ACC contract fact mentioned on College Football Addiction
This guy claims (and he plays a clip with spreadsheet) that ESPN can DROP the ACC after 2026.
If so, this was just a truly horrible deal.
It true, the contract granted a potentially crippling one-way option to ESPN.
Link:
Smoking Gun
89 Replies
2y
optionality and can drop the ACC in 2026. Based on that youtube (and there were some mainstream people in that conversation), ESPN has the right to end it, but can keep it going if THEY desire. When this was being negotiated, you could make the point that "Hey, if they drop us, no big deal, the market won't change that much." But it has - especially from the ACC's perspective. If the ACC had to renegotiate a rights deal in 2026, my guess is that they would get absolutely slaughtered. Why wouldn't it be this way?
I boggles my mind what a sh** show the ACC operation was over the past couple of decades. This is the outfit that VT hitched it's wagon to.
(In response to this post by IB4TECH)
V
VTCALS72
2y
And please don't mention SEC or Big 10. Was there really a better deal negotiated at the time? Especially with the two factors of a launch of a network and not a great on field performance. The ACC just like everybody else does not just do TV slots to the upper half of their league. And, consider the timing, if this was settled in 2016 then ESPN was using something like the 2012-2015 onfield performance. Outside of FSU and Clemson we could not show we could offer even a fair amount of top 25 matchups.
How would you like to try and sell a product that outside the big 2 of FSU and Clemson only had 3 teams, (Duke, Georgia Tech and UNC) that finished in the top 25 once. Now I don't remember when Louisville came in so I am not counting them. None of Miami, VT, Pitt, nor NCSU. Really, try selling that.
I am certainly not saying it was a great or even good job by the ACC but if the teams had given the league a few more good teams to negotiate with, maybe it would have been better.
(In response to this post by TDVick)
V
VTCALS72
2y
manner this guy, FSU and others are talking about is way overstated. It could go more like this:
1- ACC was negotiating a deal which the launch of the ACC Network was a central part. That was going to take a lot of money and for sure ESPN was going to be sure they were covered. So the ACC agreed to a lower per team payout to get the network. It is possible/probable that if ESPN has not been willing to do the launch of the network, the ACC, with the separate GOR in their pockets, could have gone to Fox or someone else. We do not know that the ACC didn't try that and ESPN offered the best deal.
No doubt we can Monday morning QBing on whether it was worth it to do the ACC network but at the time, it was.
2- The ACC was also not able to negotiate a better team payout because of on field performance. If the deal was completed in 2016 (which I am not sure of), then looking at the final rankings from 2012-2015 shows FSU with final rankings of 10, 1st, 5th and 14th. Clemson went 11th, 8th, 15th and 2nd.
No other teams were in the final top 25 all 4 years and only 3 other teams made a single appearance, (Duke, 23rd in 2013; Georgia Tech,8th in 2014; and UNC 15th in 2015.) No Miami and no VT. With equal TV opportunities for all teams, that translates to very few top 25 matchups. Seriously, how would any of you liked to have tried to sell that? How many top 25 matchups would have even been possible? Simply with the Network on the table, the ACC just was not worth all that at that point in time. I think an over inflated value of the ACC is a big factor in people determining this was such a bad deal.
3- With the (separate) GOR extending past the term of the ESPN deal, the ACC held for itself the ability to go back out on the market if ESPN did not want to extend. And hardly anybody at that time thought ESPN just walking out or paying less was a possibility.
4- FSU and anybody else that joins them will have to sell the point that the ESPN deal and the GOR were the same thing. I think FSU won't get much if they can't win on that point. No doubt the ACC was not a sterling negotiator but if the GOR holds up as an independent agreement to give the ACC essentially collective bargaining power until 2036, they win IMHO.
