I'm not sold that ESPN and Fox really want consolidation. All the ADs talk about consolidation, not the networks. The ADs know that the fewer sellers, the more power they have. ESPN and Fox would not prefer only one or two conferences with all the power. When the NCAA monopoly on TV ended, TV rights fees went down. There were suddenly a lot of sellers and only so many buyers. The end of the CFA helped a few (like Notre Dame) and hurt many others.

Fox and ESPN fought hard against the Pac 16 deal. Sure, they enabled the ACC destruction of the Big East and the Big 10 raid of the Pac 12, but they didn't initiate those. Magnus repeatedly states in that interview that they don't initiate anything. He claims they don't talk until the deal is made by the conferences. I find it hard to believe there not being some informal discussions (there certainly were in 2016 with the Big 12 proposed expansion), but I still think the conferences drive it. Otherwise, some of these moves don't make much sense!

(08-25-2022 12:40 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 12:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 02:25 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 01:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 01:39 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  New Fox isn't really like that anymore either--there are budget limitations. That's why NFL Thursday Night Football (2nd highest rated program on television last year, behind NFL Sunday Night Football) is not going to be on Fox anymore.

ESPN still has the deep pockets, but they do have corporate overlords (including Murdoch) who have veto power over how money gets spent (wasted).

Oh - I'm not saying that FOX is spending whatever it wants on anything that it wants.

FOX was losing a lot of money on NFL Thursday Night Football. CBS and NBC also lost a lot of money on NFL TNF when they had that package prior to FOX. That's why none of the linear networks were willing to pay more for that package and Amazon ended up with the rights.

What I mean is that FOX is very centralized in its leadership structure compared to Disney and it's simply a much smaller and focused outfit today (and very purposely so when they sold their other assets to Disney). That's not a good or bad thing (as whether that's an advantage or not depends on the situation). It's just that Murdoch will use activist investor letters as kindling for his fireplace, whereas Disney has to deal with entire news cycles on each and every activist investor letter that it receives along with every time that it has an earnings report or releases guidance on its streaming numbers.

That's why I think it's so important to not just refer to "ESPN" in these discussions, but rather the entire Walt Disney Company. Disney is arguably the single most scrutinized public company on Earth with big-time investors calling them out every time that they think they're spending too much... yet all of these "ESPN will help the SEC get ACC schools" scenarios depend upon ESPN very publicly paying out a ton of money (e.g. hundreds of millions of dollars at a minimum and likely over a billion dollars) in order to rip up very ESPN-friendly long-term contracts with the ACC and frankly the SEC, too (as compared to what FOX/NBC/CBS are paying to the Big Ten). I'm not even talking about the legal piece of the GOR agreement (which is an entirely separate issue), but rather the very financial underpinnings of what makes sense to the Walt Disney Company.

I’ve been beating that drum for months. The only way ESPN is making any changes to the ACC deal is if it’s in ESPN’s financial interest to do so. And I struggle to figure out how it’s in their best interest to tear up an ESPN-friendly deal just so they can pay all the schools more money (in several different conferences).

ESPN will make more money from selling ads in the SEC with FSU-SEC matchups and Clemson-SEC matchups than it did from FSU-ACC and Clemson-ACC matchups.

But they'd lose the revenue they're getting from the ACC Network. If you lose FSU and Clemson, providers are going to pressure ESPN for lower rates, or just drop ACC-N entirely. You're not going to make that up selling ads on ESPN--only about 20% of ESPN's revenue comes from ads. It's all about the subscriber fees. (OTA does better with ads, but they're also heavily reliant on subscriber fees--they own-and-operate their big-city affiliates, in Fox's case where 14 of 16 NFC teams are).

Quote:So if that increase is more than the extra they pay FSU and Clemson and the amount they lose in advertising on the remaining ACC, they will be favorably inclined. And since the ACC is under market, they could keep the ACC contract the same without any loss and so the remaining ACC schools would be whole.

Now I have no idea how much more they would make in SEC advertising and how much they would lose in ACC advertising. But that is how it would be in their interest, if those numbers work.

The numbers probably don't work. The Big Ten has enough top-level inventory that three networks can get some 5M+ level games, which is rich advertising territory. But adding Florida State and Clemson doesn't give the SEC a whole new package the way adding southern California amped up the value of the Big Ten OTA packages.

Future additions pretty much have to be worth MORE than USC, UCLA and southern California, or more than Texas + Oklahoma. That's a high bar to clear.

I know McMurphy's sources say that the PAC schools are on deck for the Big Ten. Me, I don't see how the math maths. There isn't enough BTN money to make it work, Seattle and Portland and San Franscisco don't move the needle the way Los Angeles does. I don't see NBC and CBS and Fox coughing up another $250 or $300 or $400M to make this happen. And I don't see ESPN paying that kind of money for a Big Ten 10:30 window--if there were that kind of money on the table for that window, the PAC would be getting a better offer from ESPN

I also don't see how further Big 10 expansion (except for Notre Dame, FSU and Miami) pays for itself. Clearly they can do a buy-in and come out ahead. But when those schools get a full share, they lower the average value. Since the Big 10 seems intent on doing this, I think its a strategic play. They want control of the West Coast. They want a bigger share of the CFP.

There's a variety of reasons why ESPN could be interested in moving on from the current ACC contract.

1. Profit and profit margin are not the same thing. These are more internal numbers that none of us will be privy to, but what will matter is the profitability of whatever entity/entities they create. The current profit margin on the ACC contract is irrelevant if they can make more gains by doing something different.

Spend $300 million and making $600 million is doubling your money, right? Spending $500 million and making $900 million is a lower profit margin, but guess what...it's more money in the bank.

Continuing to argue that ESPN won't dare break its current contract with the ACC because it's too good of a deal is a one-sided perspective. Unless you know what the profitability on the other side is then you don't know for certain it doesn't work. And none of us will actually know these numbers.

2. The SEC's interests are being ignored here. They are competing with the Big Ten for media value and overall hegemony. Now, it's significant that ESPN has gone all-in with the SEC. This means what is good for the SEC is good for ESPN and vice-versa. If the SEC is inherently weaker in the face of the Big Ten because ESPN isn't willing to break their contract then that's an important variable.

3. The interest of several ACC schools are relevant here. There are some ACC schools that can do better and they've not realized the rug got pulled out from under them. It will do them financial harm to wait out a bad contract. Just as important, it will embitter said schools again ESPN. When the contract finally comes up for negotiation, how interested do you think they'll be in re-signing with the very entity that put them in such a poor positions for well over a decade.

Heck, the SEC was dead set against signing with CBS over a less significant matter. The ACC schools that could be genuinely harmed by the maintaining of the current contract will have no reason to forgive. That's why Florida State's own President for heaven's sake is being vocal about it in the here and now.

