(10-08-2015 03:57 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  Here's the thing that's maddening about the situation.

Last weekend, the Big 12 had #15 Oklahoma vs #23 WVU. That's two ranked teams, one of only four games this weekend to feature ranked vs. ranked, and the only conference game to do so outside the SEC. Both undefeated, and one is arguably a Top 5 brand in college football.

That game ends up at freaking noon on FS1. That game ended up with 1.23 million viewers. You know who had more than that?

Miami - Cincinnati
BYU - UCONN
Ohio State - Indiana
Iowa - Wisconsin
FSU - Wake Forest
Michigan St. - Purdue

None of those games should have sniffed OU-WVU. But Fox's viewership and scheduling is still pathetic. The ACC is going to have what, one or two games all year between ranked opponents? The viewership of ACC games would be abysmal, even for games involving FSU and Clemson.

The B10 can afford to take programming to Fox. The SEC could if they wanted to. But it's been pretty awful for the Big 12 and PAC in terms of viewers. Even if the ACC made a few million more per team, like the Big 12, that viewership would be devastating, especially with the SEC on ESPN.

I'm not saying that excuses the ACC not getting a better TV deal, or the treatment the conference sometimes gets from ESPN. But right now there's just no place else to go, and we're stuck like a battered spouse.

The hope is that Fox rights the ship by the time the contract ends to be a viable suitor besides ESPN. But of course...that would just strengthen Big 12 and PAC 12 ratings vs. the ACC, which further cements the ACC as the least attractive conference. Every week, I'm glad to see the Big 12 and PAC ratings suck, because it's better for the ACC, but I'm also mad to see their ratings suck, because that further confines us to ESPN.

Sometimes I think the best bet would be for Fox to win the majority of the Big 10, which would both further legitimize them as a player, and would help build their ratings, and also force ESPN to take care of the ACC better. The current status quo kind of sucks.

This is a "take" that even Jim Rome would have to love... so if I understand what you're stating, Lou, each ACC program is essentially paying a couple million dollars per year (in the form of lower revenues) in order to gain a few extra million viewers per game.

I have to agree, though - it still stinks.

Yes, Swofford even said they chose ESPN for the exposure and not the money.

In a nutshell: ESPN is a good partner for ACC basketball, but football needs a little work.

(10-08-2015 09:50 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 03:57 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  Here's the thing that's maddening about the situation.

Last weekend, the Big 12 had #15 Oklahoma vs #23 WVU. That's two ranked teams, one of only four games this weekend to feature ranked vs. ranked, and the only conference game to do so outside the SEC. Both undefeated, and one is arguably a Top 5 brand in college football.

That game ends up at freaking noon on FS1. That game ended up with 1.23 million viewers. You know who had more than that?

Miami - Cincinnati
BYU - UCONN
Ohio State - Indiana
Iowa - Wisconsin
FSU - Wake Forest
Michigan St. - Purdue

None of those games should have sniffed OU-WVU. But Fox's viewership and scheduling is still pathetic. The ACC is going to have what, one or two games all year between ranked opponents? The viewership of ACC games would be abysmal, even for games involving FSU and Clemson.

The B10 can afford to take programming to Fox. The SEC could if they wanted to. But it's been pretty awful for the Big 12 and PAC in terms of viewers. Even if the ACC made a few million more per team, like the Big 12, that viewership would be devastating, especially with the SEC on ESPN.

I'm not saying that excuses the ACC not getting a better TV deal, or the treatment the conference sometimes gets from ESPN. But right now there's just no place else to go, and we're stuck like a battered spouse.

The hope is that Fox rights the ship by the time the contract ends to be a viable suitor besides ESPN. But of course...that would just strengthen Big 12 and PAC 12 ratings vs. the ACC, which further cements the ACC as the least attractive conference. Every week, I'm glad to see the Big 12 and PAC ratings suck, because it's better for the ACC, but I'm also mad to see their ratings suck, because that further confines us to ESPN.

Sometimes I think the best bet would be for Fox to win the majority of the Big 10, which would both further legitimize them as a player, and would help build their ratings, and also force ESPN to take care of the ACC better. The current status quo kind of sucks.

This is a "take" that even Jim Rome would have to love... so if I understand what you're stating, Lou, each ACC program is essentially paying a couple million dollars per year (in the form of lower revenues) in order to gain a few extra million viewers per game.

I have to agree, though - it still stinks.

Oh, there's no doubt that's what we did, as Marge says, Swofford all but said it.

I will say this, I was pretty pissed that the ACC didn't let Fox counter ESPN's last offer...but I never had any idea how bad Fox's ratings, and management of the schedule would be. I don't have to like the money we landed on, but ultimately that was the right call.

