I wonder if we see a ACC - PAC 9 merger?
Two leagues, two champs but a shared ACC Network and a shared streaming deal for added ACC-Pac9 content. If AppleTV wants the PAC 9 to enter a subscription-based streaming deal, why wouldn’t they want to add the ACC to that and increase subs? And why wouldn’t ESPN want to see the ACCN distributed everywhere from Phoenix to Seattle??
Each team has an 8 game conference schedule, but we could see an unofficial 9th game take place between the leagues to add content.
This could be a significant bump in $$ and the timing of FSU’s board whine fest could have been a plant.
** Edited by hokieZ71 at 8/4/2023, 10:20:43 AM
28 Replies
2
2hhoop3
2y
be wise to carefully consider coast to coast conferences, particularly if there is not enough mass to minimize cross country travel. That travel affects competition in all sports and, I believe historical patterns reflect the travel to actually be good for one or more additional losses depending upon the circumstances.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
2
2hhoop3
2y
for any schools and any teams making cross country trips in season but, the effect may be more exaggerated in some sports than others.
(In response to this post by Va AandM)
2y
The Pac-# will collapse, the teams that don't find homes (Oregon St & Wazzu) will go to the MWC, and the ACC will become the Sick Man of Europe
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
2y
You could have created a power three. But a merger with what's left of PAC doesn't increase ACC payouts.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
2y
Let's do some round number, directional math here (forget ND for a moment)
14 ACC teams getting $40mil a year is $560mil
10 PAC teams getting $20mil a year is $200mil (the numbers reported from the Apple deal)
That's 24 teams splitting $760mil which is $31mil per team. To break even, the merger would need to be worth $216mil a year in new revenue (no way) and at that point, no ACC school is better off, operating costs go up and we lose control of our destiny more than we already have lost it. It would need to generate $400mil more a year than the individual conferences are worth alone (which is beyond unrealistic), to make it even a discussion (and that's still only $10mil more per school than the ACC is getting now and still significantly less than an SEC or BIG payout, so the whining doesn't stop).
You can add in some ND money, but they are going to get the lions share of anything new because they hold all the cards and that add on being divided among 10 more teams is going to be less than the add on for them today.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
2y
And should fetch a better deal I would think. Apple deal was a short term thing. Completely guessing but perhaps in the B12-ACC area. If there were cooperation with Pac, ACC, and ESPN for ACCN it could add some money to all parties.
(In response to this post by Vienna_Hokie)
2y
First west coast games are at 330, more games available is cannibalizing existing viewers with maybe a few pac fans that live east added, don't see that as substantial.
Late games, only die hards on the east coast are watching, again, not much to add there because they're already watching.
Remember, additional revenue requires more eyeballs, the same number of eyeballs on more inventory is a negative
(In response to this post by Colonel Jessup)
S
Stech
2y
sure that’s a good assumption. More details on why below, I think it’s possible with Pete Thames saying Oregon is staying and trying to convince Arizona to do the same. Maybe former ESPN President John Skipper was right when he proposed this in May. He probably has better contacts than you and me.
(In response to this post by Vienna_Hokie)
2y
(In response to this post by Vienna_Hokie)
2y
if the value of the local conference in that region is only worth 1/2 of what the ACC schools are getting AND the biggest market is gone (LA), how much value is there for the ACC network (carriage fees seems the only revenue and how many cable systems are going to add it when the locals aren't even willing to support the local schools). It costs a lot and creates a lot of risks to do a deal like that, the payoffs need to be big and certain, these are tiny and very uncertain.
Bottom line is, the PAC has no value, tying yourself to it just devalues the ACC's brand.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
2y
But…they could.
(In response to this post by Vienna_Hokie)
2y
with the current ACC payout, but with 24 schools. I don't know what ESPN initially offered the PAC12 but I doubt it was enough to bring the rev. to the $36M per school ACC mark.
A broadcast arraignment makes sense though, especially if Apple could be brought in as an additional partner. Their $20M amount would surely go up if they had access to ACC games. Just rebrand the ACCN as the CCCP (Coastal Collegiate Channel Partnership). Cal alums would watch that!
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
2y
It would mean the PAC 9 gets what they were told, but then we come to some type of extra content agreement and find a way to work ACC Network distribution into PAC 9 markets which the ACC would profit off of and find a way to allow for PAC 9 Apple TV subs in the ACC markets which the PAC 9 would profit off of.
There’s a lot of football, men’s and women’s basketball, baseball and softball that could be a pretty successful partnership.
(In response to this post by Victor Tango)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
Conferences keep their individual contracts, but we agree to start scheduling each other OOC.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
2y
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
T
Truthahn
2y
A merger might work best IMO if it is for TV purposes only. Get most PAC games onto Apple and others on ABC/ESPN/ACCN maybe. For the PAC, they want a chance at a CFP championship slot independent of the ACC, so keep the leagues separate, but just have a heavy scheduling partnership, like whatever the Alliance was supposed to do. Maybe put a big cross league football game or basketball challenge into Las Vegas every year, etc.
But absolutely put Utah Men's Lacrosse into the ACC. :^) We actually need a sixth team.
** Edited by Truthahn at 8/4/2023, 11:06:48 AM
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
I think everyone else that's left might go for it.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
2y
USC really doesn’t want Oregon in the Big Ten right now and I don’t see that changing under this next 7 year deal for the Big Ten. And remember how unequal Revenue distribution is bad for leagues? Why would the B1G do that?
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
...how it's going to be.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
V
VPI_1998
2y
to run away from Texas and still can't escape them.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2y
So in this case? Yes, USC tells the Big Ten what to do.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
V
vtka93
2y
More likely big 10 knows oregon and washington do not actually benefit them at "full price". Offer them a lower amount and see if they bite. If they do, it's probably good business, If they say no, wait to see if PAC12 will actually stay together. If schools leave the PAC12, oregon and wasington will have no choice but to take the big 10 "offer".
this has noting to do with usc, but with money.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
2y
And they piss off USC, when that contract is up for renegotiation in 7 years, USC and UCLA take the LA market and go shopping.
(In response to this post by vtka93)