4. NIL and pay for play will redefine the game. Schools will need more money to pay players which makes the ACC school's situation more dire and makes the SEC's need only grow that much more. Everyone will benefit from the new system where more schools are under the same roof because the same rules can be applied. You can create a compensation structure with 2 leagues a lot easier than you can with 4 or 5.

The networks will benefit from this because A) it will be easier for fans to understand and thus maintain interest and most importantly B) any schools stuck in an inferior economic situation will ultimately produce poorer quality teams and games. So the detriment to the brand will extend into the performance on the field. Consumers aren't dumb...they're already watching the ACC at a lower rate and this dynamic will hurt their watchability tremendously.

All of a sudden, that steal of a contract is less and less valuable over time because it's harder to sell ads regardless of what the schools are getting paid.

5. The playoff issue. I do agree with JR that a new CFP format will help pay for this. It would seem a good point to say...well, if this new playoff is so valuable then why do you need consolidation to pull it off?

For one, the most profitable playoff format is the simplest. Not that there's anything wrong with multiple conferences sending participants, but it's more important to have regions represented, less so individual conferences. The simpler the structure, the simpler it is to craft the participants in a way to represent regions/markets as opposed to leagues. League pride is not universal...especially when some leagues cross multiple regions.

Secondly, it will be 10 times easier to create a playoff format everyone can agree on when there aren't 11 different voices clamoring for individual interests. If there are 2 or 3 parties that need to agree then it just gets done easier. For example, the 6/6 CFP they came up with last year was darn near perfect for everyone involved and it got shot down due to incredible short sightedness on the part of those who thought the Big Ten had the best interest of the game at heart. How did that work out for you?

The Big Ten bought time for their favored media partner to not only fund the raiding of another "alliance" conference, but to stall out the redevelopment of a new CFP contract. Well, now it's every man for himself because the SEC isn't coming to your rescue next time.

Sure, if you're the Big Ten, you're 100% thrilled that ESPN isn't going to own the entire CFP next round. If you're the SEC then perhaps you prefer the opposite, but one thing is for certain...you are absolutely fooling yourselves if you're a PAC 12, Big 12, or ACC school and you think this scenario is better for you. Newsflash...you are a pawn in a game. Your interests are now served by nothing other than getting into the Big Ten or SEC. A CFP divided between multiple media partners isn't one flipping ounce better for you...it's better for the Big Ten and FOX certainly and I don't blame them for wanting it. I blame leaders in the PAC 12 and ACC for being foolish enough not to see the big picture. Your grand prize for all that mistrust and bitterness towards the SEC is effective irrelevance if you don't get hooked up with one of the Power 2. Good luck!

(08-25-2022 09:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  There's a variety of reasons why ESPN could be interested in moving on from the current ACC contract.

1. Profit and profit margin are not the same thing. These are more internal numbers that none of us will be privy to, but what will matter is the profitability of whatever entity/entities they create. The current profit margin on the ACC contract is irrelevant if they can make more gains by doing something different.

Spend $300 million and making $600 million is doubling your money, right? Spending $500 million and making $900 million is a lower profit margin, but guess what...it's more money in the bank.

Continuing to argue that ESPN won't dare break its current contract with the ACC because it's too good of a deal is a one-sided perspective. Unless you know what the profitability on the other side is then you don't know for certain it doesn't work. And none of us will actually know these numbers.

2. The SEC's interests are being ignored here. They are competing with the Big Ten for media value and overall hegemony. Now, it's significant that ESPN has gone all-in with the SEC. This means what is good for the SEC is good for ESPN and vice-versa. If the SEC is inherently weaker in the face of the Big Ten because ESPN isn't willing to break their contract then that's an important variable.

3. The interest of several ACC schools are relevant here. There are some ACC schools that can do better and they've not realized the rug got pulled out from under them. It will do them financial harm to wait out a bad contract. Just as important, it will embitter said schools again ESPN. When the contract finally comes up for negotiation, how interested do you think they'll be in re-signing with the very entity that put them in such a poor positions for well over a decade.

Heck, the SEC was dead set against signing with CBS over a less significant matter. The ACC schools that could be genuinely harmed by the maintaining of the current contract will have no reason to forgive. That's why Florida State's own President for heaven's sake is being vocal about it in the here and now.

4. NIL and pay for play will redefine the game. Schools will need more money to pay players which makes the ACC school's situation more dire and makes the SEC's need only grow that much more. Everyone will benefit from the new system where more schools are under the same roof because the same rules can be applied. You can create a compensation structure with 2 leagues a lot easier than you can with 4 or 5.

The networks will benefit from this because A) it will be easier for fans to understand and thus maintain interest and most importantly B) any schools stuck in an inferior economic situation will ultimately produce poorer quality teams and games. So the detriment to the brand will extend into the performance on the field. Consumers aren't dumb...they're already watching the ACC at a lower rate and this dynamic will hurt their watchability tremendously.

All of a sudden, that steal of a contract is less and less valuable over time because it's harder to sell ads regardless of what the schools are getting paid.

5. The playoff issue. I do agree with JR that a new CFP format will help pay for this. It would seem a good point to say...well, if this new playoff is so valuable then why do you need consolidation to pull it off?

For one, the most profitable playoff format is the simplest. Not that there's anything wrong with multiple conferences sending participants, but it's more important to have regions represented, less so individual conferences. The simpler the structure, the simpler it is to craft the participants in a way to represent regions/markets as opposed to leagues. League pride is not universal...especially when some leagues cross multiple regions.

Secondly, it will be 10 times easier to create a playoff format everyone can agree on when there aren't 11 different voices clamoring for individual interests. If there are 2 or 3 parties that need to agree then it just gets done easier. For example, the 6/6 CFP they came up with last year was darn near perfect for everyone involved and it got shot down due to incredible short sightedness on the part of those who thought the Big Ten had the best interest of the game at heart. How did that work out for you?

The Big Ten bought time for their favored media partner to not only fund the raiding of another "alliance" conference, but to stall out the redevelopment of a new CFP contract. Well, now it's every man for himself because the SEC isn't coming to your rescue next time.

Sure, if you're the Big Ten, you're 100% thrilled that ESPN isn't going to own the entire CFP next round. If you're the SEC then perhaps you prefer the opposite, but one thing is for certain...you are absolutely fooling yourselves if you're a PAC 12, Big 12, or ACC school and you think this scenario is better for you. Newsflash...you are a pawn in a game. Your interests are now served by nothing other than getting into the Big Ten or SEC. A CFP divided between multiple media partners isn't one flipping ounce better for you...it's better for the Big Ten and FOX certainly and I don't blame them for wanting it. I blame leaders in the PAC 12 and ACC for being foolish enough not to see the big picture. Your grand prize for all that mistrust and bitterness towards the SEC is effective irrelevance if you don't get hooked up with one of the Power 2. Good luck!

Excellent post!

