Could ESPN be the force behind the lawsuits in the ACC?
It has never made any sense to me that ESPN would want Clemson and FSU to leave the ACC. If they moved to the SEC they would end up paying more for the same properties. And if they moved to the BIG they would get hit with a revenue shortfall.
What if this entire lawsuit is a plan to end the GOR and reorganize the ACC around more profitable schools? In this scenario FSU and Clemson would just be ESPN’s stalking horse.
This would seem to me to be a viable route to kicking out the bottom 4 schools (Wake,Syracuse, BC, and Duke?) and gaining the leverage to make the ACC rewrite the compensation plan to richly reward the best football schools.
** Edited by VT ChemE 1986 at 8/7/2024, 4:25:24 PM
27 Replies
V
VTCALS72
1y
"don't let the door hit you on your way out."
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
1y
No need for a covert litigation action.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
1y
conference network!!!. ( In 2024, Comcast will show the ACCN, which increases per viewer revenue down the road).
(In response to this post by LeadingEdge)
D
dayooper
1y
The operating profit dropped. From sports business journal:
While ESPN’s revenue rose 3% to $4.21B, operating income dropped 9% to $799M. The decline was led by a "drop in cable subscribers, and higher programming costs attributable to the College Football Playoff." ESPN advertising "rose to offset the cable subscriber decline"
Will the network make money after a few years? Sure California and Texas will bring in more money, but is it sustainable for 9 more years? With ESPN going to the direct subscription model, will the ACC N still bring in enough to make the ACC worth it?
(In response to this post by ancient alien 2018)
V
VTCALS72
1y
produce content except for the marquee games. the ACCN carriage fees will go away but may well last longer than the current configuration of college football. I think the ACC/Big12 and new PAC future is for the leagues to produce their content such that the only cost ESPN pays is a set price for games streamed in to their headquarters with their announcers/color guys talking and then streamed out. No production crew cost, no travel cost, just in and out. I believe that with VT's Bill Roth bunch and Cuse national program, the ACC can do that as well as anybody.
(In response to this post by dayooper)
1y
on board will bring in this year.
(In response to this post by dayooper)
2
2hhoop3
1y
2022/2023 being the first full year of carriage on Comcast the 2023/2024 year will provide the first full comparison year over year for the ACCN. Next year 2024/2025 goes back to a different comparison with the addition of Texas(11 months) and California(10 months).
(In response to this post by ancient alien 2018)
1y
periodicals for college athletic departments. If the ACCN was the money maker some profess, they would have the Seattle market with WSU, the Tennessee market with Memphis, not to mention the B12 schools they could have had.
Do you think ESPN would have let the Arizona schools go to the B12 if they could make bank with the carriage fees?
(In response to this post by dayooper)
1y
as ESPN has a higher carriage fee for every subscriber in an in-market state. California and Texas have 70 million people combined, while Arizona and Washington have 15 million combined.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
D
dayooper
1y
If they pick up the contract, they are stuck with it until 2036. Will the cable model be as valuable in 9 years?
(In response to this post by BROman Hokie)
1y
(In response to this post by dayooper)
WRT BC and Syracuse. People like to trash them in CR talk, but if they are
ditched, the ACCN loses NY and MA subscribers. Not sure that's a win. Can anyone here speak to the numbers on this?
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
T
Truthahn
1y
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2
2hhoop3
1y
and see where it ends up. Sankey, the SEC and ESPN have been playing defense ever since A&M pissed all over the original plan by letting the UT/OU cat out of the bag early. Had things gone according to plan the SEC wraps up UT/OU, the the playoff expands with nary a whimper, ESPN gets the playoff contract in an exclusive bid situation and ND sews up playoff access with Bowlsby, the B1G and FOX scratching their heads as to what the hell just happened. Instead, A&M throws their temper tantrum, and plans have to be readjusted in a convoluted and more expensive manner because the B1G now understands the train they just avoided. In the course of things, instead of the Big 12 becoming the newest G5 it reinvents itself, the PAC 12 commits suicide and the ACC becomes a possible tool to make revised projections and alignment adjustments work.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
1y
the PAC to implode, and I don't think anyone anticipated the B12 to be a player.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
1y
are "players" right now.