5- The PAC (supposedly) did much better in negotiating a deal both getting their network launched and getting payouts. But where are they now? And their Commissioner was sure they were in the best position to "sell" their product because their deal came up when it did. As of right now, the 2036 GOR IS the only reason the ACC did not got the same way as the PAC at the same time as the PAC and all of the ACC other than FSU, Clemson, Miami and maybe UNC would be in the same place as Wash St and Ore St.
(In response to this post by TDVick)
H
Hokie83
2y
Not sure FSU and Clemson have an actual spot as this moment in time either but sure they would if they became Free Agents and I think VT is better situated than you seem to believe but not a lock to say the least at this point jmo
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
If the Big and SEC could have taken in FSU, Miami and Clemson AT THE SAME TIME as either the Texas/Oklahoma or the USC/UCLA thing, they would have and closed out expansion.
But again, due only to the ACC's GOR, expansion became a long, dragged out deal. Time changes everything and the conditions even 6 months ago are way different now with the Big standing at 18 and the SEC at 16 and only 4 real national brands still out there.
(In response to this post by Hokie83)
2y
left behind is not guaranteed a spot in the P2. (just my opinion).
(In response to this post by Hokie83)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
...they refused to partner with any media company (like ESPN or Fox), thus they had a hard time getting their network on different platforms. That's what sunk their conference network, or at least prevented it from giving them the payouts it probably should have gotten.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
and their "rainmakers" had a Big deal in their pockets.
But before the end of the current deal. But that sure sounds like the ACC did it better wrt their conference network.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
D
daveinop
2y
(In response to this post by TDVick)
H
HOO86
2y
Just to pay more to teams they already have for a decade just to say they are in the SEC? Don't expect ESPN not to renew. Disney has achieved full distribution of the ACC Network.
The ACC has a look in for 2026 or so too. This is just the halfway point review that ESPN has too in the contract
(In response to this post by TDVick)
H
HokieZig
2y
Remember the ACC added 3 teams that no one wanted. Fox made it a strong point they didn't want those schools so what makes anyone think ESPN wanted them? ESPN already was on record saying the PAC 12 games would not add any value to the ACC. So what did the ACC do? They added 2 PAC 12 schools with the worst tv ratings in the PAC 12 and SMU without any favorable input from ESPN.
Now, ESPN has to pay around $90 million a year for those 3 schools. 12 years times $90 Million a year is $1.08 Billion for virtually nothing in return. Tell me one TV network that is willing to pay $1.08 billion with little in return. Adding the 3 teams completely destroyed the ACC media value. With FSU looking to get out, this becomes a bad deal over the next 12 years to an absolute horrendous deal for ESPN. Lose FSU and either Clemson, UNC or Miami and it becomes one of the worst TV deals ever.
I don't expect for ESPN to renew this deal. They probably would have except the ACC went and added 3 teams no one wanted.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
2y
could get now if they went back to market now. Even if rights has generally gone up, the ACC has lost tremendous ground to the SEC and B10.
(In response to this post by HokieZig)
H
HOO86
2y
I guess you could call that losing ground. I guess losing ground from ACC being undefeated vs SEC and B1G in 2023. It is true that the ACC needs more winning programs to get more visibility and airtime. But it is tough to overcome ESPN shoving Texas and Alabama down everyone's throat in 2023 because basically they overpaid for them.
** Edited by HOO86 at 2/2/2024, 1:01:08 PM
(In response to this post by TDVick)
D
daveinop
2y
probably 25-30% more than Big 12, maybe 60-70% of SEC...
But for the national interest in Deon at CO, the Big 12 is a regional conference in states without a lot of huge markets...or the schools in the larger markets have little interest (e.g., UCF, Houston). The large ACC markets more than make up for the conference's lack of enthusiasm for football...they basically stumble their way to profitability. If they actually got good at football....
(In response to this post by TDVick)
V
VTCALS72
2y
only consent but also urging. The ACC never did anything else that fast so they "probably" got some encouragement from ESPN IMHO.
