(01-14-2020 08:37 AM)zibby Wrote:  You won't see ACC teams going to the SEC. ESPN already owns both. What you'll see is ESPN trying to get Big XII teams to move to the SEC and Fox trying to get ACC teams to move to the B1G.

You just explained why ESPN might move key ACC teams to the SEC - to keep them out of the Big Ten!

That said, I think it's much more likely ESPN moves some Big XII teams into the ACC - and increases the TV contract somewhat - to protect their ACCN property.

(01-14-2020 12:09 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 08:37 AM)zibby Wrote:  You won't see ACC teams going to the SEC. ESPN already owns both. What you'll see is ESPN trying to get Big XII teams to move to the SEC and Fox trying to get ACC teams to move to the B1G.

You just explained why ESPN might move key ACC teams to the SEC - to keep them out of the Big Ten!

That said, I think it's much more likely ESPN moves some Big XII teams into the ACC - and increases the TV contract somewhat - to protect their ACCN property.

Yes. ESPN will not allow the ACC to die or get poached to pieces. Too much invested already. The ACC will still be paid less than the SEC but the difference wont be ridiculous. It will still allow those who are competing at a high level in the revenue sports to continue competing at a high level.

(01-14-2020 12:16 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 12:09 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 08:37 AM)zibby Wrote:  You won't see ACC teams going to the SEC. ESPN already owns both. What you'll see is ESPN trying to get Big XII teams to move to the SEC and Fox trying to get ACC teams to move to the B1G.

You just explained why ESPN might move key ACC teams to the SEC - to keep them out of the Big Ten!

That said, I think it's much more likely ESPN moves some Big XII teams into the ACC - and increases the TV contract somewhat - to protect their ACCN property.

Yes. ESPN will not allow the ACC to die or get poached to pieces. Too much invested already. The ACC will still be paid less than the SEC but the difference wont be ridiculous. It will still allow those who are competing at a high level in the revenue sports to continue competing at a high level.

Define " difference wont be ridiculous. "

What amount is ridiculous (lowest amount to be 'ridiculous')?

(01-14-2020 11:59 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 10:28 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 08:44 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 08:37 AM)zibby Wrote:  You won't see ACC teams going to the SEC. ESPN already owns both. What you'll see is ESPN trying to get Big XII teams to move to the SEC and Fox trying to get ACC teams to move to the B1G.

I think ESPN wants to keep the ACC as a "buffer" conference between the SEC and Big Ten. For this reason they will somewhat strengthen (and enrich) the ACC, although probably not to a level fully equal to the SEC (little brother status remains).

The problem I have with that idea is that I can't see anybody the ACC could add that would strengthen them.

You can't see Texas? Oklahoma? Notre Dame? what about WVU? All of those teams for sure strengthen ACC football - and revenue. I'd add TCU to that list as well, although confidence isn't as high.

Other possibilities include Cincinnati, Memphis and Houston - but ESPN would have to essentially overpay for them (in reality they'd be paying market rates for the games already under contract).

You could make a very long list of schools who would add value to the ACC. Schools like Penn State, Georgia and Florida, for example. What I said was I didn't see teams they COULD add, not ones they WOULD add. I can't imagine either Texas or Oklahoma leaving what they have now for the ACC. And we've already beaten the ND horse to death already.

(01-14-2020 02:41 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 11:59 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 10:28 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 08:44 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 08:37 AM)zibby Wrote:  You won't see ACC teams going to the SEC. ESPN already owns both. What you'll see is ESPN trying to get Big XII teams to move to the SEC and Fox trying to get ACC teams to move to the B1G.

I think ESPN wants to keep the ACC as a "buffer" conference between the SEC and Big Ten. For this reason they will somewhat strengthen (and enrich) the ACC, although probably not to a level fully equal to the SEC (little brother status remains).

The problem I have with that idea is that I can't see anybody the ACC could add that would strengthen them.

You can't see Texas? Oklahoma? Notre Dame? what about WVU? All of those teams for sure strengthen ACC football - and revenue. I'd add TCU to that list as well, although confidence isn't as high.

Other possibilities include Cincinnati, Memphis and Houston - but ESPN would have to essentially overpay for them (in reality they'd be paying market rates for the games already under contract).

