is has subleased, and it's relationship to over the air broadcasts.

Between now and 2027 Raycom has rights to 1 football game a year and 2.5 basketball games. They sublet to Fox 1.2 football games and 1.7 basketball games per year. Many of the games are specifically targeted into certain over the air markets such as Raleigh. Charlotte and Richmond have also previously bought over the air broadcasts from Raycom and blacked out ESPN in the past. It's not until around 2018 that you reach the midpoint of what Raycom bought.

Now, to address this you can do one of five things:

1. Ignore the Raycom and sublet Fox content
2. Buy back all the Raycom and sublet Fox content
3. Split the difference by buying back the content after a date certain, say 2018
4. Accelerate the timetable of content raising what Raycom has access to liquidate the content by an earlier date
5. A combination of 3 and 4.

(05-14-2015 12:23 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I know we all have a rush to have an ACC Network deal.

But I don't think people think about one key point...the SEC's network deal required them to sign through 2034. They had to add TEN YEARS to their 2008 deal.

Remember, that 2008 deal, don't you? The one that tripled what they had been making, reset all expectations of what college rights were worth, an promised to set them out in front of all other conferences in perpetuity?

That's right, that contract paid $17M per school, or less than what any other conference was making in TV rights five years later.

Five years after that blockbuster deal, the SEC's deal was putrid. Worse than even the ACC's 2010 deal, when you factor in the value of the product.

The SEC deal is fantastic (by all accounts...we don't have actual numbers)...but they are under contract 20 years now to ESPN.

But how is that deal going to look in 2023, when other conference rights are up, and the SEC has another ten years on their deal?

The point is...when the ACC makes a deal for it's network, it is going to end up marrying ESPN for twenty years. No matter what change in the broadcast world, no matter how well the PAC network eventually does, no matter how rights values continue to grow. The ACC Network deal seals the ACC's options for two decades.

Now, I get why the SEC did it...they were stuck in a ridiculously low deal...what would have been potentially the lowest of all TV deals, for arguably the best conference. And more importantly...the SEC was never going to be of higher value than it was after it's string of national titles. They virtually had to capitalize on it, and they did it the only way they could.

Does that make sense for the ACC? Does it make sense for the ACC to lock in it's pay and all it's options for the next 20 years based on it's value today? It's definitely a more valuable property than it was 2-3 years ago, but is the ACC at it's peak potential? Is this the value you want to lock in at?

That's not to say that an ACC Network isn't appropriate, but it's a big freaking decision...and throwing an extra $3-4M per team...probably isn't worth it. The SEC (and potentially ACC) don't own a shred of their networks...while the PAC and BTN have a 100% and 50% stake respectively.

If you're giving up the option to do that, you better be damn sure you're getting plenty back in return.

We've seen how quickly good deals look terrible in this area. When you're talking about locking up your future for twenty years, I don't see the rush to get something done this year versus 1-2 years from now.

I'm sure that ESPN would be VERY happy to lock the ACC up for twenty years at it's still-undervalued rates. Every year that ticks by, and puts the ACC a year closer to free agency, works to the ACC's favor.

I just don't get the rush.

Thank you, Lou. You get it.

We have no need to rush to be "like the Joneses" when being like the "Joneses" would lock up the league's rights for 20-some years.

Every year we get closer to the end of our current deal puts us (the ACC, including Florida State) in the driver's seat.

Plus, there's no need in rushing to a deal for short term loot when we don't even know what the cable/social media landscape will look like. Every year the league waits, the more we get to see the new landscape --- "ala carte, etc".

(05-14-2015 12:43 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Is there a link that says the SEC is "stuck" with that pre-extension valuation for their rights for every year until 2034?

There's no question that the pay will scale up like all the TV contracts do. And there is likely some revenue sharing involved that will grow as the contract continues.

We don't know any of that...but we do know these things:

- It's for 20 years
- The SEC can't take their product on the open market for 20 years
- They have zero ownership of the network
- The deal was negotiated (like the ACC's would be) from a position of ALREADY being locked in a long term contract with the provider.

The fourth one means, no matter how good the deal is, it is very very good to ESPN. The fact that ESPN didn't have to negotiate against anyone matters.

I don't mean to suggest the SEC got a bad deal by any means...but every deal has looked bad in the past a few years later. I'm sure the SEC made a smart deal and the best deal they could.

Being that the ACC will be in the same position and this is a 20 year decision, I don't get the rush. $4-5M more for a couple years isn't changing anyone's world, if there is a better deal to be had two years from now.

Do people think Swofford is personally torpedoing an ACC Network? That he is keeping ESPN from dumping a bunch of cash down our craws?

I sense this "announce a network at any cost" urgency that just shouldn't be there.

