If Disney is indeed trying to unload ESPN, would it be beneficial or
detrimental for a new buyer to have the ACC locked up until 2036. Maybe ESPN is slow walking the renewal until a buyer is secured and to see what their preference is about the ACC contract . Thoughts?
44 Replies
Depends how the buyer views the ACC
Locking in a fixed cost on something of value would be good
Having flexibility to low ball shorter term contracts would be good for something in decline
(In response to this post by manassashoo)
V
VTCALS72
1y
Against Clemson and FSU is that both of the P2 conferences and the 2 media networks want some time for things to settle down and get a better grip on everybody's future. FSU tried to force their way in with the lawsuits and that just did not fit the ESPN/SEC timeline.
(In response to this post by manassashoo)
Something happened on the Big Ten side of things. I'm not sure what.
But when Flugaur was saying FSU to Big Ten is chalk for quite some time. Then, on a dime, about 2 months ago say "it's off the board", something happened there. Not sure what. Not privy to it. But the change was real.
I think what was happening, is that there were people that were third party players from both FSU and the B1G sides pushing the agenda, but the people who actually have to make the decision in the end (the Big Ten presidents), either weren't ready, or got cold feet. I think someone inside the Big Ten got to Fluguar and told him to reign it in.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
At the end, no matter what these podcast experts say, university presidents really oversee the TOTAL university. After the last expansion, many are really uncomfortable with further expansion.. especially Ohio State. They want a collaborative environment with their peers in the conference. They feel it's time to just adjust and see how an expanded conference works before next phase...
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
for "TOTAL universities"
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
2
2hhoop3
1y
this observation on? Close friends with any president? Ever met one? While Presidents are not likely pawns they rely on the experts and their concerns over operations that generally represent less than 10% of the school budget are likely commensurate with the way a CEO manages a division representing less than 10% of their company, absent some unique affinity or special knowledge/prior association.
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
1y
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
do they gain by dismantling the ACC? They already have their media contracts. They already have the lions share of the playoff money, and access to the playoff spots. They already have all of the football blue bloods, except for a few.
Maybe I'm not seeing this correctly, but what do they gain? FSU and Clemson give some interesting regular season matchups, but moving forward, the money, and ratings, will be in the expanded playoffs.
We argue markets, recruiting and academics, but does the Big 10 get more money moving forward with FSU? Does Alabama or Texas need another blue blood on their schedule? Does it bring the SEC more money? Would it really be worth it to the P2 to dismantle the ACC?
I understand that FSU thinks they deserve the same money as the P2, and maybe they do, but is it worth the risk to the B10 and SEC presidents?
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
1y
I'm guessing it would be beneficial for the the Big Ten Network plus adding to their geographical footprint. I don't really see how Clemson is helpful to either P2 conference unless somehow they bring in the Atlanta market for the B1G. I would love to see Clemson in the Big 12 but I could care less about FSU. They seem to have some Texas in them and personally I'm glad the Big 12 doesn't have to deal with their drama anymore.
** Edited by Millpoint at 8/19/2024, 4:05:29 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
point, I don't see the ACC imploding, and I don't see the P2 dividing them up. There are good arguments for all of the mag 7 to be included in the P2, but those are the same arguments for the 4 corners, and a few of the hateful 8. New States, new markets, basketball blue bloods, blah, bah, blah, blah blah.
The only thing that changes this dynamic moving forward will be the ACC contract. Is there a PAC type offer on the table? Is the offer better than the B12? Is it simply an extension of the existing contract? Does ESPN walk away?
Setting FSU aside, because while they are a football blueblood by the classic definition, they will not break the ACC if they find an out and go to the P2. No one goes to the B12 unless those contract questions are answered in the worst case scenarios.
This is up to Phillips, ESPN, and maybe another media company.
I agree with FSU. I'm not clamoring for them to be in the B12 at all. Tell you what though, I'd like to see regular season matchups with B12 and ACC schools. They would be very competitive.
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
1y
And I agree, I don't see ACC Armageddon. I don't think the ACC has pizzed off ESPN the way the Pac 12 did when they wouldn't sell their failing network. Big mistake for sure.
** Edited by Millpoint at 8/19/2024, 4:09:20 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
"does the Big 10 get more money moving forward with FSU?" Yes!
"Does Alabama or Texas need another blue blood on their schedule?" "need"? No, but it won't hurt.
"Does it bring the SEC more money?" Of, course. Why wouldn't it?
"Would it really be worth it to the P2 to dismantle the ACC?" They take little time looking at this from The ACC point of view. They see assets they want to acquire, and the consequences for The ACC will be a fleeting afterthought.