You could make a very long list of schools who would add value to the ACC. Schools like Penn State, Georgia and Florida, for example. What I said was I didn't see teams they COULD add, not ones they WOULD add. I can't imagine either Texas or Oklahoma leaving what they have now for the ACC. And we've already beaten the ND horse to death already.

I was assuming that ESPN would be heavily involved in brokering these moves... to keep the best Big XII teams under the ESPN umbrella.

(01-14-2020 12:29 PM)nole Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 12:16 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 12:09 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 08:37 AM)zibby Wrote:  You won't see ACC teams going to the SEC. ESPN already owns both. What you'll see is ESPN trying to get Big XII teams to move to the SEC and Fox trying to get ACC teams to move to the B1G.

You just explained why ESPN might move key ACC teams to the SEC - to keep them out of the Big Ten!

That said, I think it's much more likely ESPN moves some Big XII teams into the ACC - and increases the TV contract somewhat - to protect their ACCN property.

Yes. ESPN will not allow the ACC to die or get poached to pieces. Too much invested already. The ACC will still be paid less than the SEC but the difference wont be ridiculous. It will still allow those who are competing at a high level in the revenue sports to continue competing at a high level.

Define " difference wont be ridiculous. "

What amount is ridiculous (lowest amount to be 'ridiculous')?

Within 20% difference.

(01-14-2020 12:05 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 08:37 AM)zibby Wrote:  You won't see ACC teams going to the SEC. ESPN already owns both. What you'll see is ESPN trying to get Big XII teams to move to the SEC and Fox trying to get ACC teams to move to the B1G.

To the contrary. Being in an in house move means the GoR doesn't apply because the rights wouldn't change hands as part of realignment. Fuhrer Mickey just has to make more money when it's all said and done. That merely means not destroying an asset until you don't or nearly don't own it.

This isn't true - the GoR is between the schools and the ACC - not directly with ESPN. ACC schools have granted their rights to the ACC itself; the ACC has a contract with ESPN, but not a GoR. So, YES, realignment would definitely affect the GoR.

(01-16-2020 01:55 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 12:05 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 08:37 AM)zibby Wrote:  You won't see ACC teams going to the SEC. ESPN already owns both. What you'll see is ESPN trying to get Big XII teams to move to the SEC and Fox trying to get ACC teams to move to the B1G.

To the contrary. Being in an in house move means the GoR doesn't apply because the rights wouldn't change hands as part of realignment. Fuhrer Mickey just has to make more money when it's all said and done. That merely means not destroying an asset until you don't or nearly don't own it.

This isn't true - the GoR is between the schools and the ACC - not directly with ESPN. ACC schools have granted their rights to the ACC itself; the ACC has a contract with ESPN, but not a GoR. So, YES, realignment would definitely affect the GoR.

Got a link on that? I haven't read anywhere that any of the conference GoR are structured like that.

(01-16-2020 02:27 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 01:55 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 12:05 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 08:37 AM)zibby Wrote:  You won't see ACC teams going to the SEC. ESPN already owns both. What you'll see is ESPN trying to get Big XII teams to move to the SEC and Fox trying to get ACC teams to move to the B1G.

To the contrary. Being in an in house move means the GoR doesn't apply because the rights wouldn't change hands as part of realignment. Fuhrer Mickey just has to make more money when it's all said and done. That merely means not destroying an asset until you don't or nearly don't own it.

This isn't true - the GoR is between the schools and the ACC - not directly with ESPN. ACC schools have granted their rights to the ACC itself; the ACC has a contract with ESPN, but not a GoR. So, YES, realignment would definitely affect the GoR.

Got a link on that? I haven't read anywhere that any of the conference GoR are structured like that.

They are ALL structured like that... the league office negotiates on behalf of the group; the group agrees to pool their rights for the duration of the GoR.

(01-14-2020 04:23 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 12:29 PM)nole Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 12:16 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 12:09 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 08:37 AM)zibby Wrote:  You won't see ACC teams going to the SEC. ESPN already owns both. What you'll see is ESPN trying to get Big XII teams to move to the SEC and Fox trying to get ACC teams to move to the B1G.

You just explained why ESPN might move key ACC teams to the SEC - to keep them out of the Big Ten!