The ACC is not in a great bargaining position here. We're in the midst of a locked up contract. We're not far removed for a dreadful decade of football relevance. It's not like we're losing leverage here. The only incentive ESPN has to do this is to lock the ACC up until 2035 on a 2015 deal.

I mean, does anyone really think we'd have gotten a better deal had we struck a deal in 2013?

Hell, maybe the ACC is just pushing it out past the B1G's deal...that would make a hell of a lot of sense. Why would you want to cut a deal BEFORE the B1G sets the market? Especially if ESPN gets locked out of the B1G...then the ACC becomes a more important piece to get locked up.

I just don't see how the rush/pressure benefits the ACC.

And I'm not even saying that the ACC shouldn't be pursuing a network, or that anything short of waiting to become a free agent is a mistake.

I just think that time serves the ACC here, especially with questions around Notre Dame and the Big 12 out there and the B1G contract coming up. I would be more than happy to wait another year or two, and that should be the ACC's position. Desperate people don't make good deals...that's a universal truth. If they don't love the deal ESPN is offering, or how Raycom is playing ball, the ACC should be happy to just let it rest. The pressure also ratchets up on Raycom Sports with each year...if they want to survive at all beyond this contract, they're going to have to do what they have to do, even if they don't like it.

(05-14-2015 02:32 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 12:43 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Is there a link that says the SEC is "stuck" with that pre-extension valuation for their rights for every year until 2034?

There's no question that the pay will scale up like all the TV contracts do. And there is likely some revenue sharing involved that will grow as the contract continues.

We don't know any of that...but we do know these things:

- It's for 20 years
- The SEC can't take their product on the open market for 20 years
- They have zero ownership of the network
- The deal was negotiated (like the ACC's would be) from a position of ALREADY being locked in a long term contract with the provider.

The fourth one means, no matter how good the deal is, it is very very good to ESPN. The fact that ESPN didn't have to negotiate against anyone matters.

I don't mean to suggest the SEC got a bad deal by any means...but every deal has looked bad in the past a few years later. I'm sure the SEC made a smart deal and the best deal they could.

Being that the ACC will be in the same position and this is a 20 year decision, I don't get the rush. $4-5M more for a couple years isn't changing anyone's world, if there is a better deal to be had two years from now.

Do people think Swofford is personally torpedoing an ACC Network? That he is keeping ESPN from dumping a bunch of cash down our craws?

I sense this "announce a network at any cost" urgency that just shouldn't be there.

The ACC is not in a great bargaining position here. We're in the midst of a locked up contract. We're not far removed for a dreadful decade of football relevance. It's not like we're losing leverage here. The only incentive ESPN has to do this is to lock the ACC up until 2035 on a 2015 deal.

I mean, does anyone really think we'd have gotten a better deal had we struck a deal in 2013?

Hell, maybe the ACC is just pushing it out past the B1G's deal...that would make a hell of a lot of sense. Why would you want to cut a deal BEFORE the B1G sets the market? Especially if ESPN gets locked out of the B1G...then the ACC becomes a more important piece to get locked up.

I just don't see how the rush/pressure benefits the ACC.

Thanks for the perspective Lou.
It's better to get this deal "right" rather than getting it done quickly.

How does waiting benefit the ACC?

Being first in the market means something in business. Being dead last....doesn't assure success.

We can play what ifs all day long.


If you want to believe waiting benefits the ACC....go for it. Swofford could poop in a shoe box and you would proclaim in great strategy at this point. I don't think the ACC is waiting for anything......I don't think they have any cards to play.


All we really know is financials coming out over the next 3-4 years will REALLY show what Swofford has done.

That is revenue.


Media/PR......the ACC is killed with their current setup. 2nd class citizen on ESPN.....our own network.

So waiting absolutely isn't helping the ACC from a media/PR/exposure perspective.

(05-14-2015 01:27 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2013/...c-network/

This is a good article that helps to explain what Raycom owns, what is has subleased, and it's relationship to over the air broadcasts.

Between now and 2027 Raycom has rights to 1 football game a year and 2.5 basketball games. They sublet to Fox 1.2 football games and 1.7 basketball games per year. Many of the games are specifically targeted into certain over the air markets such as Raleigh. Charlotte and Richmond have also previously bought over the air broadcasts from Raycom and blacked out ESPN in the past. It's not until around 2018 that you reach the midpoint of what Raycom bought.

Now, to address this you can do one of five things:

1. Ignore the Raycom and sublet Fox content
2. Buy back all the Raycom and sublet Fox content
3. Split the difference by buying back the content after a date certain, say 2018
4. Accelerate the timetable of content raising what Raycom has access to liquidate the content by an earlier date
5. A combination of 3 and 4.

