re: Clemson joins FSU in ACC Lawsuit

quote:

---

As I said, I don't think that's relevant anymore.

As we go more to a streaming setup, people are going to order services (including ESPN) 'as needed'. The money will come from the subscriptions, not the advertising. They need content, and more people will pay to see Texas vs Clemson, than to see Maryland vs UVA. There will be CFB junkies in Big 10 country who will order ESPN just to watch premium SEC games. They will likely keep it all season for those weekly matchups.
There's a few Big 10 matchups, but not a ton; not enough to encourage SEC (or Big 12) viewers to keep a Big 10 package all season. Might wanna watch Ohio State/Michigan/Oregon/Penn State matchups, but the rest is filler; either boring teams on both sides, or a boring team getting waxed by a good one.

That's the model we're moving to. The more elite teams (such as, yes, Clemson or Oklahoma, with a relatively small footprint, but a big national presence), the more you can market to the nation and keep subscriptions OUTSIDE the footprint.

---

Ok friend, listen .... not arguing here because this is the internet and thus it's all a fruitless endeavor unless I'm on the German Sheppard boards or the Physics forums where I'm learning applicable lessons. But scoob .... you're insane if you believe the TV profit model is built around subscriptions. They already tried that with college football PPV and it didn't work. It barely works as an NFL/NBA/MLB add-on package model geared toward the bettors.

Subscription fees (a few bucks per household per month) garnered via streaming services are for basic operating costs. That's it. They in no way are structured for profit. Profit is generated through ad revenue and through ticket sales and stadium related revenue and club related donor revenue .... on a college level.

Ad revenue is everything. And a great portion of add revenue, for college games, is generated via local/regional ad campaigns from businesses such as auto dealerships (a huge market segment), restaurants/hotels/tourism/entertainment (all on a local/regional scale), legal services and medical services. At least 30% of every event (inventory) are local/regional ad spots. Another 5% is allocated for the streaming service itself, depending upon their subscription deal, for their sales department to sell. Another 5% goes to charitable foundations (think Tunnel 2 Towers) and to the schools themselves for self promotion as well as spots to all one or both conferences, and the remaining 60% goes to the content provider ..... ESPN, CBS, ABC, FOX, et al.

The objective has always been, but until now has never been realized, to have a prime time marquee matchup every Saturday afternoon (1A) as well as a (1B) matchup for prime time Saturday night along with a bunch of filler inventory (2, 3, 4, 5, 6) with the other games.

OOC game ad revenue (broadcast rights) will continue to be governed by homefield advantage with the refs coming from the visiting (or sometimes neutral) conference.

In short, to counter your claim, Clemson and FSU will continue to have the option to schedule SEC teams as OOC games, in addition to their instate rivalry games. But they bring nothing to the conference as full-fledged members.

Anyways, this is now beating a dead horse. It's not gonna happen, it gets us nowhere. If anything it would permanently hamstring the conference. It would open the door for the B1G to swoop in and embed themselves in NC and VA, with flagship universities, when the ACC implodes.

Let the B1G gorge itself to death. It's better for the SEC to stay lean and mean.