It's going to be interesting. If ESPN is willing to put up the dollars for a Pac-10 and try to hang onto the CFP. It works out for them. But it seems FOX got it's foot into the door for the CFP and we'll probably see a ESPN/FOX split for a 6/6 playoff until the GOR explosion in the next decade.

(08-24-2022 01:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 11:34 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 10:58 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Interview featured on The Marchand and Ourand Show.

https://twitter.com/Ourand_SBJ/status/15...8734661634

Good find Chippewa!

Here's Magnus word for word:

"What we needed to get at the price we needed to get it at, neither of those things were available to us. And so as difficult as it was to go separate directions, it was the right decision for our company — there's no doubt about that. We are going to continue to be heavily invested in college sports. Nothing is forever in the rights buying business, so you've got to be somewhat dispassionate about (it) and stick to your process if you will. But it was hard. It was a hard decision, but I think it was the right decision for us — mostly because of what was on offer to us to buy, which is not what we were hoping for."

Two takeaways for me:

1. The B1G and FOX jointly running the negotiations was both a brilliant tactic and a cold bucket of water dropped on Magnus and his team. The plan from Day 1 obviously was to bring aboard both CBS and NBC which, with FOX, collectively could offer sweet-spot network viewing windows that ABC and ESPN more often than not wouldn't have available. And then the BIG's negotiating "team" had the gall to offer some lower-value content at a per game price well-above what they're paying for the pennies-on-the-dollar deal in which ESPN swindled the ACC schools. Well, yeah, that was not going to fly.

2. Mentioned this before and some (maybe or maybe not correctly) poo-pooed it ... But I'll go back to this issue that if the B1G's deal winds up being for significantly more dollars than the SEC's (and ends four years earlier to boot), it's gonna be a problem for ESPN and Greg Sankey. As much as some folks like to think so, school administrators are not just going to sit there and say, "Hey, it is what it is. We signed it, we got to live with it."

ESPN is gonna hear about it and Sankey is gonna hear about it. A lot.

In a roundabout way, this may well be where a huge expansion addition with a number of ACC schools would allow a re-working of the deal and also allow the SEC (with Disney assuming the same role FOX did in the B1G negotiations) to make perhaps the first major jump in the digital (OTT) space by partnering with Amazon or Apple. This would of course allow Disney to defray some of its costs to a deep-pocketed partner.

Again, there are ways to make this work and make everyone happy (or at least content).

Just gonna take some innovative and collaborative thinking.

The problem is that what a lot of posters try to argue will "make everyone happy" is really "make a handful of ACC schools that want to bail and the SEC happy." The "innovation and collaborative thinking" is contingent on screwing most of the ACC in order to give the "privilege" of ESPN paying more for the same teams that they already hold the rights to for the next 14 years on a much cheaper contract.

I don't see how that makes the vast majority of the ACC schools happy or, no matter how much we want to believe that ESPN loves the SEC, that they would be happy paying more money to anyone. Just listen to the podcast: ESPN is being much more cost conscious compared to before. These aren't the free-spending days of John Skipper that was obsessed with just hoovering up all content available.

The Magnus comments on the ACC actually point to the opposite of your conclusion. What I heard from him was essentially, "The ACC schools need to quit whining. ESPN took a huge risk setting up the ACC Network when we all knew cord cutting was already happening and, in exchange, we required a really long-term deal to take such risk. That long-term deal is now protecting the ACC from getting raided like other leagues. Quit whining." (Magnus talked about ESPN "taking a risk" in connection with launching the ACC Network multiple times. He was hammering home that the ACC schools knew exactly what they were signing up for with a 20-year deal. Those don't sound like the words of someone that wants to see content move off of the ACC Network.)

People need to stop thinking like fans or even university presidents in this scenario. Think like a cold-hearted Wall Street activist investor that's scrutinizing every penny that Disney is spending right now. ESPN isn't like FOX where they can just do whatever their figurehead of Rupert Murdoch wants regardless of how much it costs.

I always enjoy a different take on something. If I am FSU and Clemson, I am talking to Notre Dame quite a bit, gauging how committed the Irish really are to the ACC. We know that Notre Dame is very committed to being independent in football. That's been stated and proven several times. What we don't know is just how committed Notre Dame is in Olympic sports, especially with gas prices going up. Wouldn't ND prefer to rejoin the Big East, and save $$'s on gas/airplane fuel?? Or even possibly working out non football membership with the B1G??
That's something that you have not talked about TerryD, and you said yourself that you wouldn't mind seeing Notre Dame get out of the ACC entirely.
If Notre Dame, who wanted FSU and Clemson to stay in the first place, isn't committed, why should FSU and Clemson be committed??

(08-25-2022 09:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  There's a variety of reasons why ESPN could be interested in moving on from the current ACC contract.

1. Profit and profit margin are not the same thing. These are more internal numbers that none of us will be privy to, but what will matter is the profitability of whatever entity/entities they create. The current profit margin on the ACC contract is irrelevant if they can make more gains by doing something different.

Spend $300 million and making $600 million is doubling your money, right? Spending $500 million and making $900 million is a lower profit margin, but guess what...it's more money in the bank.

Continuing to argue that ESPN won't dare break its current contract with the ACC because it's too good of a deal is a one-sided perspective. Unless you know what the profitability on the other side is then you don't know for certain it doesn't work. And none of us will actually know these numbers.

2. The SEC's interests are being ignored here. They are competing with the Big Ten for media value and overall hegemony. Now, it's significant that ESPN has gone all-in with the SEC. This means what is good for the SEC is good for ESPN and vice-versa. If the SEC is inherently weaker in the face of the Big Ten because ESPN isn't willing to break their contract then that's an important variable.

3. The interest of several ACC schools are relevant here. There are some ACC schools that can do better and they've not realized the rug got pulled out from under them. It will do them financial harm to wait out a bad contract. Just as important, it will embitter said schools again ESPN. When the contract finally comes up for negotiation, how interested do you think they'll be in re-signing with the very entity that put them in such a poor positions for well over a decade.

Heck, the SEC was dead set against signing with CBS over a less significant matter. The ACC schools that could be genuinely harmed by the maintaining of the current contract will have no reason to forgive. That's why Florida State's own President for heaven's sake is being vocal about it in the here and now.

4. NIL and pay for play will redefine the game. Schools will need more money to pay players which makes the ACC school's situation more dire and makes the SEC's need only grow that much more. Everyone will benefit from the new system where more schools are under the same roof because the same rules can be applied. You can create a compensation structure with 2 leagues a lot easier than you can with 4 or 5.

The networks will benefit from this because A) it will be easier for fans to understand and thus maintain interest and most importantly B) any schools stuck in an inferior economic situation will ultimately produce poorer quality teams and games. So the detriment to the brand will extend into the performance on the field. Consumers aren't dumb...they're already watching the ACC at a lower rate and this dynamic will hurt their watchability tremendously.

