https://chapelboro.com/sports/chanskys-n...-big-break

Here's an interesting little editorial from within the heart of ACC country.

It seems not everyone over there has the same rosy outlook about the future! Time, economic disparity and pressure rears its head yet again.

ACC needs to figure out how to jettison Wake Forest and Duke - maybe convert them to non-football members. The total conference revenue ain't bad, but there are too many mouths to feed!

(06-28-2018 03:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  https://chapelboro.com/sports/chanskys-n...-big-break

Here's an interesting little editorial from within the heart of ACC country.

It seems not everyone over there has the same rosy outlook about the future! Time, economic disparity and pressure rears its head yet again.

The SECN/ACCN carriage deals will be interesting to watch. It has been reported that they are being packaged together, meaning that both networks would get carriage throughout the footprints of both conferences. If that is the case, why would the SEC need to add teams from NC and VA if the SECN is already getting carriage? Why add two or more mouths to feed?

Florida St and Clemson are the only two I could envision that move the needle and would actually desire to come/be able to politically.

The NC and VA schools are together until the end, for better or worse.

(06-28-2018 08:44 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 03:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  https://chapelboro.com/sports/chanskys-n...-big-break

Here's an interesting little editorial from within the heart of ACC country.

It seems not everyone over there has the same rosy outlook about the future! Time, economic disparity and pressure rears its head yet again.

The SECN/ACCN carriage deals will be interesting to watch. It has been reported that they are being packaged together, meaning that both networks would get carriage throughout the footprints of both conferences. If that is the case, why would the SEC need to add teams from NC and VA if the SECN is already getting carriage? Why add two or more mouths to feed?

Their carriage will be bundled. But their rates won't be. Remember however that moving forward content will drive pay bumps, not so much the size of the markets.

And, where did I say the SEC would want a school from Virginia and North Carolina? It might very well be Clemson and Florida State. Those two would add the most value now. I've always thought an argument could be made for Virginia Tech but the only reason I ever mention North Carolina (the state) is because so much of the talk always surrounds it. But truly there aren't any good fits for us there other than the fact that they were once old South.

Besides Ren, the article is about some in the ACC who might soon feel compelled to move for money. It's not even about who the SEC might or might not want. And if I'm not mistaken this seems to be a North Carolina fan/or local that's doing the talking. This isn't a piece by an SEC guy dreaming about how to grow the conference. This is an ACC guy stating that the revenue gap may be compelling.

(06-28-2018 10:18 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Florida St and Clemson are the only two I could envision that move the needle and would actually desire to come/be able to politically.

The NC and VA schools are together until the end, for better or worse.

As it stands now, your point has solid merit.

Those NC & VA schools won't break. Plus, that GoR is in effect until the mid-2030s.

Georgia Tech is interesting. The BIG was interested in them as part of an AAU chain secured from the ACC.

Miami is another that could be enticed elsewhere, perhaps, if conditions were ripe. They are not so emotionally loyal to the ACC in terms of future affiliations.

Pitt, Syracuse, and BC, would entertain BIG offers, that will not come.

(06-28-2018 11:51 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 10:18 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Florida St and Clemson are the only two I could envision that move the needle and would actually desire to come/be able to politically.

The NC and VA schools are together until the end, for better or worse.

As it stands now, your point has solid merit.

Those NC & VA schools won't break. Plus, that GoR is in effect until the mid-2030s.

Georgia Tech is interesting. The BIG was interested in them as part of an AAU chain secured from the ACC.

Miami is another that could be enticed elsewhere, perhaps, if conditions were ripe. They are not so emotionally loyal to the ACC in terms of future affiliations.

Pitt, Syracuse, and BC, would entertain BIG offers, that will not come.

Thank God for the death rattles of the conference footprint subscription fee pay model! It would have, and already may have, foisted upon us the most unholiest of alliances.

(06-28-2018 11:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 08:44 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 03:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  https://chapelboro.com/sports/chanskys-n...-big-break

Here's an interesting little editorial from within the heart of ACC country.

It seems not everyone over there has the same rosy outlook about the future! Time, economic disparity and pressure rears its head yet again.

The SECN/ACCN carriage deals will be interesting to watch. It has been reported that they are being packaged together, meaning that both networks would get carriage throughout the footprints of both conferences. If that is the case, why would the SEC need to add teams from NC and VA if the SECN is already getting carriage? Why add two or more mouths to feed?

Their carriage will be bundled. But their rates won't be. Remember however that moving forward content will drive pay bumps, not so much the size of the markets.

