(04-17-2023 03:07 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 01:34 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 01:18 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:56 AM)LeeNobody Wrote:  If the ACC had bold leadership, they would realize there doesn't need to be a negotiation. You offer those that would add value and leave the rest. More money beats less money. The more that join the less cross continent travel is needed. ESPN gets what it wants. The ACC gets a slight raise. The left behind... are left behind

The problem is, that "slight raise" would be offset by the additional travel, leading to basically flat revenues for the privilege of traveling cross country in all sports regularly. Well, that's one problem. Another is that it takes more than "bold leadership". Phillips doesn't just decide which teams to add and then send a memo to his Presidents. The Presidents vote on it. They've looked at every option over the past few years and passed on all of them. A bunch of those Presidents are eyeballing the exits and thus even less likely than usual to be amenable to adding any teams at all, much less teams that are 3k miles away. A 3rd problem is that ESPN is under no obligation to pay what a new team is actually worth. They could offer $10m for Washington for example, and the ACC would have to take it or leave it. More likely, they'd offer pro rata for UO or UW, and something quite a bit less than that for any other Pac or big 12 school.

Tell us how "bold leadership" solves those issues.

Your first two points are valid.

For the third point, I think ESPN would have an incentive to move high value Pac schools to the ACC. My guess is that ESPN would like some of the Pac contents for midnight programmings but not entire Pac package. Just move UO, UW, and Stanford along with Utah and/or ASU and cover the late night window while getting paid for additonal ACCN in-state coverage in California, Washington, Oregon and Arizona.

Stanford all by themselves is not getting ESPN "in state" rates for all of California. Perhaps not for any of it. But, let's accept for argument's sake that somehow Stanford actually brings the entire State. Why would UW and UO want to sign that punitive GoR? They could just go indy perhaps join the big 12 until 2031.

It would actually be both Stanford and Cal that would be getting the entire state of California to be considered in market. And I don't think it would really be any more ludicrous than how Rutgers supposedly gets New York City to be considered in market for the Big 10. Stanford and Cal at the very least are actually located in the state of California.

(04-17-2023 03:10 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 01:38 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  A full merger seems like a good idea, although a "network partnership" could work as well. A full merger would probably also have the added benefit of keeping Notre Dame happy, as they could add even more variety when it comes to their scheduling agreement already in place with the ACC.

It seems like a no brainer, especially if a unequal revenue model is put into place.

Here's a question(s): what would it take for SDSU to enter the picture? Would it be worth it to the ACC to expand out west with SDSU, California, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona State and... maybe Colorado?

If the Pac merges with anybody then SDSU and any others are put on the back burner, perhaps permanently.

SDSU will get to a P5 conference within 3 years

(04-17-2023 01:38 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  A full merger seems like a good idea, although a "network partnership" could work as well. A full merger would probably also have the added benefit of keeping Notre Dame happy, as they could add even more variety when it comes to their scheduling agreement already in place with the ACC.

It seems like a no brainer, especially if a unequal revenue model is put into place.

Here's a question(s): what would it take for SDSU to enter the picture? Would it be worth it to the ACC to expand out west with SDSU, California, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona State and... maybe Colorado?

SDSU is currently desired by both the PAC and the B12 so it would likely be the case with the ACC. However, I don't see a merger with the ACC and PAC as being plausible. Sorry, traveling across the country is not an easy venture for football teams, much less BB and other sports. Even NFL teams don't schedule that much travel. I could see some sort of agreement between the two conferences as far as interleague games, however.

(04-17-2023 06:24 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 05:16 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  All I am saying is that ESPN would have an incentive to move the Pac schools to the ACC. And you know, when ESPN wants something, it usually gets it.

They are just talking about a partnership, not a merger. A partnership could include Pac-12 games being televised on the ACC Network and a scheduling agreement between the ACC and Pac-12, with the marquee matchups televised on ABC/ESPN at neutral site locations.. The Pac-12 conference has the Pac-12 Network to broadcast the streaming games for Apple/Amazon. The Pac-12 is moving their studios to San Ramon from San Francisco and have signed a lease. They are not going away.

ESPN needs to be a part of the negotiation because they own the ACC Network and they own ACC content. They can help facilitate a partnership deal or agreement. It will not be a merger.

Why would the ACC want to put PAC games on the ACC network, unless the conferences merge?

