Started By
Message
re: How to Destroy the ACC
Posted on 8/3/23 at 1:56 pm to bah7tea
Posted on 8/3/23 at 1:56 pm to bah7tea
How about we take zero.
If you have to take some from the ACC, take Clemson and Florida State and let the big 12 take the other six. This talk about hey let’s take this and let’s take that is ridiculous.
If you have to take some from the ACC, take Clemson and Florida State and let the big 12 take the other six. This talk about hey let’s take this and let’s take that is ridiculous.
1
Posted on 8/3/23 at 2:19 pm to bah7tea
quote:
They might be the difference between a 24 team BIG negotiating with a 16 team SEC for Playoff slots/arrangements, as opposed to a 20 team BIG versus a 20 team SEC. If you're a TV network, would you rather pair with a 24 team, coast to coast league or a 16 team league that's confined to one corner of the country?
It doesn't matter. For playoff setup, you have to have the vast majority of the blue bloods on board. Nobody will accept a playoff scenario that doesn't involve Alabama, Texas, LSU, UGA and OU. They won't accept one that doesn't involve Michigan, OSU, USC and PSU either.
Will they accept one without Clemson and FSU? Yep.
You're creating some Big 10 vs SEC scenario. The reality is the number of teams don't matter, just the ones that viewers require be involved matter. And there are no other available teams that impact that aside from Notre Dame.
quote:
The ACC won't exist in this scenario. Even with the cheap ACC contract, ESPN may come out ahead if it can move four teams over to the SEC, drop the ACC deadweight, drop costs associated with the ACCN, and also block the BIG out of VA and NC and the South altogether.
Without both the SEC and Big 10 wanting to add teams, the ACC won't be able to disband. There won't be enough landing spots for teams in the ACC to end their 30 million dollar a year TV contract.
The SEC has no financial reason to try to end the ACC. ESPN doesn't want it either, they have networks that want to add the games to televise them... even Wake vs BC. They are still going to pay those remaining teams something to get those games. And the SEC will only add teams if they end up with the same or more per team.
That means you're looking at needing at least 60 million added to the SEC team contract per team added. If you're talking about adding four teams, that's 240 million dollars that needs to be added to the existing SEC contract just to break even. The entire ACC contract for ESPN is 300 million a year and they get games for 14 teams in football and 15 for other sports. The only way it makes sense for all parties is for ESPN to be able to increase the SEC contract by 250 million or so for the SEC to want to do it and renegotiate to get the fill in games from the ACC remnants for 50 million or less.
For comparison right now, the last AAC deal was for 83 million a year.
The numbers just don't work. ESPN has a great deal (for them) with the ACC. They won't do anything to end it early.
Posted on 8/3/23 at 2:40 pm to bah7tea
quote:
If the Big 10 gets an exclusive foothold in Virginia and North Carolina it's Appomattox Part 2.
I don't understand why everyone is so twisted up about getting UNC and UVA, its not 2012 anymore, we don't need to add new markets
Posted on 8/3/23 at 2:44 pm to DawginSC
The ACC was absolutely stupid to sign a 20 year deal with ESPN back in 2016.
I do find it interesting that the same deal locks Notre Dame into the ACC for football if they ever decide to ditch independence. In other words, all the people saying that ND will end up in the B1G are wrong, at least until 2035.
I do find it interesting that the same deal locks Notre Dame into the ACC for football if they ever decide to ditch independence. In other words, all the people saying that ND will end up in the B1G are wrong, at least until 2035.
Posted on 8/3/23 at 2:46 pm to MNW
quote:
I don't understand why everyone is so twisted up about getting UNC and UVA, its not 2012 anymore, we don't need to add new markets
I couldn't think of two teams that would be worse to add than those two. Both of those schools are east coast versions of Berkley. If people don't think Mizzou is a fit culturally, they would be in for a rude awakening with UVA and UNC.
Posted on 8/3/23 at 2:52 pm to dstone12
quote:
How about we take zero.
