Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Realignment thread

Collapse

First Unread Thread Button

Collapse

X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by NJTerp View Post

    Your post that followed the quoted one above one was spot on.

    Regarding Texas, I am married to an A&M alum, so no love for Texas here. However, there willingness to not be the power center of a conference anymore, is a positive attribute, even if there motive wasn’t altruistic. Maybe there is hope for Texas. Nah, maybe not.

    And regarding the post above. Let’s just say Mr. Swofford fit your description of JD Rockefeller’s business philosophy, or tried to, when he killed the old Big East.

    One more point. I find it interesting that when Notre Dame (almost fully) joined the ACC, ACC fans seemed to love it. Even some went on about how upstanding Notre Dame was. That tune seems to have changed.
    Nobody tried to kill the BE. The BE was founded by Dave Gavitt for 1 thing: basketball in the northeast. It never was meant to be a conference with football, or anything else. The BE as founded of, for, and by basketball still exists. And it is a very good basketball league.

    The BE was forced to try football because its 3 members (in that first phase) that played 1A football all informed the BE office when PSU beaded to the BT (and PSU rather quickly informed them it would play them OOC sparingly) that unless the BE created a football division, they would have to explore other options. The BE response, knowing that the ACC saw the Miami football program as too out of control to be paired with FSU in the ACC, was to offer Miami full BE membership (the 10th BE member) if Miami would help it get 4 other schools for football only. VT, WVU, Rutgers, and Temple were not in BE basketball, which was the real BE.

    Miami, from almost year 1 of BE football, was very open that if the ACC came around to its way of thinking, it would be gone in a split second. That and the lack of prized BE basketball status for half of BE football made it something beyond shaky, no later than its 3rd season (which I think was the first in which all teams played 7 BE games). The BE responded to that by eventually allowing VT, WVU, and Rutgers to play BE basketball. VT was not allowed to play BE basketball until 2000. Temple was never allowed.

    The situation of BE football was so totally unstable that in 1998 Mike Tranghese went public offering the ACC BC, Pitt, Syracuse, and Miami for football only. The BE office was willing to kill BE football in order to keep BE basketball intact. The ACC did not try to kill the BE. The ACC expanded to 12 about 7 or 8 years too late, in part because it did not want to gut BE football, because that would leave the leftovers with either nothing or else a conference severely reduced in status and quality.

    Notre Dame in the ACC was not about ND whoring for the most money. That would have come from ND joining the BT.

    Comment


      By now, we all have familiarity with the SCOTUS' "NIL" ruling in NCAA v. Alston. I have heard there is another SCOTUS case pending regarding issues surrounding money to student-athletes. I've looked for such a case on the Court's docket, but I am not seeing one. I'm not asking anybody to do any research, but if you have the information handy, I would appreciate it if you would let me know the name or details. Thanks.

      Comment


        Originally posted by WoadBlue View Post

        Nobody tried to kill the BE.
        Nobody other than the ACC, that is.

        What goes around, comes around.

        Comment


          Originally posted by XOVERX View Post
          By now, we all have familiarity with the SCOTUS' "NIL" ruling in NCAA v. Alston. I have heard there is another SCOTUS case pending regarding issues surrounding money to student-athletes. I've looked for such a case on the Court's docket, but I am not seeing one. I'm not asking anybody to do any research, but if you have the information handy, I would appreciate it if you would let me know the name or details. Thanks.
          The next shoe to drop is Johnson vs NCAA. It is to decide whether or not student athletes are employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Though, this still has quite a few hurdles to go through. One huge issue is if this can even apply to student athletes at public institutions, as this act is only applicable to private businesses.

          What is currently going through the courts is whether or not this should be dismissed outright, then there needs to be a decision by the Federal Labor Relations Board, and all the appeals after that. This still has years to go.

          Comment


            Originally posted by FtwTxSooner View Post

            The next shoe to drop is Johnson vs NCAA. It is to decide whether or not student athletes are employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Though, this still has quite a few hurdles to go through. One huge issue is if this can even apply to student athletes at public institutions, as this act is only applicable to private businesses.
            If today's student athletes become tomorrow's employees, then wouldn't OSHA and workmans compensation come into play?

            Comment


              Originally posted by RealignmentFan View Post

              Nobody other than the ACC, that is.

              What goes around, comes around.

              I find it amusing that he accuses the Big Ten of trying to kill the ACC because they took ONE school, while the ACC gutting the Big East was fine because the Big East didn't really want football or the increased revenue it brings.

              Doubly amusing because he tries to link it back to PSU going to the Big Ten (of COURSE they notified those other schools they would be playing them sparingly, because PSU would only have three OOC slots available from then on) because in his mind the Big Ten is the root of all evil in college sports. The ACC of course is pure as driven snow and anything they do that might look bad to outside observers is either justified via convoluted logic or smeared as "fake news".

              Comment


                Originally posted by WoadBlue View Post

                Nobody tried to kill the BE. The BE was founded by Dave Gavitt for 1 thing: basketball in the northeast. It never was meant to be a conference with football, or anything else. The BE as founded of, for, and by basketball still exists. And it is a very good basketball league.

                The BE was forced to try football because its 3 members (in that first phase) that played 1A football all informed the BE office when PSU beaded to the BT (and PSU rather quickly informed them it would play them OOC sparingly) that unless the BE created a football division, they would have to explore other options. The BE response, knowing that the ACC saw the Miami football program as too out of control to be paired with FSU in the ACC, was to offer Miami full BE membership (the 10th BE member) if Miami would help it get 4 other schools for football only. VT, WVU, Rutgers, and Temple were not in BE basketball, which was the real BE.

                Miami, from almost year 1 of BE football, was very open that if the ACC came around to its way of thinking, it would be gone in a split second. That and the lack of prized BE basketball status for half of BE football made it something beyond shaky, no later than its 3rd season (which I think was the first in which all teams played 7 BE games). The BE responded to that by eventually allowing VT, WVU, and Rutgers to play BE basketball. VT was not allowed to play BE basketball until 2000. Temple was never allowed.

                The situation of BE football was so totally unstable that in 1998 Mike Tranghese went public offering the ACC BC, Pitt, Syracuse, and Miami for football only. The BE office was willing to kill BE football in order to keep BE basketball intact. The ACC did not try to kill the BE. The ACC expanded to 12 about 7 or 8 years too late, in part because it did not want to gut BE football, because that would leave the leftovers with either nothing or else a conference severely reduced in status and quality.

                Notre Dame in the ACC was not about ND whoring for the most money. That would have come from ND joining the BT.
                Others had made some of the points I was going to make. I would just add that even if the Big East was as unstable as you say, the ACC still gutted them. Whether they “whored” themselves to take advantage of the situation or “whored” themselves to ESPN, to do their bidding, it does not make them better than other conferences.