And, where did I say the SEC would want a school from Virginia and North Carolina? It might very well be Clemson and Florida State. Those two would add the most value now. I've always thought an argument could be made for Virginia Tech but the only reason I ever mention North Carolina (the state) is because so much of the talk always surrounds it. But truly there aren't any good fits for us there other than the fact that they were once old South.

Besides Ren, the article is about some in the ACC who might soon feel compelled to move for money. It's not even about who the SEC might or might not want. And if I'm not mistaken this seems to be a North Carolina fan/or local that's doing the talking. This isn't a piece by an SEC guy dreaming about how to grow the conference. This is an ACC guy stating that the revenue gap may be compelling.

True, the rates will be decoupled and will vary with geography - I would imagine that the ACCN gets higher rates in NC and northward and the SECN gets higher rates in GA and westward. The FL and SC rates might be in the same ballpark. I'm somewhat bullish on the revenue from the NE - even a modest carriage rate could have a high yield to both conferences just because of the population numbers. This is when we find out if carrying BC is truly worth the trouble.

(06-28-2018 12:27 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 11:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 08:44 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 03:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  https://chapelboro.com/sports/chanskys-n...-big-break

Here's an interesting little editorial from within the heart of ACC country.

It seems not everyone over there has the same rosy outlook about the future! Time, economic disparity and pressure rears its head yet again.

The SECN/ACCN carriage deals will be interesting to watch. It has been reported that they are being packaged together, meaning that both networks would get carriage throughout the footprints of both conferences. If that is the case, why would the SEC need to add teams from NC and VA if the SECN is already getting carriage? Why add two or more mouths to feed?

Their carriage will be bundled. But their rates won't be. Remember however that moving forward content will drive pay bumps, not so much the size of the markets.

And, where did I say the SEC would want a school from Virginia and North Carolina? It might very well be Clemson and Florida State. Those two would add the most value now. I've always thought an argument could be made for Virginia Tech but the only reason I ever mention North Carolina (the state) is because so much of the talk always surrounds it. But truly there aren't any good fits for us there other than the fact that they were once old South.

Besides Ren, the article is about some in the ACC who might soon feel compelled to move for money. It's not even about who the SEC might or might not want. And if I'm not mistaken this seems to be a North Carolina fan/or local that's doing the talking. This isn't a piece by an SEC guy dreaming about how to grow the conference. This is an ACC guy stating that the revenue gap may be compelling.

True, the rates will be decoupled and will vary with geography - I would imagine that the ACCN gets higher rates in NC and northward and the SECN gets higher rates in GA and westward. The FL and SC rates might be in the same ballpark. I'm somewhat bullish on the revenue from the NE - even a modest carriage rate could have a high yield to both conferences just because of the population numbers. This is when we find out if carrying BC is truly worth the trouble.

We will know by 2022 whether the ACCN is the salvation of the ACC, or not. I think that will be the pivotal point for everything.

1. Does the Big 10 get another big pay boost, or do they re-ink their contract for a very modest difference?
2. Does Oklahoma or Texas move?
3. Does the PAC sell a % of their conference network to a carrier?
4. Does the SEC get the 7 to 10 million per school boost for their new T1 deal?
5. Does the ACC close the gap with a solid return from the ACCN or not?

The answer to these questions will determine far more than any previous period or sets of realignment moves.

It will determine if we have 3, 4, or 5 P conferences moving forward, or a league. It will determine whether the football spending war continues or grinds to a halt. It will determine whether expansion/consolidation continues or stops, or regresses.

I find the time frame fraught with more potential peril than reward. It will be right at the cusp of the Boomer die off which will be a negative indicator for higher payouts moving forward. It will be in a time when global economic issues are likely to be more impactful upon the United States. And it is ripe for a regime change yet again in the U.S. And perhaps even more important it will be on the backside of massive withdrawals from the stock market because of pension plans that will be being paid out.

I hardly see that time period as a bonanza for anyone, least of all an entertainment industry like sports which historically declines rapidly in the midst of recession.

Oddly for these reasons the pressure to jump for a little more cash may be all the more palpable at that time.

It's also the earliest of the time frames in which social security is predicted to fail.

If that proves to be true, or just any several facets of it do, we won't be growing the P5. We will be shrinking it, and not by just 3 or 4 schools, but perhaps by 9 or more.

So Ren the pressure will be both on those who need to close a gap in revenue, and and those who have overspent and may have to cut back. The result may be shrinking conferences, the merging of two shrinking conferences, or the total restructuring of all who continue to want to play football at the highest level.

Demographics are like a road map for the economy. There's a cliff looming from about 2026-2032. Then there is a long climb back up for the survivors.

(06-28-2018 01:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  We will know by 2022 whether the ACCN is the salvation of the ACC, or not. I think that will be the pivotal point for everything.

