There have been many discussions about how much
money the ACC makes compared to the Big 12. The link below displays the objective known payments, and the estimates of the ACC network through the end of the ACC and B12 contracts. It also touches on the expectations of the brand initiative that is being drawn up as we speak.
It's about an accurate side by side comparison that I have seen, and should settle some of the disagreements litigated on this board, but will in all likelihood open up more discussions, especially on the "estimates" and subjective parts of the projections.
I thought it worthy of this board to watch and discuss.
** Edited by Big12 guy at 2/16/2025, 10:51:22 AM
59 Replies
E
EDGEMAN
1y
Who cares? We're getting put into a different division by the P2. They are the pro division, and we are in the semi-pro division.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
have known that it would stir the pot, and elicit an emotional reaction from some. Wasn't my intent, but it is what it is.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
E
EDGEMAN
1y
Just sayin...
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
1y
you were likely to get before you linked it and your claim of intent is dubious, at best.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
1y
"on my sleeve" indicating your actions are transparent I would agree, however, it is your protests and denials when called on your intentions that ring hollow.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
V
VTCALS72
1y
your conference/team of choice.
I will say it again, neither the ACC (with or without FSU etc.) nor the b12 are likely to get a better guaranteed deal than they have now. the next round of contracts in 2031 will most likely be based on reality being much closer to ESPN's plan today.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
H
hokieZ71
1y
Disney/ESPN is one of the small number of entities on TV that could easily raise its rates to compensate for a loss in subscribers.
ESPN had 100M subscribers about 15 years ago and now has about 66M. A massive loss of 34% from its subscriber base. However, over that time, ESPN’s fee per subscriber has increased from $4.69 to $9.42. This is an increase of just over 100% and articulates how ESPN can increase its paid subscriber revenue from roughly $5.5B in 2011 to $8B in 2024, even though it LOST 34 million paying subscribers.
Cord cutting will continue, but when over 40% of subscribers want their TV specifically for live sports, cable companies will pay Disney and Fox whatever they ask for. Because those companies can’t risk Disney and Fox pulling their live sports and putting it solely on an app.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
quantifying the numbers. We do know the numbers are going down, but even a different % doesn't make the acute difference that is needed to compete with the P2.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
H
hokieZ71
1y
It was a comparison between the B12 and ACC. Clearly illustrated by the third major graphic that shows the B12 catching up to the ACC in revenue towards 2031 and the re-up of the B12 contract. Thus leaving the viewer with the feeling that long term, the B12 will be a more lucrative conference financially when it re-ups at a higher payout.
I neither agree nor disagree with that implication. (Which is nothing close to being a certainty; the B12 may be more than happy to keep its present payout going another 6 years when 2031 gets here)
What I don't agree with is the notion that the B12 will basically eliminate and catch up to the ACC in regards to the gap of revenue between the two conferences before 2031. In the video, this rate of closure was most attributed to the decrease in revenue of the ACC Network.
This is categorically false, as the ACC Network has only increased in revenue since its inception. And as I stated in my last post, Disney and Fox will not kowtow to large cable companies trying to use a decreasing subscriber base as a way to get out of increasing the amount of money flowing into Disney/Fox coffers. This will only be strengthened by the fact that it is almost certainly live sports fans that will begin to occupy a larger percentage of cable subscribers as non-live sports fans cut the cord at a higher rate.
Basically, the more cord cutters there are, the more important live sports will become to DirecTV, Dish, XFinity, Charter, etc... It will be easier for Disney and Fox to increase its revenue through higher fees charged to these large companies than it will be to move their properties solely to an app-based, paid-subscriber model. But when Dish/DirecTV/Comcast/etc push back hard enough at the bargaining table, at some point Disney and Fox will walk away form the table and that will kill big cable TV.
** Edited by hokieZ71 at 2/17/2025, 12:04:01 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
quickly. The future of cable, streaming, and subscriptions will change as well. Maybe not overnight, but it will be us carrying the burden of paying for that live content, not the HGTV subscribers. When, or how gradual is any ones guess.
