ACC imploding???

[marcusluvsvols]

I’d want Clemson and Virginia Tech.

But ideally we’d be able to drop 2 schools to stay net neutral on count. I’d be looking to drop Missouri and the Shamecocks.

^^^ THIS. EXACTLY THIS. Best scenario as it adds the VA market and drops SCjr for the only good football program in the Carolinas at the FBS level. Make it happen fellas.

Edit: also Clemson has a football fanbase like a top tier SEC school. They fill it up at home, and travel well. Nobody gives a damn about the lowly gamecocks...their fanbase expects .500 football and is super content with the occasional 8-4 season. Clemson is like us, UGA, Bama etc in that they are recruiting and playing for championships...not hoping for a bowl game. Different standards. While Vatech has been down a bit post Beamer....they too have a very passionate football fanbase and are without a doubt a football school like nearly all the SEC schools. Good fanbase too.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I read somewhere that one consideration upon which seemingly no one publicly comments: A merger wholesale of the ACC and the SEC under the SEC banner. This is about who gets to negotiate TV rights, ultimately. The SEC has proven itself to be a strong negotiator, and with fewer conferences, the BIG10 and the SEC would control the most of the product in the marketplace.

If a wholesale merger occurs, there are no buyout stipulations for FSU, Clemson, Miami, etc..

Thoughts?

I'm not doubting Greg Sankey & Co's ability to drive a hard bargain. But let's put this in context.

The SEC began negotiating with ESPN on their new TV rights deal about 4 years ago. Maybe a bit longer. Back then, ESPN (and its parent, Disney), were doing well financially. Pre-Covid days -- things were fine. So ESPN was happy to throw money at the feet of a conference that was doing so well.

A couple of years later, the B12 took its turn setting up new contracts. This is post-Covid, but the fear was not yet in the eyes of ESPN's corporate execs. So good money flowed again.

At about the same time, the B10 was cobbling together a frankenstein's monster kind of deal with 6 different networks and channels (NBC, Fox, CBS, Peacock, B10 Network, and FS1), and again the money flowed.

But it was starting to dry up. ESPN, the leader in college sports broadcasting, was not growing. Not as profitable as before. Still making tons of bucks, but not as much as they were expected to. Their parent, Disney, started leaning HARD on them. Waves of layoffs began. Belts were tightened. And the other networks, who each have a much smaller appetite for college football, already had their places set.

And into this dark time walked the PAC, last kid to the table. Their timing was perfect. As in, perfectly terrible.

And now they're paying the price for it.

As for negotiating, I'd honestly say the ACC conference staff has proven itself to be cutthroat negotiators. Look at how tightly they were able to rope in all their member universities. To a good money deal, sure but one that takes away all their options for TWENTY FOUR years (they're halfway through that, 12 to go).

I wouldn't envy anyone going for a new TV deal these days. Luckily, the SEC doesn't have to worry about it again for a while (2034).

As to the other half of your thoughts, one point to contemplate: the athletic conference is a corporate entity in its own right. It exists. It is a partner in these deals, too. It's not just the 14 ACC institutions and ESPN looked together, it's the conference headquarters, too.

So if you were to merge the ACC into the SEC, what happens to that entity, to all those people? Think they're going to walk away from lucrative jobs without a fight? We've already established that they're some pretty kick-ass business folks (again, look at what they did to the 14 programs).

I think it'd be a knock-down, drag-out fight trying to disband or merge the ACC into non-existence.

Nah, no one in the ACC is moving anywhere.

Go Vols!

 

[fryeguy93]

The reaso


The reason the advertisers are paying premium dollars to the networks is for marquee matchups. They’re not paying premium dollars for Pitt. Or Cincinatti. They’ll pay premium dollars for matchups that add schools like Florida State and Clemson to the mix.

Keeping the big ten from acquiring schools in our backyard is absolutely a strategic move.

The real reason is because the SEC Network gets to be expanded into new states as cable providers and streaming services add the SEC Network as a part of the basic package. This revenue stream makes money (set-it-and-forget-it) 365 days per year 24/7.

The big matchups you speak of only happens a few times per season and the advertiser rates don't generally fluctuate greatly week-to-week.