All of a sudden, that steal of a contract is less and less valuable over time because it's harder to sell ads regardless of what the schools are getting paid.

5. The playoff issue. I do agree with JR that a new CFP format will help pay for this. It would seem a good point to say...well, if this new playoff is so valuable then why do you need consolidation to pull it off?

For one, the most profitable playoff format is the simplest. Not that there's anything wrong with multiple conferences sending participants, but it's more important to have regions represented, less so individual conferences. The simpler the structure, the simpler it is to craft the participants in a way to represent regions/markets as opposed to leagues. League pride is not universal...especially when some leagues cross multiple regions.

Secondly, it will be 10 times easier to create a playoff format everyone can agree on when there aren't 11 different voices clamoring for individual interests. If there are 2 or 3 parties that need to agree then it just gets done easier. For example, the 6/6 CFP they came up with last year was darn near perfect for everyone involved and it got shot down due to incredible short sightedness on the part of those who thought the Big Ten had the best interest of the game at heart. How did that work out for you?

The Big Ten bought time for their favored media partner to not only fund the raiding of another "alliance" conference, but to stall out the redevelopment of a new CFP contract. Well, now it's every man for himself because the SEC isn't coming to your rescue next time.

Sure, if you're the Big Ten, you're 100% thrilled that ESPN isn't going to own the entire CFP next round. If you're the SEC then perhaps you prefer the opposite, but one thing is for certain...you are absolutely fooling yourselves if you're a PAC 12, Big 12, or ACC school and you think this scenario is better for you. Newsflash...you are a pawn in a game. Your interests are now served by nothing other than getting into the Big Ten or SEC. A CFP divided between multiple media partners isn't one flipping ounce better for you...it's better for the Big Ten and FOX certainly and I don't blame them for wanting it. I blame leaders in the PAC 12 and ACC for being foolish enough not to see the big picture. Your grand prize for all that mistrust and bitterness towards the SEC is effective irrelevance if you don't get hooked up with one of the Power 2. Good luck!

Very true, and I think even JR alluded to this before. I get why the Pac-12 did this: they have been and always will be the B1G's flunkie. But the ACC really goofed here, IMO. I get why the ACC picked the commissioner they did. But, in light of what happened with Maryland, might it had been more prudent to go with someone from another conference instead, like maybe the Big12 or a G5 conference, or even someone from a conference like the Big East???

(08-25-2022 09:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  There's a variety of reasons why ESPN could be interested in moving on from the current ACC contract.

1. Profit and profit margin are not the same thing. These are more internal numbers that none of us will be privy to, but what will matter is the profitability of whatever entity/entities they create. The current profit margin on the ACC contract is irrelevant if they can make more gains by doing something different.

Spend $300 million and making $600 million is doubling your money, right? Spending $500 million and making $900 million is a lower profit margin, but guess what...it's more money in the bank.

Continuing to argue that ESPN won't dare break its current contract with the ACC because it's too good of a deal is a one-sided perspective. Unless you know what the profitability on the other side is then you don't know for certain it doesn't work.

Well said.

Quite the difference between people who unequivocally insist a four-page signed document will in itself keep powerful and iconic institutions in a deepening hole in which they collectively "lose" billions of dollars versus those folks with the ability to step back, take a view of the larger picture and find a workaround to a far more equitable path that won't lead to irreparably damaged relationships between institutional giants and media giants

Also, it's hard to believe the ACC's most powerful schools aren't working behind the scenes (together, but with plausible deniability) to find an exit ramp from their current situation.

Other than FSU's president making a brief and essentially inscrutable statement to a worried fan base, things just seem way too quiet

(08-24-2022 04:27 PM)Glenn360 Wrote:  wasn't exactly glowing about the process of 2 LA teams joining the Big Ten

IMO, he comes of as self-righteous. Criticizing the USC & UCLA move while supporting the Texas & Oklahoma move. Later Magnus talks about the importance of college rivalries. So if Oklahoma’s long-time rivals are left behind it’s fine (maybe because ESPN benefits?); while UCLA’s rivals losing out is a bigger problem (maybe because FOX benefits?).

(08-26-2022 01:27 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 01:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 11:34 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 10:58 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Interview featured on The Marchand and Ourand Show.

https://twitter.com/Ourand_SBJ/status/15...8734661634

Good find Chippewa!

Here's Magnus word for word:

"What we needed to get at the price we needed to get it at, neither of those things were available to us. And so as difficult as it was to go separate directions, it was the right decision for our company — there's no doubt about that. We are going to continue to be heavily invested in college sports. Nothing is forever in the rights buying business, so you've got to be somewhat dispassionate about (it) and stick to your process if you will. But it was hard. It was a hard decision, but I think it was the right decision for us — mostly because of what was on offer to us to buy, which is not what we were hoping for."

Two takeaways for me:

1. The B1G and FOX jointly running the negotiations was both a brilliant tactic and a cold bucket of water dropped on Magnus and his team. The plan from Day 1 obviously was to bring aboard both CBS and NBC which, with FOX, collectively could offer sweet-spot network viewing windows that ABC and ESPN more often than not wouldn't have available. And then the BIG's negotiating "team" had the gall to offer some lower-value content at a per game price well-above what they're paying for the pennies-on-the-dollar deal in which ESPN swindled the ACC schools. Well, yeah, that was not going to fly.

2. Mentioned this before and some (maybe or maybe not correctly) poo-pooed it ... But I'll go back to this issue that if the B1G's deal winds up being for significantly more dollars than the SEC's (and ends four years earlier to boot), it's gonna be a problem for ESPN and Greg Sankey. As much as some folks like to think so, school administrators are not just going to sit there and say, "Hey, it is what it is. We signed it, we got to live with it."

ESPN is gonna hear about it and Sankey is gonna hear about it. A lot.

In a roundabout way, this may well be where a huge expansion addition with a number of ACC schools would allow a re-working of the deal and also allow the SEC (with Disney assuming the same role FOX did in the B1G negotiations) to make perhaps the first major jump in the digital (OTT) space by partnering with Amazon or Apple. This would of course allow Disney to defray some of its costs to a deep-pocketed partner.

Again, there are ways to make this work and make everyone happy (or at least content).

Just gonna take some innovative and collaborative thinking.

The problem is that what a lot of posters try to argue will "make everyone happy" is really "make a handful of ACC schools that want to bail and the SEC happy." The "innovation and collaborative thinking" is contingent on screwing most of the ACC in order to give the "privilege" of ESPN paying more for the same teams that they already hold the rights to for the next 14 years on a much cheaper contract.

I don't see how that makes the vast majority of the ACC schools happy or, no matter how much we want to believe that ESPN loves the SEC, that they would be happy paying more money to anyone. Just listen to the podcast: ESPN is being much more cost conscious compared to before. These aren't the free-spending days of John Skipper that was obsessed with just hoovering up all content available.