If you have to take some from the ACC, take Clemson and Florida State and let the big 12 take the other six. This talk about hey let’s take this and let’s take that is ridiculous.
The SEC will need to be proactive in the coming months and years to avoid getting in a position the Pac-12 got into with Larry Scott. Proactive additions are better than reactive and significantly better than doing nothing like the Pac-12.
Posted on 8/3/23 at 2:55 pm to DawginSC
quote:
You're creating some Big 10 vs SEC scenario.
That's the only scenario that matters when this is done. Spots on the selection committee? Auto-bids? Game sites? All of these details go differently if the BIG steps up to the table with 50% more teams and far better TV contracts and partners.
quote:
Without both the SEC and Big 10 wanting to add teams, the ACC won't be able to disband.
Colluding with the Big 12 is an option. There are many teams in the ACC that won't get into the BIG or the SEC, but would like a pay bump and a safe landing spot in the Big 12.
quote:
That means you're looking at needing at least 60 million added to the SEC team contract per team added. If you're talking about adding four teams, that's 240 million dollars that needs to be added to the existing SEC contract just to break even. The entire ACC contract for ESPN is 300 million a year and they get games for 14 teams in football and 15 for other sports. The only way it makes sense for all parties is for ESPN to be able to increase the SEC contract by 250 million or so for the SEC to want to do it and renegotiate to get the fill in games from the ACC remnants for 50 million or less.
Is this actually an apples to apples comparison? Latest SEC payout per team I could find for all media rights is $55m. A $300m deal with the ACC is $20m per team, but that's not payout.
Maybe the ACC contract is a sweet deal that ESPN would rather not give up, all else being equal. But FSU is already screaming bloody murder, and if ACC teams are willing to risk a legal fight over the ACC GOR, then things may have moved beyond "all else being equal."
Posted on 8/3/23 at 2:59 pm to bah7tea
We don't have to do anything. Starting next year, 7 of the top 10 highest grossing athletic depts will be in the SEC. 8 schools that have won a BCS/CFP title plus a 9th that has the potential if they ever get their shite together (A&M).
Posted on 8/3/23 at 2:59 pm to Landmass
This league is already breaching that firewall with Texas.
Posted on 8/3/23 at 4:25 pm to bah7tea
Y’all need to start thinking transformation…
This shite is going to be organized differently. The 1990 intercollegiate organizational structure will likely cease to exist in 5 years.
I think the schools’ athletic departments break away from the schools, become for profit businesses, and license the logos, mascots, real estate, etc. from the schools. The schools will get paid a royalty and will not be burdened with managing sports in a for profit environment and all the liabilities that go with it.
This would make the NCAA completely irrelevant and Title IX constraints are eliminated.
Conferences can then negotiate large-scale broadcast contracts with different channel providers. The attractiveness of those agreements will be based on the quality of the programs in the respective conferences. That is why I presume the SEC & Big 10 want to further expand.
This shite is going to be organized differently. The 1990 intercollegiate organizational structure will likely cease to exist in 5 years.
I think the schools’ athletic departments break away from the schools, become for profit businesses, and license the logos, mascots, real estate, etc. from the schools. The schools will get paid a royalty and will not be burdened with managing sports in a for profit environment and all the liabilities that go with it.
This would make the NCAA completely irrelevant and Title IX constraints are eliminated.
Conferences can then negotiate large-scale broadcast contracts with different channel providers. The attractiveness of those agreements will be based on the quality of the programs in the respective conferences. That is why I presume the SEC & Big 10 want to further expand.
This post was edited on 8/3/23 at 4:26 pm
Posted on 8/3/23 at 5:00 pm to DawginSC
Maybe, but does anybody think things will NOT change for the ACC within the next 13 years?
