(05-26-2023 09:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: ESPN is the one paying the bills.
ESPN has the super-favorable ACC contract where there is absolutely no rational interest for them to end it outside of Magnificent 7/SEC (or even Big Ten) fans trying to paint a biased picture of how the ACC breaking apart is somehow financially favorable to the Walt Disney Company that is in austerity mode right now.
Without ESPN, there is no additional money for the SEC. The SEC can’t go to the open market. As we see in the other thread, it’s an open question whether ESPN will even fund a 9th SEC conference game with freaking Texas and Oklahoma (who are more valuable brands than FSU and Clemson). If ESPN won’t kick in money so that UT-A&M is reinstated or preserving games like Alabama-Tennessee or UGA-Auburn, then they’re showing me that the extra value of adding games like FSU-UGA or Clemson-Alabama actually is NOT as important as keeping costs down. ESPN can instantly get a bunch of more marquee college football games with the SEC *now* but they’re wavering on spending anything on it.
Frank,
Do you honestly believe the powers that be in the SEC want to avoid playing games like Texas/Texas A&M, Alabama/Tennessee, Auburn/Georgia, and any other great match-up? Of course they don't want that. They've gone to great lengths in the past to play significant rivalry games and obviously part of the purpose in adding Texas and Oklahoma is to create more must-see games.
So what's the play here?
You know as well as I do they could easily create a format that preserves those games. There's no quantum physics involved in that equation. It's called a negotiating tactic.
True enough that ESPN doesn't want to pay for a 9th SEC game. It doesn't mean they won't, but they're not in the habit of forking over extra cash unless it's in the process of creating a new contract. The SEC knows that, but they have no motivation to add a 9th quality set of games if they're not going to get paid to do it.
So what is the SEC to do?
They threaten ESPN by restricting games that the Mouse wholeheartedly wants, games they intentionally paid for when they bought the rights. ESPN doesn't want to pay the going rate for a 9th game? That's fine, says the SEC. We'll just reduce the games you really want, ESPN, until you change your mind.
It's a simple chess move. Could easily be a bluff, but not much to lose in trying.
It's partially true that ESPN is in austerity mode. They're not going to spend with as much freedom for the foreseeable future, but they're always willing to spend strategically. For a company that's been sliding for a couple of years(not just one quarter), they've certainly been more careful.
But the distribution models are changing...the technology is changing...the overall economic outlook is changing...and even the nature of college athletics is changing. The reality is that linear networks will begin to go offline more frequently in the coming years. That means the number of meaningful and potentially profitable broadcast windows will shrink quite a bit. At what point does a media conglomerate begin competing against itself for viewers when cable subscriptions are dropping and demographic changes are altering the target audience?
ESPN's desire to go over the top will be another significant disruption, and it probably won't be smooth sailing. Either way, it will have to be done and this will alter the cost/benefit ratio of any contract on the books or any in the works.
Point being, adding key ACC properties to the SEC will likely cost more money, but it will also be a more efficient and appropriate utilization of broadcast windows. It will create greater synergy in the marketplace which is needed if you want to effectively sell a product to a broad audience. There was a time when pitting all the conferences against each other was the most profitable because ESPN had ample space to broadcast into various regions at one time. The viewer could be more picky and so ESPN wasn't really competing with itself...the conferences were competing with each other.
As time passes, the major conferences aren't playing the same game and all the external changes to athletics themselves are basically requiring as much consolidation as they can make happen. Remember that the NCAA is effectively neutered. There isn't a true governing body anymore and in the absence of Federal/Congressional guidelines, the major conferences have to take it upon themselves to create a system that can legally govern the various sports.
And there you have it. It's a confluence of priorities and realities. I never said this was ESPN's grand design or that of anyone else. Nonetheless, it is a reality that requires the revisiting of what's already on the books.
Now, you can call all that irrational if you like, but I haven't seen you make an effort to debunk it. You and others just keep repeating that the ACC contract is "favorable" and "you don't pay more for what you already own." There's really nothing wrong with those propositions on their face, but they assume too many constants. That's always the problem with ironclad statements...no room for variables.