                As for Notre Dame, my point was that ACC fans have changed their tune regarding Notre Dame. Also, Notre Dame fans, who initially seemed indifferent about joining the ACC now want out.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by NJTerp View Post

                  Others had made some of the points I was going to make. I would just add that even if the Big East was as unstable as you say, the ACC still gutted them. Whether they “whored” themselves to take advantage of the situation or “whored” themselves to ESPN, to do their bidding, it does not make them better than other conferences.

                  As for Notre Dame, my point was that ACC fans have changed their tune regarding Notre Dame. Also, Notre Dame fans, who initially seemed indifferent about joining the ACC now want out.
                  Familiarity Breeds Contempt.

                  Comment


                    Now that the ACC has turned over their conference scheduling proposal to ESPN to "review," you'd think if the Mouse wanted to move anyone to the ACC, it would be done soon. As in before July 1st.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by John Swofford View Post
                      Now that the ACC has turned over their conference scheduling proposal to ESPN to "review," you'd think if the Mouse wanted to move anyone to the ACC, it would be done soon. As in before July 1st.
                      You’d think if ESPN were interested in doing that, they’d have done so last summer. It’s only gotten harder.

                      I just don’t see ESPN opening the deal and paying 16 teams more money without getting tangible value added. Pay 16 teams $20 million more, or pay 7 teams $40 million more going to SEC while getting additive value?

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by RealignmentFan View Post

                        You’d think if ESPN were interested in doing that, they’d have done so last summer. It’s only gotten harder.

                        I just don’t see ESPN opening the deal and paying 16 teams more money without getting tangible value added. Pay 16 teams $20 million more, or pay 7 teams $40 million more going to SEC while getting additive value?
                        That’s always going to be the ACC’s structural problem. Paying the ACC $480 million more per year isn’t going to be made up by ACCN subscribers. Disney would need a big return on an investment they don’t need to make.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by John Swofford View Post
                          Now that the ACC has turned over their conference scheduling proposal to ESPN to "review," you'd think if the Mouse wanted to move anyone to the ACC, it would be done soon. As in before July 1st.
                          Who do you have in mind?

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Deadeye View Post

                            Who do you have in mind?
                            Some of the Carolina contingent had been saying Kansas and West Virginia. As if? The B12 took a torpedo and remained afloat and under repairs. The ACC's bridge has no communications with the fire control system or the engine room. Which means it is both defenseless and incapable of finding its direction, or making way. In short a sitting duck! If I'm Kansas and WVU I think I prefer seaworthy and half speed over being a sitting duck!

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by JRsec* View Post

                              Some of the Carolina contingent had been saying Kansas and West Virginia. As if? The B12 took a torpedo and remained afloat and under repairs. The ACC's bridge has no communications with the fire control system or the engine room. Which means it is both defenseless and incapable of finding its direction, or making way. In short a sitting duck! If I'm Kansas and WVU I think I prefer seaworthy and half speed over being a sitting duck!
                              Those ACC fans are resilient.

                              In isolation that makes some sense. If GORs and money weren’t factors. And it was just B12 vs ACC. The ACC has better names.

                              WVU may jump at the chance to crash the UNC, Duke, UVA party even if just for one night and then being a blocked caller. When the ACC falls apart though, via dissolution, do they get a call? Presumably yes, but maybe it’s Pitt.

                              But KU? Only if doing ESPN a favor for future considerations. P2 is their target. Stabilizing the ACC and getting locked in to an even longer deal not what they wsnt.

                              And how do they add schools and increase revenue without ESPN? Going unequal revenue sharing may work, but dissolution vote becomes appealing for many in that case.

                              To get better pay, they basically have to leave the ACC. Get away from the Big East and Wake.

                              The carrot of ND is gone with Swarbrick comments. That’s the first step- decision makers need to be able to tell stakeholders the ND dream out. We’ve had two out of four football schools make it known. If a bubble or leftover AD starts talking, then it gets interesting

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by RealignmentFan View Post
                                But KU? Only if doing ESPN a favor for future considerations. P2 is their target. Stabilizing the ACC and getting locked in to an even longer deal not what they wsnt.

                                Yep, Kansas isn't going to sign up for a GOR locking them in for 15 years for what would be at best a sideways move, and the associated cost of moving would only put them further behind not only the P2 but their "middle 3" peers.

                                There really isn't a compelling reason for anyone in the ACC, Big 12 or Pac 12 to move from one of those conferences to another, other than WVU wishing they could move to the ACC for obvious geographic/rivalry reasons. None is much of a step up or down from another financially or prestige wise, at least not to the degree it is worth the disruption and acrimony of moving,

                                Even if it was penalty free and they would have the same length of GOR they'll end being asked to sign for the new Big 12 contract why would Kansas want to switch to the ACC? More travel as a WVU like geographic outlier for no financial benefit, it would make no sense.

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by JRsec* View Post

                                  Some of the Carolina contingent had been saying Kansas and West Virginia. As if? The B12 took a torpedo and remained afloat and under repairs. The ACC's bridge has no communications with the fire control system or the engine room. Which means it is both defenseless and incapable of finding its direction, or making way. In short a sitting duck! If I'm Kansas and WVU I think I prefer seaworthy and half speed over being a sitting duck!
                                  IIRC you have been the one that has consistently been listing Kansas as an SEC school in more than a few of your multiple projected scenarios.

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by XLance View Post

                                    IIRC you have been the one that has consistently been listing Kansas as an SEC school in more than a few of your multiple projected scenarios.
                                    Yes.

                                    Comment


                                      Originally posted by XLance View Post

                                      IIRC you have been the one that has consistently been listing Kansas as an SEC school in more than a few of your multiple projected scenarios.
                                      And? I’m missing what you’re say here.

                                      The ACC is not the SEC, right?

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by RealignmentFan View Post

                                        You’d think if ESPN were interested in doing that, they’d have done so last summer. It’s only gotten harder.
                                        I don't think so.....anyone they add from the XII aint leaving til OU and TX leave. Obvious choices involve Cincy, WVU or anyone from Texas. I don't see UCF being an option. But again...the ACC will whore itself for the mouse if it means more loot.

                                        Personally I think there has always been a "plan" to move XII teams around. TAMU blowing the whistle on OU and Tex last summer semi-exposed this plan. I continue to say that it made zero sense for ESPN to launch the ACCN knowing it would perish if they underpaid the conference. Just makes zero sense.

                                        There is a reason the ACC got a network and the XII didnt.
                                        Last edited by John Swofford; 05-16-2022, 07:07 AM.

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by John Swofford View Post

                                          I don't think so.....anyone they add from the XII aint leaving til OU and TX leave. Obvious choices involve Cincy, WVU or anyone from Texas. I don't see UCF being an option. But again...the ACC will whore itself for the mouse if it means more loot.