(04-17-2023 06:47 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 03:10 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 01:38 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  A full merger seems like a good idea, although a "network partnership" could work as well. A full merger would probably also have the added benefit of keeping Notre Dame happy, as they could add even more variety when it comes to their scheduling agreement already in place with the ACC.

It seems like a no brainer, especially if a unequal revenue model is put into place.

Here's a question(s): what would it take for SDSU to enter the picture? Would it be worth it to the ACC to expand out west with SDSU, California, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona State and... maybe Colorado?

If the Pac merges with anybody then SDSU and any others are put on the back burner, perhaps permanently.

SDSU will get to a P5 conference within 3 years

it will be quicker than that, by quite a bit.

(04-17-2023 06:43 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 03:07 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 01:34 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 01:18 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:56 AM)LeeNobody Wrote:  If the ACC had bold leadership, they would realize there doesn't need to be a negotiation. You offer those that would add value and leave the rest. More money beats less money. The more that join the less cross continent travel is needed. ESPN gets what it wants. The ACC gets a slight raise. The left behind... are left behind

The problem is, that "slight raise" would be offset by the additional travel, leading to basically flat revenues for the privilege of traveling cross country in all sports regularly. Well, that's one problem. Another is that it takes more than "bold leadership". Phillips doesn't just decide which teams to add and then send a memo to his Presidents. The Presidents vote on it. They've looked at every option over the past few years and passed on all of them. A bunch of those Presidents are eyeballing the exits and thus even less likely than usual to be amenable to adding any teams at all, much less teams that are 3k miles away. A 3rd problem is that ESPN is under no obligation to pay what a new team is actually worth. They could offer $10m for Washington for example, and the ACC would have to take it or leave it. More likely, they'd offer pro rata for UO or UW, and something quite a bit less than that for any other Pac or big 12 school.

Tell us how "bold leadership" solves those issues.

Your first two points are valid.

For the third point, I think ESPN would have an incentive to move high value Pac schools to the ACC. My guess is that ESPN would like some of the Pac contents for midnight programmings but not entire Pac package. Just move UO, UW, and Stanford along with Utah and/or ASU and cover the late night window while getting paid for additonal ACCN in-state coverage in California, Washington, Oregon and Arizona.

Stanford all by themselves is not getting ESPN "in state" rates for all of California. Perhaps not for any of it. But, let's accept for argument's sake that somehow Stanford actually brings the entire State. Why would UW and UO want to sign that punitive GoR? They could just go indy perhaps join the big 12 until 2031.

It would actually be both Stanford and Cal that would be getting the entire state of California to be considered in market. And I don't think it would really be any more ludicrous than how Rutgers supposedly gets New York City to be considered in market for the Big 10. Stanford and Cal at the very least are actually located in the state of California.

Stanford and Cal have trouble even drawing fans and viewers in their own market, much less all of California.

(04-17-2023 06:48 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 06:24 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 05:16 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  All I am saying is that ESPN would have an incentive to move the Pac schools to the ACC. And you know, when ESPN wants something, it usually gets it.

They are just talking about a partnership, not a merger. A partnership could include Pac-12 games being televised on the ACC Network and a scheduling agreement between the ACC and Pac-12, with the marquee matchups televised on ABC/ESPN at neutral site locations.. The Pac-12 conference has the Pac-12 Network to broadcast the streaming games for Apple/Amazon. The Pac-12 is moving their studios to San Ramon from San Francisco and have signed a lease. They are not going away.

ESPN needs to be a part of the negotiation because they own the ACC Network and they own ACC content. They can help facilitate a partnership deal or agreement. It will not be a merger.

Why would the ACC want to put PAC games on the ACC network, unless the conferences merge?

Why? $$$$

Maybe they can get the PAC12 network worked in?

(04-17-2023 06:48 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 06:24 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 05:16 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  All I am saying is that ESPN would have an incentive to move the Pac schools to the ACC. And you know, when ESPN wants something, it usually gets it.

They are just talking about a partnership, not a merger. A partnership could include Pac-12 games being televised on the ACC Network and a scheduling agreement between the ACC and Pac-12, with the marquee matchups televised on ABC/ESPN at neutral site locations.. The Pac-12 conference has the Pac-12 Network to broadcast the streaming games for Apple/Amazon. The Pac-12 is moving their studios to San Ramon from San Francisco and have signed a lease. They are not going away.