(In response to this post by HokieZig)
H
HOO86
2y
Is that ESPN nixed the idea of an ACC-PAC12 merger. But ESPN gave the green light for up to 4. Now the ACC only took 2 plus SMU. I don't know how SMU was viewed by ESPN, but since it was not 4 PAC12, then it was probably blessed as well. I don't buy the thoughts that ESPN hates this idea. They were already set to pay the PAC12 $30 million per school, and then revised to $10 million when Apple got involved only wanting the late Saturday time slot games.
Getting the ACCN into Texas and California is of value to ESPN, so I'm assuming they ended up blessing that. Knowing Jim Phillips, he does not strike me as someone to go against ESPN's wishes. I think FSU was just deliberately trying to be difficult and a thorn in the side of everyone. They don't like this conference. I'm not sure that they ever have. It was Bobby Bowden who got them into the ACC, and he's long gone now. I've seen articles where they are blaming Stan Wilcox for getting them into the GOR calling him "A Dukie". FSU needs a mirror to find blame in my opinion, and stop pointing fingers elsewhere.
** Edited by HOO86 at 2/2/2024, 10:20:40 AM
** Edited by HOO86 at 2/2/2024, 10:25:19 AM
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
H
HOO86
2y
ESPN wants to keep their 10:30 pm Eastern Games going on Saturday time slot. Now they are able to do that. They will have the Arizona Schools as well, but they will be competing with Fox for their availability. With the ACC, ESPN will get the exclusive for those games, and they can also run one on the ACC Network if they like. They will also be able to run the late night basketball games.
I haven't heard ESPN ever say that these 3 new teams are teams they don't want. The ACC contract remains lucrative for ESPN and offers market time zones not offered by the SEC.
(In response to this post by HokieZig)
H
HokieZig
2y
ESPN said no to a Pac12 and ACC merger. Remember, they did a whole analysis and said it added no value to the ACC. Why would ESPN say no to a merger yet want the ACC to add bottom feeding Stanford and Cal? ESPN never agreed to Stanford and Cal. The ACC added them without any input from ESPN and because of that ESPN will drop the ACC in 2025.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
H
HOO86
2y
They told Jim Phillips up to 4 is what I thought. He added 3 only.
(In response to this post by HokieZig)
H
HokieZig
2y
The last deal ESPN offered the Pac 12 was $30 million a year per school. The Pac 12 turned it down because they wanted $50 million a year. After they turned down the deal, ESPN said goodbye. But remember, the majority of the money would have come from Washington and Oregon who then left after that deal was turned down. The next 4 biggest names went to the Big12. Stanford and Cal are no way near worth $30 million.
Everyone is acting like Cal and Stanford are 2 great tv schools. The Fox and the Big12 turned them down immediately because they don't bring anything to the table. But we are suppose to believe ESPN wanted them?
(In response to this post by HOO86)
H
HOO86
2y
Sports Business Daily reported it. But this doesn't say the detail. It was $100 million total or $10 million per school for basically one late game per week.
I may have seen the detail 9n Twitter, but this is when it was. I remember thinking 2 weeks later when the ACC added Cal, Stanford, and SMU that ESPN just offered $100 million for that late game. Now ESPN can pay $90 million to the ACC for that late game.
** Edited by HOO86 at 1/31/2024, 7:01:28 PM
Link:
Link
(In response to this post by HokieZig)
H
HOO86
2y
ESPN had changed from $30 million per school to $100 million per conference for 1 Sat late game per week. So I know ESPN still wants that late Saturday content.
I'll have to hunt that down again, but remember that's all ESPN still wanted.
** Edited by HOO86 at 1/31/2024, 5:57:16 PM
(In response to this post by HokieZig)
D
daveinop
2y
for the Mag 7, an early demise and being "stuck" 'til 2036 can't both be bad...an early opportunity to renegotiate and no opportunity to renegotiate can't both be bad
(In response to this post by HokieZig)
2y
from imploding. Remember the Mag7? having a majority of schools with landing spots could have ended the ACC. Adding those 3 schools ended the idea that the B12 would have been a good landing spot for anyone if this thing ever came to a vote.