That said, I think it's much more likely ESPN moves some Big XII teams into the ACC - and increases the TV contract somewhat - to protect their ACCN property.

Yes. ESPN will not allow the ACC to die or get poached to pieces. Too much invested already. The ACC will still be paid less than the SEC but the difference wont be ridiculous. It will still allow those who are competing at a high level in the revenue sports to continue competing at a high level.

Define " difference wont be ridiculous. "

What amount is ridiculous (lowest amount to be 'ridiculous')?

Within 20% difference.

The difference ALREADY excedes the 20% by a LARGE sum and it is going to go up even more.

1) B1G .... $54.7m *
2) SEC .... $43.7m **
3) B12 .... $34.5m
4) PAC .... $31.3m
5) ACC .... $30m

(01-16-2020 09:23 PM)nole Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 04:23 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 12:29 PM)nole Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 12:16 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 12:09 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  You just explained why ESPN might move key ACC teams to the SEC - to keep them out of the Big Ten!

That said, I think it's much more likely ESPN moves some Big XII teams into the ACC - and increases the TV contract somewhat - to protect their ACCN property.

Yes. ESPN will not allow the ACC to die or get poached to pieces. Too much invested already. The ACC will still be paid less than the SEC but the difference wont be ridiculous. It will still allow those who are competing at a high level in the revenue sports to continue competing at a high level.

Define " difference wont be ridiculous. "

What amount is ridiculous (lowest amount to be 'ridiculous')?

Within 20% difference.

The difference ALREADY excedes the 20% by a LARGE sum and it is going to go up even more.

1) B1G .... $54.7m *
2) SEC .... $43.7m **
3) B12 .... $34.5m
4) PAC .... $31.3m
5) ACC .... $30m

For the record, to be within 20% of the Big Ten (i.e. 80% of $54.7m), the ACC would need to pay out $43.76m.

It's believed that the SEC will soon be paying out over $60m... 80% of that is $48m

(01-16-2020 09:23 PM)nole Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 04:23 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 12:29 PM)nole Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 12:16 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 12:09 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  You just explained why ESPN might move key ACC teams to the SEC - to keep them out of the Big Ten!

That said, I think it's much more likely ESPN moves some Big XII teams into the ACC - and increases the TV contract somewhat - to protect their ACCN property.

Yes. ESPN will not allow the ACC to die or get poached to pieces. Too much invested already. The ACC will still be paid less than the SEC but the difference wont be ridiculous. It will still allow those who are competing at a high level in the revenue sports to continue competing at a high level.

Define " difference wont be ridiculous. "

What amount is ridiculous (lowest amount to be 'ridiculous')?

Within 20% difference.

The difference ALREADY excedes the 20% by a LARGE sum and it is going to go up even more.

1) B1G .... $54.7m *
2) SEC .... $43.7m **
3) B12 .... $34.5m
4) PAC .... $31.3m
5) ACC .... $30m

Yes, those numbers do not reflect the ACCN value. Its likely that the ACCN would get the league within the 20%. The ACCN already had many more subscribers on its launch than the SEC had at its launch, according to an article that was linked on this board. Im in no way saying that the ACCN will be more successful than the SECN, just that the ACCN had a better launch.
It also stands to reason that ESPN would like to keep the ACC healthy and competitive since it is the only league that ESPN wholly owns their tv rights. Until the ACC can get beyond this deal where they are underpaid the league will always be behind the SEC.

(01-16-2020 10:05 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  Until the ACC can get beyond this deal where they are underpaid the league will always be behind the SEC.

I've never quite understood why some people think the ACC is being underpaid. "Paid less" is not the same as "underpaid". If there is no one out there who is willing to pay more, then the ACC is being paid market value. Do we have any reason to suspect that another (higher) bidder was rejected in favor of ESPN?

(01-17-2020 09:57 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 10:05 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  Until the ACC can get beyond this deal where they are underpaid the league will always be behind the SEC.

I've never quite understood why some people think the ACC is being underpaid. "Paid less" is not the same as "underpaid". If there is no one out there who is willing to pay more, then the ACC is being paid market value. Do we have any reason to suspect that another (higher) bidder was rejected in favor of ESPN?

It's not about rejecting a bidder, it's about being locked in long-term at 2010 rates.