                                          Personally I think there has always been a "plan" to move XII teams around. TAMU blowing the whistle on OU and Tex last summer semi-exposed this plan. I continue to say that it made zero sense for ESPN to launch the ACCN knowing it would perish if they underpaid the conference. Just makes zero sense.

                                          There is a reason the ACC got a network and the XII didnt.
                                          What?

                                          You think the ACC will whore itself to the Mouse, yet also
                                          think the Mouse is down with this “plan” to stiff the SEC, OU and UT?

                                          That is what makes zero sense!

                                          ESPN isn’t making a plan that pauses after OU and UT, so the ACC and Big 12 schools can extort ESPN assets, basically itself, over the exit. All just for ESPN to have to pay more for the ACC. And the Big 12 teams aren’t agreeing to wait and pay more in exit than they got from OU and UT! Get $20 million from OU/UT combined, pay Big 12 way more.

                                          And unlike the ACC, dissolution not really economical for ESPN as they’d have to move at least 8 Big 12 teams to ACC (or Pac12) which is cost prohibitive, because it comes with redoing the ACC deal on now 16-22 teams. Dissolution only cheap when it’s consolidation and on a conference locked in at last decade’s rate.

                                          And if this was the master plan by ACC and ESPN, the ACC unlikely blocking CFP expansion.

                                          And if this was the plan, ACC ADs would not be speaking of it being a P2 world and alluding to ACC death.

                                          The plan would also almost immediately be challenged in court by UT and OU.

                                          Please tell me you see how nearly every action and sign makes your post illogical?

                                          IF, IF schools from anywhere end up in the ACC, ESPN would not be behind it. And they certainly would not be behind this pause to get OU and UT exit fees. Perhaps they end up agreeing, doubtful, but they will not be organizing. More likely this, in combination with delaying CFP expansion, would put ACC in the Mouse’s crosshairs


                                          The ACCN was launched so long ago it’s not a factor. A time when P3 possible due to OU, UT, KU moving to ACC or ACC football moving to Big 12.

                                          It is more telling is the ACC has no equity. It’s very easy to change signage and the name. There’s a reason ESPN has passed on multiple look-ins with ACC. And a reason they structured the deal so adding teams isn’t an auto trigger.
                                          Last edited by RealignmentFan; 05-16-2022, 08:24 AM.

                                          Comment


                                            Originally posted by RealignmentFan View Post

                                            What?

                                            You think the ACC will whore itself to the Mouse, yet also
                                            think the Mouse is down with this “plan” to stiff the SEC, OU and UT?

                                            That is what makes zero sense!

                                            ESPN isn’t making a plan that pauses after OU and UT, so the ACC and Big 12 schools can extort ESPN assets, basically itself, over the exit. All just for ESPN to have to pay more for the ACC. And the Big 12 teams aren’t agreeing to wait and pay more in exit than they got from OU and UT! Get $20 million from OU/UT combined, pay Big 12 way more.

                                            And unlike the ACC, dissolution not really economical for ESPN as they’d have to move at least 8 Big 12 teams to ACC (or Pac12) which is cost prohibitive, because it comes with redoing the ACC deal on now 16-22 teams. Dissolution only cheap when it’s consolidation and on a conference locked in at last decade’s rate.

                                            And if this was the master plan by ACC and ESPN, the ACC unlikely blocking CFP expansion.

                                            And if this was the plan, ACC ADs would not be speaking of it being a P2 world and alluding to ACC death.

                                            The plan would also almost immediately be challenged in court by UT and OU.

                                            Please tell me you see how nearly every action and sign makes your post illogical?

                                            IF, IF schools from anywhere end up in the ACC, ESPN would not be behind it. And they certainly would not be behind this pause to get OU and UT exit fees. Perhaps they end up agreeing, doubtful, but they will not be organizing. More likely this, in combination with delaying CFP expansion, would put ACC in the Mouse’s crosshairs


                                            The ACCN was launched so long ago it’s not a factor. A time when P3 possible due to OU, UT, KU moving to ACC or ACC football moving to Big 12.

                                            It is more telling is the ACC has no equity. It’s very easy to change signage and the name. There’s a reason ESPN has passed on multiple look-ins with ACC. And a reason they structured the deal so adding teams isn’t an auto trigger.
                                            The only look-in since the launch of the ACCN was last summer.

                                            2019 was long ago?

                                            LMAO

                                            Comment


                                              Originally posted by John Swofford View Post
                                              Personally I think there has always been a "plan" to move XII teams around. TAMU blowing the whistle on OU and Tex last summer semi-exposed this plan.
                                              Yes, the plan was and is to consolidate the best brands from the Big12 into the SEC. TAMU, Missouri, OU. and UT are exhibits A, B, C, and D of this plan. And there might be a component of that plan to move some of the remaining universities elsewhere. But there is no way the ACC can gain significant revenue from those possible remaining moves.

                                              Originally posted by John Swofford View Post
                                              I continue to say that it made zero sense for ESPN to launch the ACCN knowing it would perish if they underpaid the conference. Just makes zero sense.
                                              Wrong. I know you want to keep the band together, but you are bordering on Buckaineer level delusion here. The ACCN was just part of the price ESPN had to pay to keep the ACC together long enough to make their Big12 moves. They had to pin down the ones they like with a GOR.

                                              What is the logic of what you are suggesting? That since ESPN provided the ACCN, they now have no choice but to eventually pay revenue that approaches the B1G10 and SEC? ESPN is not in business to lose money, so that hoped for raise will never arrive. If that really was the plan, it would have made sense to relocate OU, UT, and some Texas universities to the ACC. But as everyone can now see, that didn't happen and the SEC is now way ahead of even the B1G10, with no hope of anyone else catching up. It's pretty obvious the plan is to place whoever they can coax into the SEC. That is ESPN's conference of consolidation.

                                              Originally posted by John Swofford View Post
                                              There is a reason the ACC got a network and the XII didnt.
                                              Yes, first was UT's flirtation with the PAC over a decade ago that spooked Big12 universities with options into action. And second, the need to keep the ACC intact long enough to complete their Big12 moves. Now that those moves are nearly completed, they can turn their attention to the ACC.
                                              Last edited by Deadeye; 05-16-2022, 10:09 AM.

                                              Comment


                                                Originally posted by John Swofford View Post

                                                The only look-in since the launch of the ACCN was last summer.

                                                2019 was long ago?

                                                LMAO
                                                Two years before OU and UT, Alston vs NCAA, and before mega deals for P2 is most definitely antiquated. Nice try though!


                                                Is the lack of addressing ANY of the egregious flaws in your theory because you don’t have any defense? If you do, please share. Let’s hear it. I mean, there’s a half dozen!