(In response to this post by daveinop)
D
daveinop
2y
payments only and no loss of media rights. That's what Mag 7 allegedly wanted...they wanted out. That's why FSU sued, they are stuck 'til 2036. IMO, ESPN will only pull the plug if it enhances their salability (whole or part).
Read the number of times ESPN is mentioned in the 2013 GOR; no ESPN deal, no GOR.
https://storageaccountstart88df.blob.core.windows.net/ndn...
Majority vote disbandment was/is an internet theory...never documented
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
V
VTCALS72
2y
The GOR is the schools giving the ACC the right to collectively bargain for them, not just for one contract but through 2036. I do not believe GOR would die even if ESPN walked away which I see no reason for them to do that. I don't see any reason for a VT fan to want it to die. The odds of us ending up in a better place than even a decapitated ACC are not good. And no the Big 12 is not a better option IMHO. The way things are going, ESPN could be the big loser if the Big gets FSU, Miami Clemson and or UNC.
And further, whatever happens to the ACC will most likely happen to the B12 as well.
(In response to this post by daveinop)
D
daveinop
2y
"...all rights necessary for the conference to perform the contractual obligations of the conference expressly set forth in the ESPN Agreement..." means if there is no ESPN agreement, then those rights are no longer necessary...imo
** Edited by daveinop at 2/1/2024, 7:18:24 AM
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
I think you are assuming that if ESPN were to pull out the ACC would have zero market value. I believe the ACC has value and maybe enough to hold this contract or even equal the Big 12 in payout even without FSU and maybe one other.
(In response to this post by daveinop)
D
daveinop
2y
if ESPN pulls the plug on the current TV contract. An amendment, per the GOR, requires all members to sign off. If there was anything to the "Mag 7", then some will not. And w/o a GOR the only thing holding the league together is the exit fee, not the media rights. If members leave, the ACCN could also be toast.
But to be clear; I DON'T think ESPN will pull the plug. I DO think the ACC is worth more than it is being paid and as such, I DO think the ACC needs to be aggressive during the next look-in. I DON'T think FSU has much of a case. And while no doubt a minority opinion, I LIKE the new coast to coast footprint. I think the late time slot is good for the conference; players will enjoy the occasional west coast trip; and fans will enjoy playing Cal, Stanford, and SMU more than BC, Syracuse, and a few others.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
So far I have seen nothing to say that the GOR, which is between the conference and the members, has anything to do with the ESPN contract other than ESPN requiring that a GOR they could live with be active and there is nothing in it they object to. ESPN only wanted to be sure that the few good teams they were paying for were locked in and nothing more.
If say Amazon wanted to make an offer, they would want to look at the GOR to be sure it covered them for the term of contract they were offering.
(In response to this post by daveinop)
V
VTCALS72
2y
Agreement. Nor do I see any thing that provides for what power the individual schools would have to void the Agreement. In fact this GOR actually acknowledges that the ESPN Agreement is a separate issue as it was already in force when GOR became law.
(In response to this post by daveinop)
D
daveinop
2y
The first sentence in section 1 defines the Rights that are granted...it is only those "necessary" to fulfill the contractual obligations "expressly set forth in the ESPN Agreement". There is no list of specific things members are granting; it is whatever is in the contract. There is nothing that says, I grant you all of my media rights for you to do as you please. If there is no ESPN Agreement, none of these Rights is necessary because those contractual obligations vanish. To apply those Rights for any other reason (again, there is no specific list) without an amendment would be straight up fraud. The GOR contemplates that things could change and an amendment might be needed (just as it contemplated the possibility of new members). Per section 8, that amendment would require unanimous agreement/signatures of all members and the conference officials.
Once again, I don't think ESPN will pull the plug but if they do, the current GOR would have to be amended to apply to some other contract.