1. Does the Big 10 get another big pay boost, or do they re-ink their contract for a very modest difference?
2. Does Oklahoma or Texas move?
3. Does the PAC sell a % of their conference network to a carrier?
4. Does the SEC get the 7 to 10 million per school boost for their new T1 deal?
5. Does the ACC close the gap with a solid return from the ACCN or not?

The answer to these questions will determine far more than any previous period or sets of realignment moves.

The Big Ten does get good ratings, not just for their blue blood football programs but for their competitors and pretenders within their conference too. Their football is worth whatever the market is willing to spare. ESPN did not want to match Fox ‘s rights fees for half of the rights. ESPN’s package was reduced to what both parties were willing to agree to and CBS picked up a good chunk of the remainder; iirc.

The question these commissioners need to get right is “does selling games that would normally be lower Teir II or upper Teir III to a streaming service 1) anger their fanbase that might have to buy another streaming service or equipment to watch and 2) devalue the Big Ten Network? This seams like the easy way for new streaming companies to break into college football. The tough one is selling Teir I or upper Teir II content to a Netflix/Hulu type streaming service that won’t be available on standard cable/satellite provider channels. That’s a decision a commissioner can’t get wrong,

One realignment, if money is still the problem, then it is the PAC and ACC that are vulnerable to losing members. OU and Texas stay put in a Big 12 that plucks from the PAC-12 and/or adds delicious leftovers from the ACC after the SEC and Big Ten feast.

As far as ranking ACC potential additions, I think if FSU is ready to bolt, Sankey grabs them and Swofford has to go into overdrive to save the conference, Clemson, from falling apart. With the overall devaluation of the conference with FSU’s football brand, if Notre Fame doesn’t join all in, then the Big Ten probably offers a package of schools invitations. The SEC counters with offers to UNC, Duke (as a pair to keep rivalry in house), UVA and VT. UVA probably sees itself as more of a B1G team and goes north. UNC athletic supporters overwhelmingly have decreed support for an SEC move should it be needed—adding Duke cements that decision. Virginia Tech could go either way; go north and play Penn State yearly or head south for a packed football schedule. If they go south I could see the SEC rounding out with either Miami (Florida & Florida State would find scheduling them quite easily), Georgia Tech (to keep B1G out of recruiting hot bed) or West Virginia (best available program and natural rival for Virginia Tech).

If the PAC-12 sells a significant % of their network to held the PAC Network get nationwide carriage, then they’ll stay together, if not they’ll probably lose a few schools.

Does the SEC get $7-10M more per school for Teir one? Depends on the current evaluation of what CBS is willing to pay and if another major bidder, I’m thinking FOX, can and is willing to offer. Could one imagine the SEC expanding with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State (to secure those wonderful ratings for OU vs SEC teams the broadcaster would have) which would cause a significant bump in pay which in turn cements the decision that the ACC schools can not close that large a gap. Thus making Florida Stateopen to a move, thus open season on ACC properties.

Anyway, it just seems like this next round of realignment could turn a snowflake into an avalanche if the money is right.

(06-29-2018 01:42 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 01:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  We will know by 2022 whether the ACCN is the salvation of the ACC, or not. I think that will be the pivotal point for everything.

1. Does the Big 10 get another big pay boost, or do they re-ink their contract for a very modest difference?
2. Does Oklahoma or Texas move?
3. Does the PAC sell a % of their conference network to a carrier?
4. Does the SEC get the 7 to 10 million per school boost for their new T1 deal?
5. Does the ACC close the gap with a solid return from the ACCN or not?

The answer to these questions will determine far more than any previous period or sets of realignment moves.

The Big Ten does get good ratings, not just for their blue blood football programs but for their competitors and pretenders within their conference too. Their football is worth whatever the market is willing to spare. ESPN did not want to match Fox ‘s rights fees for half of the rights. ESPN’s package was reduced to what both parties were willing to agree to and CBS picked up a good chunk of the remainder; iirc.

The question these commissioners need to get right is “does selling games that would normally be lower Teir II or upper Teir III to a streaming service 1) anger their fanbase that might have to buy another streaming service or equipment to watch and 2) devalue the Big Ten Network? This seams like the easy way for new streaming companies to break into college football. The tough one is selling Teir I or upper Teir II content to a Netflix/Hulu type streaming service that won’t be available on standard cable/satellite provider channels. That’s a decision a commissioner can’t get wrong,

One realignment, if money is still the problem, then it is the PAC and ACC that are vulnerable to losing members. OU and Texas stay put in a Big 12 that plucks from the PAC-12 and/or adds delicious leftovers from the ACC after the SEC and Big Ten feast.