When Pitt and Cuse were added, the league got a big raise... does anyone honestly think that's because those schools are worth more than FSU, Clemson, UNC or VT? No - it's because the market value of ALL games had increased. Why do you think ESPN wanted the ACC to sign an extension to the year 2036? It's because ESPN thinks rights fees are going up (and, apparently, the ACC thinks they are going to go down?)

(01-17-2020 10:12 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 09:57 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 10:05 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  Until the ACC can get beyond this deal where they are underpaid the league will always be behind the SEC.

I've never quite understood why some people think the ACC is being underpaid. "Paid less" is not the same as "underpaid". If there is no one out there who is willing to pay more, then the ACC is being paid market value. Do we have any reason to suspect that another (higher) bidder was rejected in favor of ESPN?

It's not about rejecting a bidder, it's about being locked in long-term at 2010 rates.

When Pitt and Cuse were added, the league got a big raise... does anyone honestly think that's because those schools are worth more than FSU, Clemson, UNC or VT? No - it's because the market value of ALL games had increased. Why do you think ESPN wanted the ACC to sign an extension to the year 2036? It's because ESPN thinks rights fees are going up (and, apparently, the ACC thinks they are going to go down?)

Exactly, and the most problematic issue is that because the ACC is already locked in with ESPN long term, whenever the ACC discusses increases no one else can legally bid on the ACC because the league is under long term contract with ESPN. When SU and Pitt came in, the ACC was at the beginning of a long term tv deal. ESPN, really didnt have to pay the ACC any increase at all. But ESPN wanted to keep the league in the ballpark of other leagues at the time. So the ACC has to settle with whatever ESPN gives them. The same applies today. Thats why I say that ESPN will make sure that the ACC will always be healthy and competitive, but always behind. Somehow, if the league can get out of the long term deal, then we would see what the league is truly worth, being #3 on tv viewership for football.

(01-16-2020 10:05 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 09:23 PM)nole Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 04:23 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 12:29 PM)nole Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 12:16 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  Yes. ESPN will not allow the ACC to die or get poached to pieces. Too much invested already. The ACC will still be paid less than the SEC but the difference wont be ridiculous. It will still allow those who are competing at a high level in the revenue sports to continue competing at a high level.

Define " difference wont be ridiculous. "

What amount is ridiculous (lowest amount to be 'ridiculous')?

Within 20% difference.

The difference ALREADY excedes the 20% by a LARGE sum and it is going to go up even more.

1) B1G .... $54.7m *
2) SEC .... $43.7m **
3) B12 .... $34.5m
4) PAC .... $31.3m
5) ACC .... $30m

Yes, those numbers do not reflect the ACCN value. Its likely that the ACCN would get the league within the 20%. The ACCN already had many more subscribers on its launch than the SEC had at its launch, according to an article that was linked on this board. Im in no way saying that the ACCN will be more successful than the SECN, just that the ACCN had a better launch.
It also stands to reason that ESPN would like to keep the ACC healthy and competitive since it is the only league that ESPN wholly owns their tv rights. Until the ACC can get beyond this deal where they are underpaid the league will always be behind the SEC.

It also doesn't include the SEC's upcoming sale of it's top game package, what CBS has had for many years. That's going to skyrocket their payout.

I don't see there being any way long term that the ACC stays within 20% of the SEC or Big 10. The ACC has cashed in almost all it's chips (pending Comcast carriage) while the SEC and B1G have more deals on the horizon.

It's just not going to happen. The brands and alumni bases and viewers are not there, and the conference isn't worth within 20% of those two. The best that can be hoped for is for the ACC to be third, that's what it's worth, at best.

(01-17-2020 12:16 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 10:05 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 09:23 PM)nole Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 04:23 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 12:29 PM)nole Wrote:  Define " difference wont be ridiculous. "

What amount is ridiculous (lowest amount to be 'ridiculous')?

Within 20% difference.

The difference ALREADY excedes the 20% by a LARGE sum and it is going to go up even more.