The Magnus comments on the ACC actually point to the opposite of your conclusion. What I heard from him was essentially, "The ACC schools need to quit whining. ESPN took a huge risk setting up the ACC Network when we all knew cord cutting was already happening and, in exchange, we required a really long-term deal to take such risk. That long-term deal is now protecting the ACC from getting raided like other leagues. Quit whining." (Magnus talked about ESPN "taking a risk" in connection with launching the ACC Network multiple times. He was hammering home that the ACC schools knew exactly what they were signing up for with a 20-year deal. Those don't sound like the words of someone that wants to see content move off of the ACC Network.)

People need to stop thinking like fans or even university presidents in this scenario. Think like a cold-hearted Wall Street activist investor that's scrutinizing every penny that Disney is spending right now. ESPN isn't like FOX where they can just do whatever their figurehead of Rupert Murdoch wants regardless of how much it costs.

I always enjoy a different take on something. If I am FSU and Clemson, I am talking to Notre Dame quite a bit, gauging how committed the Irish really are to the ACC. We know that Notre Dame is very committed to being independent in football. That's been stated and proven several times. What we don't know is just how committed Notre Dame is in Olympic sports, especially with gas prices going up. Wouldn't ND prefer to rejoin the Big East, and save $$'s on gas/airplane fuel?? Or even possibly working out non football membership with the B1G??
That's something that you have not talked about TerryD, and you said yourself that you wouldn't mind seeing Notre Dame get out of the ACC entirely.
If Notre Dame, who wanted FSU and Clemson to stay in the first place, isn't committed, why should FSU and Clemson be committed??

If they did pick up the phone, ND would just give a canned answer saying "We enjoy being in the ACC and the experiences it brings to our student-athletes save, perhaps, the long trips to Tallahassee". Trying to maintain the relationship is great...but ND isn't going to share information that will change another ACC school's fate. "So glad you called...the B1G is on the other line...we're leaving the ACC....shhh...don't tell anyone!" ND is perhaps the last school I'd expect to spill the beans or share helpful intel.

(08-24-2022 12:43 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 11:51 AM)MadisonHawk Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 11:34 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 10:58 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Interview featured on The Marchand and Ourand Show.

https://twitter.com/Ourand_SBJ/status/15...8734661634

Good find Chippewa!

Here's Magnus word for word:

"What we needed to get at the price we needed to get it at, neither of those things were available to us. And so as difficult as it was to go separate directions, it was the right decision for our company — there's no doubt about that. We are going to continue to be heavily invested in college sports. Nothing is forever in the rights buying business, so you've got to be somewhat dispassionate about (it) and stick to your process if you will. But it was hard. It was a hard decision, but I think it was the right decision for us — mostly because of what was on offer to us to buy, which is not what we were hoping for."

Two takeaways for me:

1. The B1G and FOX jointly running the negotiations was both a brilliant tactic and a cold bucket of water dropped on Magnus and his team. The plan from Day 1 obviously was to bring aboard both CBS and NBC which, with FOX, collectively could offer sweet-spot network viewing windows that ABC and ESPN more often than not wouldn't have available. And then the BIG's negotiating "team" had the gall to offer some lower-value content at a per game price well-above what they're paying for the pennies-on-the-dollar deal in which ESPN swindled the ACC schools. Well, yeah, that was not going to fly.

2. Mentioned this before and some (maybe or maybe not correctly) poo-pooed it ... But I'll go back to this issue that if the B1G's deal winds up being for significantly more dollars than the SEC's (and ends four years earlier to boot), it's gonna be a problem for ESPN and Greg Sankey. As much s some people like to think so, schools are not just going to sit there and say, "Hey, it is what it is. We signed it, we got to live with it."

ESPN is gonna hear about it and Sankey is gonna hear about it. A lot.

In a roundabout way, this may well be where a huge expansion addition with a number of ACC schools would allow a re-working of the deal and also allow the SEC (with Disney assuming the same role FOX did in the B1G negotiations) to make perhaps the first major jump in the digital (OTT) space by partnering with Amazon or Apple. This would of course allow Disney to defray some of its costs to a deep-pocketed partner.

Again, there are ways to make this work and make everyone happy (or at least content).

Just gonna take some innovative and collaborative thinking.

I would recommend listening to the entire podcast (link below) which was excellent.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep...0577195357

Although there was no breaking news, it did confirm a few aspects of ESPN's thinking:

1. Big Ten. As Pete the Chop summarized, the B1G and ESPN were never aligned. ESPN wanted to continue its 50/50 split with Fox and have maximum flexibility on when to show the games. The B1G wanted three exclusive OTA windows (or perhaps an exclusive ESPN prime time window). ESPN was not willing to do that at the price NBC/CBS/Amazon were willing to do it because of their other commitments (see SEC below). Magnus said there were no ongoing discussions with the Big Ten but if expansion occurred and additional late-night windows opened up he would "pick up the phone".

2. SEC. ESPN is all in on the SEC. Magnus mentioned the possibility of a full slate of SEC games on ABC (i.e. Noon, 3:30 pm and 7:30 pm ET). Although the SEC will always have a 3:30 pm ET game on ABC, the "best" games will often be in prime time. Magnus also hinted that ESPN would increase the payments to the SEC if they go to nine conference games. Magnus also hinted that it was possible that Texas and OU could move to the SEC early (my interpretation is that perhaps this could be part of a new Big XII deal).

3. ACC. Magnus gave no indication that the grant of rights was at risk or that ESPN would unilaterally increase payments to the ACC. He did indicate that ESPN would increase payments to the ACC if there was incremental value, specifically referring to moving to nine conference games (e.g. SEC above).

4. Pac 12 and Big XII. Magnus indicated that because ESPN missed on the B1G it had the resources to bid on other rights, specifically mentioning the Pac 12 and Big XII.

Thanks for the heads up on the podcast and your great summary of it (and how the heck is someone a Hawkeye fan and a Badger fan? :)

A couple things ...

The first two sentences on point No. 2: ESPN is all in on the SEC. Although the SEC will always have a 3:30 pm ET game on ABC, the "best" games will often be in prime time.

And now No. 3 re the ACC: A one-word summary: Tight-lipped ... One courtesy mention. Like the SEC, the ACC could have its payments bumped up incrementally for going to nine conference games (IOW, the same concept as with the SEC, but of course for far less dollars because the ACC's contract is for far fewer dollars).

ESPN, in fact, tells us what many of us expect. It is gonna go all-in on the SEC — and like never before. So if all-in on the SEC is the approach, would it not make sense for your partner Mr. Sankey to absorb FSU and Clemson and UNC and UVA and Miami and (to keep the politicians and/or those devils at FOX and in the B1G office at bay) NC State, Virginia Tech and Georgia Tech into the SEC? More good brands, more good games, more eyeballs, more advertising revenue — all under one banner.