As far as ranking ACC potential additions, I think if FSU is ready to bolt, Sankey grabs them and Swofford has to go into overdrive to save the conference, Clemson, from falling apart. With the overall devaluation of the conference with FSU’s football brand, if Notre Fame doesn’t join all in, then the Big Ten probably offers a package of schools invitations. The SEC counters with offers to UNC, Duke (as a pair to keep rivalry in house), UVA and VT. UVA probably sees itself as more of a B1G team and goes north. UNC athletic supporters overwhelmingly have decreed support for an SEC move should it be needed—adding Duke cements that decision. Virginia Tech could go either way; go north and play Penn State yearly or head south for a packed football schedule. If they go south I could see the SEC rounding out with either Miami (Florida & Florida State would find scheduling them quite easily), Georgia Tech (to keep B1G out of recruiting hot bed) or West Virginia (best available program and natural rival for Virginia Tech).

If the PAC-12 sells a significant % of their network to held the PAC Network get nationwide carriage, then they’ll stay together, if not they’ll probably lose a few schools.

Does the SEC get $7-10M more per school for Teir one? Depends on the current evaluation of what CBS is willing to pay and if another major bidder, I’m thinking FOX, can and is willing to offer. Could one imagine the SEC expanding with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State (to secure those wonderful ratings for OU vs SEC teams the broadcaster would have) which would cause a significant bump in pay which in turn cements the decision that the ACC schools can not close that large a gap. Thus making Florida Stateopen to a move, thus open season on ACC properties.

Anyway, it just seems like this next round of realignment could turn a snowflake into an avalanche if the money is right.

I think FSU and Clemson are tied together, for all intents and purposes. If one goes, so does the other.

(06-29-2018 07:40 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 01:42 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 01:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  We will know by 2022 whether the ACCN is the salvation of the ACC, or not. I think that will be the pivotal point for everything.

1. Does the Big 10 get another big pay boost, or do they re-ink their contract for a very modest difference?
2. Does Oklahoma or Texas move?
3. Does the PAC sell a % of their conference network to a carrier?
4. Does the SEC get the 7 to 10 million per school boost for their new T1 deal?
5. Does the ACC close the gap with a solid return from the ACCN or not?

The answer to these questions will determine far more than any previous period or sets of realignment moves.

The Big Ten does get good ratings, not just for their blue blood football programs but for their competitors and pretenders within their conference too. Their football is worth whatever the market is willing to spare. ESPN did not want to match Fox ‘s rights fees for half of the rights. ESPN’s package was reduced to what both parties were willing to agree to and CBS picked up a good chunk of the remainder; iirc.

The question these commissioners need to get right is “does selling games that would normally be lower Teir II or upper Teir III to a streaming service 1) anger their fanbase that might have to buy another streaming service or equipment to watch and 2) devalue the Big Ten Network? This seams like the easy way for new streaming companies to break into college football. The tough one is selling Teir I or upper Teir II content to a Netflix/Hulu type streaming service that won’t be available on standard cable/satellite provider channels. That’s a decision a commissioner can’t get wrong,

One realignment, if money is still the problem, then it is the PAC and ACC that are vulnerable to losing members. OU and Texas stay put in a Big 12 that plucks from the PAC-12 and/or adds delicious leftovers from the ACC after the SEC and Big Ten feast.

As far as ranking ACC potential additions, I think if FSU is ready to bolt, Sankey grabs them and Swofford has to go into overdrive to save the conference, Clemson, from falling apart. With the overall devaluation of the conference with FSU’s football brand, if Notre Fame doesn’t join all in, then the Big Ten probably offers a package of schools invitations. The SEC counters with offers to UNC, Duke (as a pair to keep rivalry in house), UVA and VT. UVA probably sees itself as more of a B1G team and goes north. UNC athletic supporters overwhelmingly have decreed support for an SEC move should it be needed—adding Duke cements that decision. Virginia Tech could go either way; go north and play Penn State yearly or head south for a packed football schedule. If they go south I could see the SEC rounding out with either Miami (Florida & Florida State would find scheduling them quite easily), Georgia Tech (to keep B1G out of recruiting hot bed) or West Virginia (best available program and natural rival for Virginia Tech).

If the PAC-12 sells a significant % of their network to held the PAC Network get nationwide carriage, then they’ll stay together, if not they’ll probably lose a few schools.

Does the SEC get $7-10M more per school for Teir one? Depends on the current evaluation of what CBS is willing to pay and if another major bidder, I’m thinking FOX, can and is willing to offer. Could one imagine the SEC expanding with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State (to secure those wonderful ratings for OU vs SEC teams the broadcaster would have) which would cause a significant bump in pay which in turn cements the decision that the ACC schools can not close that large a gap. Thus making Florida Stateopen to a move, thus open season on ACC properties.