This post was edited on 8/3/23 at 5:12 pm
Posted on 8/3/23 at 5:10 pm to Matts El Rancho
quote:
blame Texas for destroying your prior league for whatever reason
multiple teams pointing their departing middle fingers at Austin is not “blame”, cow boy, it’s an indictment.
This post was edited on 8/3/23 at 5:12 pm
Posted on 8/3/23 at 5:47 pm to southernboisb
quote:
Maybe, but does anybody think things will NOT change for the ACC within the next 13 years?
I don't think it will change until the end of that time period. There aren't landing spots for enough teams to get even a simple majority to overturn the grant of rights. And the ones without landing spots aren't going to do it. If the network that owns their games doesn't want them to split either, why would it happen?
At then end there might be some early moves, but I doubt it until then.
Posted on 8/6/23 at 7:08 pm to bah7tea
I Think you're making good points.
ESPN pays about $40M to each ACC program (not including ND who isn't football member), about $20M to each Big12 program (FOX pays the other $12M/program), and will be paying somewhere between $70M now, but approaching $100M by 2030 for each SEC program going forward until the deal is up.
If 4 ACC programs went from ACC to SEC, 4 ACC to BIG 10, and another 4 ACC to BIG 12:
ESPN would Pay $120M-$240M for the teams going to SEC, save $160M for teams going to BIG10, save $80M for teams going to BIG12, and then save an additional $80M for the remaining programs who don't get an invite to either 3.
At the end of the day this would be $80-$200M in savings for ESPN. And that's assuming all these programs would be full share.
As we saw with Oregon it's entirely possible, the SEC could try to add like 2 of FSU, UNC, Clemson, and Miami at Full-Shares, then 2 of UVA/VTech/GTech/NCSt as Half-Shares (which would potentially save ESPN money in short-term).
Really for ESPN this can mostly be considered shuffling the deck, and dropping the bottom programs. Hell it's possible ESPN can enter the Big10 deal by providing half the share (and Fox covering the other half for these additions) as a way of "settling" the GOR buyout. They'd be paying the Same or less, for Better games...
ESPN pays about $40M to each ACC program (not including ND who isn't football member), about $20M to each Big12 program (FOX pays the other $12M/program), and will be paying somewhere between $70M now, but approaching $100M by 2030 for each SEC program going forward until the deal is up.
If 4 ACC programs went from ACC to SEC, 4 ACC to BIG 10, and another 4 ACC to BIG 12:
ESPN would Pay $120M-$240M for the teams going to SEC, save $160M for teams going to BIG10, save $80M for teams going to BIG12, and then save an additional $80M for the remaining programs who don't get an invite to either 3.
At the end of the day this would be $80-$200M in savings for ESPN. And that's assuming all these programs would be full share.
As we saw with Oregon it's entirely possible, the SEC could try to add like 2 of FSU, UNC, Clemson, and Miami at Full-Shares, then 2 of UVA/VTech/GTech/NCSt as Half-Shares (which would potentially save ESPN money in short-term).
Really for ESPN this can mostly be considered shuffling the deck, and dropping the bottom programs. Hell it's possible ESPN can enter the Big10 deal by providing half the share (and Fox covering the other half for these additions) as a way of "settling" the GOR buyout. They'd be paying the Same or less, for Better games...
Posted on 8/6/23 at 7:37 pm to bah7tea
The rest of the country could be in one giant super conference and they would still be inferior to the SEC.
We have no reason to expand more when the current expansion has not started yet.
We have no reason to expand more when the current expansion has not started yet.
Posted on 8/6/23 at 7:51 pm to Landmass
quote:
I couldn't think of two teams that would be worse to add than those two. Both of those schools are east coast versions of Berkley. If people don't think Mizzou is a fit culturally, they would be in for a rude awakening with UVA and UNC.
You keep saying stuff like that. In reality these two schools are run by Greek life like other southern schools. There are some liberals but don’t Bama and UGA have libtards writing for the school paper and stuff. The lib thing is way overblown.
This post was edited on 8/6/23 at 7:52 pm
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News