Since money is everything nowadays. I don’t think this was made very clear, we sorta were more worried about who was going to flip their vote and was excited when it was official.

Between the expansion and the success initiative (is that what we’re calling it?), this should be a big step forward in closing that $30m projected revenue gap with the SEC, so people should stop exaggerating the difference.

My math, subtracting 50 million for the success initiative and Califord with just a 30% payout and SMU with no TV, i get the ACC with a $150 million bump. Divide that by 14.35 and you get about $10.4 million extra per school.

TV per school was about $35 M each last year. In form 990 for the fiscal year 21-22 our TV per school payout was $28 M so you see the effect of the contract ratchet of 4% and ACCN. ACCN represents about $9 per year on TV to my math. There are nearly 10 million ESPN subscribers in California and Texas.

I derive the money as $24.5 million off Califord each and $30 million off SMU. I estimated our ACCN profit to be $90 m. That's the ACC getting 75 cents of an extra $1.50 against 10M accounts. That means ESPN gets 90M. Now it will be up to them to beat it out of the carriers.

So you, FSU received $39 m in 21-22. Last year I think you got between 43 and 44 M.

So adding 10 M, that means in 24-25 you should be looking at about $53-55M and then what you can get out of the success fund. I'm thinking $5-7 million tops annual for the best football schools.

Of course the new playoff will add $6-10m per school for all P-4 schools when it hits.

You and Clemson will run about $10-12 M less annually than SEC distributions is my conclusion. Of course the benefit is being able to go to the playoffs on a regular basis.

The ACC is or was supposed to get their rights back from Raycom in ‘26. I know the CW bought some of that content, but does the ACC get new money from that transaction or will the ACC need to wait 3 years? If I’m not mistaken that’s another $3m per increase. So again, this is another marginal bump that gets the ACC a bit closer.

To the best of my knowledge what the CW is showing now is what Raycom contracted to purchase back in the day. Even though it had been shown on Bally, Raycom "owned" it. So yes there would be several years before the ACC could sell directly to the CW. I suspect ESPN has a right of first refusal past that date, but I would think ESPN would not want these games to crowd their platform. Since Raycom got the games at a fire sale price, I would expect the ACC to pick up some revenue after Raycom no longer owns them. And for the CW, having Califord but SMU to pick from would be a boost to them.

(10-04-2023 09:00 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  To the best of my knowledge what the CW is showing now is what Raycom contracted to purchase back in the day. Even though it had been shown on Bally, Raycom "owned" it. So yes there would be several years before the ACC could sell directly to the CW. I suspect ESPN has a right of first refusal past that date, but I would think ESPN would not want these games to crowd their platform. Since Raycom got the games at a fire sale price, I would expect the ACC to pick up some revenue after Raycom no longer owns them. And for the CW, having Califord but SMU to pick from would be a boost to them.

ESPN owns the rights to these games and is sublicensing them to Raycom who is now sublicensing them to the CW. When Raycom's sublicense is over, the games revert to ESPN.

ESPN is presumably free to sublicense the games again to another network. The interesting question is whether ESPN is free to move these games to ESPN+ under its existing contract. It may want to do this to increase the quality of the content on that service. However, The CW did not obtain streaming rights in its sublicense from Raycom, which raises the question as to whether ESPN itself holds streaming rights.

(10-06-2023 02:57 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 09:00 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  To the best of my knowledge what the CW is showing now is what Raycom contracted to purchase back in the day. Even though it had been shown on Bally, Raycom "owned" it. So yes there would be several years before the ACC could sell directly to the CW. I suspect ESPN has a right of first refusal past that date, but I would think ESPN would not want these games to crowd their platform. Since Raycom got the games at a fire sale price, I would expect the ACC to pick up some revenue after Raycom no longer owns them. And for the CW, having Califord but SMU to pick from would be a boost to them.

ESPN owns the rights to these games and is sublicensing them to Raycom who is now sublicensing them to the CW. When Raycom's sublicense is over, the games revert to ESPN.

ESPN is presumably free to sublicense the games again to another network. The interesting question is whether ESPN is free to move these games to ESPN+ under its existing contract. It may want to do this to increase the quality of the content on that service. However, The CW did not obtain streaming rights in its sublicense from Raycom, which raises the question as to whether ESPN itself holds streaming rights.

I vaguely remember something about these games must be on linear tv, but I could be wrong. Of course, if ESPN wants to reopen the contract...