Anyway, it just seems like this next round of realignment could turn a snowflake into an avalanche if the money is right.

I think FSU and Clemson are tied together, for all intents and purposes. If one goes, so does the other.

The NC 4 would take extraordinary circumstances to be broken-up. Beyond politics, tightness, convenience, and a long traditional association, each would feel weakened when it comes to basketball in particular. The Virginia schools, especially UVA, are latched to that structure for similar motives.

The ACC will withstand as long as the NC-VA states hold together. That's sacred turf for them. Clemson is a charter member and quite valued, but if the football divide grows and shows year after year, the Tigers could opt for something that offers way more payout. They don't want to be playing in 30k and 40k stadiums/crowds, when their own facility can garner 80k plus. Wake, Duke, BC, 'Cuse, Pitt and such, don't match the Clemson standard. Really, only FSU natches the Clemson level in fb profile.

(06-29-2018 01:42 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 01:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  We will know by 2022 whether the ACCN is the salvation of the ACC, or not. I think that will be the pivotal point for everything.

1. Does the Big 10 get another big pay boost, or do they re-ink their contract for a very modest difference?
2. Does Oklahoma or Texas move?
3. Does the PAC sell a % of their conference network to a carrier?
4. Does the SEC get the 7 to 10 million per school boost for their new T1 deal?
5. Does the ACC close the gap with a solid return from the ACCN or not?

The answer to these questions will determine far more than any previous period or sets of realignment moves.

The Big Ten does get good ratings, not just for their blue blood football programs but for their competitors and pretenders within their conference too. Their football is worth whatever the market is willing to spare. ESPN did not want to match Fox ‘s rights fees for half of the rights. ESPN’s package was reduced to what both parties were willing to agree to and CBS picked up a good chunk of the remainder; iirc.

The question these commissioners need to get right is “does selling games that would normally be lower Teir II or upper Teir III to a streaming service 1) anger their fanbase that might have to buy another streaming service or equipment to watch and 2) devalue the Big Ten Network? This seams like the easy way for new streaming companies to break into college football. The tough one is selling Teir I or upper Teir II content to a Netflix/Hulu type streaming service that won’t be available on standard cable/satellite provider channels. That’s a decision a commissioner can’t get wrong,

One realignment, if money is still the problem, then it is the PAC and ACC that are vulnerable to losing members. OU and Texas stay put in a Big 12 that plucks from the PAC-12 and/or adds delicious leftovers from the ACC after the SEC and Big Ten feast.

As far as ranking ACC potential additions, I think if FSU is ready to bolt, Sankey grabs them and Swofford has to go into overdrive to save the conference, Clemson, from falling apart. With the overall devaluation of the conference with FSU’s football brand, if Notre Fame doesn’t join all in, then the Big Ten probably offers a package of schools invitations. The SEC counters with offers to UNC, Duke (as a pair to keep rivalry in house), UVA and VT. UVA probably sees itself as more of a B1G team and goes north. UNC athletic supporters overwhelmingly have decreed support for an SEC move should it be needed—adding Duke cements that decision. Virginia Tech could go either way; go north and play Penn State yearly or head south for a packed football schedule. If they go south I could see the SEC rounding out with either Miami (Florida & Florida State would find scheduling them quite easily), Georgia Tech (to keep B1G out of recruiting hot bed) or West Virginia (best available program and natural rival for Virginia Tech).

If the PAC-12 sells a significant % of their network to held the PAC Network get nationwide carriage, then they’ll stay together, if not they’ll probably lose a few schools.

Does the SEC get $7-10M more per school for Teir one? Depends on the current evaluation of what CBS is willing to pay and if another major bidder, I’m thinking FOX, can and is willing to offer. Could one imagine the SEC expanding with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State (to secure those wonderful ratings for OU vs SEC teams the broadcaster would have) which would cause a significant bump in pay which in turn cements the decision that the ACC schools can not close that large a gap. Thus making Florida State open to a move, thus open season on ACC properties.

Anyway, it just seems like this next round of realignment could turn a snowflake into an avalanche if the money is right.

I'm getting used to the idea of dropping CBS.

I know it will depend on certain factors and what other networks offer, but the SEC's 1st Tier should be the most valuable 1st Tier in the game. If Oklahoma is coming on board around the same time then it's just that much more valuable.

ESPN/ABC would be an option and I could see FOX making a bid, but I'm intrigued at what a company like AT&T/Time Warner could offer if we went with Turner. If for no more reason than their cross-promotion capabilities are miles ahead of virtually anyone in the business.