I have little to no understanding of what is happening between FSU, Clemson, ACC. Bewilderment. But it looks more and, more to me that the P2 want to resolve the disposition of their primary targets, UNC in particular, before they expend money and effort on the secondary prizes. They still covet FSU/Clemson, but first things first.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
and FOX are paying a LOT of money for the regular season P2 games. We all assume that they will make a ton of money.
The gamble of consolidating the college football blue bloods has not played out. Lets see the numbers through the existing contracts. If the viewership is indeed off the page like many assume, it was a good bet. If the national viewership falls off because many blue bloods are struggling like Nebraska? It might be a different story.
Will the displaced and irritated fans of the PAC, B12, and ACC tune into the SEC and Big 10 games? Time will tell.
We know the Big 10 and SEC will get a majority of the playoff invites, but does that guarantee them national championships? Maybe, we assume, but it hasn't happened yet in the expanded era.
We assume they bring more money to another conference.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
D
dayooper
1y
That being said, there were only 2 years in the 4 team playoff that were not in the SEC or Big10, that was Clemson twice(‘16 and ‘18). If you add any school that is currently (as of 2024) in the SEC or Big10 that has won a national championship since the beginning of the BCS, you would only gain 2 more years, FSU in ‘13 and Miami in ‘01.
I can take it even further. In the past 75 years, only 15 years had teams not currently in the Big10 or SEC. That includes partial championships. Take away ND’s 6 championship years and you get 9. That’s less than 10%. Take away Clemson and FSU, who I believe will eventually get into the P2 and you get 7. Miami (‘01, ‘89 and’87), GT and Colorado (‘91), BYU (‘84), Pitt (‘76) and Syracuse (‘59) are the ones that fit into that category. My guess is Miami is having back door conversations as well.
Does this mean the P2 will win more championships? No, but history has shown there are only a select few that have historically won national championships and most are currently in, or are suing their current conferences so they can get into a P2. Throw in ND who would be welcomed by either of the P2 and that list is very short. FSU did everything they had to do to even get into the playoffs and were rebuffed.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
W
WarHog38
1y
I know that is not a problem in most parts of Virginia. The upper half of Virginia would fit with Pennsylvania more than Arkansas & Alabama. I have relatives that lived in NOVA for over 20 years. However the B!G would have liked getting Texas & Oklahoma. It was said the tea sippers in Austin would never join the SEC. However did the B1G get Texas? Tallahassee is surely more culturally southern than Austin.
I know nothing about the culture of North Carolina. I have already alluded to Virginia schools probably going B1G over the SEC. However for all the ACC schools south of North Carolina. The B1G is only getting what the SEC doesn't want.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2
2hhoop3
1y
somebody who in turn got to Fluguar. It is is easier to put the genie back in the bottle before the subpoena comes.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
S
Stech
1y
could be they are using it to get a better buyout. FSU and Clemson are locked in for this season and next season now that it is past August 15th, so in spite some wishing so, they are in the ACC for the next two seasons. I keep thinking that Amazon becomes a major stockholder, so that they can sell their products during live sports. If this is the case, I don’t see ESPN doing anything but supporting the ACC. Why would they want to dissolve something that is making them money now?
(In response to this post by manassashoo)
1y
It is a look in.... ESPN knows it has a wonderful rights package with the ACC, good solid brands at a reasonable rate. They had a solid GOR that makes it hard for institutions to leave. HOWEVER, with the law suits stringing out, would it be once they settle cashflow with all the rights locked from NBA, NFL, SEC etc... Also, ESPN and THE ACCN network revenue will increase with 2 major markets (Dallas and the Bay Area (this is not based on viewers, but number of subscribers by service providers (i.e. satellite, cable, etc)...
I can see ESPN pausing to see how the revenues flow, and net profits and then access if they have space to increase the ACC package, to calm the membership, and stability. (IT doesnt have to match the SEC, but get closer and farther from the BIG 12.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
H
HOO86
1y
But the biggest return on their investment work to build the ACC Network and get it coverage are in the second half of the contract term. The out clause is there if the network had failed like the Long Horn Network. It's probably also in the SEC one.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
Weren't the individual ACC schools required to, as part of the ACCN, to build a couple of studios on campus. As far as I know, espn never built any ACCN studios. The main ACCN weekly show is shot in Mark Packer's basement, ala The McKensie Brothers.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
H
HOO86
1y
When there are live games, those are much produced by the schools. ESPN produces all of the other content at their studios for the ACC Network which they built and invested in. All of the graphics was an ESPN investment, and all of the talent is paid for by ESPN. Yes the members did their part with production facilities to keep the cost down, but ESPN did invest in the beginning. It is now all paid for, so that the second half is the best return on that investment as I posted.
(In response to this post by Atlee Hokie)
S
Stech
1y
(In response to this post by HOO86)
R
RJHokie
1y
the startup costs in the first year or so of operation of the network before it started showing a profit.
