The Conference Realignment Vigil- Update: Terps to Big10?

[El_Diablo]

Good points. On a related note, Swofford has said that the up-front costs associated with launching an ACC network were not justified relative to the expected return, when compared with what the ACC could get going entirely through an established entity like ESPN (even if it meant losing out on some broadcasts entirely). Perhaps that calculus will change at some point.

[Jderf]

Good points. On a related note, Swofford has said that the up-front costs associated with launching an ACC network were not justified relative to the expected return, when compared with what the ACC could get going entirely through an established entity like ESPN (even if it meant losing out on some broadcasts entirely). Perhaps that calculus will change at some point.

Also, I would bet that when he said that, he was reffering to the idea of the ACC creating its own ACC network. I believe that the up-front cost of setting up such a network will decrease significantly if it were to be created in tandem with an already-established sports broadcaster (ESPN).

[TexHawk]

That escalator clause makes no business sense whatsoever for the networks. ESPN/Fox would essentially be paying an extra $53-64m per year ($23-24m for the new school, plus $30-40m per existing Big XII school to account for the "escalator") just to move FSU or Clemson from the ACC (to which ESPN already owns exclusive rights) to the Big XII. If the ACC already has exclusive access to a particular TV market...why on earth would it pay any part of an extra $53-64 million PER YEAR for that same market??? Over the course of a thirteen year deal, that would come to an extra $689-832 million on top of what is already been paid. Unless the networks are run by a bunch of utter buffoons, that unspoken escalator clause is nothing but a fantasy.

This is all "funny money" to me at this point, but I can see some nerds up in Bristol with some sophisticated calculators making the case that bringing Florida State to the Big12 will create at least one, sometimes two massive football games each year with national appeal (FSU v. Texas, FSU v. Oklahoma) plus a CCG that most years will have at least one of those teams. Does that trump the other numbers you lay out? I have absolutely no idea. But that's about the only rational reason I can come up with.

[-bdbd]

I am probably being naive, but am strugling with one basic premise:
Given that, under the new deal, the ACC will draw in several very large TV markets - NYC, Boston, DC, Baltimore, Charlotte/NC, Atlanta, Miami, maybe Pittsburgh and Philly (?), etc.- how is it that the Big 12 can pull in several million more per year per school than the ACC? It seems too easy to say, simply, that ESPN got the ACC "on the cheap" and the Big12 negotiated a better deal for itself. Especially given all of the turmoil - heck, wasn't it just 6 months ago many were questioning the very survival of the Big 12?? - how do the numbers justify them getting a better deal from ESPN? What am I missing?

I will be watching Notre Dame and their reactioins to these new deals. What is their NBC FB deal worth to them per year? And how much do they get from the BE deal for other sports? Is the math getting close yet for them?



BTW, I just don't see the FSU fanbase accepting a move to the Big 12. I could be wrong, but just don't see it cost-justifying, given the harm it would do to their base. WVU did it b/c the B.E. was essentially crubmling in FB and WVU has always been a bunch of "social climbers," and clearly the Big 12 carried more cache (and money) than the B.E. ... but do you really think the FSU fans would see the Big12 as a more prestigious and better fit than the ACC? And say goodbye to that great fan following to away FB games. Just seems very unlikely, all for just $3-4M more a year? Nah!

As I mentioned above, third tier rights are a bit nebulous. In this context, we are talking about TV rights. UNC probably is making quite a bit on media rights on things like radio, maybe a coaches show, etc. So that $11MM has not gone down to zero. But the portion of that $11M which is related to airing football and basketball has been handed over to the ESPN contract (and not just yesterday's -- this was the case in the contract signed a couple of years ago too).

In the ACC, ESPN has the right to air every single ACC football and basketball game. Now, sometimes they will sell the rights to a syndicated network like Raycom or the ACC Network. But if ESPN doesn't have the room to air the game, and can't sell the game, the school has no rights to air it otherwise. So while this helps the ACC because it offers more national slots to air football and basketball games across all of ESPN's channels, it also hurts because if there isn't room or there is no demand to pick the game up, the game doesn't get aired, and the school isn't allowed to work out a deal to do it themselves.