It would also intrigue me to have some of our basketball games move to that network. ESPN and Turner are basically the go-to for NBA coverage and if all of our games are running on the same networks with the NBA and if we've got Turner's NBA team covering our games the same way they cover March Madness then that could be a big win by itself.

(06-29-2018 04:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 01:42 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 01:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  We will know by 2022 whether the ACCN is the salvation of the ACC, or not. I think that will be the pivotal point for everything.

1. Does the Big 10 get another big pay boost, or do they re-ink their contract for a very modest difference?
2. Does Oklahoma or Texas move?
3. Does the PAC sell a % of their conference network to a carrier?
4. Does the SEC get the 7 to 10 million per school boost for their new T1 deal?
5. Does the ACC close the gap with a solid return from the ACCN or not?

The answer to these questions will determine far more than any previous period or sets of realignment moves.

The Big Ten does get good ratings, not just for their blue blood football programs but for their competitors and pretenders within their conference too. Their football is worth whatever the market is willing to spare. ESPN did not want to match Fox ‘s rights fees for half of the rights. ESPN’s package was reduced to what both parties were willing to agree to and CBS picked up a good chunk of the remainder; iirc.

The question these commissioners need to get right is “does selling games that would normally be lower Teir II or upper Teir III to a streaming service 1) anger their fanbase that might have to buy another streaming service or equipment to watch and 2) devalue the Big Ten Network? This seams like the easy way for new streaming companies to break into college football. The tough one is selling Teir I or upper Teir II content to a Netflix/Hulu type streaming service that won’t be available on standard cable/satellite provider channels. That’s a decision a commissioner can’t get wrong,

One realignment, if money is still the problem, then it is the PAC and ACC that are vulnerable to losing members. OU and Texas stay put in a Big 12 that plucks from the PAC-12 and/or adds delicious leftovers from the ACC after the SEC and Big Ten feast.

As far as ranking ACC potential additions, I think if FSU is ready to bolt, Sankey grabs them and Swofford has to go into overdrive to save the conference, Clemson, from falling apart. With the overall devaluation of the conference with FSU’s football brand, if Notre Fame doesn’t join all in, then the Big Ten probably offers a package of schools invitations. The SEC counters with offers to UNC, Duke (as a pair to keep rivalry in house), UVA and VT. UVA probably sees itself as more of a B1G team and goes north. UNC athletic supporters overwhelmingly have decreed support for an SEC move should it be needed—adding Duke cements that decision. Virginia Tech could go either way; go north and play Penn State yearly or head south for a packed football schedule. If they go south I could see the SEC rounding out with either Miami (Florida & Florida State would find scheduling them quite easily), Georgia Tech (to keep B1G out of recruiting hot bed) or West Virginia (best available program and natural rival for Virginia Tech).

If the PAC-12 sells a significant % of their network to held the PAC Network get nationwide carriage, then they’ll stay together, if not they’ll probably lose a few schools.

Does the SEC get $7-10M more per school for Teir one? Depends on the current evaluation of what CBS is willing to pay and if another major bidder, I’m thinking FOX, can and is willing to offer. Could one imagine the SEC expanding with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State (to secure those wonderful ratings for OU vs SEC teams the broadcaster would have) which would cause a significant bump in pay which in turn cements the decision that the ACC schools can not close that large a gap. Thus making Florida State open to a move, thus open season on ACC properties.

Anyway, it just seems like this next round of realignment could turn a snowflake into an avalanche if the money is right.

I'm getting used to the idea of dropping CBS.

I know it will depend on certain factors and what other networks offer, but the SEC's 1st Tier should be the most valuable 1st Tier in the game. If Oklahoma is coming on board around the same time then it's just that much more valuable.

ESPN/ABC would be an option and I could see FOX making a bid, but I'm intrigued at what a company like AT&T/Time Warner could offer if we went with Turner. If for no more reason than their cross-promotion capabilities are miles ahead of virtually anyone in the business.

It would also intrigue me to have some of our basketball games move to that network. ESPN and Turner are basically the go-to for NBA coverage and if all of our games are running on the same networks with the NBA and if we've got Turner's NBA team covering our games the same way they cover March Madness then that could be a big win by itself.

Fox looks like the would outbid everybody for that premium content that is the SEC game of the week. NBC would be my favorite as they have a proven history of providing the highest quality of broadcasting in the business and can reach the same number of households and platforms as CBS for exposure; but they already have Notre Dame, so they don’t NEED to seriously bid on this property like others do. ABC/ESPN could take over T1 rights, but I find it nice to hear s different broadcast/presentation too.