                                                Comment


                                                  Originally posted by John Swofford View Post

                                                  I don't think so.....anyone they add from the XII aint leaving til OU and TX leave. Obvious choices involve Cincy, WVU or anyone from Texas. I don't see UCF being an option. But again...the ACC will whore itself for the mouse if it means more loot.

                                                  Personally I think there has always been a "plan" to move XII teams around. TAMU blowing the whistle on OU and Tex last summer semi-exposed this plan. I continue to say that it made zero sense for ESPN to launch the ACCN knowing it would perish if they underpaid the conference. Just makes zero sense.

                                                  There is a reason the ACC got a network and the XII didnt.
                                                  It also makes zero sense to throw good money after bad. The amount needed to pay the ACC competitively will far exceed any sort of return ESPN would get for that additional funding.

                                                  The ACCN "investment" was to get a conference locked in at a extraordinarily low rate for a very, very long term. Mission accomplished on that front. Plus, the subscriber rates finally are locked in for the major providers. The conference can take a step back and ESPN will still be getting the same money. The conference isn't going to completely fall off the cliff. It an limp along through the next round of negotiations with the providers, which likely will be the last prior to ESPN offering everything direct to consumer. At that point, these linear networks would have very much reached end of life.

                                                  All of these linear networks launched within the last 5 - 10 years were launched knowing full well they'll eventually perish once streaming takes hold enough for ESPN to launch a direct to consumer service. In the interim, its about maximizing profits on the subscriber revenue. This is where there simply isn't a pathway forward to pay the ACC competitively, and in turn, increase the subscriber revenue to get any sort of return on that increased payout.

                                                  Comment


                                                    Originally posted by FtwTxSooner View Post

                                                    It also makes zero sense to throw good money after bad. The amount needed to pay the ACC competitively will far exceed any sort of return ESPN would get for that additional funding.

                                                    The ACCN "investment" was to get a conference locked in at a extraordinarily low rate for a very, very long term. Mission accomplished on that front. Plus, the subscriber rates finally are locked in for the major providers. The conference can take a step back and ESPN will still be getting the same money. The conference isn't going to completely fall off the cliff. It an limp along through the next round of negotiations with the providers, which likely will be the last prior to ESPN offering everything direct to consumer. At that point, these linear networks would have very much reached end of life.

                                                    All of these linear networks launched within the last 5 - 10 years were launched knowing full well they'll eventually perish once streaming takes hold enough for ESPN to launch a direct to consumer service. In the interim, its about maximizing profits on the subscriber revenue. This is where there simply isn't a pathway forward to pay the ACC competitively, and in turn, increase the subscriber revenue to get any sort of return on that increased payout.
                                                    They are also a step in consumers looking for and paying for a conference stream. Get everyone attached to Conference XYZ channel is a good way to have a better chance they pay for the equivalent streaming subscription.

                                                    They aren’t immovable physical assets. There’s brand equity behind it, but the actual fixed costs are fungible, and can be recovered via the conference of leftovers if desired

                                                    Comment


                                                      Originally posted by FtwTxSooner View Post

                                                      It also makes zero sense to throw good money after bad. The amount needed to pay the ACC competitively will far exceed any sort of return ESPN would get for that additional funding.

                                                      The ACCN "investment" was to get a conference locked in at a extraordinarily low rate for a very, very long term. Mission accomplished on that front. Plus, the subscriber rates finally are locked in for the major providers. The conference can take a step back and ESPN will still be getting the same money. The conference isn't going to completely fall off the cliff. It an limp along through the next round of negotiations with the providers, which likely will be the last prior to ESPN offering everything direct to consumer. At that point, these linear networks would have very much reached end of life.

                                                      All of these linear networks launched within the last 5 - 10 years were launched knowing full well they'll eventually perish once streaming takes hold enough for ESPN to launch a direct to consumer service. In the interim, its about maximizing profits on the subscriber revenue. This is where there simply isn't a pathway forward to pay the ACC competitively, and in turn, increase the subscriber revenue to get any sort of return on that increased payout.
                                                      Ok...so 1 question I have......if ESPN believes in moving ACC pieces into the SEC (clemson, fsu etc etc) as so many on here believe, why in the hell didnt they do it BEFORE launching the ACCN in 19? Clemson and FSU were both riding high (in FSU's case higher) at the time the ACCN was announced in 2016.

                                                      Why did ESPN ask the ACC to round up a GOR before launching the ACCN? Wouldnt it have been easier to pick apart the pieces they want in the SEC?

                                                      Comment


                                                        Originally posted by Deadeye View Post
                                                        Yes, the plan was and is to consolidate the best brands from the Big12 into the SEC. TAMU, Missouri, OU. and UT are exhibits A, B, C, and D of this plan. And there might be a component of that plan to move some of the remaining universities elsewhere. But there is no way the ACC can gain significant revenue from those possible remaining moves.

                                                        Wrong. I know you want to keep the band together, but you are bordering on Buckaineer level delusion here. The ACCN was just part of the price ESPN had to pay to keep the ACC together long enough to make their Big12 moves. They had to pin down the ones they like with a GOR.

                                                        What is the logic of what you are suggesting? That since ESPN provided the ACCN, they now have no choice but to eventually pay revenue that approaches the B1G10 and SEC? ESPN is not in business to lose money, so that hoped for raise will never arrive. If that really was the plan, it would have made sense to relocate OU, UT, and some Texas universities to the ACC. But as everyone can now see, that didn't happen and the SEC is now way ahead of even the B1G10, with no hope of anyone else catching up. It's pretty obvious the plan is to place whoever they can coax into the SEC. That is ESPN's conference of consolidation.

                                                        Yes, first was UT's flirtation with the PAC over a decade ago that spooked Big12 universities with options into action. And second, the need to keep the ACC intact long enough to complete their Big12 moves. Now that those moves are nearly completed, they can turn their attention to the ACC.

                                                        The ACC is never going to draw SEC or B1G money.....but the gap should be closer than it is now.

                                                        Comment


                                                          Originally posted by FtwTxSooner View Post

                                                          It also makes zero sense to throw good money after bad. The amount needed to pay the ACC competitively will far exceed any sort of return ESPN would get for that additional funding.

                                                          The ACCN "investment" was to get a conference locked in at a extraordinarily low rate for a very, very long term. Mission accomplished on that front. Plus, the subscriber rates finally are locked in for the major providers. The conference can take a step back and ESPN will still be getting the same money. The conference isn't going to completely fall off the cliff. It an limp along through the next round of negotiations with the providers, which likely will be the last prior to ESPN offering everything direct to consumer. At that point, these linear networks would have very much reached end of life.