Or, wouldn't you say that you could fold Raycom into the deal some way? I mean, let's face it, Raycom can't continue to exist in it's traditional form...however, if they were to transition into a technical/production role in an ACC network, it could allow them to survive in some form. It's like the difference between laying off half the staff, or shutting the doors forever.

It's hard to know what exactly Raycom could offer that isn't redundant with ESPN capabilities, but Raycom is well equipped in production. It seems like there's potential to allow Raycom Sports an "adapt or die" moment here, rather than them just bleeding the ACC for every last cent they can get out of these rights.

(05-14-2015 02:32 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  ...maybe the ACC is just pushing it out past the B1G's deal...that would make a hell of a lot of sense. Why would you want to cut a deal BEFORE the B1G sets the market? Especially if ESPN gets locked out of the B1G...then the ACC becomes a more important piece to get locked up.

This is an EXCELLENT point! Based on past ACC decisions my first inclination is that they just aren't that smart... but then I remember that this time they hired media consultants, so maybe THOSE GUYS are smart?

(05-14-2015 01:27 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2013/...c-network/

This is a good article that helps to explain what Raycom owns, what is has subleased, and it's relationship to over the air broadcasts.

Between now and 2027 Raycom has rights to 1 football game a year and 2.5 basketball games. They sublet to Fox 1.2 football games and 1.7 basketball games per year. Many of the games are specifically targeted into certain over the air markets such as Raleigh. Charlotte and Richmond have also previously bought over the air broadcasts from Raycom and blacked out ESPN in the past. It's not until around 2018 that you reach the midpoint of what Raycom bought.

Now, to address this you can do one of five things:

1. Ignore the Raycom and sublet Fox content
2. Buy back all the Raycom and sublet Fox content
3. Split the difference by buying back the content after a date certain, say 2018
4. Accelerate the timetable of content raising what Raycom has access to liquidate the content by an earlier date
5. A combination of 3 and 4.

Just stop. At this point it's embarrassing.

From the link you provided:

Quote:Through a sublicensing agreement, Raycom owns the rights to 31 live football games and 60 live men’s basketball games.

Quote:Raycom sublicensed 17 of those football games and 25 of those basketball games to Fox, which carries the games on its regional sports networks throughout the ACC footprint.

Even if you misread at some point logic had to kick in when you try and wrap your head around how in the hell they are going to get .2 of a football game and .7 or .5 of a basketball game.

SMDH

(05-14-2015 02:42 PM)nole Wrote:  How does waiting benefit the ACC?

Being first in the market means something in business. Being dead last....doesn't assure success.

We can play what ifs all day long.


If you want to believe waiting benefits the ACC....go for it. Swofford could poop in a shoe box and you would proclaim in great strategy at this point. I don't think the ACC is waiting for anything......I don't think they have any cards to play.


All we really know is financials coming out over the next 3-4 years will REALLY show what Swofford has done.

That is revenue.


Media/PR......the ACC is killed with their current setup. 2nd class citizen on ESPN.....our own network.

So waiting absolutely isn't helping the ACC from a media/PR/exposure perspective.

The entire discussion is based on the presupposition that there is a move to be played right now.

In your opinion the die is cast, the conference is doomed, and there's nothing that can be done.

You might be right...but then what is there to discuss? All you can deal with is the reality that you have. We can't turn back the clock so FSU can join the SEC, or uninvite Syracuse and Pittsburgh, or sign with Fox instead of ESPN in 2010.

I have no idea what Swofford is doing. My fear is that he'll announce an ACC network tomorrow, because I can't imagine that we can get as good a deal tomorrow as we could get in 18 months. I am not at all convinced that Swofford/ The ACC or FSU and their trustees are at all looking at this the correct way. I do not ONE BIT trust that the ACC isn't going to make a bad deal just to be able to wave a flag that says "ACC NETWORK".

That's my whole point...I do NOT trust that Swofford is going to make a good deal here...he doesn't have that track record necessarily. But each month that passes makes me more hopeful about it rather than less hopeful.

(05-14-2015 02:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 02:32 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  ...maybe the ACC is just pushing it out past the B1G's deal...that would make a hell of a lot of sense. Why would you want to cut a deal BEFORE the B1G sets the market? Especially if ESPN gets locked out of the B1G...then the ACC becomes a more important piece to get locked up.

This is an EXCELLENT point! Based on past ACC decisions my first inclination is that they just aren't that smart... but then I remember that this time they hired media consultants, so maybe THOSE GUYS are smart?

I've got visions of signing our last deal right before the PAC's deal, and how overnight a good deal became a pathetic deal.

Unlike then, when our deal was running out, there is NO urgency this time.

We aren't going to make what the B1G makes. I'm under no illusions. But I'd sure as hell rather make 15% less than the NEW Big 10 deal, than 15% less than the CURRENT Big 10 deal.