• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Conference Expansion: Stanford, California and SMU Join the ACC

yes nobody outside of their own large regional fans gives a flying fuck about 75% of the b10 or sec schools either
 
BarcaDeac said:
Sounds like the Big 10 is kicking ESPN to the curb. Guess there goes the ACC Big 10 Challenge
Click to expand...

One of my first thoughts as well. If this is it, I guess it was kinda (surprisingly) fun while it lasted. We had the second highest winning percentage but are also leaders in being excluded because we sucked the year before. How about Maryland going 10-5 against the big ten and 1-7 against the ACC? The big wins vs indiana were awesome.
 
Sounds like they are already working on an SEC/ACC bball challenge. This will almost certainly hurt Big 10 bball. Saw a reporter comparing it to the Big East deal with FS1 which massively dropped their viewership.
 
deacdixieboy said:
Sounds like they are already working on an SEC/ACC bball challenge. This will almost certainly hurt Big 10 bball. Saw a reporter comparing it to the Big East deal with FS1 which massively dropped their viewership.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of questions about basketball. Football will be fine if they get 3 games on FOX and 3:30 and 8:00 slots on CBS, and 3:30 and 8:00 on NBC when they don’t have ND. They’ll be doing even better if they can get noon CBS or NBC games.

But if they have a bunch of games on FS1, FS2, and Peacock, that’s pretty poor.
 
BiffTannen said:
I wonder what ESPN's play is here. The $110 Billion NFL contract runs through 2033, so it's not like they're saving money to go after that.

Notre Dame is seeking $75 million per year from NBC when they could get $100 million if they joined the Big Ten. They're currently getting $22 million. Maybe they could wade into those discussions.

There's no way they're going to just give the ACC an extra $100 million per year just hoping they'll be more competitive and their markets will grow.
Click to expand...

There's an interest in keeping your malcontents happy which would begiving the ACC money. Now I don't think the ACC necessarily gets some 30-40 million per team boost. But just trying to piece things together from what we've heard and what people have said, a lot of people were shocked that the Big 10's media deal wasn't done before the end of August and then somehow the timeline got pushed to Labor Day.

Phillips wasn't talking out of his ass when he was saying he thought he'd be able to announce something TV wise by the end of the month, and when he did, pretty much everyone thought it'd align with hearing the Big 10 deal and then things would start falling soon after. At the end of the day, ESPN has inventory to fill and money to burn. They're not going to just hold onto it solely because the Big Ten wanted to squeeze the life out of them.

It would be zero percent surprising if ESPN bumped the ACC's contract up in order to promote the likes of Clemson/Miami/UNC/FSU, while alsohaving them moving to some sort of revenue sharing to account for some of the difference. Again, they're not going to make up that entire deficit, but there's no incentive to kill something(yet) that's giving you inventory. It's not a leap of logic or fanciful at all to wager ESPN would take that money and start trying to pour it into the conferences they have exclusively or a fair amount of their rights in order to freeze out the Big Ten.

ESPN is the dominant sports platform in this country, they'll do whatever they think is necessary to continue to have inventory across every time zone and continue to be that. Does that include throwing money at the Pac-12, throwing money at the big brands in the ACC(which in turn gives the smaller schools more money so they don't try to force their way out in a few years, and possibly keeping a fair amount of what they have with the B12? probably!

But any notion that ESPN has screwed up or wont throw money to keep their inventory is honestly not rooted in anything but nonsense tbh. With Notre Dame, that probably factors in more with the ACC's discussions
 
ESPN doesn’t need to throw money at the ACC to keep inventory.
 
PhDeac said:
ESPN doesn’t need to throw money at the ACC to keep inventory.
Click to expand...

In terms of the future? Absolutely. the GOR is ironclad in the sense that people aren't challenging it right now, the closer you get to it being over, the more likely someone is either willing to take on that fight or a network is willing to foot the bill to get a team or two that they want. The people who have been reporting on this stuff haven't been pulling things out of thin air. Thamel mentioned unequal revenue sharing weeks ago and that'd come both on the heels of more money into the ACC in general as well as the conference(read: network because that's who's calling the shots) wanting to keep teams.

It's not about just keeping teams in the next 2-5 years, it's keeping them past that. Even if this all dissolves into two super conferences, it's in ESPN's best interest to keep the brands they want. If teams feel slighted because of how they were treated(and some administrations do feel that way) + feeling they're a better fit for the B10, that's lost revenue for ESPN. The current TV deal is increasing anyways, there is a long term incentive in keeping the schools you want happy and that is something an entire conference can benefit monetarily
 
PhDeac said:
ESPN doesn’t need to throw money at the ACC to keep inventory.
Click to expand...

Agree. ESPN has a contract for ACC media rights for a long time. It would be unprecedented for a broadcast network to just gratuitously throw money at a conference that is already bound to them. BTW, ESPN has been in a financial slide for awhile; so rather than throw cash around, ESPN is looking to save money. Would love to see ESPN voluntarily elect to pay more to the ACC, but that seems like a stretch.
 
Cam, clearly ESPN will have to negotiate a new ACC contract in 8-10 years or manage the dissolution of the ACC in a way they can control. Nobody debates that. Unequal revenue sharing is possible, but it wouldn't necessarily come from a significant increase in the ACC contract. It could come from some additional source. Perhaps ESPN sells off some of the TV inventory and the ACC gets enough of a bump to give Clemson and FSU more money. Or maybe there's a "merit-based" plan that would give every team a chance to make a few more dollars.

There's no lost revenue based on how teams "feel." ESPN doesn't lose revenue if UNC wants to go to the Big Ten. ESPN brokered a deal to keep the ACC happy by keeping it safe from poachers. That's the deal they're sticking to until it makes financial sense to change the deal.
 
I also disagree that ESPN has money to burn. They are teetering on the abyss of not even existing in a decade.
 
MichDeac25 said:
College Football Playoff Board meets, discusses taking college football out from NCAA governance.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34414293/college-football-playoff-board-discusses-possibility-potential-restructuring-how-college-football-governed-sources-say

My opinion is that the goal of that would be to have some form of a CBA that regulates payments to players that players must sign onto if they want play in the league that competes for the CFP.
Click to expand...

A CBA wuld require a players' union to negotiate on their behalf. Such a diverse set of interests between the players, that seems unlikely. A CBA would definitely not be in the interest of the elite players who currently have no caps on their NIL recovery. Also, CFB is dominated by the South, and unions have a rough time getting started in that region. A CBA may be the best solution, but would be very tough to effectuate.
 
I don’t understand the diverse set of interests. Players would largely be on the same page in terms of basic rights and NIL. College football wouldn’t have to have a NIL cap or max NIL. Pro sports have that for parity not fairness between players. There’s no interest in infusing parity in college football, at least not among the drivers of an exit from the NCAA.
 
The college football programs have an interest in putting a cap on NIL deals because every cent that someone's willing to pay on an NIL deal is another penny that they can't access. I'm also quite certain that coaches, as recruiters, would much rather have a standardized deal, rather than managing NIL deals through a third party and hoping it somehow doesn't blow up in their face. Thirdly, everyone would like to see some order restored to the transfer process.
 
Biff, we were talking about a players union.
 
And who do you think would be negotiating with this players union ? NBC ?
 
It’s a conservation, Biff. You can read Pilch’s post. I was responding to him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top