                                                          All of these linear networks launched within the last 5 - 10 years were launched knowing full well they'll eventually perish once streaming takes hold enough for ESPN to launch a direct to consumer service. In the interim, its about maximizing profits on the subscriber revenue. This is where there simply isn't a pathway forward to pay the ACC competitively, and in turn, increase the subscriber revenue to get any sort of return on that increased payout.
                                                          I guess it would be helpful to know whether or not if ESPN's contracts for the ACCN and SECN also include digital rights. If so the ACCN and SECN one day may be added to ESPN+ or sold as independent streaming feeds. As savvy as ESPN is, it would be a surprise to me if the Mouse didn't already hold those digital rights.

                                                          Comment


                                                            Originally posted by John Swofford View Post


                                                            The ACC is never going to draw SEC or B1G money.....but the gap should be closer than it is now.
                                                            How much closer? And according to who? I think ESPN disagrees, and they have a signed GOR to support their position. And if the 14 (or 15) signers agreed with you, why would they voluntarily lock themselves in on such a low rate?

                                                            You see, when your argument has to be supported with vague and meaningless opinions, it's a sure sign that you really don't have a solid position. The ACC is not stable due to the huge revenue disparities with both the SEC and the B1G10. There is no escape from that fact. It's not a matter of wanting to keep the ACC together. If that's all it took, the ACC would last on well into the future with no issues. It's a matter of needing the extra revenue to keep their current position. NIL, stipends, unlimited coaching staffs, and the facilities arms race all require tons of revenue. If the ACC stays together until 2036, it will cause all the quality brands to erode into irrelevance due to the inability to keep up with the Jones. UNC, FSU, and a few others aren't going to sit around and do nothing while that erosion takes place.

                                                            Comment


                                                              Originally posted by FtwTxSooner View Post

                                                              It also makes zero sense to throw good money after bad. The amount needed to pay the ACC competitively will far exceed any sort of return ESPN would get for that additional funding.

                                                              The ACCN "investment" was to get a conference locked in at a extraordinarily low rate for a very, very long term. Mission accomplished on that front. Plus, the subscriber rates finally are locked in for the major providers. The conference can take a step back and ESPN will still be getting the same money. The conference isn't going to completely fall off the cliff. It an limp along through the next round of negotiations with the providers, which likely will be the last prior to ESPN offering everything direct to consumer. At that point, these linear networks would have very much reached end of life.

                                                              All of these linear networks launched within the last 5 - 10 years were launched knowing full well they'll eventually perish once streaming takes hold enough for ESPN to launch a direct to consumer service. In the interim, its about maximizing profits on the subscriber revenue. This is where there simply isn't a pathway forward to pay the ACC competitively, and in turn, increase the subscriber revenue to get any sort of return on that increased payout.
                                                              And as in each school spending 7-10 million to build compatible uplinks at venues and their own production facilities ESPN actually got the SEC and ACC to cover a significant portion of the startup. The SECN has been up long enough to truly profit from the venture. The ACC was paid 2 million per school for sometime not to have a network. Why was the SECN based in Charlotte? Why did the ACCN open in Bristol? Answers: No added overhead in Bristol. ACC schools all invested in on campus production ahead of consolidation so uplinks and production facilities would be standardized. And Charlotte was chose because it will be a central location to an expanded SEC East reaching into Virginia while the LHN becomes the same in the SEC West. Texas and UNC are somewhat assuaged, the SEC offices stay in Birmingham and all is right in Mouse World.

                                                              All corporate future ventures are tipped off by where they build infrastructure today. And these facilities are solid for a streaming future as well.

                                                              As to linear I give you the B1G placing a put on FOX to absorb another 10% of the BTN. No matter the cover story this is a move away from holding 50% in a declining position.

                                                              Comment


                                                                Originally posted by John Swofford View Post

                                                                Ok...so 1 question I have......if ESPN believes in moving ACC pieces into the SEC (clemson, fsu etc etc) as so many on here believe, why in the hell didnt they do it BEFORE launching the ACCN in 19? Clemson and FSU were both riding high (in FSU's case higher) at the time the ACCN was announced in 2016.
                                                                How do you know they didn't try? And the most obvious answer is snagging Notre Dame. Getting into an agreement with the Irish was something ESPN could not pass up.

                                                                Originally posted by John Swofford View Post
                                                                Why did ESPN ask the ACC to round up a GOR before launching the ACCN? Wouldnt it have been easier to pick apart the pieces they want in the SEC?
                                                                ESPN got the GOR signatures long before the ACC got the network. In fact, isn't it true that the ACC had to sign two GORs before getting the ACCN? And isn't it true that the time difference between the first GOR and the arrival of the ACCN was something like 6 or 7 years? It's obvious ESPN was slow playing the ACC.

                                                                Comment


                                                                  Originally posted by Deadeye View Post
                                                                  How do you know they didn't try? And the most obvious answer is snagging Notre Dame. Getting into an agreement with the Irish was something ESPN could not pass up.

                                                                  ESPN got the GOR signatures long before the ACC got the network. In fact, isn't it true that the ACC had to sign two GORs before getting the ACCN? And isn't it true that the time difference between the first GOR and the arrival of the ACCN was something like 6 or 7 years? It's obvious ESPN was slow playing the ACC.
                                                                  I answered it clearly 1 post above. They'd like to have ND, but the ACCN was built at each ACC school to make consolidation easier. The equipment the SECN and ACCN has is standardized.

                                                                  Comment


                                                                    Originally posted by XLance View Post

                                                                    I guess it would be helpful to know whether or not if ESPN's contracts for the ACCN and SECN also include digital rights. If so the ACCN and SECN one day may be added to ESPN+ or sold as independent streaming feeds. As savvy as ESPN is, it would be a surprise to me if the Mouse didn't already hold those digital rights.
                                                                    The LHN deal very much covered a "Digital Network" as well, distributed in any method currently available or developed in the future. The transition does seem like it'll take the form of where we'll still see the SECN on DirecTV as well as direct subscription for however long the third party bundled distribution model lasts. Whether that is a separate add-on, or one big bundle of content who knows. Though, above all, what made these networks profitable was Disney's ability to forcefully bundle all their networks together and collect subscriber revenue from 30 year old mothers who only watched the Disney Channel with their kids. Once that goes away, the network itself isn't the driving force, but the content it carriers.

                                                                    https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...-contract.html

                                                                    C. The Parties agree that the full linear programming signal of the Network the full, continuous linear programming signal, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year) and the Digital Network (which the parties acknowledge may not be programmed on a 24/7 basis) may be distributed by means of cable, satellite and telco subscription television platforms and by means of any other distribution system broadband, mobile), platform, technology and modality live linear, time delayed) now in existence or hereafter developed and deployed during the Term utilizing secured, conditional access interface, user authentication and means of territorial limitation. For the avoidance of doubt, ESPN shall not transmit or distribute or authorize the transmission or distribution of the Network, the Digital Network or any other Content other than as expressly permitted under this Agreement.