(In response to this post by Atlee Hokie)
1y
I'll continue looking for ESPN's investment.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
R
RJHokie
1y
relative to the ACCN operations in response to a FOIA request. I do not have that info, but perhaps he can find it and post it here.
(In response to this post by Atlee Hokie)
H
HOO86
1y
It was only for the late night stuff on east coast. But it was FOX that completely dropped the PAC12. They were working to get the B1G to steal the LA teams.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
the kind of contract they got. Same as they told the SEC what they needed to get the contract they wanted. The rest, including the PAC folding, and the 4 corners going to the B12 was a comedy of errors. After all, the networks ended up paying for all but 2 of the PAC.
The PAC's blunder was not taking the hatful 8 when they had the chance. It would have given them a decent media contract, and there would be no B12.
The ACC is in a different situation, and the longer they stay together, the better chance they have of remaining a top conference. We should know by Feb. '25, but that is just another date.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
1y
It is not required for media companies to have contracts with the conferences (see ND and the old UT network as examples). The media companies are free to negotiate individual deals with schools if they wanted.
If I’m Disney, I would keep doing conference contracts for all sports except football. And then have separate football contracts with the biggest name schools getting the most money, and then pay tiers below it for less valuable brands, with the opportunity to earn more with the playoffs or meeting certain ratings goals. So ACC and SEC football would still exist, but not all teams under those umbrellas would be getting equal football money. They would get equal basketball/all other sports money though.
This would allow a lot more flexibility for schools and conferences and media companies. No clue if this is what they will do,but it would be an option on the board for me if I worked at ESPN.
(In response to this post by manassashoo)
1y
It would be buying rides to a team’s home slate. it would have no contract with the conference, which sets conference schedules.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
I’m sure there are solutions for that, but I would just be speculating. So I’ll shelve this idea. Thanks for adding that angle to consider.
(In response to this post by LeadingEdge)
ESPN might want to renegotiate rather than renew
The uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the FSU/Clemson litigation might have a significant impact on ESPN's willingness to renew under the existing terms. They might want to add some language to address that contingency.
(In response to this post by manassashoo)
W
WarHog38
1y
I have read it is higher but to avoid a debate, I will use the 30% figure, I have never seen the Media Value of those two stated below 30%. 30% of $44.8 Million is about $13.5 Million,
So each ACC school would see their media payout from ESPN drop by at least that $13.5 Million. Leaving each ACC school with about a $31.3 Million payout.
I think that $31.3 Million projection from ESPN minus FSU & Clemson is optimistic. However that $13.5 Million multiplied 16 or 17 times is well over $200 Million. That $200 Million is literally impending on those court judgements. I think that alone would stop ESPN from furthering those $44.8 Million payouts beyond 2027. ESPN therefore will not resign that ACC TV Deal as long as court as in session.
Sorry some cannot still see that ESPN connection to the ACC GOR. ESPN being written all over that GOR just will not convince them. I guess they can hope for the judges to feel the same way. I have seen crazier stuff come out of courts.
(In response to this post by El Paso Hokie)
S
Stech
1y
What is your precedence for making this statement?
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WarHog38
1y
Not trying to change the subject. Just establishing that the Big-12 seems to be a favored child with Big Media. I would argue that the new Big-12 Media Contract that you reference was used as bait by Big Media to draw in the 4-Corner schools to the Big-12.
Colorado, Utah, Arizona & Arizona State are lucrative investments for Big Media. Those G5 you mention are chump change in comparison. Big Media is orchestrating all this. But for argument sake, who has the ACC got to add that compare to those four corners schools? Washington State & Oregon State would be the only two that even come close. Those two are on the other side of the continent from the ACC. A very bad geographic fit.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
And the Pac 12 refused their offer. I believe this led to their demise. The Big 12 was more than willing to play ball with ESPN and Fox so they won out.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
S
Stech
1y
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WarHog38
1y
That is my opinion as this board overflows with people's opinions. I don't know what that proves by using that singularly as a response. You could have addressed some of the many points I made in that previous response. I try to do that here.
I know you are an ACC loyalist to the bone.However you need to analyze the ESPN failures to resign that ACC TV Contract since 2021.That should be sobering to anyone as you. Does Big Media stall around resigning TV Contracts with the B1G or SEC? Another clear precedent for you. I am not making phone calls or writing letters behind the scenes to ESPN bashing the ACC. Not a enemy of the ACC. I always enjoyed the few games the Razorbacks played with the ACC schools over the years. Had rather keep those games than forever lose them.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
based on viewership and attendance.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
** Edited by Big12 guy at 8/18/2024, 8:23:36 PM
(In response to this post by Stech)