Conversely, in the SEC, if CBS and ESPN decide not to air a game, the school can run it through pay per view or whatever method they deem best. Alabama did this last year. Of course, they certainly had the demand for it.

In the Big XII, each school can do whatever they want with third tier rights as well. In the event a Texas home football game or basketball game doesn't get picked up by ESPN on the first tier or Fox on the second, Texas, under the LHN contract, airs it on the LHN. If a KU basketball game isn't picked up by ESPN or Fox, KU can air it regionally through its own broadcasts. Obviously, the schools that have the demand to market their own third tier rights (say like Duke basketball) are the ones that are usually getting picked up by the first and second tier carriers in the first place. And again, in the Big XII and SEC model, a school like Iowa St. or Mississippi St. that doesn't have a ton of demand may see some of its games not aired AND not get to share in the third tier revenue of other schools -- so there is that. At least in the ACC/ESPN model, even if a Duke game isn't aired, Duke is still sharing equally on every ACC game aired on the ESPN networks with the rest of the ACC schools. But this is where a school like FSU might get a little irritable if they think they can market and sell their games not otherwise aired by ESPN.

So there are good and bad sides to each of these philosophies on how to treat third tier TV rights. But to the larger point -- yes, the ACC has given over all of its TV rights to ESPN.

Edited --- Chip Brown's article is a digest of message board rumor and innuendo tied to the facts of contracts and athletic department budgets (just like a lot of this thread, where I think it's fine). They were pimping it on the air in Austin this morning on his morning show, and it's just a joke that they pretend it is breaking any news. The only significance is that Chip WAS out in front in 2010. So now he has a following, and people that haven't been aware of the FSU/Clemson rumors now think there is something to them. I defended Chip in 2010 and a little in 2011, but he's mostly selling his name now and calling it a breaking story because he knows most of the people reading him are hearing it first from him.

[luvdahops]

I am probably being naive, but am strugling with one basic premise:
Given that, under the new deal, the ACC will draw in several very large TV markets - NYC, Boston, DC, Baltimore, Charlotte/NC, Atlanta, Miami, maybe Pittsburgh and Philly (?), etc.- how is it that the Big 12 can pull in several million more per year per school than the ACC? It seems too easy to say, simply, that ESPN got the ACC "on the cheap" and the Big12 negotiated a better deal for itself. Especially given all of the turmoil - heck, wasn't it just 6 months ago many were questioning the very survival of the Big 12?? - how do the numbers justify them getting a better deal from ESPN? What am I missing?

Size of the FB fan bases of member schools. UT's dwarfs anyone in the ACC, and I suspect Oklahoma's does too. In addition, I would guess that a much higher % of residents in Big 12 markets regularly watch college football. Certainly this is true for say, Dallas and Houston vs. New York and Boston. At the risk of being way too simplistic, it all boils down to which group of programs will draw higher ratings (and therefore ad revenue) when ESPN airs games on its networks.

[TexHawk]

I am probably being naive, but am strugling with one basic premise:
Given that, under the new deal, the ACC will draw in several very large TV markets - NYC, Boston, DC, Baltimore, Charlotte/NC, Atlanta, Miami, maybe Pittsburgh and Philly (?), etc.- how is it that the Big 12 can pull in several million more per year per school than the ACC? It seems too easy to say, simply, that ESPN got the ACC "on the cheap" and the Big12 negotiated a better deal for itself. Especially given all of the turmoil - heck, wasn't it just 6 months ago many were questioning the very survival of the Big 12?? - how do the numbers justify them getting a better deal from ESPN? What am I missing?

The Big12 agreed to a 6 year grant of TV rights last fall, basically removing any more rumors of conference instability for the immediate future. Now, that won't stop OU or Texas from flirting again, especially if everything blows up with the new world of a playoff. But yea, it's pretty clear that the Big12 today is in a much, much better place than it was in 2010/2011. Plus, adding TCU and WVU is an improvement on the field from A&M and Missouri (though not in TV sets).