** Edited by daveinop at 2/2/2024, 8:00:19 AM
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
interpret the GOR ends on June 30, 2027 which is the same end date for the ESPN Agreement (assuming ESPN doesn't exercise the option). At least I think we could see at least one school argue that a new GOR would have to be issued if the ACC wants to enter into a contract with someone other than ESPN. I'm not sure modifying the GOR to change "ESPN Agreement" to "Amazon Agreement" (example purposes only) will be upheld in the courts. The again, I am looking the relationship between the ESPN Agreement and GOR the same way as the relationship between a prime contract and subcontract.
Prime Contract = ESPN Agreement
Subcontract = GOR
(In response to this post by daveinop)
V
VTCALS72
2y
But at this point, if ESPN is not a signer to your "subcontract" then they are totally separate.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
are different. The ESPN Agreement is between ESPN and the ACC. While the GOR is between the ACC and the individual conference members. Then again, I am basing it on 16 years in contracting for both the federal government and the private sector. Over the years I have had numerous opportunities to view copies of subcontracts or subgrants issued which is what led me to my conclusion on the GOR potentially being a subcontract. Ultimately I do believe the courts will have to decide whether they are 2 independent contracts or there is a relationship between them (i.e. prime-sub relationship).
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
because ESPN can unilaterally decide whether to excise the 9-year option. If the ACC and ESPN can't agree on a new value, then it is my understanding that it would remain at the current value until the next look-in. It seems to me that ESPN holds all the cards and the ACC has no real leverage to force ESPN's hand to agree to more favorable terms in the ACC's favor.
(In response to this post by daveinop)
2
2hhoop3
2y
of a lookin IF there is no prescribed process to remedy differences OR if all power is given only to one side. The attorney that would allow their client to sign a contract like that without documenting strenuous objections would likely be guilty of gross negligence and malpractice and the client and its board signing such an agreement against such known legal advice would expose themselves as well.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
say that Swofford was determined to launch the ACCN under any circumstances because he saw it as the last accomplishment in defining his legacy. As far as the lawyer goes, it is likely the same lawyer(s) as the one that thought it was in the ACC's best interest to enter into a nepotistic contract with Raycom.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
potential for gross negligence and malpractice or exposures for the ACC members signing the contract. Just because Swofford walking out the door is not a free pass for attorneys or ACC members not to exercise their professional care and due diligence.
To quote Ricky Ricardo, "somebody got some splainin' to do." As far as the Raycom situation, lawyers advise on contract terms, media consultants evaluate the contract merits and it is on the governing board AND its members to develop governance guidelines, sound business practices, exercise professional care and perform proper due diligence. Failures in those areas are failures of ALL members absent fraud and willful deceit.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
blame by passing it off onto someone else in the group. Plus, some of the current leadership weren't involved with any of the past decisions because they were in a different position and even working for a different employer at the time. For those people, I can easily see them take the position "I shouldn't get any of the blame because the decisions weren't made under my watch." FSU lawsuit against the ACC may be an example of an entity trying to shift the blame both internally and externally given some of the public comments made recently. FSU may be the first to do it publicly, but I don't think it will be the last school to do it before the dust completely settles.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
may try to escape as you state. Some may even succeed. However, courts have a decent record of sorting out blame shifters from actual culprits.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
Some/Most people may only care how this plays out in the court of public opinion particularly if the person has a strong opinion about a particular school or individual. Regardless of how this actually plays out, the foundation is there for it to get really messy super quickly because multiple things are occurring now that could be interconnected at some level.
Big Ten-SEC Committee
NCAA re-org
ESPN's decision to unilaterally exercise the 9-year option or not
End date of the ACC's GOR (if ESPN doesn't exercise the option)
Starting date of the new CFP cycle
NFL acquiring equity stake in ESPN
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
D
daveinop
2y
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
or just trying to save face publicly because they realize the ACC entered into a bad deal before the ink had a chance to dry.