                                                                    Comment


                                                                      Originally posted by FtwTxSooner View Post

                                                                      The LHN deal very much covered a "Digital Network" as well, distributed in any method currently available or developed in the future. The transition does seem like it'll take the form of where we'll still see the SECN on DirecTV as well as direct subscription for however long the third party bundled distribution model lasts. Whether that is a separate add-on, or one big bundle of content who knows. Though, above all, what made these networks profitable was Disney's ability to forcefully bundle all their networks together and collect subscriber revenue from 30 year old mothers who only watched the Disney Channel with their kids. Once that goes away, the network itself isn't the driving force, but the content it carriers.

                                                                      https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...-contract.html
                                                                      BTW, 2022 is the first year the ACCN will have had Comcast distribution.

                                                                      Comment


                                                                        Originally posted by JRsec* View Post

                                                                        And as in each school spending 7-10 million to build compatible uplinks at venues and their own production facilities ESPN actually got the SEC and ACC to cover a significant portion of the startup. The SECN has been up long enough to truly profit from the venture. The ACC was paid 2 million per school for sometime not to have a network. Why was the SECN based in Charlotte? Why did the ACCN open in Bristol? Answers: No added overhead in Bristol. ACC schools all invested in on campus production ahead of consolidation so uplinks and production facilities would be standardized. And Charlotte was chose because it will be a central location to an expanded SEC East reaching into Virginia while the LHN becomes the same in the SEC West. Texas and UNC are somewhat assuaged, the SEC offices stay in Birmingham and all is right in Mouse World.

                                                                        All corporate future ventures are tipped off by where they build infrastructure today. And these facilities are solid for a streaming future as well.

                                                                        As to linear I give you the B1G placing a put on FOX to absorb another 10% of the BTN. No matter the cover story this is a move away from holding 50% in a declining position.
                                                                        All of this was structured brilliantly by ESPN. Much of the sunk capital costs were borne by the schools. ESPN's costs were in terms of people who can be reassigned / let go and whatever studio ESPN uses in Bristol gets repurposed, like it was when assigned to the network in the first place. These networks are a nice revenue stream, and ESPN certainly doesn't want to kill them off prematurely. Though, the ACCN isn't going to die tomorrow by keeping the ACC funding level the way it is today. The "investment" is the rights fees paid to the conference in which I don't see a path where ESPN can get a better return on that investment than what it can get today. ND doesn't appear it will ever materialize, and OU/UT had the better fit in the SEC.

                                                                        Comment


                                                                          Originally posted by FtwTxSooner View Post

                                                                          All of this was structured brilliantly by ESPN. Much of the sunk capital costs were borne by the schools. ESPN's costs were in terms of people who can be reassigned / let go and whatever studio ESPN uses in Bristol gets repurposed, like it was when assigned to the network in the first place. These networks are a nice revenue stream, and ESPN certainly doesn't want to kill them off prematurely. Though, the ACCN isn't going to die tomorrow by keeping the ACC funding level the way it is today. The "investment" is the rights fees paid to the conference in which I don't see a path where ESPN can get a better return on that investment than what it can get today. ND doesn't appear it will ever materialize, and OU/UT had the better fit in the SEC.
                                                                          I look at the people aspect of the ACCN and SECN as a set of auditions for ESPN central. Several have been promoted like Laura Rutledge and Marcus Spears. If there is a consolidation the most versatile will combine at the conference networks and the most talented will replace older more expensive talking heads at ESPN. Its a solid system.

                                                                          Comment


                                                                            The video WVUBlue&GoldDude mentions something about players being compensated & a breakaway with an "NFL-like" format..?



                                                                            Talks on the impending death of NCAA (which should free up Kansas for SEC UCLA & Arizona, hmm would SEC take UA & USU..?

                                                                            Comment


                                                                              Originally posted by kopp0e View Post
                                                                              The video WVUBlue&GoldDude mentions something about players being compensated & a breakaway with an "NFL-like" format..?



                                                                              Talks on the impending death of NCAA (which should free up Kansas for SEC UCLA & Arizona, hmm would SEC take UA & USU..?
                                                                              The NCAA is not going to die. Even if the SEC/ESPN/BT/Fox allies secure a break away of, say, 48 schools, the clear majority of 1a (FBS) schools are left in the NCAA, as are all 1AA(FCS) schools and D2 and D3 schools. Unless the break away includes basketball, the very lucrative NCAA D1 basketball tournament will remain the NCAA's great money maker. If the break away intends to have the definite top basketball tournament in the country, one that makes the NCAA the new NIT tourney, then it must have virtually all the P5 schools, as well some G5 schools, and a few 1AA schools, as well as the BE and perhaps much of the Atlantic 10, MVC, and WCC.

                                                                              It is a mark of major ignorance to even let your readers/hearers think that some kind of break away will allow, finally, the major football schools to decide their own post-season. The NCAA does not now, and never has, controlled or been profited by the post-season of major college football. The NCAA did not create and does not run the playoff we have for 1A (FBS).

                                                                              Comment


                                                                                Originally posted by JRsec* View Post

                                                                                And as in each school spending 7-10 million to build compatible uplinks at venues and their own production facilities ESPN actually got the SEC and ACC to cover a significant portion of the startup. The SECN has been up long enough to truly profit from the venture. The ACC was paid 2 million per school for sometime not to have a network. Why was the SECN based in Charlotte? Why did the ACCN open in Bristol? Answers: No added overhead in Bristol. ACC schools all invested in on campus production ahead of consolidation so uplinks and production facilities would be standardized. And Charlotte was chose because it will be a central location to an expanded SEC East reaching into Virginia while the LHN becomes the same in the SEC West. Texas and UNC are somewhat assuaged, the SEC offices stay in Birmingham and all is right in Mouse World.

                                                                                All corporate future ventures are tipped off by where they build infrastructure today. And these facilities are solid for a streaming future as well.

                                                                                As to linear I give you the B1G placing a put on FOX to absorb another 10% of the BTN. No matter the cover story this is a move away from holding 50% in a declining position.
                                                                                ESPN has a studio in Charlotte that came to them when they bought Creative Sports in the 90's. Creative Sports was a syndicator of conference regional broadcasts, including Big 8 basketball. Creative Sports later became ESPN Regional Television, branding themselves as the original ESPN Plus (over-the-air). They were to the Big Ten what Jefferson Pilot was to the SEC. They also broadcast syndicated Big 12 basketball. Those of us that watched Big 8/Big 12 basketball remember the Studio 66 halftime shows...those were done from Charlotte. Once conferences put their content in other places, such as BTN, ESPN converted their Charlotte studios for use by ventures such as ESPNU and the SEC Network.