BTW, I just don't see the FSU fanbase accepting a move to the Big 12. I could be wrong, but just don't see it cost-justifying, given the harm it would do to their base. WVU did it b/c the B.E. was essentially crubmling in FB and WVU has always been a bunch of "social climbers," and clearly the Big 12 carried more cache (and money) than the B.E. ... but do you really think the FSU fans would see the Big12 as a more prestigious and better fit than the ACC? And say goodbye to that great fan following to away FB games. Just seems very unlikely, all for just $3-4M more a year? Nah!

If you believe the rumors and Chip, there have been grumblings that some vocal FSU fans want out of the ACC. Of course, that's mostly message board stuff, and that rarely mimics the real world. But Chip is right about one thing, don't underestimate the pull of the fans. The overzealous fans were a factor in Missouri and A&M making those moves.

Also, as the numbers were discussed earlier in this thread, the difference is likely more than $3-4 million (even if you remove the rumored escalator).

[A-Tex Devil]

If you believe the rumors and Chip, there have been grumblings that some vocal FSU fans want out of the ACC. Of course, that's mostly message board stuff, and that rarely mimics the real world. But Chip is right about one thing, don't underestimate the pull of the fans. The overzealous fans were a factor in Missouri and A&M making those moves.

The other thing I've found is that it's not the AD nor the University President that end up making the final decisions. It's the Board of Regents/Chancellors/Trustees/Curators. What are they? Mostly just really wealthy and powerful fans. For instance, A&M's trustees included a dentist and a convenient store magnate.

Bill Byrne was quietly, but somewhat vocally, against A&M's move to the SEC (and for the move to the PAC 10 the previous year). Bill Byrne has brought more national championships to A&M in the last 5 years than his predecessors have combined (or its very close). Guess what happened to him yesterday?

[A-Tex Devil]

Also, as the numbers were discussed earlier in this thread, the difference is likely more than $3-4 million (even if you remove the rumored escalator).

My take on the escalator, purely my opinion, is that there is probably something in the Big XII agreement (which, by the way, isn't signed yet, I don't think), that adds X amount to the contract if a new school joins such that the per school take doesn't decrease. Someone probably distributed that amount to the current member schools and decided it was an escalator, then the internet took it from there.

Example -- add FSU and Clemson, and ESPN adds $40MM per year to the contract!! That's $4MM more per school!! That's $2MM more per Big XII school per new school added per year!! Woo hoo!!! Ummmmm... no. The new members aren't coming in for free.

So anyway - a macro escalator clause makes sense so each pie doesn't get smaller when you add teams. Adding teams AND increasing pie size seems a little less likely, unless ESPN has a model that makes it work. Possible. But just as possible that this escalator clause is a complete figment of bad math.

[A-Tex Devil]

Heard on the radio from an FSU official (I believe) that ESPN only controls ACC schools' third tier rights for football, but not basketball. Obviously that is great or UNC or Duke on rare occasion their game isn't picked up by ESPN. Haven't seen details to know if that is correct or not, though.

[msdukie]

Heard on the radio from an FSU official (I believe) that ESPN only controls ACC schools' third tier rights for football, but not basketball. Obviously that is great or UNC or Duke on rare occasion their game isn't picked up by ESPN. Haven't seen details to know if that is correct or not, though.

ESPN is required to show every conference controlled football and men's basketball game (i.e. every home game and conference game). If they don't they are subliscensed to Raycom to be aired on the ACC Network (national broadcast syndication) or RSN (for cable distribution throughout the footprint). There are no Tier III rights to fight about when it comes to football and men's basketball live TV broadcasts because they are all owned and aired through ESPN. ACC teams still have Tier III rights to broadcast every other sport as long as the game is not picked up by ESPN/ACC Network/RSN and full multimedia and radio rights, such as big IMG and Learfield deals. Other than FSU and a couple of others, no one else has ever cared about rebroadcast rights of games that already happened (FSU, Clemson, and Miami would replay football games the next day on regional networks, they can still rebroadcast the ESPN feed of the game on their regional networks). Additionally, all conference controlled games are now archived on each school's website as part of the ACC on ESPN deal.