ESPN needs to be a part of the negotiation because they own the ACC Network and they own ACC content. They can help facilitate a partnership deal or agreement. It will not be a merger.

Why would the ACC want to put PAC games on the ACC network, unless the conferences merge?

Money for the ACC Network. Presumably the PAC games on ACCn would get better ratings than reruns of ACC games, or panel discussions or whatever it is that ACCn shows now after their last game. And with better ratings, they'd sell ads, which is revenue that ACC splits with ESPN.

That's the theory. Is there enough money in that pot for ESPN and the ACC to profit, while paying the PAC a reasonable rights fee? And if so, why is ESPN doing this with the ACC Network and not, you know, ESPN? Or ESPN2 or U?

IF it's about getting the ACC Network in-state rates in CA, WA, OR, UT, CO and AZ, then I think it would have to be a merger. Unless John Skipper put more clauses in the ACC Network than we know about anyway.

(04-17-2023 06:24 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 05:16 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  All I am saying is that ESPN would have an incentive to move the Pac schools to the ACC. And you know, when ESPN wants something, it usually gets it.

They are just talking about a partnership, not a merger. A partnership could include Pac-12 games being televised on the ACC Network and a scheduling agreement between the ACC and Pac-12, with the marquee matchups televised on ABC/ESPN at neutral site locations.. The Pac-12 conference has the Pac-12 Network to broadcast the streaming games for Apple/Amazon. The Pac-12 is moving their studios to San Ramon from San Francisco and have signed a lease. They are not going away.

ESPN needs to be a part of the negotiation because they own the ACC Network and they own ACC content. They can help facilitate a partnership deal or agreement. It will not be a merger.

I was not talking about a merger. Read a full thread. We were mainly talking about a “raid” by the ACC. (This is exact wording: The media partnership is one thing but as you said, the ACC doesn’t need the entire Pac schools. Just get four, five or six Pac schools and call it a day.)

And no, the ACC doesn’t need to talk with the Pac about the raid. It will be a unilateral move, if happens.

(04-17-2023 06:55 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 06:48 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 06:24 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 05:16 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  All I am saying is that ESPN would have an incentive to move the Pac schools to the ACC. And you know, when ESPN wants something, it usually gets it.

They are just talking about a partnership, not a merger. A partnership could include Pac-12 games being televised on the ACC Network and a scheduling agreement between the ACC and Pac-12, with the marquee matchups televised on ABC/ESPN at neutral site locations.. The Pac-12 conference has the Pac-12 Network to broadcast the streaming games for Apple/Amazon. The Pac-12 is moving their studios to San Ramon from San Francisco and have signed a lease. They are not going away.

ESPN needs to be a part of the negotiation because they own the ACC Network and they own ACC content. They can help facilitate a partnership deal or agreement. It will not be a merger.

Why would the ACC want to put PAC games on the ACC network, unless the conferences merge?

Money for the ACC Network. Presumably the PAC games on ACCn would get better ratings than reruns of ACC games, or panel discussions or whatever it is that ACCn shows now after their last game. And with better ratings, they'd sell ads, which is revenue that ACC splits with ESPN.

That's the theory. Is there enough money in that pot for ESPN and the ACC to profit, while paying the PAC a reasonable rights fee? And if so, why is ESPN doing this with the ACC Network and not, you know, ESPN? Or ESPN2 or U?

IF it's about getting the ACC Network in-state rates in CA, WA, OR, UT, CO and AZ, then I think it would have to be a merger. Unless John Skipper put more clauses in the ACC Network than we know about anyway.

Zactly....

Those cable rates will help the network

(04-17-2023 06:55 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 06:48 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 06:24 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 05:16 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  All I am saying is that ESPN would have an incentive to move the Pac schools to the ACC. And you know, when ESPN wants something, it usually gets it.

They are just talking about a partnership, not a merger. A partnership could include Pac-12 games being televised on the ACC Network and a scheduling agreement between the ACC and Pac-12, with the marquee matchups televised on ABC/ESPN at neutral site locations.. The Pac-12 conference has the Pac-12 Network to broadcast the streaming games for Apple/Amazon. The Pac-12 is moving their studios to San Ramon from San Francisco and have signed a lease. They are not going away.