TNT is the new standard for NBA coverage, Ibut I just don’t see them bothering to dip into college basketball unless they need content for future sporting channels they plan on heavily investing in and upgrading.

The ACC would be better off with ECU instead of Wake Forest. Too many small private schools in the conference.

(06-30-2018 12:26 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 04:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 01:42 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 01:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  We will know by 2022 whether the ACCN is the salvation of the ACC, or not. I think that will be the pivotal point for everything.

1. Does the Big 10 get another big pay boost, or do they re-ink their contract for a very modest difference?
2. Does Oklahoma or Texas move?
3. Does the PAC sell a % of their conference network to a carrier?
4. Does the SEC get the 7 to 10 million per school boost for their new T1 deal?
5. Does the ACC close the gap with a solid return from the ACCN or not?

The answer to these questions will determine far more than any previous period or sets of realignment moves.

The Big Ten does get good ratings, not just for their blue blood football programs but for their competitors and pretenders within their conference too. Their football is worth whatever the market is willing to spare. ESPN did not want to match Fox ‘s rights fees for half of the rights. ESPN’s package was reduced to what both parties were willing to agree to and CBS picked up a good chunk of the remainder; iirc.

The question these commissioners need to get right is “does selling games that would normally be lower Teir II or upper Teir III to a streaming service 1) anger their fanbase that might have to buy another streaming service or equipment to watch and 2) devalue the Big Ten Network? This seams like the easy way for new streaming companies to break into college football. The tough one is selling Teir I or upper Teir II content to a Netflix/Hulu type streaming service that won’t be available on standard cable/satellite provider channels. That’s a decision a commissioner can’t get wrong,

One realignment, if money is still the problem, then it is the PAC and ACC that are vulnerable to losing members. OU and Texas stay put in a Big 12 that plucks from the PAC-12 and/or adds delicious leftovers from the ACC after the SEC and Big Ten feast.

As far as ranking ACC potential additions, I think if FSU is ready to bolt, Sankey grabs them and Swofford has to go into overdrive to save the conference, Clemson, from falling apart. With the overall devaluation of the conference with FSU’s football brand, if Notre Fame doesn’t join all in, then the Big Ten probably offers a package of schools invitations. The SEC counters with offers to UNC, Duke (as a pair to keep rivalry in house), UVA and VT. UVA probably sees itself as more of a B1G team and goes north. UNC athletic supporters overwhelmingly have decreed support for an SEC move should it be needed—adding Duke cements that decision. Virginia Tech could go either way; go north and play Penn State yearly or head south for a packed football schedule. If they go south I could see the SEC rounding out with either Miami (Florida & Florida State would find scheduling them quite easily), Georgia Tech (to keep B1G out of recruiting hot bed) or West Virginia (best available program and natural rival for Virginia Tech).

If the PAC-12 sells a significant % of their network to held the PAC Network get nationwide carriage, then they’ll stay together, if not they’ll probably lose a few schools.

Does the SEC get $7-10M more per school for Teir one? Depends on the current evaluation of what CBS is willing to pay and if another major bidder, I’m thinking FOX, can and is willing to offer. Could one imagine the SEC expanding with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State (to secure those wonderful ratings for OU vs SEC teams the broadcaster would have) which would cause a significant bump in pay which in turn cements the decision that the ACC schools can not close that large a gap. Thus making Florida State open to a move, thus open season on ACC properties.

Anyway, it just seems like this next round of realignment could turn a snowflake into an avalanche if the money is right.

I'm getting used to the idea of dropping CBS.

I know it will depend on certain factors and what other networks offer, but the SEC's 1st Tier should be the most valuable 1st Tier in the game. If Oklahoma is coming on board around the same time then it's just that much more valuable.

ESPN/ABC would be an option and I could see FOX making a bid, but I'm intrigued at what a company like AT&T/Time Warner could offer if we went with Turner. If for no more reason than their cross-promotion capabilities are miles ahead of virtually anyone in the business.

It would also intrigue me to have some of our basketball games move to that network. ESPN and Turner are basically the go-to for NBA coverage and if all of our games are running on the same networks with the NBA and if we've got Turner's NBA team covering our games the same way they cover March Madness then that could be a big win by itself.

Fox looks like the would outbid everybody for that premium content that is the SEC game of the week. NBC would be my favorite as they have a proven history of providing the highest quality of broadcasting in the business and can reach the same number of households and platforms as CBS for exposure; but they already have Notre Dame, so they don’t NEED to seriously bid on this property like others do. ABC/ESPN could take over T1 rights, but I find it nice to hear s different broadcast/presentation too.

TNT is the new standard for NBA coverage, Ibut I just don’t see them bothering to dip into college basketball unless they need content for future sporting channels they plan on heavily investing in and upgrading.

