(03-05-2024 08:38 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 12:20 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 12:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:00 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  What if Disney-ESPN finds it more profitable to repackage the ACCN into anther sports channel, perhaps with a world appeal like Cricket, Soccer, Rugby, Bodybuilding, etc. and roll the SEC and ACC into one network?

The can't do any of that without their partner, the ACC. After all, it's the ACC Network.

You change the name of the existing channel. Remember when TNN was changed to Spike?

It is a 50/50 partnership. ESPN can't just rebrand it without either buying out the ACC or getting them to agree to it.

Actually, ESPN owns 100% of it. The ACC has profit participation. Its set up similar to the SECN, but different than the BTN.

Now the contract probably has some clauses regarding all of these issues.

(03-13-2024 02:33 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 01:20 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Short response to the question posed in the OP: What if ESPN no longer wants the ACC deal?

It's a good bet that several ACC member schools are doing what they can right now to throw cold water on ESPN's enthusiasm for the deal. That helps them consign the grant of rights to history with it in 2027. An announced move by half a dozen high-value schools before ESPN has to declare its intentions would likely do the trick.

(03-05-2024 11:20 PM)Acres Wrote:  No way espn walks away from the ACC deal. It’s a sweetheart deal. Executives think bonuses. You don’t get a bonus for walking away from a sweet deal. That’ll get you fired.

ESPN’s going to milk this cow until 2036.

Actually, there's another reason that espn might be interested in not exercising its option.

If they don't, then the concept of a GoR does not get challenged.

And from what has been said, apparently it is in their best interest if it is not challenged.

Only because the own the undervalued ACC through their GOR.
The SEC and Big 12 GORs don't do ESPN much good. The Big Ten GOR obviously doesn't do ESPN any good. So what is ESPN "protecting" at the cost of sacrificing the GOR?

Quote:Besides, does any one think that a re-negotiation with the ACC would be any less a "sweetheart deal" for espn? Especially if FSU and a few others leave? The backfill options are decent, but nothing there suggests that the ACC is likely going to be getting much more than they get now.

No, the plundered ACC would get *less* than they currently get from ESPN.

Quote:Indeed, it would be in espn's best interest if the do not exercise their unilateral option, but then go to negotiation phase.

Before that is the plunder-the-ACC phase.

Quote:Based upon what happened with the PAC, I don't think the ACC is likely to take things to the open market, unless espn really lowballs. And I think they only do that, if they don't want the ACC anymore.

If ESPN wants the ACC, they have to keep the current contract, or the members who make the ACC valuable at all will leave.

Quote:So, the easy move for espn, is to not exercise the option, and then wait to see how things play out,

The carriers drop ACC Network as of July 2027 (which ESPN would be expecting), and the SEC and Big Ten take Notre Dame, Florida State and four others. Strong chance that someone jumps to the "safe harbor" of the
Big 12, before someone ELSE jumps and takes their spot.

Speculating wildly (based on the comfort of symmetry and round numbers), the ACC loses 10 schools and the 7 left-behinds backfill with Memphis, South Florida, Tulane and more if you like. That group is not going to command the kind of contract the ACC currently has, in the current TV market or a foreseeable TV market.

Quote: and then they have the room and freedom to decide if they want to re-up, or add a partner, or walk away.

(03-05-2024 12:20 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 12:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:00 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  What if Disney-ESPN finds it more profitable to repackage the ACCN into anther sports channel, perhaps with a world appeal like Cricket, Soccer, Rugby, Bodybuilding, etc. and roll the SEC and ACC into one network?

The can't do any of that without their partner, the ACC. After all, it's the ACC Network.

You change the name of the existing channel. Remember when TNN was changed to Spike?

The content didn't change, only the name of the channel. WWF Raw was the anchor programming, the only show carriers probably cared about, and WWF /E did NOT care about the TNN/The National Network/Spike TV changes.

This would be a wholesale turnover of the content.