(In response to this post by daveinop)
2y
potential impact it could have on the ACC given there are currently people with access to view ACC content now, but don't have an Amazon Prime account and may decide to not get one even if the ACC agrees to the deal.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
Amazon could give the ACC a better deal than the current deal with ESPN. However, not everyone currently has an Amazon Prime account. I certainly don't have one and I know plenty of other people who don't have one either. Some of those people are cable subscribers and some use a streaming service like me. My point is there is a percentage of people in this world who will never have an Amazon Prime account for various reasons. If the ACC decides to get into bed with Amazon, then the ACC will lose access to them which could impact the value of the contract. Depending on the size of that group, then it may even indirectly influence the perceived value of the ACC's brand or the value of individual schools particularly if Amazon is the only way people can view any ACC content. At least I would be surprised if Amazon allowed other cable, satellite, or streaming providers broadcasting access to the ACCN like you currently see now with the ESPN contract. It wouldn't help Amazon increase the number of customers to its streaming service which should/would be goal of Amazon getting into bed with the ACC in the first place.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
channel when they have enough space to deliver all of The ACC games simultaneously on their own network? How much will the ACCN be devalued if FSU & Miami go North? (No Florida carriage)
Are you all aware that there is realignment underway that involves prominent ACC assets?
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
If you read (or re-read my OP), then it is pretty obvious that the discussion assumes ESPN chooses to not unilaterally exercise the 9-year option. As a result of that decision, it forces the ACC to look for a new partner.
If you look how Amazon structures its streaming service, then you will see the format still uses the channel structure. Amazon could simultaneously broadcast the entire ACC content at the same time if it wants. However, the odds are good it will be packaged or branded under a single banner (i.e. the ACCN). It is no different than Hulu, Sling, or any of the other streaming services do it.
Even if FSU and Miami join the Big Ten, I would not assume that the ACC (if it still exists) has no Florida carriage because the conference could replace any of those vacant spots with another Florida school (i.e. USF, FAU, FIU, and maybe UCF).
Yes, I am fully aware that the conference realignment involves prominent ACC assets. Are you aware that this hypothetical discussion assumes that even if ESPN decides to not exercise the option that the GOR could still be enforceable until June 30, 2036? If the courts decide it is still enforceable until that date, then it opens the door for the ACC to enter into a new partnerships (i.e. Amazon).
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2y
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
I believe so. The statement is in reference to the ACC looking for a new dance partner after ESPN has decided to not exercise the option which would end its agreement with the ACC. Since it takes two to tango, then Amazon could be interested in filling the void left by ESPN. Ultimately it would depend on Amazon's desire to get into the collegiate athletic business.
Amazon can't partner with the Big Ten or the SEC because they already have dance partners. So that leaves the ACC, Big XII, Pac-12/MWC, or another athletic conference to pick from. Out of those choices, the ACC is probably the best option for Amazon because it already conference network in place. That is a plus because it means Amazon doesn't have to worry about the infrastructure required to launch a conference network or building the network's brand because it was already done during the ACC's partnership with ESPN. Another plus is that people may want to continue watching content on the ACCN especially if Amazon plans to expand and improve upon it. If Amazon has exclusive broadcasting rights to the ACCN, then Amazon is banking/hoping on people becoming an Amazon Prime subscriber in order to continue watching ACCN content. As I have stated in other posts within this thread a reason/goal for Amazon to get into bed with the ACC is it would be a way to add new subscribers to Amazon Prime because of the exclusive broadcasting rights. Then again, I am assuming the Amazon-ACC relationship will be similar or the same as Amazon-NFL relationship for broadcasting of Thursday night games. Amazon already has its business model in place, so there should be no reason to re-invent the wheel.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2y
choose to partner with Amazon or somebody else, but the ACCN doesn't go with them.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
could be worked out transferring ownership of the name. I can't think of a reason ESPN/Disney/Hearst Communications would continue covering the cost of a channel it no longer uses.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2y
FOX, or any other network that would like access to that content. There is nothing written that the content would be shown exclusively on Amazon streaming. It would be no different than ESPN selling some ACC content, or the fact that ESPN has already reached out looking for a streaming partner.
it would also allow FOX and other networks to bid on a number of games, just like the B12 has both FOX and ESPN owning rights to their games.