I know I would pay to get the ACCN, but I'm not in the majority out here in fly over. It would be like the North east or Mid Atlantic paying for the type of B12 games that appear on a conference network - Big 10, SEC, or ACC. I'm starting to think that not having all of the up front costs for a network might be an advantage for the B12 moving forward, as that live content will be in demand - and the conference networks have that content married to their respective networks.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
what's the reader's digest on this? don't have 30 minutes to give this guy
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
1-2 million dollars now, and that gap is closing each year. The basic point is that, even with the ACCN, the individual ACC and Big 12 programs are on more-or-less equal financial footing when it comes to pro rata shares from the media rights contracts, which is something a significant number of folks on here do not believe and get very mad at whenever it's brought up.
** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 2/17/2025, 9:44:47 AM
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
T
Truthahn
1y
I skimmed through it, so maybe there is some nuance to that I missed. See the chart at my link below.
I assume the point of this video is to declare that the B12 will eventually make more than the ACC given the trendline.
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
S
Stech
1y
ACC schools after the P2 take what they want, whenever the penalties allow some ACC schools to leave. Maybe ESPN will negotiate something with the ACC to lower or eliminate penalties in 2031, but I still struggle with why they do that. How does ESPN make more money doing that? They receive 50% of the profits for ACCN.
Now if Oregon State wins the restraint of trade case against Conference Penalties for leaving, you have my attention, but until then, I haven’t seen a good case as to why reducing or ending the penalties will happen.
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
2
2hhoop3
1y
a moron from FSU with an agenda and his twin brother by a different mother. Superficial, simplistic and lacking in relevant analysis and deeper detail.
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
1y
and Big 12 perspectives, but they are out there, and they will continue to be relevant. I for one, didn't care about the messenger like many are stuck on, but rather, the message, and the numbers.
Sometimes simple stupid explanations bring clarity. Of course there are nuances that can change the conclusions, and those could be interesting. I guess I should be surprised that many are dismissive just because of the messenger.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
is whether it is accurate, well thought out and complete. The messenger is only relevant to consider the possible perspective and agenda for the manner in which the data was accumulated. We'll see how close they may be when actual reporting figures are released as that is the true test of their worth. Most of people's skepticism on this board has to do with multiple years of FSU propaganda and, to a lesser extent Big 12 propaganda, proving to have very little basis in fact and reality when all is said and done.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
interested me. That and whether or not FSU and others would be satisfied enough to drop their lawsuits, and stay in the conference.
it's relevant because if the B12 does not get a material bump in revenue in '31, and the top teams continue to try and find a way out of the ACC, there will be movement of schools in '31.
That scenario has a direct bearing on my school and conference (yours as well) - and could bring about another major shift. It's not that far off.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
enough info to make the claim it is not that far off? How much can they miss by and still not be that far off? Finally, they project $41MM for the ACC in 2025 and while the 2024 tax returns will be available in a couple of months, that projected number alone represents a decrease from the 2023 number. Do you think a decrease is realistic?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
** Edited by tarheelblue at 2/16/2025, 10:10:04 PM
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
1y
about 1 or 2 million dollars more. That's piss in the wind when Vanderbilt is set to get $80 million from Disney and your program gets $43 million. It doesn't matter.
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
1y
But the main point is that there is no financial incentive for an ACC school to move to the Big 12. It's a lateral move at best, but with the exit fees it would be a financial disaster.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
I'm pretty much done arguing about this on this part of the board, because it's like arguing with a brick wall, but I wasn't arguing that anyone was going to leave tomorrow for the Big 12. My argument was aimed at the folks on here that think the ACC is going to raid the Big 12 when FSU, Clemson, and whoever else leaves, because they think the Big 12 is vulnerable because their media rights deal pays out $1 million less.