The short answer to your original question

(03-04-2024 09:00 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  What if Disney-ESPN finds it more profitable to repackage the ACCN into anther sports channel, perhaps with a world appeal like Cricket, Soccer, Rugby, Bodybuilding, etc. and roll the SEC and ACC into one network?

is that Comcast Xfiinity, Charter Spectrum, DirecTV and the rest would use the change as a "get out of jail free" card and drop the channel, without havign to have a full-scale carriage fight with Disney-ESPN.

Friendly Neighborhood Cable Company contracted to carry the "ACC Network" with (let's say) a minimum of 30 ACC Football games, 60 ACC mens basketball games, 30 ACC women's basketball games and 100 other live ACC athletic events.

If you go to McDonalds and you order a McChicken sandwich at the first window, and they don't have McChicken sandwiches that day, you don't have to take a Grilled Chicken Sandwich instead-- you can get a refund because they're not providing what you paid for in the original transaction.

(03-05-2024 10:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 09:56 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 09:02 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 08:38 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 12:20 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  You change the name of the existing channel. Remember when TNN was changed to Spike?

It is a 50/50 partnership. ESPN can't just rebrand it without either buying out the ACC or getting them to agree to it.

Someone else the other day said that ESPN owned the hole thing, the ACC just get's 50% share of the profits.

Nobody knows what the ACC/ ESPN network agreement is.

But something that hasn't been mentioned lately (I haven't said it for maybe 24 hours) is with the decline of the cable bundle, distributors will use any excuse to drop a channel, and not having the ACC Network programming they contracted for is grounds to drop that contract. ESPN Disney can't just swap out ACC Network for ESPN The Ocho or whatever.

The ACCN and SECN are set up identically. ESPN owns the networks outright. The terms of the contract are a splitting of the NET profit 50/50. LHN was set up the same way. The difference in the SECN and the ACCN is the rate for in footprint and out of footprint. The ACCN pays 125 in footprint and 25 cents out of footprint. The SECN pays 1.00 in footprint and 50 cents out of footprint.

JRsec, do we have good sourcing on this? It's definitely what everyone believes, and I have no reason to believe it's anything else. But sometimes "everybody knows" something that isn't so.

But, a few months ago, we didn't know that ESPN had an escape clause in the ACC contract. You were really specific and detailed, which adds credibility, you're not just passing along "I read somewhere that..." common knowledge. But how did we get these details?

(03-13-2024 03:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 10:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 09:56 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 09:02 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 08:38 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  It is a 50/50 partnership. ESPN can't just rebrand it without either buying out the ACC or getting them to agree to it.

Someone else the other day said that ESPN owned the hole thing, the ACC just get's 50% share of the profits.

Nobody knows what the ACC/ ESPN network agreement is.

But something that hasn't been mentioned lately (I haven't said it for maybe 24 hours) is with the decline of the cable bundle, distributors will use any excuse to drop a channel, and not having the ACC Network programming they contracted for is grounds to drop that contract. ESPN Disney can't just swap out ACC Network for ESPN The Ocho or whatever.

The ACCN and SECN are set up identically. ESPN owns the networks outright. The terms of the contract are a splitting of the NET profit 50/50. LHN was set up the same way. The difference in the SECN and the ACCN is the rate for in footprint and out of footprint. The ACCN pays 125 in footprint and 25 cents out of footprint. The SECN pays 1.00 in footprint and 50 cents out of footprint.

JRsec, do we have good sourcing on this? It's definitely what everyone believes, and I have no reason to believe it's anything else. But sometimes "everybody knows" something that isn't so.

But, a few months ago, we didn't know that ESPN had an escape clause in the ACC contract. You were really specific and detailed, which adds credibility, you're not just passing along "I read somewhere that..." common knowledge. But how did we get these details?

The sourcing was Mike Slive explaining the arrangement to the public after the presidents and the ESPN agreed on the format. The rate differences (though they total the same) for in and out of footprint subscriptions were discussed in an article way back in 2011 when the wild projections were flying from Clay Travis. ESPN, the SEC, and the ACC split the NET profits for each of the networks. Schools spent upwards of 12 million to set up the uplink facilities and purchase the equipment necessary to standardize the broadcasts from their venues. The ACC had to do the same. I'm reasonably sure that the LHN facilities meet the same standards. As we approach a streaming world that is one part of the overhead which is already covered as such facilities are necessary for streaming as well.