It appears to me that ESPN's exclusivity may be the problem here, not what the ACC is worth in the open market.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
deal with the NFL, then how many non-Amazon Prime subscribers were able to watch those Thursday night NFL games? There is a reason Amazon promoted the 2023 Thursday Night Football Schedule on its website with the following message (note the word "exclusive"),
"Prime Video’s second season as the exclusive home of Thursday Night Football is an exciting ride for fans, with the return of its Emmy-nominated coverage, game-changing features that enhance the viewing experience, and a slate of star-studded matchups featuring all 14 playoff teams from last season."
As I stated before, allowing other providers broadcasting access to the ACCN doesn't help Amazon's streaming service because it doesn't increase the number of customers. The whole point of Amazon getting into bed with the ACC is so Amazon can increase the number of customers because Amazon can basically tell people, "If you want to watch any ACC content, then the only way you can do that is to become a Prime subscriber (or wait until the postseason to maybe watch the ACC on another channel)."
Link:
Click Here
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
scuttle the deal. Maybe they think they have enough content for their prime spots, and they have the G5 that would basically play for free so that they get exposure.
Take the top seven or 8 ACC teams off the top, as there are very few left that could command even the current ACC contract. Maybe, there is just too much content out there, and as most of it is regional, the media money has gotten out of control.
Which begs the question - Why did the B12 get such a good deal? The ratings are better than the lower half of the ACC, but they do not have a blue blood, or any team that one could consider a regular challenger to the national championship.
I just don't see 8 going to the P2. Or 7 for that matter. It's a stretch that 6 will go. Even the bottom 1/2 of the ACC has some really good schools, and really good programs - just like the B12.
Something has to give.
(In response to this post by daveinop)
D
daveinop
2y
they were on the road to P5/G5 hybrid until the PAC dissolved
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
D
daveinop
2y
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
2y
he was answering your question as to why the Big 12 got the deal it got, which as everybody outside of the Big 12 believes, was because they got additional money previously reserved for but, balked at by, the PAC 12, to do the dirty work for ESPN/SEC, FOX/B1G, to facilitate blowing up the PAC 12, getting the desired pieces to the B1G and finalizing the transfer of OU/UT to the SEC without further legal wrangling. We'll see where things go from here.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
the fact that they got that deal before the PAC imploded. They got that deal by adding 4 G5 schools, that evidently, brough more value than anyone on this board imagined.
3 of those schools would have been a better addition than the 3 you got, but they were dismissed by the ACC, just like the ACC dismissed the B12 schools that were left. The PAC imploded because they would not add schools from the B12 that would have given them the time slots and markets that would have brought value.
There is no evidence that the B12 was in collusion to destroy the PAC.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
D
daveinop
2y
B1G did to the PAC what the SEC did to the Big 12. Big 12 did a much better job with the cards they were dealt and were able to splice together a deal with ESPN and Fox that kept them whole enough, in large part because of their GOR hold on Texas and OU. Also at least a little because A&M helped make a mess that ESPN probably still hates them for. Big 12 had something of value they could leverage. PAC did not. Kudos to Yormark for making a decent batch of chicken salad...
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
2y
get that deal before the PAC imploded or was it actually designed contingent on future occurences? Someday, the truth will likely come out but, right now logically it is much easier to conclude that rather than believing four G5 schools brought that value.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
got a better media contract after Texas and Oklahoma left, then they had when those two were in the conference. FOX, Amazon, and all of the other possible media companies that could have bid on the PAC's rights would have had to be part of the conspiracy for that to be the case.
Maybe the networks thought the to 4 G5's were worth the contract - and I believe the ACC missed out by not taking them when they had the chance.