My response to that line of, well, whatever you want to call it, was - when all this goes down, in 2030, or 2035, or whenever, why on Earth would anyone with the resources to dictate which programs are in which conferences want to extract value from the Big 12 to place it in an ACC without FSU, Clemson, UNC, Miami, etc., etc. That doesn't make any sense. This is about making money. You make money by creating compelling content. In that scenario, the ACC will be practically worthless from a football content perspective. Nobody is going to expend the resources to make it financially worthwhile for Arizona State, Cincinnati, WVU, etc. to go from playing Oklahoma State, Utah, Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU, BYU, etc. to playing Boston College, Wake Forest, Syracuse, Duke, and SMU. In turn, that means the ACC is going to have to back fill with a bunch of G5 also ran programs, which in turn means the ACC gets further watered down and de-valued. So, I really hope VT is making contingency plans to leave down the road, instead of going down with the ship, because the ACC is operating on borrowed time. That was my argument, not that anyone is leaving tomorrow so they can go to the Big 12. I hope that makes sense.
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
S
Stech
1y
the restraint of trade case against Conference penalties?
This was very interesting, but there was a huge amount of bias against the ACC since FSU is suing the ACC because they don’t make in their eyes enough money. FSU would love to see the ACC fall apart so they can leave without penalties at all. I think the schools he named going to the B12 is a HUGE exaggeration. Just about all those schools would only leave for a P2. I think if just FSU, Clemson, Miami and even UNC left, the ACC would get ESPN’s help to fill that gap from the B12 schools, especially with them owning and receiving 50% of the ACC Network money.
Lastly, the two other speakers clearly have a huge B12 bias, thus there was almost no objectivity in their comments. The one guy even said network renewals always go up, but conveniently didn’t talk about what happened to the PAC. That’s a ridiculous miss!
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
video, but they didn't exactly play of the B12 when it came to the money. The money part of the B12 was based on the contracts, and playoff money. The latter can change, but for now, those are the numbers.
The subjective part was the ACCN distributions. The FSU guy used a 5% each year moving forward. That is pretty subjective, and certainly doesn't paint a good picture through 2036 - but you, or I could put in a different % of decline - 1% - 4%, and it doesn't materially effect the numbers. What, a couple or few million dollar difference?
Unless of course, the ACCN numbers increase, which is not very likely based on the cord cutting, but it certainly could. Based even on the high end, the B12 is most certainly on par with the ACC, with the ACC having an advantage until 2031.
What interests me even more than the difference between the B12 and the ACC, are the uneven distributions, and how EXACTLY they will be determined.
I also learned something new about SMU and CalFord. Their deals only come from the tier one media deal, and these guys all agreed that they all get full distributions from the ACCN and playoff money. If that is indeed the case, SMU looks to double what they made in the AAC - not a bad deal for them at all considering they made the playoffs.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
Conference and wants out, they make their case by giving the ACC’s worst case scenario, not the best case scenario. The drop in income should have given that part away. Where was the drop in income for the same reason for the Big 12? 🤷♂️
The other two were Big 12 guys, enough said on there agreeing the ACC income would drop, because of cable hookups, but nothing about it for the Big 12. They’re trying put the last dagger in the ACC, just like they put the last dagger in the PAC.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
buyout in 2031.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
The B12 will do precisely what they did with the PAC, watch the P2 take whatever they want, then they will try to take a hand full of ACC schools. Even if the P2 take the Mag 7+1, the ACC with their Conference Channel supported by ESPN, must go get some B12 schools. They need to stop playing Defense either way. ACC should go get South Florida and Central Florida, UCONN, Arizona, Kansas, Colorado State and San Diego State. I would like to see WVU and Cincinnati for the rivalries, but unfortunately I doubt they will do that, with their Academic oriented Presidents having the votes for expansion.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
and explained how he came to his conclusions. OK, he is a FSU guy on a B12 program.
Are the numbers accurate or not?
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
becoming expensive every year.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
what % would you put on it? Do you think the ACCN will bring in enough revenue to satisfy it's members?
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
For the price increase, I would use the same 4.5% growth rate as the ESPN Tier 1 contract. That’s probably the growth rate for the sports media industry.
As for the subscriber decline rate, I would think the decline will slowly decelerate and eventually reach zero percent (around 2027 or so). Thus, the ACCN revenue will grow (not decline) at a slower rate than ESPN Tier 1 revenue. Again, I predict the $5M difference is a floor, and my prediction has been $5-$10 million difference unless the B12 takes a drastic measure such as PE.