The only thing that is critical with regard to the BTN is that since the ACCN and SECN are owned by ESPN any school joining either conference is not subject to an equity buy in.

(03-13-2024 02:57 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 02:33 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 01:20 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Short response to the question posed in the OP: What if ESPN no longer wants the ACC deal?

It's a good bet that several ACC member schools are doing what they can right now to throw cold water on ESPN's enthusiasm for the deal. That helps them consign the grant of rights to history with it in 2027. An announced move by half a dozen high-value schools before ESPN has to declare its intentions would likely do the trick.

(03-05-2024 11:20 PM)Acres Wrote:  No way espn walks away from the ACC deal. It’s a sweetheart deal. Executives think bonuses. You don’t get a bonus for walking away from a sweet deal. That’ll get you fired.

ESPN’s going to milk this cow until 2036.

Actually, there's another reason that espn might be interested in not exercising its option.

If they don't, then the concept of a GoR does not get challenged.

And from what has been said, apparently it is in their best interest if it is not challenged.

Only because the own the undervalued ACC through their GOR.
The SEC and Big 12 GORs don't do ESPN much good. The Big Ten GOR obviously doesn't do ESPN any good. So what is ESPN "protecting" at the cost of sacrificing the GOR?

Quote:Besides, does any one think that a re-negotiation with the ACC would be any less a "sweetheart deal" for espn? Especially if FSU and a few others leave? The backfill options are decent, but nothing there suggests that the ACC is likely going to be getting much more than they get now.

No, the plundered ACC would get *less* than they currently get from ESPN.

Quote:Indeed, it would be in espn's best interest if the do not exercise their unilateral option, but then go to negotiation phase.

Before that is the plunder-the-ACC phase.

Quote:Based upon what happened with the PAC, I don't think the ACC is likely to take things to the open market, unless espn really lowballs. And I think they only do that, if they don't want the ACC anymore.

If ESPN wants the ACC, they have to keep the current contract, or the members who make the ACC valuable at all will leave.

Quote:So, the easy move for espn, is to not exercise the option, and then wait to see how things play out,

The carriers drop ACC Network as of July 2027 (which ESPN would be expecting), and the SEC and Big Ten take Notre Dame, Florida State and four others. Strong chance that someone jumps to the "safe harbor" of the
Big 12, before someone ELSE jumps and takes their spot.

Speculating wildly (based on the comfort of symmetry and round numbers), the ACC loses 10 schools and the 7 left-behinds backfill with Memphis, South Florida, Tulane and more if you like. That group is not going to command the kind of contract the ACC currently has, in the current TV market or a foreseeable TV market.

Quote: and then they have the room and freedom to decide if they want to re-up, or add a partner, or walk away.

I think you should look at this from a timeline perspective.

first, espn apparently has to decide about exercising the option by 2025.

That's short enough, yet long enough, for the court case to at least to go into discovery. - We're all waiting til April for things to start rolling.

So if espn wants to stop that process, they can state they are not exercising the option between now and then.

next, FSU and whomever else announces they are leaving in 2027.

Then negotiations happen concerning the exit fee, and possibly about leaving a year early (CFP changes lend credence to this).

As for how many schools? That depends.

While there may be "pro rata" to consider, there's also a question of scheduling and and conference competition.

I think the P2 conferences were serious about staying at 18-20 for now, and not adding more until closer to the next media deal.

But even if 10 do leave, that's a plus in espn's book. They only have to pay for the ones that join the SEC. Fox pays for the other movers. And then espn can re-assess what to pay for the rest.

If you think espn has a "sweetheart deal" now, just watch espn tell you to hold their beer...

Remember - this question is from espn's perspective, not the ACC's.

So there really is little downside for them to not exercise the extension on a contract that was negotiated back before they had the SEC.

And... FSU's lawsuit gives them "cover" to walk away.