[A-Tex Devil]

ESPN is required to show every conference controlled football and men's basketball game (i.e. every home game and conference game). If they don't they are subliscensed to Raycom to be aired on the ACC Network (national broadcast syndication) or RSN (for cable distribution throughout the footprint). There are no Tier III rights to fight about when it comes to football and men's basketball live TV broadcasts because they are all owned and aired through ESPN. ACC teams still have Tier III rights to broadcast every other sport as long as the game is not picked up by ESPN/ACC Network/RSN and full multimedia and radio rights, such as big IMG and Learfield deals. Other than FSU and a couple of others, no one else has ever cared about rebroadcast rights of games that already happened (FSU, Clemson, and Miami would replay football games the next day on regional networks, they can still rebroadcast the ESPN feed of the game on their regional networks). Additionally, all conference controlled games are now archived on each school's website as part of the ACC on ESPN deal.

Thanks. This is what I had understood before I heard the radio report. FSU guy was up in arms because the basketball schools could sell third tier basketball but FSU couldn't sell third tier football. He was wrong.

[-jk]

I don't really get all the tiers, so where does a game where - for instance - Duke sets up to play a non-northeast team in NY or NJ? It's not really a "home" game.

-jk

[Jderf]

Additionally, all conference controlled games are now archived on each school's website as part of the ACC on ESPN deal.

Wait, what!? That's awesome! So we'll be able to go back and rewatch a season's games whenever we want to?

[A-Tex Devil]

I don't really get all the tiers, so where does a game where - for instance - Duke sets up to play a non-northeast team in NY or NJ? It's not really a "home" game.

-jk

I don't think that's a conference controlled game, but could be wrong. I am also not completely certain how tiers work in basketball. I think we've just handed all over ACC home games to ESPN to air or sell off to regional networks. For Duke, that doesn't really change anything because we are always picked up. It's good to be the king in this respect.

For football tiers, the best example is the Big XII. ABC grabs the first game (tier 1), Fox the second (tier 2), and the home team for the remaining games have broadcasting rights if they can find a buyer. Some weekends ABC and/or Fox may have more than one choice

For football, tiers are pretty much non-existent for the ACC now. ESPN is just going to throw some combination of ACC football games on ABC and the three ESPN channels each week, sell one or two of the remaining games to regional networks, and the rest won't be aired. That's not as bad as it sounds since once conference play starts there are only 6-7 games. Plus when you add the Thurs and Fri night games that's more slots for the ACC. For exposure purposes, this contract is great for Duke football. The (possibly fabricated) fear is that the football schools are not happy with this new contract when compared with what the other football powers in SEC and BIg XII get.

[msdukie]

Wait, what!? That's awesome! So we'll be able to go back and rewatch a season's games whenever we want to?

You already can for the past year. You have to be a GoDuke Inside Access Member. Every game in most sports is stored in condensed and full versions.

[msdukie]

I don't really get all the tiers, so where does a game where - for instance - Duke sets up to play a non-northeast team in NY or NJ? It's not really a "home" game.

-jk

It is not a conference controlled game. That is why we played Washington this year at MSG on CBS.

[msdukie]

It is not a conference controlled game. That is why we played Washington this year at MSG on CBS.

But it IS archived on GoDuke as part of the ACC media deal.

[msdukie]

Tiers essentially do not exist for football and men's basketball. And EVERY conference controlled game is broadcast in both sports, even if only on ESPN3 or with a couple of basketball games, on theACC.com.

[A-Tex Devil]

Tiers essentially do not exist for football and men's basketball. And EVERY conference controlled game is broadcast in both sports, even if only on ESPN3 or with a couple of basketball games, on theACC.com.

That's good news. I guess that was true last year as well. That's the best part of having ESPN do this (depending on how you feel about ESPN 3). No matter what, you can watch Duke football and basketball. Even the SEC can't guarantee that every football game will be televised, and I know the Big XII can't.

I think they get every conference game on TV, but, for instance, getting to see NCCU at Duke or Richmond at Duke (for examples) broadcasted was probably not possible before the ACC contract that kicked in this past year.

[throatybeard]

If the new deal is what gets Duke-Richmond football games on TV, I think I'm against it.