For your second question, no, it won't satisfy some ACC members. But again, it's something Big 12 fans always talk about (the ACC's top brands want to leave!), not the topic of this thread, which is a revenue projection.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
the %, I have no doubt it is standard for these conferences.
If the ACCN can maintain their distributions as they are, then the B12 will not close the current gap, but I'm not sure it makes a difference one way or the other. There would have to be a significant difference for one conference to "poach" schools from the other. I think for the sake of argument, that difference does not exist now, at least until contracts from the other power conference come into view.
The entire sports landscape is talking about the top brands wanting to leave, It's not a B12 thing, it's an ACC thing. If the P2 "poaches" schools from the ACC, things change dramatically.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
S
Stech
1y
Down numbers for ACC and up numbers for B12 is propaganda, I don’t trust them at all.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
cable carriage fees. It's a distinct difference, and one that should have made the ACC, but may be the straw that breaks it.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
have to spend a bundle to catch up. Now if the worst case scenario happens and the Mag 7+1 leaves, they could plug in UCF & USF to keep 2 schools in Florida, take UCONN for basketball, grab Kansas, Utah, Arizona and San Diego State, and still have a very good football Conference, and great Basketball Conference. The Channel promotes the schools overall, not just for sports. I love the segment where they visit each school for the weekend, it’s very cool to watch.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
is a depreciating asset, not an appreciating one. The ACC put all of their eggs in that basket, and there just isn't any growth there. When it comes time for the ACC to renew their contract, it's not like the ACCN will up their payments, mostly because, the days of carriage fees for those that do not watch those games, is fleeting. Streaming and pay per view, after the networks, will be the secondary revenue streams for the programs and games currently played on that network. I just don't see the ACCN producing the kind of revenue that were originally projected, and certainly not enough to compete with the P2.
Currently, the ACCN is a much better option than ESPN+. But, and this is a big but - the recent subleasing of B12 games with TNT, while not bringing additional money for the current contract, will give the B12 coveted time slots on a major cable network that is much better than being buried in a B12 network, or an ESPN+. If TNT gets the viewership, they will most definitely be a player in the next go around of negotiations, either directly, or as a sub contactor with ESPN/FOX.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
that information. If you are going off the FSU guy that’s trying to lower the exit penalties for FSU, you are badly mistaken and eating the FSU and B12 propaganda. If you have it from someone credible, please show it. My mind can be changed with an objective source.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
current contracts, that isn't the issue. I was more addressing his % decrease in the ACCN predictions, and the uneven distributions that we have yet to see details about.
I really don't have an opinion on FSU's exit penalties, except to say they are still apparently in discussion, negotiations, or litigation. I don't have a clue how that will work out, except to say that if the ACC gives them more money than the other schools, and then gives them an out in 2031, they are stupid.
FSU is not Texas, and once and for all, I say to hell with them.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
wants to reduce them it could happen. If Oregon State wins the restraint of trade case, throw the cards in the air. The ACCN forecast seems bogus to me, the cable hookups will effect every payout, if you are going to be pessimistic about it, it should effect all payouts.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
The ACC figures were prepared by an FSU guy. He said cord-cutting is 7% decline every year but he’s using a "conservative" 5% figure, so you can see which direction he’s leaning.
My biggest gripe is that he didn’t account for media inflation. Even the Big 12 guy pointed that out. ESPN has lost so many subscribers, but its revenue hasn’t dropped. Why?
Because ESPN keeps increasing its prices. Obviously, the FSU guy doesn’t understand the economics behind cord-cutting. Before cord-cutting, many non-sports watchers still subscribed to cable TV, effectively subsidizing the sports-watching audience. Now, those non-sports-watching subscribers are leaving cable, which means sports-watching subscribers will have to pay more.
I still say the ACC will have $5-$10M advantage.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
are public for the public Universities, so we will find out eventually anyway.