1) B1G .... $54.7m *
2) SEC .... $43.7m **
3) B12 .... $34.5m
4) PAC .... $31.3m
5) ACC .... $30m

Yes, those numbers do not reflect the ACCN value. Its likely that the ACCN would get the league within the 20%. The ACCN already had many more subscribers on its launch than the SEC had at its launch, according to an article that was linked on this board. Im in no way saying that the ACCN will be more successful than the SECN, just that the ACCN had a better launch.
It also stands to reason that ESPN would like to keep the ACC healthy and competitive since it is the only league that ESPN wholly owns their tv rights. Until the ACC can get beyond this deal where they are underpaid the league will always be behind the SEC.

It also doesn't include the SEC's upcoming sale of it's top game package, what CBS has had for many years. That's going to skyrocket their payout.

I don't see there being any way long term that the ACC stays within 20% of the SEC or Big 10. The ACC has cashed in almost all it's chips (pending Comcast carriage) while the SEC and B1G have more deals on the horizon.

It's just not going to happen. The brands and alumni bases and viewers are not there, and the conference isn't worth within 20% of those two. The best that can be hoped for is for the ACC to be third, that's what it's worth, at best.

That is correct. But whatever deal that the SEC strikes wont go into effect until 2024. A lot of things could change by then. The ACCN would be established by then. The ACC revenue will increase each year because of the ACCN until then, while the SECN has likely matured. So its likely that the ACC could somewhat close the gap by 2024.

But once 2024 comes everything will change. Will ESPN also increase the ACC tv deal at that point since tv values will have reset and increased again? I dont know the answer to that question, but since the ACC is their only wholly owned conference it seems logical that they would want to keep it safe and content.

The ACC does have one small advantage over the Big Ten, but I don't know how the ACC could translate that into $$'s: the ACC does not have a set requirement for the scheduling of football OOC games like the Big Ten and the Pac12 do. Go on FBSchedules.com and compare ACC schedules with Big Ten and Pac12 schedules. I doubt that would get the ACC completely up to the Big Ten's level, but it is something that the ACC should use against the Big Ten, IMO. If nothing else, it would force the Big Ten brass to re-examine scheduling which is something that the Big Ten coaches have been pushing for years.

(01-17-2020 01:23 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  The ACC does have one small advantage over the Big Ten, but I don't know how the ACC could translate that into $$'s: the ACC does not have a set requirement for the scheduling of football OOC games like the Big Ten and the Pac12 do. Go on FBSchedules.com and compare ACC schedules with Big Ten and Pac12 schedules. I doubt that would get the ACC completely up to the Big Ten's level, but it is something that the ACC should use against the Big Ten, IMO. If nothing else, it would force the Big Ten brass to re-examine scheduling which is something that the Big Ten coaches have been pushing for years.

The B10 is not living up that policy - they are allowing "waivers" for Army, Cincy, BYU, Boise, etc.

They treat the MAC the same way the ACC treats the Southern Conference and Patriot League.

(01-16-2020 10:05 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 09:23 PM)nole Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 04:23 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 12:29 PM)nole Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 12:16 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  Yes. ESPN will not allow the ACC to die or get poached to pieces. Too much invested already. The ACC will still be paid less than the SEC but the difference wont be ridiculous. It will still allow those who are competing at a high level in the revenue sports to continue competing at a high level.

Define " difference wont be ridiculous. "

What amount is ridiculous (lowest amount to be 'ridiculous')?

Within 20% difference.

The difference ALREADY excedes the 20% by a LARGE sum and it is going to go up even more.

1) B1G .... $54.7m *
2) SEC .... $43.7m **
3) B12 .... $34.5m
4) PAC .... $31.3m
5) ACC .... $30m

Yes, those numbers do not reflect the ACCN value. Its likely that the ACCN would get the league within the 20%. The ACCN already had many more subscribers on its launch than the SEC had at its launch, according to an article that was linked on this board. Im in no way saying that the ACCN will be more successful than the SECN, just that the ACCN had a better launch.
It also stands to reason that ESPN would like to keep the ACC healthy and competitive since it is the only league that ESPN wholly owns their tv rights. Until the ACC can get beyond this deal where they are underpaid the league will always be behind the SEC.

No, it isn't likely. SEC and B1G are about to renegotiate contracts and INCREASE the already huge revenue gap.

The ACC is STUCK until 2036.

EVEN if the ACCN met the ACC's most optimistic expectations.....the gap will be 30% or more with the P2.

ESPN has no interest in worrying what the revenue gap does to the ACC