                                                                                Charlotte is next to the SEC footprint, is an airline hub, and is near some potential future members. ESPN used the existing facility there rather then build a new one in Atlanta or Birmingham for SEC Network. The ESPN Charlotte studios are 5 minutes from the literal SEC footprint, the state of South Carolina.
                                                                                Last edited by johnintx; 05-17-2022, 10:51 AM.

                                                                                Comment


                                                                                  Originally posted by johnintx View Post

                                                                                  ESPN has a studio in Charlotte that came to them when they bought Creative Sports in the 90's. Creative Sports was a syndicator of conference regional broadcasts, including Big 8 basketball. Creative Sports later became ESPN Regional Television, branding themselves as the original ESPN Plus (over-the-air). They were to the Big Ten what Jefferson Pilot was to the SEC. They also broadcast syndicated Big 12 basketball. Those of us that watched Big 8/Big 12 basketball remember the Studio 66 halftime shows...those were done from Charlotte. Once conferences put their content in other places, such as BTN, ESPN converted their Charlotte studios for use by ventures such as ESPNU and the SEC Network.

                                                                                  Charlotte is next to the SEC footprint, is an airline hub, and is near some potential future members. ESPN used the existing facility there rather then build a new one in Atlanta or Birmingham for SEC Network. The ESPN Charlotte studios are 5 minutes from the literal SEC footprint, the state of South Carolina.
                                                                                  That's a good history to know, as well as a strategic use of an acquired asset.

                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                    Originally posted by WoadBlue View Post

                                                                                    The NCAA is not going to die. Even if the SEC/ESPN/BT/Fox allies secure a break away of, say, 48 schools, the clear majority of 1a (FBS) schools are left in the NCAA, as are all 1AA(FCS) schools and D2 and D3 schools. Unless the break away includes basketball, the very lucrative NCAA D1 basketball tournament will remain the NCAA's great money maker. If the break away intends to have the definite top basketball tournament in the country, one that makes the NCAA the new NIT tourney, then it must have virtually all the P5 schools, as well some G5 schools, and a few 1AA schools, as well as the BE and perhaps much of the Atlantic 10, MVC, and WCC.

                                                                                    It is a mark of major ignorance to even let your readers/hearers think that some kind of break away will allow, finally, the major football schools to decide their own post-season. The NCAA does not now, and never has, controlled or been profited by the post-season of major college football. The NCAA did not create and does not run the playoff we have for 1A (FBS).
                                                                                    Woad, the term breakaway implies from NCAA control over basketball, and more to the point the socialized subsidies the NCAA uses for schools which can't really afford competition without such revenue sources. Football media revenue was very much a part of this until OU/UGa vs the NCAA freed it. The tournament then became the main cash cow for the NCAA. Make no mistake major brands drive ratings and profits. The NCAA banks ~70 million from the tourney each year to go into 1 of their 2 endowments which fund its bureaucracy. Those endowments would be sufficient but like the government the NCAA wastefully grows its scope to make further contributions necessary.

                                                                                    Every P5 hoops program and mid major program of note could more than double their annual hoops revenue if they left the NCAA's control and were able to capitalize fully on the tournament's value (which currently 1.1 billion annually). The spread credits of 2.5 million per tournament game is a paltry compensation in that the NCAA pays in arrears over 5 years while amassing 5.5 billion in the same time frame.

                                                                                    With NIL and Pay for Play this dies, and rightfully so.

                                                                                    Football still doesn't have self direction in rules and construct. This too mandates leaving a useless and outdated, and now wholly irrelevant, bloated and inefficient structure behind.

                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                      Originally posted by JRsec* View Post

                                                                                      Woad, the term breakaway implies from NCAA control over basketball, and more to the point the socialized subsidies the NCAA uses for schools which can't really afford competition without such revenue sources. Football media revenue was very much a part of this until OU/UGa vs the NCAA freed it. The tournament then became the main cash cow for the NCAA. Make no mistake major brands drive ratings and profits. The NCAA banks ~70 million from the tourney each year to go into 1 of their 2 endowments which fund its bureaucracy. Those endowments would be sufficient but like the government the NCAA wastefully grows its scope to make further contributions necessary.

                                                                                      Every P5 hoops program and mid major program of note could more than double their annual hoops revenue if they left the NCAA's control and were able to capitalize fully on the tournament's value (which currently 1.1 billion annually). The spread credits of 2.5 million per tournament game is a paltry compensation in that the NCAA pays in arrears over 5 years while amassing 5.5 billion in the same time frame.

                                                                                      With NIL and Pay for Play this dies, and rightfully so.

                                                                                      Football still doesn't have self direction in rules and construct. This too mandates leaving a useless and outdated, and now wholly irrelevant, bloated and inefficient structure behind.
                                                                                      Now you are talking about something very different from 40-48 schools separating for football and only for football. Yes, the value of major basketball programs, and even mid-tier ones, will go a good deal if the NCAA model is left behind. But for that to work long term, the split must be a very large one. Basketball requires many more teams for the magic to click. Most specifically, it will require a number of teams in the northeast. The smallest region for CFB fans is the northeast, and the region's production of top football talent has been dropping every 3-5 years since about 1980. So to make the break away for football, it would be possible with only PSU. But college basketball is a very big deal in the northeast, which also turns out a huge amount of talent. This new basketball division would need multiple teams located in the northeast. The must-have school list begins with Syracuse, easily the largest fan base in the region. It includes Pitt and BC, because of the two cities. It includes the BE.

                                                                                      The CWS is already underpaid, and it would be worth more if taken over by a group large enough to make a break away basketball division work well.

                                                                                      Comment


                                                                                        Originally posted by WoadBlue View Post

                                                                                        Now you are talking about something very different from 40-48 schools separating for football and only for football. Yes, the value of major basketball programs, and even mid-tier ones, will go a good deal if the NCAA model is left behind. But for that to work long term, the split must be a very large one. Basketball requires many more teams for the magic to click. Most specifically, it will require a number of teams in the northeast. The smallest region for CFB fans is the northeast, and the region's production of top football talent has been dropping every 3-5 years since about 1980. So to make the break away for football, it would be possible with only PSU. But college basketball is a very big deal in the northeast, which also turns out a huge amount of talent. This new basketball division would need multiple teams located in the northeast. The must-have school list begins with Syracuse, easily the largest fan base in the region. It includes Pitt and BC, because of the two cities. It includes the BE.

                                                                                        The CWS is already underpaid, and it would be worth more if taken over by a group large enough to make a break away basketball division work well.
                                                                                        Agree on the CWS and WCWS as sources of revenue which would be increased. As to the Tourney you only need the P5, the Big East and perhaps a West Coast mid major. The Cinderella scenario is miniscule if you actually check ratings. The Big East and whatever their West Coast counterpart would be need only expand appropriately. The AAC will likely have the best absorbed by the NB12.

                                                                                        Another viable strategy would be to have all but football members in the P5.