If you dismiss the opinion out of hand, and will not allow a dissenting opinion, then you are telling, not debating. Truth of the matter is, none of us knows exactly the distributions the ACC will receive, based on a couple of different metrics. We do however, know what the B12 will receive.
If you listened to the entire debate, as some did not, there is plenty of room for debate, but in all likelihood, within a few million or so one way or the other. 2031 is coming, and coming soon,
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
just doesn’t make any sense, particularly for the sports media industry.
Even his model shows a $5 million difference in the early years, which is really a floor. In other words, if the ACC Network doesn’t grow at all (revenue not sub numbers), the gap will remain at $5 million.
Do you know that the CW contract expires in 2027, and the ACC will be able to monetize that media content, right? That’s at least a couple of million for each school. I also think it’s definitely possible that ESPN throws a little more money for better matchups and the Notre Dame game if and when the FSU/Clemson lawsuits are settled.
Honestly, I’m tired of debating media revenue. On the day the new Big 12 media deal news broke in 2022, I predicted that the ACC would make at least $5 million more, and I had to go through many “debates” with Big 12 fans (on another board and Twitter). They all thought the Big 12 would make more money and just can’t believe the "little ACC" can make more than the Big 12.
Now, Big 12 supporters are starting to say the difference will be immaterial, although I bet many Big 12 fans still firmly believe their conference will make more money than the ACC.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
pocket.
I was trying to get a discussion on what what the difference makes, which from where I'm sitting.
We really haven't debated media revenue, but that video did a pretty good job showing the differences between the two conferences, give or take million or so.
The messenger is irrelevent if the information is correct.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
I am always amazed at how confident Big 12 fans are about knowing the details of the ACC contract.
“Untangling the leftover threads of that deal with Raycom has proven to be one of the trickier tasks in Phillips’ early tenure — and the legacy costs of that deal, including the costly buyback of rights from Raycom to launch the ACC Network, will eventually come off the books in 2027 — at which point each ACC school will get an immediate bump of about $3 million more per year from the ACC.”
Link:
See the link
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
please stop with the "Big 12 fans" stereotype. I for one, find it offensive. It's no different than I putting all ACC fans in one category. The opinions are diverse, and this idea that we are all conference fans is just ridiculous.
The video I posted compared the conferences media deals. How that pits one conference against the other is beyond my scope of understanding. I guess the need for some to elevate the ACC as the better conference is important, but with the conferences being dynamic with their memberships, who cares? While the ACC has their top three football brands, they are the "better" football conference. Take those away, like the circumstances of the new Big 12 - what then?
Are the numbers accurate, and can VT and or KU compete in this environment, which ever conference they are in? That is a more important question for this fan. I chose the Big 12 guy name, not because I a a Big 12 "fan" or shrill, but because I wanted to be honest to the board, and to show that I am coming from a different perspective. I could have picked some other random moniker, but I am a college athletics fan, and the premise of some of your arguments are wrong.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
In debating with them, most , if not all, keep going back to the future scenario where the ACC loses its top brands, without considering that ESPN would, and did, renew the ACC contract to pay the ACC until 2036.
But yes, I appreciate the use of an honest moniker. I guess some B12 fans may operate in stealth mode
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
the ACC backfilling with B12 schools, that you get pushback. And you should, not only from B12 fans, but from anybody. It smacks of the PAC mentality before their conference imploded.
If the ACC lose their top brands like the hateful 8 did, I don't think you will like the outcome.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
and how ACC fans are similar (although I didn't say anything about the ACC raiding the B12 in this thread).
But I'm used to it.
Nobody believed me when I said that the ACC should/would target certain Pac-12 schools, and B12 fans got angry in 2022 when I said the ACC would get more money.
We’ll see.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
V
VTCALS72
1y
it on something in 2022. The ACCN was slower getting going and that hurt it hitting it's stride. I think it will return much more at least for the next several years than these guys do. Now for sure there will be a point it may diminish but honestly will all the uncertainty I am not sure any long term projections are worth much.
By 2031 both conferences could look way different than things look today.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
CFP payout are interesting given I think a new contract will go into effect for the 2027 season.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)