If the B12 gets UConn, which they still might, it will be because FSU and UNC say so, not because they do not add value.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
D
daveinop
2y
the TX/OU deal (which also freed them of the LHN albatross). Note that the pro rata for G5's was subsequently cut off and limited to P5 adds. Right or wrong, top half of ACC wasn't ever going to take any of those G5's. We all saw what SMU had to do to get in...significant $$$ as well as logistical efficiencies.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
2y
and you have to ask yourself which is the bigger leap. Your contention on the other networks is misguided. If ESPN and FOX were offering the PAC 12 a top dollar fair price the others could have just chosen not to bid having no knowledge of other future plans. Yormark was smart he used the timing and leverage and his conference's buyin to maximum advantage to exploit a disjointed and dysfunctional PAC 12. I doubt many, if any, in the ACC believe they missed out on the 4 G5 adds by the Big 12.
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 2/1/2024, 2:02:46 PM
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 2/1/2024, 2:03:20 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
add a blue blood, they will not increase their value. Based on that, it would be impossible to think they missed out on those G5's, or really, any P5 that has been available the past 5 years or so.
It's unfortunate, because the ACC had many opportunities to add teams, and we are discussing the possible implosion of the conference because of that position.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
implosion of the conference has very little, if anything at all, to do with that position. It has everything to do with the demographic realities of the conference since its inception, a mix of smaller public and private schools, and not recognizing the limited alternatives available over the years that could have mitigated those structural weaknesses.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
limited time slots in other time zones and markets?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
V
VTCALS72
2y
With GOR out there holding the ACC rainmakers, the conference realignment can't really be finished and the new conferences and media models put into effect. So instead of a quick kill like the PAC, the powers that be have nowhere to go to do anything else maybe until 2036. So I think Yourmark was gutsy enough to go for it and ESPN saw $$$ in the short run by agreeing,
I still think that once the realignment is complete there will be scant TV revenue available for the residue of the ACC or the Big 12. So I think an eastern (Acc) a central (Big 12) and a reconstituted Pac for the west to have 3 minor leagues that probably have to market through something like the ACC network to produce and sell some games to the big media.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
And make that point in the FSU lawsuit moot.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
2y
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
D
daveinop
2y
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
H
HOO86
2y
Yes it would make it moot. ESPN could be dragged into this, and if that is moot it's not a distraction.
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
Will they throw that away in 2026? Put me in the "I don't think so" camp.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
H
HOO86
2y
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
W
WBGV
2y
‘It’s not a bursting sports rights bubble that cynics have been predicting for the past three decades. But as consumers continue to drop their pay-TV subscriptions and move toward streaming services, media companies have started giving these deals a lot more scrutiny.”
It is very possible and maybe even likely that ESPN walks away from the ACC deal and decides not to renew the extension by February 2025 (the clock is ticking) especially if FSU and other top brands are no longer in the conference.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
By dropping "cable TV" and moving to someone like YouTubeTV, you are saving by not having to "rent" the equipment (DVRs, cable boxes), but you're still paying for television content. You are also still paying for your cable company's broadband connection.
(In response to this post by WBGV)
W
WBGV
2y
as the “cable subscription model” has been. ESPN’s profits were down last year making them likely to scrutinize their media rights contracts more so than in the past.
From the New York Post:
“Hobbled sports giant ESPN has seen profit plummet 20% in the first nine months of the fiscal year as more cable subscribers cut the cord, according to a rare peek at the Disney-owned network’s finances. The struggling Mouse House had previously never broken down ESPN’s financials, but offered the inside look as it seeks a strategic investor for what had long been considered Disney’s crown jewel.”
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
H
HOO86
2y
Today. I look at it as Amazon was founded and launched in 1994 and didn't turn a profit until past 2000. These technology shifts are slow, but pick up steam. I don't think there is any question that Streaming is picking up steam. How to make money at it will pick up steam as well.
(In response to this post by WBGV)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
...there are other streaming services where you have to buy the sports channels. Those who aren't huge fans of sports probably choose one of those streaming services.
(In response to this post by WBGV)