                                                                                        Comment


                                                                                          Originally posted by WoadBlue View Post

                                                                                          Now you are talking about something very different from 40-48 schools separating for football and only for football. Yes, the value of major basketball programs, and even mid-tier ones, will go a good deal if the NCAA model is left behind. But for that to work long term, the split must be a very large one. Basketball requires many more teams for the magic to click. Most specifically, it will require a number of teams in the northeast. The smallest region for CFB fans is the northeast, and the region's production of top football talent has been dropping every 3-5 years since about 1980. So to make the break away for football, it would be possible with only PSU. But college basketball is a very big deal in the northeast, which also turns out a huge amount of talent. This new basketball division would need multiple teams located in the northeast. The must-have school list begins with Syracuse, easily the largest fan base in the region. It includes Pitt and BC, because of the two cities. It includes the BE.

                                                                                          The CWS is already underpaid, and it would be worth more if taken over by a group large enough to make a break away basketball division work well.
                                                                                          Woad, perhaps FB is P2 with a smaller p3, but BB goes fully P5 + BE; everyone makes out on BB, including the p3 and BE, thus keeping the p3 close enough overall to the P2.

                                                                                          Comment


                                                                                            As Lee Corso is so fond of saying, and in relation to the B1G's projected 1.1 Billion dollar deal and large revenue gap which is expected to drive more consolidation, "Not so fast my friend!" ....

                                                                                            https://theathletic.com/news/big-ten.../HwenzbXl1NaI/

                                                                                            The Iowa AD says the real total could be quite a bit less!
                                                                                            Last edited by JRsec*; 05-17-2022, 06:54 PM.

                                                                                            Comment


                                                                                              Originally posted by JRsec* View Post

                                                                                              Woad, the term breakaway implies from NCAA control over basketball, and more to the point the socialized subsidies the NCAA uses for schools which can't really afford competition without such revenue sources. Football media revenue was very much a part of this until OU/UGa vs the NCAA freed it. The tournament then became the main cash cow for the NCAA. Make no mistake major brands drive ratings and profits. The NCAA banks ~70 million from the tourney each year to go into 1 of their 2 endowments which fund its bureaucracy. Those endowments would be sufficient but like the government the NCAA wastefully grows its scope to make further contributions necessary.

                                                                                              Every P5 hoops program and mid major program of note could more than double their annual hoops revenue if they left the NCAA's control and were able to capitalize fully on the tournament's value (which currently 1.1 billion annually). The spread credits of 2.5 million per tournament game is a paltry compensation in that the NCAA pays in arrears over 5 years while amassing 5.5 billion in the same time frame.

                                                                                              With NIL and Pay for Play this dies, and rightfully so.

                                                                                              Football still doesn't have self direction in rules and construct. This too mandates leaving a useless and outdated, and now wholly irrelevant, bloated and inefficient structure behind.
                                                                                              Like clockwork:

                                                                                              Last edited by Deadeye; 05-17-2022, 07:41 PM.

                                                                                              Comment


                                                                                                Originally posted by JRsec* View Post
                                                                                                As Lee Corso is so fond of saying, and in relation to the B1G's projected 1.1 Billion dollar deal and large revenue gap which is expected to drive more consolidation, "Not so fast my friend!" ....

                                                                                                https://theathletic.com/news/big-ten.../HwenzbXl1NaI/

                                                                                                The Iowa AD says the real total could be quite a bit less!
                                                                                                I don’t buy we’re getting the full picture there.

                                                                                                The BIG may not get another (short) deal equal to the SEC, but they should be close, and there are reasons why they should get equal or more in the near term

                                                                                                So either Barta’s definition of “nowhere near” is different than everyone else, or something is up.

                                                                                                We do have to factor in Fox increasing ownership of BTN, but there still should not be a huge disparity on a 6 year deal. Eventually networks will be leery on going long at record rates, as football (and all sports) decline in popularity. But it should not show up on the BIG. They also have to put in money somewhere, there are few less risk options right now Imo. Sitting on cash not ideal

                                                                                                If it’s truly closer to a few million more than it is double, is there some curveball?

                                                                                                Comment


                                                                                                  Originally posted by RealignmentFan View Post

                                                                                                  I don’t buy we’re getting the full picture there.

                                                                                                  The BIG may not get another (short) deal equal to the SEC, but they should be close, and there are reasons why they should get equal or more in the near term

                                                                                                  So either Barta’s definition of “nowhere near” is different than everyone else, or something is up.

                                                                                                  We do have to factor in Fox increasing ownership of BTN, but there still should not be a huge disparity on a 6 year deal. Eventually networks will be leery on going long at record rates, as football (and all sports) decline in popularity. But it should not show up on the BIG. They also have to put in money somewhere, there are few less risk options right now Imo. Sitting on cash not ideal

                                                                                                  If it’s truly closer to a few million more than it is double, is there some curveball?
                                                                                                  The curve is demographics + recession. Also the B1G got the massive bump in 2017. Their payout calculation is much more recent than was the SEC's T1, or the PAC 12's or the B12's. Who is screwed yet again is the ACC. If this proves true the SEC indeed has the leverage moving forward, and would get a longer look from ND.

                                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                                    Originally posted by JRsec* View Post

                                                                                                    The curve is demographics + recession. Also the B1G got the massive bump in 2017. Their payout calculation is much more recent than was the SEC's T1, or the PAC 12's or the B12's. Who is screwed yet again is the ACC. If this proves true the SEC indeed has the leverage moving forward, and would get a longer look from ND.
                                                                                                    Anticipated demographics won’t cap a 5-6 year, or cause a major difference in 18 months from SEC. Although it is coming, BIG tv deal will be one of the last to be impacted.

                                                                                                    Recession risk is a possible headwind, but on the other hand inflation is not a driver for these networks to miss out on locking in assets.

                                                                                                    I suppose several things coming together could limit, and Barta’s definition of a few million being different than most. Outside Fox buying more equity in BTN, the 18 months shouldn’t lead to too much separation between the deals imo.

                                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                                      Originally posted by RealignmentFan View Post
                                                                                                      Anticipated demographics won’t cap a 5-6 year, or cause a major difference in 18 months from SEC. Although it is coming, BIG tv deal will be one of the last to be impacted.

                                                                                                      Recession risk is a possible headwind, but on the other hand inflation is not a driver for these networks to miss out on locking in assets.

                                                                                                      I suppose several things coming together could limit, and Barta’s definition of a few million being different than most. Outside Fox buying more equity in BTN, the 18 months shouldn’t lead to too much separation between the deals imo.
                                                                                                      We'll see.

                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                      Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                                                                                      Collapse

                                                                                                      Go To Top

                                                                                                      Collapse

                                                                                                      Working...
                                                                                                      X
                                                                                                      UA-124223861-1