Certain schools in each can be. Certain schools in each can't be.
IMHO, the likely "winner" here is whichever conference is willing to jettison its baggage first -pick the plums from the other - and avoid the P2 stealing too many off the top in the process.
Even that is likely not a real win.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
the AAC and Mountain West taking schools, and where the B12 is now?
There is no doubt they are players in this game of throne's. It's a win from where I'm sitting.
This idea that you are in the P2, or your irrelevant, is way over blown. The B12 will make some noise in the playoffs, ALL of the schools in the B12 will be making more money with the new contract. Add in the playoff money, they will no doubt be able to compete. Ohio State, Alabama, Texas, ... etc were already making more money than the rest of us - to the tune of over $100M a year, for decades. Now, they make even more than we do. NOTHING has changed, except who we play in the regular season.
(In response to this post by RTFC)
1y
you may not be considering the entire accounting picture. Yes, ESPN would end up paying more for Clemson and FSU. However, that increase could still be less than the amount of decrease in pay to the ACC (assuming the ACC remains in tact in some form).
Example Purposes Only
Amount of Pay Increase in Pay to Clemson & FSU in the SEC = +$25M
Amount of Reduction in Pay to the ACC = -$35M
Net Result = +$10M
I would think that ESPN's and probably Disney's accountants have been busy crunching then numbers behind the scenes for a variety of scenarios to see which scenario would be (or could be) the most profitable to them. There may even be a scenario out there where ESPN would be more profitable to allow Clemson and FSU to go to the Big Ten because the reduction in pay to the ACC would be more than what it would cost to keep Clemson and FSU in the ACC until sometime in 2030s (assuming schools decide to leave before the current GOR expires on June 30, 2036).
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
M
Marooned
1y
SEC, then that’s some really creative accounting!
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
cost ESPN nearly $400 million in total lost revenue before any supposed monetary benefits take effect. The SEC and ESPN have absolutely no financial interests in expansion for now and are quite happy with the status quo.
(In response to this post by Marooned)
1y
Remember the formula for determining the value of content should include the value of Clemson's and FSU's opponent for each conference. I think you would even agree that the SEC has more valuable football opponents than the ACC.
ACC: Miami, VT, maybe NC State, maybe UNC, maybe Pitt, and maybe L'vlle
SEC: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Tenn, LSU, Texas, TAMU, Oklahoma, maybe Ole Miss, maybe Kentucky, and maybe South Carolina
Basically every week Clemson and FSU has great odds it will be playing a SEC opponent that has some value. At least more "value" than BC, Syracuse, Wake, Duke, UVA, and GT. The value I am referring to doesn't just include potential subscribers, but also ratings/eyeballs too. I think even you would agree that if someone living in Port Roberts, WA is going to watch a college football game while eating breakfast, then that person is probably more likely to tune into FSU vs. Arkansas than FSU vs. Syracuse because the SEC has done a much better job of building its football brand than the ACC.
(In response to this post by Marooned)
1y
Most of ESPN's broadcasters went to Syracuse and we know how much Dick Vitale and Jay Bilas love Duke. Not saying it will not happen but it just seems strange that it is even a possibility.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
And kicking 4 teams out doesn't seem like enough if this move is to put the
ACC in the P2's tax bracket.
(In response to this post by OrlandoHokie)
T
Truthahn
1y
Maybe Clemson, too. After that, no one will leave.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
rejoin the Big East and Duke join the Big East? ESPN could be wanting to make sure its family of networks has enough basketball content (aka the content that truly matters) when you factor in ESPN's joint venture with FOX. Assuming it survives the antitrust challenge.
** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 8/8/2024, 11:02:44 AM
(In response to this post by OrlandoHokie)
S
SMU Pony
1y
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
splits the primary stakeholder with Fox. Hence the part about where I say that ESPN wants to make sure its family of networks has enough basketball content from the conferences that matter, which still includes the Big East, now that ESPN has to factor in its joint venture project.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)