ESPN needs to be a part of the negotiation because they own the ACC Network and they own ACC content. They can help facilitate a partnership deal or agreement. It will not be a merger.

Why would the ACC want to put PAC games on the ACC network, unless the conferences merge?

Money for the ACC Network. Presumably the PAC games on ACCn would get better ratings than reruns of ACC games, or panel discussions or whatever it is that ACCn shows now after their last game. And with better ratings, they'd sell ads, which is revenue that ACC splits with ESPN.

That's the theory. Is there enough money in that pot for ESPN and the ACC to profit, while paying the PAC a reasonable rights fee? And if so, why is ESPN doing this with the ACC Network and not, you know, ESPN? Or ESPN2 or U?

IF it's about getting the ACC Network in-state rates in CA, WA, OR, UT, CO and AZ, then I think it would have to be a merger. Unless John Skipper put more clauses in the ACC Network than we know about anyway.

Yeah, that's what I meant. I think that Western states would only become considered in market if there's a full scale ACC-PAC merger. Unless there's some pretty weird clause in the contract that we're not aware of.

(04-17-2023 06:57 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 06:24 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 05:16 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  All I am saying is that ESPN would have an incentive to move the Pac schools to the ACC. And you know, when ESPN wants something, it usually gets it.

They are just talking about a partnership, not a merger. A partnership could include Pac-12 games being televised on the ACC Network and a scheduling agreement between the ACC and Pac-12, with the marquee matchups televised on ABC/ESPN at neutral site locations.. The Pac-12 conference has the Pac-12 Network to broadcast the streaming games for Apple/Amazon. The Pac-12 is moving their studios to San Ramon from San Francisco and have signed a lease. They are not going away.

ESPN needs to be a part of the negotiation because they own the ACC Network and they own ACC content. They can help facilitate a partnership deal or agreement. It will not be a merger.

I was not talking about a merger. Read a full thread. We were mainly talking about a “raid” by the ACC. (This is exact wording: The media partnership is one thing but as you said, the ACC doesn’t need the entire Pac schools. Just get four, five or six Pac schools and call it a day.)

And no, the ACC doesn’t need to talk with the Pac about the raid. It will be a unilateral move, if happens.

All that notwithstanding, according to Jim Williams, the ACC and the PAC are talking.

(04-17-2023 06:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 06:57 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 06:24 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 05:16 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  All I am saying is that ESPN would have an incentive to move the Pac schools to the ACC. And you know, when ESPN wants something, it usually gets it.

They are just talking about a partnership, not a merger. A partnership could include Pac-12 games being televised on the ACC Network and a scheduling agreement between the ACC and Pac-12, with the marquee matchups televised on ABC/ESPN at neutral site locations.. The Pac-12 conference has the Pac-12 Network to broadcast the streaming games for Apple/Amazon. The Pac-12 is moving their studios to San Ramon from San Francisco and have signed a lease. They are not going away.

ESPN needs to be a part of the negotiation because they own the ACC Network and they own ACC content. They can help facilitate a partnership deal or agreement. It will not be a merger.

I was not talking about a merger. Read a full thread. We were mainly talking about a “raid” by the ACC. (This is exact wording: The media partnership is one thing but as you said, the ACC doesn’t need the entire Pac schools. Just get four, five or six Pac schools and call it a day.)

And no, the ACC doesn’t need to talk with the Pac about the raid. It will be a unilateral move, if happens.

All that notwithstanding, according to Jim Williams, the ACC and the PAC are talking.

Yup as I posted in #22.

For the media partnership to happen, the Pac needs to sign with ESPN. If the Pac accpets the ESPN’s lowball offer, the media parternership may happen. If the Pac doesn’t accept ESPN’s offer, then ESPN would have an incentive to move the select Pac schools to the ACC.

In other words, ESPN wins either way.

(04-17-2023 06:57 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 06:24 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 05:16 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  All I am saying is that ESPN would have an incentive to move the Pac schools to the ACC. And you know, when ESPN wants something, it usually gets it.

They are just talking about a partnership, not a merger. A partnership could include Pac-12 games being televised on the ACC Network and a scheduling agreement between the ACC and Pac-12, with the marquee matchups televised on ABC/ESPN at neutral site locations.. The Pac-12 conference has the Pac-12 Network to broadcast the streaming games for Apple/Amazon. The Pac-12 is moving their studios to San Ramon from San Francisco and have signed a lease. They are not going away.