Just euthanize the ACC and its network and push those resources to the SEC, then grab a chunk of Conference No. 3 to extend your College Football and Basketball presence beyond the South and into additional viewing windows

Makes sense, right?

The SEC contract's details are not known. I'm sure in part because Sankey didn't want any Big 10 surprises.

ESPN will find a way to bump the portion of the ACC schools it deems essential to their plans. Whether than is in a merger with the SEC utilizing unequal distributions beyond post season play, or whether they work a deal to acquire PAC schools, perhaps in a merger with traditional ACC schools and bump those to the 40 million range and use that cover for the SEC to pick up 4 viable brands from the ACC at SEC pro rata, or something entirely other, the options are there and Disney is far from being broke.

Is anyone in a global financial situation which is clear as mud going to want massive cash outlays? No. But the downsizing within ESPN is money which can be reinvested and betting on college sports in the SE and SW is still a solid play.

(08-26-2022 07:15 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Also, it's hard to believe the ACC's most powerful schools aren't working behind the scenes (together, but with plausible deniability) to find an exit ramp from their current situation.

Other than FSU's president making a brief and essentially inscrutable statement to a worried fan base, things just seem way too quiet

Prescient, I have to say.

(08-25-2022 12:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  I'm not sold that ESPN and Fox really want consolidation. All the ADs talk about consolidation, not the networks. The ADs know that the fewer sellers, the more power they have. ESPN and Fox would not prefer only one or two conferences with all the power. When the NCAA monopoly on TV ended, TV rights fees went down. There were suddenly a lot of sellers and only so many buyers. The end of the CFA helped a few (like Notre Dame) and hurt many others.

Fox and ESPN fought hard against the Pac 16 deal. Sure, they enabled the ACC destruction of the Big East and the Big 10 raid of the Pac 12, but they didn't initiate those. Magnus repeatedly states in that interview that they don't initiate anything. He claims they don't talk until the deal is made by the conferences. I find it hard to believe there not being some informal discussions (there certainly were in 2016 with the Big 12 proposed expansion), but I still think the conferences drive it. Otherwise, some of these moves don't make much sense!

Eh. ESPN saw an opportunity to create an incredibly cheap and long-term property in the BE/AAC while also giving a slight bump (by also moving lots of cost to ACC schools for ACC Network) by organizing the destruction of the BE (and school officials are on record saying that).

FOX saw an opportunity to elevate their B1G property of getting USC and UCLA (and it won't stop there). Still not entirely convinced that FOX still doesn't get a portion of the PAC deal, but if they get several other schools, it will be moot (and FOX still saves $$$ with market values by having top brands just joining the B1G).

In the end, networks will not hesitate to save money by highlighting what values television contracts have with certain brands associated with them. In this regard, they have a strong say with how realignment and expansion occurs.

(08-26-2022 01:27 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 01:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 11:34 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 10:58 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Interview featured on The Marchand and Ourand Show.

https://twitter.com/Ourand_SBJ/status/15...8734661634

Good find Chippewa!

Here's Magnus word for word:

"What we needed to get at the price we needed to get it at, neither of those things were available to us. And so as difficult as it was to go separate directions, it was the right decision for our company — there's no doubt about that. We are going to continue to be heavily invested in college sports. Nothing is forever in the rights buying business, so you've got to be somewhat dispassionate about (it) and stick to your process if you will. But it was hard. It was a hard decision, but I think it was the right decision for us — mostly because of what was on offer to us to buy, which is not what we were hoping for."

Two takeaways for me:

1. The B1G and FOX jointly running the negotiations was both a brilliant tactic and a cold bucket of water dropped on Magnus and his team. The plan from Day 1 obviously was to bring aboard both CBS and NBC which, with FOX, collectively could offer sweet-spot network viewing windows that ABC and ESPN more often than not wouldn't have available. And then the BIG's negotiating "team" had the gall to offer some lower-value content at a per game price well-above what they're paying for the pennies-on-the-dollar deal in which ESPN swindled the ACC schools. Well, yeah, that was not going to fly.

2. Mentioned this before and some (maybe or maybe not correctly) poo-pooed it ... But I'll go back to this issue that if the B1G's deal winds up being for significantly more dollars than the SEC's (and ends four years earlier to boot), it's gonna be a problem for ESPN and Greg Sankey. As much as some folks like to think so, school administrators are not just going to sit there and say, "Hey, it is what it is. We signed it, we got to live with it."

ESPN is gonna hear about it and Sankey is gonna hear about it. A lot.

In a roundabout way, this may well be where a huge expansion addition with a number of ACC schools would allow a re-working of the deal and also allow the SEC (with Disney assuming the same role FOX did in the B1G negotiations) to make perhaps the first major jump in the digital (OTT) space by partnering with Amazon or Apple. This would of course allow Disney to defray some of its costs to a deep-pocketed partner.

Again, there are ways to make this work and make everyone happy (or at least content).

Just gonna take some innovative and collaborative thinking.

The problem is that what a lot of posters try to argue will "make everyone happy" is really "make a handful of ACC schools that want to bail and the SEC happy." The "innovation and collaborative thinking" is contingent on screwing most of the ACC in order to give the "privilege" of ESPN paying more for the same teams that they already hold the rights to for the next 14 years on a much cheaper contract.

I don't see how that makes the vast majority of the ACC schools happy or, no matter how much we want to believe that ESPN loves the SEC, that they would be happy paying more money to anyone. Just listen to the podcast: ESPN is being much more cost conscious compared to before. These aren't the free-spending days of John Skipper that was obsessed with just hoovering up all content available.

The Magnus comments on the ACC actually point to the opposite of your conclusion. What I heard from him was essentially, "The ACC schools need to quit whining. ESPN took a huge risk setting up the ACC Network when we all knew cord cutting was already happening and, in exchange, we required a really long-term deal to take such risk. That long-term deal is now protecting the ACC from getting raided like other leagues. Quit whining." (Magnus talked about ESPN "taking a risk" in connection with launching the ACC Network multiple times. He was hammering home that the ACC schools knew exactly what they were signing up for with a 20-year deal. Those don't sound like the words of someone that wants to see content move off of the ACC Network.)

People need to stop thinking like fans or even university presidents in this scenario. Think like a cold-hearted Wall Street activist investor that's scrutinizing every penny that Disney is spending right now. ESPN isn't like FOX where they can just do whatever their figurehead of Rupert Murdoch wants regardless of how much it costs.

I always enjoy a different take on something. If I am FSU and Clemson, I am talking to Notre Dame quite a bit, gauging how committed the Irish really are to the ACC. We know that Notre Dame is very committed to being independent in football. That's been stated and proven several times. What we don't know is just how committed Notre Dame is in Olympic sports, especially with gas prices going up. Wouldn't ND prefer to rejoin the Big East, and save $$'s on gas/airplane fuel?? Or even possibly working out non football membership with the B1G??
That's something that you have not talked about TerryD, and you said yourself that you wouldn't mind seeing Notre Dame get out of the ACC entirely.
If Notre Dame, who wanted FSU and Clemson to stay in the first place, isn't committed, why should FSU and Clemson be committed??