FOX probably could outbid everyone although I suspect they would want to shift an occasional game to FS1 and we'd lose viewers. NBC would probably provide the best overall coverage although I'm not sure they would get in on the bidding. It's probably unlikely they would guarantee us top billing every week being that they have several good Notre Dame games to show.

I wonder how Turner's approach might change with new ownership. They already stole UEFA Champions League and they are part of a record deal for NBA rights. They could be going after an NFL package as well. I think it might depend on if they change their approach.

If they go after college football then I think you could see conferences ask them to take up basketball coverage as one of the major perks for signing a deal. I could see Turner going for it because a regular package of college basketball would be a nice lead-in for the March Madness coverage every year.

As it stands, they've isolated MLB coverage for TBS while the NBA is on TNT, but I could see them using both channels for more expanded sports coverage. I think their mixed content approach could be very beneficial although it wouldn't be shocking to see them develop a sports only network either. They've also got a share of Hulu and FOX just sold theirs off. I suppose it depends on how many rights they plan to acquire.

That and AT&T could distribute in ways that a typical company might not even be capable of. Anyway, it intrigues me if for no other reason than CBS doesn't have one of the better platforms to cross promote.

(06-28-2018 01:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 12:27 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  True, the rates will be decoupled and will vary with geography - I would imagine that the ACCN gets higher rates in NC and northward and the SECN gets higher rates in GA and westward. The FL and SC rates might be in the same ballpark. I'm somewhat bullish on the revenue from the NE - even a modest carriage rate could have a high yield to both conferences just because of the population numbers. This is when we find out if carrying BC is truly worth the trouble.

We will know by 2022 whether the ACCN is the salvation of the ACC, or not. I think that will be the pivotal point for everything.

1. Does the Big 10 get another big pay boost, or do they re-ink their contract for a very modest difference?
2. Does Oklahoma or Texas move?
3. Does the PAC sell a % of their conference network to a carrier?
4. Does the SEC get the 7 to 10 million per school boost for their new T1 deal?
5. Does the ACC close the gap with a solid return from the ACCN or not?

The answer to these questions will determine far more than any previous period or sets of realignment moves.

It will determine if we have 3, 4, or 5 P conferences moving forward, or a league. It will determine whether the football spending war continues or grinds to a halt. It will determine whether expansion/consolidation continues or stops, or regresses.

I don't see the ACC Network being a vessel of salvation, but I'm not sure it has to be.

I think what will make the difference is whether or not it will allow the core ACC schools to live comfortably. I think many of them don't have any desire to be at the top of the mountain so much as they desire hegemony in their own world.

A school like Florida State or Clemson or even Virginia Tech might be in a different category, but in general I think most ACC schools are just looking for stability. As long as they're financially solvent and the gap with other leagues is not continually growing then they may be happy. The question, of course, is whether or not an ACCN can deliver that.

I think ESPN will have every motivation to aid the success of the network though. Whatever profit the ACCN takes in can be funneled directly into paying 1st and 2nd Tier rights fees for the league. Essentially, the additional channel provides a revenue stream that decreases costs for content that ESPN wants to possess anyway.

I'm not sure the ACC's share of the pie will be worth it to the more prominent programs though. There is a reason their 1st and 2nd Tier values aren't that competitive and as linear TV revenues weaken then whatever value added from the ACCN will have diminishing returns even in the best case scenario. The number of viewers will start to matter and the ACC doesn't have as many. The quality of content will matter even more and the league may struggle there as well.

If the revenue is not enough then the SEC may need to consider what could be available...

I think we should definitely go for Florida State and Clemson, but I'd take a strong look at Virginia Tech and Georgia Tech as well. The NC schools will want to stick together and there are too many of them for a small expansion. I think VT has aspirations beyond just a nice, comfortable regional program and would separate. The politicians in GA will want us to protect GT and UGA may very well want the same. It just so happens they make a very easy 4th addition.

Georgia Tech's comfort in the ACC is derived from the football nudging and traditional rivalries of FSU/Clemson.... but also the academic affinity, traditional rivalries (with Duke in particular), and football "booster seat" of UNC/Duke. The inverse on nudging/booster seat more or less applies to basketball.

Removing any one of those pairs egregiously harms GT's perception of the conference, and is probably enough to trigger a move of conference, even if that conference is the B1G. Better to be financially competitive and playing Yankees too much than to be bankrupt, deeply outgunned, and with no viable recovery path. Removing both pairs kills all joy in the ACC.

In a perfect world Georgia Tech would play the SEC East(-Missouri), Auburn, Clemson, FSU, UNC, Duke, VT, Miami, Notre Dame.