ESPN needs to be a part of the negotiation because they own the ACC Network and they own ACC content. They can help facilitate a partnership deal or agreement. It will not be a merger.

I was not talking about a merger. Read a full thread. We were mainly talking about a “raid” by the ACC. (This is exact wording: The media partnership is one thing but as you said, the ACC doesn’t need the entire Pac schools. Just get four, five or six Pac schools and call it a day.)

And no, the ACC doesn’t need to talk with the Pac about the raid. It will be a unilateral move, if happens.

It will be a raid? LOL! What Pac-12 team wants to be trapped into a conference through 2036 and travel to the east coast for road games? This is not like going to the Big Ten, where the money alone could make it worthwhile. It will be a partnership, not a raid or a merger.

(04-17-2023 07:20 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 06:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 06:57 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 06:24 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 05:16 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  All I am saying is that ESPN would have an incentive to move the Pac schools to the ACC. And you know, when ESPN wants something, it usually gets it.

They are just talking about a partnership, not a merger. A partnership could include Pac-12 games being televised on the ACC Network and a scheduling agreement between the ACC and Pac-12, with the marquee matchups televised on ABC/ESPN at neutral site locations.. The Pac-12 conference has the Pac-12 Network to broadcast the streaming games for Apple/Amazon. The Pac-12 is moving their studios to San Ramon from San Francisco and have signed a lease. They are not going away.

ESPN needs to be a part of the negotiation because they own the ACC Network and they own ACC content. They can help facilitate a partnership deal or agreement. It will not be a merger.

I was not talking about a merger. Read a full thread. We were mainly talking about a “raid” by the ACC. (This is exact wording: The media partnership is one thing but as you said, the ACC doesn’t need the entire Pac schools. Just get four, five or six Pac schools and call it a day.)

And no, the ACC doesn’t need to talk with the Pac about the raid. It will be a unilateral move, if happens.

All that notwithstanding, according to Jim Williams, the ACC and the PAC are talking.

Yup as I posted in #22.

For the media partnership to happen, the Pac needs to sign with ESPN. If the Pac accpets the ESPN’s lowball offer, the media parternership may happen. If the Pac doesn’t accept ESPN’s offer, then ESPN would have an incentive to move the select Pac schools to the ACC.

In other words, ESPN wins either way.

You have no idea what the offer is from the ESPN to the Pac-12. No one does. This has to be a deal that works out for everyone. It gets the ACC more revenue. It helps with non-conference scheduling issues for both the ACC and the Pac-12. The Pac-12 has another linear network to show their games on. ESPN has some good matchups to showcase. The deal has to work for everyone involved.

(04-17-2023 07:51 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 07:20 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 06:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 06:57 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 06:24 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  They are just talking about a partnership, not a merger. A partnership could include Pac-12 games being televised on the ACC Network and a scheduling agreement between the ACC and Pac-12, with the marquee matchups televised on ABC/ESPN at neutral site locations.. The Pac-12 conference has the Pac-12 Network to broadcast the streaming games for Apple/Amazon. The Pac-12 is moving their studios to San Ramon from San Francisco and have signed a lease. They are not going away.

ESPN needs to be a part of the negotiation because they own the ACC Network and they own ACC content. They can help facilitate a partnership deal or agreement. It will not be a merger.

I was not talking about a merger. Read a full thread. We were mainly talking about a “raid” by the ACC. (This is exact wording: The media partnership is one thing but as you said, the ACC doesn’t need the entire Pac schools. Just get four, five or six Pac schools and call it a day.)

And no, the ACC doesn’t need to talk with the Pac about the raid. It will be a unilateral move, if happens.

All that notwithstanding, according to Jim Williams, the ACC and the PAC are talking.

Yup as I posted in #22.

For the media partnership to happen, the Pac needs to sign with ESPN. If the Pac accpets the ESPN’s lowball offer, the media parternership may happen. If the Pac doesn’t accept ESPN’s offer, then ESPN would have an incentive to move the select Pac schools to the ACC.

In other words, ESPN wins either way.