ND isn't returning to the Big East. The current academic/athletic associations, at least in Olympic sports, with the likes of UNC, Duke, Miami, FSU, BC, Virginia, Georgia Tech and Wake Forest are ideal. Substantial East Coast presence in the NE, Atlantic and SE is also optimal. Until there are teams that leave, I don't think ND is looking to cause a disruption to the ACC.

If the ACC blows up, ND will have an interesting dilemma (between the B1G and SEC). While incredibly reluctant, I'd imagine a non-football arrangement with the B1G would be likely outcome (given the academic superiority over the SEC). ND would still need regular presence in Florida and Texas though; and the B1G doesn't have that.

I can see the B1G adding California, Oregon, Stanford and Washington later in the year (and joining after USC/UCLA), which also is consistent with the "wanting to properly assimilate USCLA into the fold".

With the likely $$$ increase, ESPN (for the SEC) would need to act. Just not sure how Disney accomplishes that without pay a huge premium to both the ACC call-ups (and new SEC payouts) and the left-behinds (who aren't just going to ignore GOR for a modest immediate payout, which current deal is through 2036).

Very curious to see how Disney accomplishes all of this, especially with current evaluation and all that it has lost to date on streaming.

(05-27-2023 11:23 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 12:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  I'm not sold that ESPN and Fox really want consolidation. All the ADs talk about consolidation, not the networks. The ADs know that the fewer sellers, the more power they have. ESPN and Fox would not prefer only one or two conferences with all the power. When the NCAA monopoly on TV ended, TV rights fees went down. There were suddenly a lot of sellers and only so many buyers. The end of the CFA helped a few (like Notre Dame) and hurt many others.

Fox and ESPN fought hard against the Pac 16 deal. Sure, they enabled the ACC destruction of the Big East and the Big 10 raid of the Pac 12, but they didn't initiate those. Magnus repeatedly states in that interview that they don't initiate anything. He claims they don't talk until the deal is made by the conferences. I find it hard to believe there not being some informal discussions (there certainly were in 2016 with the Big 12 proposed expansion), but I still think the conferences drive it. Otherwise, some of these moves don't make much sense!

Eh. ESPN saw an opportunity to create an incredibly cheap and long-term property in the BE/AAC while also giving a slight bump (by also moving lots of cost to ACC schools for ACC Network) by organizing the destruction of the BE (and school officials are on record saying that).

FOX saw an opportunity to elevate their B1G property of getting USC and UCLA (and it won't stop there). Still not entirely convinced that FOX still doesn't get a portion of the PAC deal, but if they get several other schools, it will be moot (and FOX still saves $$$ with market values by having top brands just joining the B1G).

In the end, networks will not hesitate to save money by highlighting what values television contracts have with certain brands associated with them. In this regard, they have a strong say with how realignment and expansion occurs.

Networks should not be involved period in expansions period. You have a lot of hit and misses in realignment, and it actually hurt the conferences more with the ratings being bad. Big 10 with Rutgers and Maryland. The ACC across the board. PAC 12 and Colorado. But, SEC did not overreach outside of their footprint. Big 12's have a West Virginia problem.

(05-27-2023 03:10 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 11:23 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 12:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  I'm not sold that ESPN and Fox really want consolidation. All the ADs talk about consolidation, not the networks. The ADs know that the fewer sellers, the more power they have. ESPN and Fox would not prefer only one or two conferences with all the power. When the NCAA monopoly on TV ended, TV rights fees went down. There were suddenly a lot of sellers and only so many buyers. The end of the CFA helped a few (like Notre Dame) and hurt many others.

Fox and ESPN fought hard against the Pac 16 deal. Sure, they enabled the ACC destruction of the Big East and the Big 10 raid of the Pac 12, but they didn't initiate those. Magnus repeatedly states in that interview that they don't initiate anything. He claims they don't talk until the deal is made by the conferences. I find it hard to believe there not being some informal discussions (there certainly were in 2016 with the Big 12 proposed expansion), but I still think the conferences drive it. Otherwise, some of these moves don't make much sense!

Eh. ESPN saw an opportunity to create an incredibly cheap and long-term property in the BE/AAC while also giving a slight bump (by also moving lots of cost to ACC schools for ACC Network) by organizing the destruction of the BE (and school officials are on record saying that).

FOX saw an opportunity to elevate their B1G property of getting USC and UCLA (and it won't stop there). Still not entirely convinced that FOX still doesn't get a portion of the PAC deal, but if they get several other schools, it will be moot (and FOX still saves $$$ with market values by having top brands just joining the B1G).

In the end, networks will not hesitate to save money by highlighting what values television contracts have with certain brands associated with them. In this regard, they have a strong say with how realignment and expansion occurs.

Networks should not be involved period in expansions period. You have a lot of hit and misses in realignment, and it actually hurt the conferences more with the ratings being bad. Big 10 with Rutgers and Maryland. The ACC across the board. PAC 12 and Colorado. But, SEC did not overreach outside of their footprint. Big 12's have a West Virginia problem.

When it comes to Maryland being a miss, I assume you are referring only about football. Adding it all up by the Big Ten web site proves differently.

Big Ten conference titles (reg. season won outright, shared, and conference tournament titles) since July 2014 when Maryland and Rutgers were added:
1st. Michigan-79
2nd. Ohio st-59
3rd. Maryland-48(playing for a 49th tomorrow)
4th. Penn st-33
5th. Minnesota-28
6th-tied. Iowa-22(playing for a 23rd tomorrow)
6th-tied. Wisconsin-22
8th. Illinois-18
9th. Indiana-17
10th. Michigan st-16
11th. Northwestern-14
12th. Nebraska-10
13th. Purdue-5
14th. John Hopkins-4
15th-tied. Rutgers-3
15th-tied. Notre Dame-3

and considering total Big Ten sports sponsored:
1st-tied. Michigan-28 sports
1st-tied. Ohio st-28 sports
3rd. Penn st-27 sports
4th. Rutgers-24 sports
5th-tied. Michigan st-23 sports
5th-tied. Indiana-23 sports
7th. Wisconsin-22 sports
8th-tied. Purdue-21 sports
8th-tied. Illinois-21 sports
8th-tied. Iowa-21 sports
8th-tied. Nebraska-21 sports
8th-tied. Minnesota-21 sports
13th. Maryland-20 sports
14th. Northwestern-18 sports
15th. John Hopkins-2 sports
16th. Notre Dame-1 sport

I know I'm biased but 3rd in Big Ten championships since joining while being second to last in sports played by full members, I'd say Maryland wasn't a miss, unless the convo is only about football. My own fandom aside, I would love to go back in time and have the old ACC and Big East among others, but it is what it is and the networks will always have a say in expansion. I'm done with my way off topic post lol.