It would be different if we were the SEC or B1G, but for a conference trying to get credibility it would be a disaster to have no eyes on the games. Hell, I HATE HATE HATE ACC Friday night games...but that Virginia Tech - NC State game tonight will probably have more viewers than that Oklahoma-WVU game.

Obviously, I think the Raycom arrangement was a big mistake, and I think it was a mistake for Swofford to be committed to all rights with a single provider. The ACC is the only conference to do that, and it's the lowest paid. I mean, hell, ESPN is subleasing lower quality content to Fox anyway, they must be making money on that...why not have cut off a Tier 2 piece for Fox directly.

But even if it was dumb luck, I think he was right to ultimately make ESPN the main partner given Fox's troubles.

IMO, the ACC contract with ESPN was as good as they could get at the time. The only real problem I ever had with it was the length of the contract - it didn't take into account the possibility (probability) that rights fees would go higher (which they did).

(10-09-2015 09:12 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  IMO, the ACC contract with ESPN was as good as they could get at the time. The only real problem I ever had with it was the length of the contract - it didn't take into account the possibility (probability) that rights fees would go higher (which they did).

I think they thought it was as good as they could get at the time. Hell, the 2008 SEC deal was groundbreaking high payout, but that was almost as big a joke at the ACC's deal. Relative to value, the SEC's 98 deal was probably much worse.

But then the PAC, which shouldn't be that far ahead of the ACC by any means, reset everything.

So the question is...what did Larry Scott know about how much he could get that Swofford (and to be fair, Mike Slive), didn't know? How did Larry Scott know that college football rights were much, much more valuable than anyone realized, and then go about getting it?

You're talking the PAC getting a $20M per deal, a year after the ACC got $13M per. That does not reflect the value of the conferences. Someone in the ACC offices were either not visionary, or not bold enough to get money that was on the table.

Again, to be fair to Swofford, for all the reverence for Mike Slive, he absolutely underestimated what the SEC was worth, and also failed to see the wisdom of a network back when they could have made their own terms and owned it. And Slive is universally respected for being as sharp a commissioner as there's been.

So I'm not acting like it was obvious to everyone and only Swofford was too dumb to see it. But he definitely left a lot of money on the table, and he has to own that.

Love you Coach Dabo, for taking the piss out of that ESPN reporter trying to knock Clemson after another win

Of course, the ACC will ignore ESPN trying to take down an ACC threat for a playoff spot....they don't want anyone messing with their SEC conference, so take down any threats......Clemson in their sights.

F U ESPN.

(10-11-2015 01:33 AM)nole Wrote:  Love you Coach Dabo, for taking the piss out of that ESPN reporter trying to knock Clemson after another win

Of course, the ACC will ignore ESPN trying to take down an ACC threat for a playoff spot....they don't want anyone messing with their SEC conference, so take down any threats......Clemson in their sights.

F U ESPN.

Is this the same ESPN that put Clemson in the top 4 last night & said that If it wasn't for Fournett that everyone would be talking about Cook? The same one that nominated Cook for player of the week & said that if he isn't 100% now then look out for when he is?

But yes, I really enjoyed Swinney putting those reporters in their place! It was well done.

#2 FSU vs #1 UNC in women's soccer game that started at NOON today:

Quote:FSU Soccer ‏@FSU_Soccer 13h13 hours ago
Not sure why, but the ESPN3 broadcast will not begin until 1pm.

Not the first time ESPN3 has crapped the bed.

Gotta love ESPN tweeting out the top 11 AP rankings last week because Florida was #11.

This week Florida goes up to 8 and Alabama is 10 so they went back to the top 10 list. FSU was #11 in this poll....

Yeah GREAT partner for the ACC!

(10-12-2015 07:18 AM)Ragu Wrote:  Gotta love ESPN tweeting out the top 11 AP rankings last week because Florida was #11.

This week Florida goes up to 8 and Alabama is 10 so they went back to the top 10 list. FSU was #11 in this poll....

Yeah GREAT partner for the ACC!

Somebody in power at ESPN is a Gator, I'm sure of it.

Another example of ESPN quality...

Quote:Ken Tremendous
‏@KenTremendous

"Grantland distinguished itself with quality writing, smart ideas, original thinking and fun. So we're junking it." http://es.pn/1GBMxam

11:15 AM - 30 Oct 2015

Is ESPN a good partner for the ACC?

Well if they hadn't encouraged you to disassemble the Big East you would be landlocked with an even smaller footprint, and even greater disparity in income, and with no chance at all to land Notre Dame, or perhaps even a Texas. Florida State and Clemson would likely already be gone and you would be making slightly more than the New Big East in Hoops. Delany would have sewed up New England and Maryland's departure would have started a run.

So I would say yes, in spite of the annoyances you presently endure you are in much better shape than if you had not partnered with ESPN.