You have no idea what the offer is from the ESPN to the Pac-12. No one does. This has to be a deal that works out for everyone. It gets the ACC more revenue. It helps with non-conference scheduling issues for both the ACC and the Pac-12. The Pac-12 has another linear network to show their games on. ESPN has some good matchups to showcase. The deal has to work for everyone involved.

I certainly don’t know what the offer from ESPN is. But anyone can read news and make an informed guess.

I do remember you said that the Pac schools would make $40m+ per Wilner’s report (obviously that was before the USC & UCLA announcement). These days I don’t think even Wilner is very optimistic about the ESPN’s offer.

During the exclusive window, I had been saying the Pac better accept the ESPN’s offer. We all know what happened to the Big East after they had rejected an offer from ESPN.

So we will see.

(04-17-2023 06:58 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 06:55 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 06:48 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 06:24 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 05:16 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  All I am saying is that ESPN would have an incentive to move the Pac schools to the ACC. And you know, when ESPN wants something, it usually gets it.

They are just talking about a partnership, not a merger. A partnership could include Pac-12 games being televised on the ACC Network and a scheduling agreement between the ACC and Pac-12, with the marquee matchups televised on ABC/ESPN at neutral site locations.. The Pac-12 conference has the Pac-12 Network to broadcast the streaming games for Apple/Amazon. The Pac-12 is moving their studios to San Ramon from San Francisco and have signed a lease. They are not going away.

ESPN needs to be a part of the negotiation because they own the ACC Network and they own ACC content. They can help facilitate a partnership deal or agreement. It will not be a merger.

Why would the ACC want to put PAC games on the ACC network, unless the conferences merge?

Money for the ACC Network. Presumably the PAC games on ACCn would get better ratings than reruns of ACC games, or panel discussions or whatever it is that ACCn shows now after their last game. And with better ratings, they'd sell ads, which is revenue that ACC splits with ESPN.

That's the theory. Is there enough money in that pot for ESPN and the ACC to profit, while paying the PAC a reasonable rights fee? And if so, why is ESPN doing this with the ACC Network and not, you know, ESPN? Or ESPN2 or U?

IF it's about getting the ACC Network in-state rates in CA, WA, OR, UT, CO and AZ, then I think it would have to be a merger. Unless John Skipper put more clauses in the ACC Network than we know about anyway.

Yeah, that's what I meant. I think that Western states would only become considered in market if there's a full scale ACC-PAC merger. Unless there's some pretty weird clause in the contract that we're not aware of.

The “weird” clause is that the ACCN gets the in-footprint rate if it has one school in the entire state. From the lips of the guy who created the contract (Skipper). So exactly the opposite of your supposition.

(04-17-2023 07:37 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 06:57 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 06:24 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 05:16 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  All I am saying is that ESPN would have an incentive to move the Pac schools to the ACC. And you know, when ESPN wants something, it usually gets it.

They are just talking about a partnership, not a merger. A partnership could include Pac-12 games being televised on the ACC Network and a scheduling agreement between the ACC and Pac-12, with the marquee matchups televised on ABC/ESPN at neutral site locations.. The Pac-12 conference has the Pac-12 Network to broadcast the streaming games for Apple/Amazon. The Pac-12 is moving their studios to San Ramon from San Francisco and have signed a lease. They are not going away.

ESPN needs to be a part of the negotiation because they own the ACC Network and they own ACC content. They can help facilitate a partnership deal or agreement. It will not be a merger.

I was not talking about a merger. Read a full thread. We were mainly talking about a “raid” by the ACC. (This is exact wording: The media partnership is one thing but as you said, the ACC doesn’t need the entire Pac schools. Just get four, five or six Pac schools and call it a day.)

And no, the ACC doesn’t need to talk with the Pac about the raid. It will be a unilateral move, if happens.

It will be a raid? LOL! What Pac-12 team wants to be trapped into a conference through 2036 and travel to the east coast for road games? This is not like going to the Big Ten, where the money alone could make it worthwhile. It will be a partnership, not a raid or a merger.

The ACC will add exactly zero schools until the GoR is dead or legally shredded. In the meantime, it’s in no position to adapt or grow.

