Questions about SMU, Cal, Stanford proposition. Trying to process it all.
Y'know. Like many of you, I am not sure what to make of the latest developments of considering adding Cal, Stanford, and SMU.
So help me out here and tell me if and where I am going wrong. While the adding of these three schools way outside of our region seems absurd, I don't want to simply reject it out of hand without giving the idea its due diligence.
All this brought me to thinking about the bigger picture of the GOR and TV contract. I think most of us think of these deals as an albatross around our neck. And of course the worst part of it is the length, until 2036. However, maybe we shouldn't be bashful about using what might be some good things about the deal (if there are any).
There are two parts of the deal that for me need confirmation (so anyone in the know, please weigh in). 1. Do new additions get "pro rata" payments from the network? If so, what exactly does that mean? 2. If the ACC accepts a new member from a new state, does this mean that the ACCN automatically is put on cable/satellite packages in said new state at a higher rate? And if so, how much will the pay off impact the existing members in terms of payout?
If the answer to the above questions are favorable financially to existing ACC members, I don't see why adding the three members, and maybe some others in new states (if the states are large enough to pay out), is such a bad idea. In other words, we are living and dying by the bad aspects of the GOR. Why not turn the tables, and take advantage of it where we can?
Yeah, taking SMU from the state of Texas will be looked at as a money grab. But so was the B1G taking Rutgers and they never apologize for it.
In the end, how much money will these seemingly crazy moves bring in, and if it is only a marginal amount (even after adjusting for travel expenses), is it worth it from an image standpoint?
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 8/9/2023, 4:03:51 PM
5 Replies
T
TDVick
2y
dot on Texas and California and getting the allocation bumped up. Tarheel Blue had the best info on this. I'm ignorant, but it seems like what you suggest is correct.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
H
HOO86
2y
Here is a good article that explains how it works. It is suggesting that the ACCN has an average payout of 70 cents per subscriber. That is averaging the in market states that have ACC teams and the out of market states that don't. When you make 2 big states in market like California and Texas, you push up that 70 cents. How much depends on the number of subscribers in those states, and they are two of the largest. So you can expect the number to go up with the ACC Network. The pro rata is basically the base salary and the ACC Network part is like a commission. So we wouldn't be lowering the payout.
Now I'm seeing reporting that some of the SMU boosters have pledged enough money to allow SMU to go 5 years before they impact the ACC payout. I find that odd. But I've seen it on some tweets.
Link:
link
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
If a shorter-term deal was signed the ACC would be dead or near extinction as we know it today. I think FSU and Clemson are too big of draws to not be scooped up. B1G would gladly take them if SEC turned up their nose.
UNC and some others may would have found homes if it played out differently but they actually like the ACC.
The money is bad? As has been reported many places, if ACC went to market it wouldn't get a much better deal. The issue comes many years down the line but the length of the contract is what is holding it together. Many things will change between now the last quarter of the current deal. Just got to hold the line and don't make kneejerk decisions.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
V
vtce2000
2y
perhaps when the B12 goes to negotiate their next contract in 6 years they learn that there is less $$ to go around as the cord cutting bankrupts cable companies.
i think in the short term the extra $$ from in-market ACCN could be worth $100M more per year if both Texas and California are added.
(In response to this post by Colonel Jessup)
2y
$$$$, put them players on the planes. cal stanford and smu, bringing in more $$$ dollars than wake and duke. ND says its a good deal. and we don't have to pay em for a while 2. And if clemson and fsu leave, we one step closer to adding memphis and tulane.
(In response to this post by vtce2000)