(05-27-2023 07:58 PM)ENCterrapin Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 03:10 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-27-2023 11:23 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 12:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  I'm not sold that ESPN and Fox really want consolidation. All the ADs talk about consolidation, not the networks. The ADs know that the fewer sellers, the more power they have. ESPN and Fox would not prefer only one or two conferences with all the power. When the NCAA monopoly on TV ended, TV rights fees went down. There were suddenly a lot of sellers and only so many buyers. The end of the CFA helped a few (like Notre Dame) and hurt many others.

Fox and ESPN fought hard against the Pac 16 deal. Sure, they enabled the ACC destruction of the Big East and the Big 10 raid of the Pac 12, but they didn't initiate those. Magnus repeatedly states in that interview that they don't initiate anything. He claims they don't talk until the deal is made by the conferences. I find it hard to believe there not being some informal discussions (there certainly were in 2016 with the Big 12 proposed expansion), but I still think the conferences drive it. Otherwise, some of these moves don't make much sense!

Eh. ESPN saw an opportunity to create an incredibly cheap and long-term property in the BE/AAC while also giving a slight bump (by also moving lots of cost to ACC schools for ACC Network) by organizing the destruction of the BE (and school officials are on record saying that).

FOX saw an opportunity to elevate their B1G property of getting USC and UCLA (and it won't stop there). Still not entirely convinced that FOX still doesn't get a portion of the PAC deal, but if they get several other schools, it will be moot (and FOX still saves $$$ with market values by having top brands just joining the B1G).

In the end, networks will not hesitate to save money by highlighting what values television contracts have with certain brands associated with them. In this regard, they have a strong say with how realignment and expansion occurs.

Networks should not be involved period in expansions period. You have a lot of hit and misses in realignment, and it actually hurt the conferences more with the ratings being bad. Big 10 with Rutgers and Maryland. The ACC across the board. PAC 12 and Colorado. But, SEC did not overreach outside of their footprint. Big 12's have a West Virginia problem.

When it comes to Maryland being a miss, I assume you are referring only about football. Adding it all up by the Big Ten web site proves differently.

Big Ten conference titles (reg. season won outright, shared, and conference tournament titles) since July 2014 when Maryland and Rutgers were added:
1st. Michigan-79
2nd. Ohio st-59
3rd. Maryland-48(playing for a 49th tomorrow)
4th. Penn st-33
5th. Minnesota-28
6th-tied. Iowa-22(playing for a 23rd tomorrow)
6th-tied. Wisconsin-22
8th. Illinois-18
9th. Indiana-17
10th. Michigan st-16
11th. Northwestern-14
12th. Nebraska-10
13th. Purdue-5
14th. John Hopkins-4
15th-tied. Rutgers-3
15th-tied. Notre Dame-3

and considering total Big Ten sports sponsored:
1st-tied. Michigan-28 sports
1st-tied. Ohio st-28 sports
3rd. Penn st-27 sports
4th. Rutgers-24 sports
5th-tied. Michigan st-23 sports
5th-tied. Indiana-23 sports
7th. Wisconsin-22 sports
8th-tied. Purdue-21 sports
8th-tied. Illinois-21 sports
8th-tied. Iowa-21 sports
8th-tied. Nebraska-21 sports
8th-tied. Minnesota-21 sports
13th. Maryland-20 sports
14th. Northwestern-18 sports
15th. John Hopkins-2 sports
16th. Notre Dame-1 sport

I know I'm biased but 3rd in Big Ten championships since joining while being second to last in sports played by full members, I'd say Maryland wasn't a miss, unless the convo is only about football. My own fandom aside, I would love to go back in time and have the old ACC and Big East among others, but it is what it is and the networks will always have a say in expansion. I'm done with my way off topic post lol.

Realignment matters with football tv ratings. Other sports do not count as there are really no interests in them. That is why Maryland sucks at tv ratings for their football team.

(08-25-2022 12:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-25-2022 02:25 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 01:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 01:39 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-24-2022 01:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ESPN isn't like FOX where they can just do whatever their figurehead of Rupert Murdoch wants regardless of how much it costs.

New Fox isn't really like that anymore either--there are budget limitations. That's why NFL Thursday Night Football (2nd highest rated program on television last year, behind NFL Sunday Night Football) is not going to be on Fox anymore.

ESPN still has the deep pockets, but they do have corporate overlords (including Murdoch) who have veto power over how money gets spent (wasted).

Oh - I'm not saying that FOX is spending whatever it wants on anything that it wants.

FOX was losing a lot of money on NFL Thursday Night Football. CBS and NBC also lost a lot of money on NFL TNF when they had that package prior to FOX. That's why none of the linear networks were willing to pay more for that package and Amazon ended up with the rights.

What I mean is that FOX is very centralized in its leadership structure compared to Disney and it's simply a much smaller and focused outfit today (and very purposely so when they sold their other assets to Disney). That's not a good or bad thing (as whether that's an advantage or not depends on the situation). It's just that Murdoch will use activist investor letters as kindling for his fireplace, whereas Disney has to deal with entire news cycles on each and every activist investor letter that it receives along with every time that it has an earnings report or releases guidance on its streaming numbers.

That's why I think it's so important to not just refer to "ESPN" in these discussions, but rather the entire Walt Disney Company. Disney is arguably the single most scrutinized public company on Earth with big-time investors calling them out every time that they think they're spending too much... yet all of these "ESPN will help the SEC get ACC schools" scenarios depend upon ESPN very publicly paying out a ton of money (e.g. hundreds of millions of dollars at a minimum and likely over a billion dollars) in order to rip up very ESPN-friendly long-term contracts with the ACC and frankly the SEC, too (as compared to what FOX/NBC/CBS are paying to the Big Ten). I'm not even talking about the legal piece of the GOR agreement (which is an entirely separate issue), but rather the very financial underpinnings of what makes sense to the Walt Disney Company.

I’ve been beating that drum for months. The only way ESPN is making any changes to the ACC deal is if it’s in ESPN’s financial interest to do so. And I struggle to figure out how it’s in their best interest to tear up an ESPN-friendly deal just so they can pay all the schools more money (in several different conferences).

ESPN will make more money from selling ads in the SEC with FSU-SEC matchups and Clemson-SEC matchups than it did from FSU-ACC and Clemson-ACC matchups.
So if that increase is more than the extra they pay FSU and Clemson and the amount they lose in advertising on the remaining ACC, they will be favorably inclined. And since the ACC is under market, they could keep the ACC contract the same without any loss and so the remaining ACC schools would be whole.

Now I have no idea how much more they would make in SEC advertising and how much they would lose in ACC advertising. But that is how it would be in their interest, if those numbers work.

That is pure speculation on your part.