(04-17-2023 06:43 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 03:07 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 01:34 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 01:18 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:56 AM)LeeNobody Wrote:  If the ACC had bold leadership, they would realize there doesn't need to be a negotiation. You offer those that would add value and leave the rest. More money beats less money. The more that join the less cross continent travel is needed. ESPN gets what it wants. The ACC gets a slight raise. The left behind... are left behind

The problem is, that "slight raise" would be offset by the additional travel, leading to basically flat revenues for the privilege of traveling cross country in all sports regularly. Well, that's one problem. Another is that it takes more than "bold leadership". Phillips doesn't just decide which teams to add and then send a memo to his Presidents. The Presidents vote on it. They've looked at every option over the past few years and passed on all of them. A bunch of those Presidents are eyeballing the exits and thus even less likely than usual to be amenable to adding any teams at all, much less teams that are 3k miles away. A 3rd problem is that ESPN is under no obligation to pay what a new team is actually worth. They could offer $10m for Washington for example, and the ACC would have to take it or leave it. More likely, they'd offer pro rata for UO or UW, and something quite a bit less than that for any other Pac or big 12 school.

Tell us how "bold leadership" solves those issues.

Your first two points are valid.

For the third point, I think ESPN would have an incentive to move high value Pac schools to the ACC. My guess is that ESPN would like some of the Pac contents for midnight programmings but not entire Pac package. Just move UO, UW, and Stanford along with Utah and/or ASU and cover the late night window while getting paid for additonal ACCN in-state coverage in California, Washington, Oregon and Arizona.

Stanford all by themselves is not getting ESPN "in state" rates for all of California. Perhaps not for any of it. But, let's accept for argument's sake that somehow Stanford actually brings the entire State. Why would UW and UO want to sign that punitive GoR? They could just go indy perhaps join the big 12 until 2031.

It would actually be both Stanford and Cal that would be getting the entire state of California to be considered in market. And I don't think it would really be any more ludicrous than how Rutgers supposedly gets New York City to be considered in market for the Big 10. Stanford and Cal at the very least are actually located in the state of California.

Cal is 500 miles from San Diego. Rutgers is 40 miles from Manhattan. If Rutgers was a sports powerhouse then they actually could bring NYC, but Cal is never bringing San Diego or LA.

(04-18-2023 01:27 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 06:43 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 03:07 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 01:34 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 01:18 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  The problem is, that "slight raise" would be offset by the additional travel, leading to basically flat revenues for the privilege of traveling cross country in all sports regularly. Well, that's one problem. Another is that it takes more than "bold leadership". Phillips doesn't just decide which teams to add and then send a memo to his Presidents. The Presidents vote on it. They've looked at every option over the past few years and passed on all of them. A bunch of those Presidents are eyeballing the exits and thus even less likely than usual to be amenable to adding any teams at all, much less teams that are 3k miles away. A 3rd problem is that ESPN is under no obligation to pay what a new team is actually worth. They could offer $10m for Washington for example, and the ACC would have to take it or leave it. More likely, they'd offer pro rata for UO or UW, and something quite a bit less than that for any other Pac or big 12 school.

Tell us how "bold leadership" solves those issues.

Your first two points are valid.

For the third point, I think ESPN would have an incentive to move high value Pac schools to the ACC. My guess is that ESPN would like some of the Pac contents for midnight programmings but not entire Pac package. Just move UO, UW, and Stanford along with Utah and/or ASU and cover the late night window while getting paid for additonal ACCN in-state coverage in California, Washington, Oregon and Arizona.

Stanford all by themselves is not getting ESPN "in state" rates for all of California. Perhaps not for any of it. But, let's accept for argument's sake that somehow Stanford actually brings the entire State. Why would UW and UO want to sign that punitive GoR? They could just go indy perhaps join the big 12 until 2031.

It would actually be both Stanford and Cal that would be getting the entire state of California to be considered in market. And I don't think it would really be any more ludicrous than how Rutgers supposedly gets New York City to be considered in market for the Big 10. Stanford and Cal at the very least are actually located in the state of California.

Cal is 500 miles from San Diego. Rutgers is 40 miles from Manhattan. If Rutgers was a sports powerhouse then they actually could bring NYC, but Cal is never bringing San Diego or LA.

We shouldn't be talking about capturing a market, but getting in-state subs for the ACCN.

Forget Washington and Oregon and their Big Ten dream. Cal and Stanford, and maybe Arizona and Colorado would be my targets if expansion is serious.

For the record, I personally don't want anything outside of a media partnership where the ACC schools benefit from ACCN programming.