Because the SEC Network is already part of the basic TV packages of South Carolina and Florida, adding Clemson does not make ESPN and the SEC more money as no additional households are added. The SEC could add 8 schools from Florida and it would only increase revenue stream negligibly.

This is why the Big12 was so anxious to add schools from outside Texas and added crappy schools in Ohio and Florida. This is also why the Big10 is not adding schools in their current footprint.

 

[jimed1]

So why don't all power 5 schools join the SEC. Then divide that into SEC North, South, East, West like the NFL. Or Split them all between the SEC and Big 10 since it seems they are the preferred destinations. Make them similar to NFC and AFC with the Big 10 champ and SEC champ playing for the NC every year. What to do with the Group of 5 teams though?
Seriously, this is just making it harder to get to the SECC and NC games. These large conferences are starting to get ridiculous.
To loosely quote Fulmer after the 1998 NC game, "Winning the NC game is easier than getting there."

 

[fryeguy93]

Long story short.

Because of the excellent contract 12 years ago. The ACC is not losing a school unless they lose nearly every school all at once. Some schools are rightfully posturing to change revenue distribution but they would need a television network to pay for a huge exit fee to leave and no network - with the current business model in flux is going to pay that in these uncertain times.

As the ACC TV contracts starts coming to a close in about 10 years, their may be so much ill will that it will implode. The ACC leadership is hoping by that time, that new broadcaster options and players will be available to throw money away again. This will likely be Apple, Amazon, Boring Co, or a new player.

No conference is going to step up and pay for Clemson and Florida State to exit the ACC without major concessions by ACC membership.

 

[TennMan101]

How about none of the above. Miami is the ONLY school in the ACC that brings anything we don’t already have. Hard pass on all the rest

I don't want to compete with Shapiro money and buying players on a daily basis! If Miami was allowed to join the SEC, they would have all the recruiting tools they needed to get top five classes every single year.

 

[jimed1]

Additionally, the ESPN gravy train is about to come to a stop and we don't know if a similar or better money source is coming (Apple, Amazon, etc)
Why would you expect ESPN to offer more money to SEC for Clemson and Florida State when they already have those two schools at a lower cost until 2036?

I already don't like that Thursday night Football is on Amazon. They are forcing people that don't have these streaming services to pay additional fees. No biggie for those that already have the service but if I did not, I would not add it for TNF. I personally don't think the picture quality is as good either.
I know the NFL is one big money grab but colleges and universities should resist adding financial cost to watching your favorite college team.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

The real reason is because the SEC Network gets to be expanded into new states as cable providers and streaming services add the SEC Network as a part of the basic package. This revenue stream makes money (set-it-and-forget-it) 365 days per year 24/7.

The big matchups you speak of only happens a few times per season and the advertiser rates don't generally fluctuate greatly week-to-week.

Because the SEC Network is already part of the basic TV packages of South Carolina and Florida, adding Clemson does not make ESPN and the SEC more money as no additional households are added. The SEC could add 8 schools from Florida and it would only increase revenue stream negligibly.

This is why the Big12 was so anxious to add schools from outside Texas and added crappy schools in Ohio and Florida. This is also why the Big10 is not adding schools in their current footprint.

I can't totally agree. Adding schools is adding eyeballs THAT WATCH. Subscriptions are only a fraction of the revenue money ESPN makes. If they can pull in more ACTUAL VIEWERS for games, they can sell ads for higher prices. I'd argue the ads are really where the money is anyway.

You discount ad revenue from having more of those subscribers actually watching their channel as negligible and I really don't think it is. With more quality teams, ESPN would expect more folks actually watching their broadcasts.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

I read somewhere that one consideration upon which seemingly no one publicly comments: A merger wholesale of the ACC and the SEC under the SEC banner. This is about who gets to negotiate TV rights, ultimately. The SEC has proven itself to be a strong negotiator, and with fewer conferences, the BIG10 and the SEC would control the most of the product in the marketplace.

If a wholesale merger occurs, there are no buyout stipulations for FSU, Clemson, Miami, etc..

Thoughts?

I’m pretty certain that there is no buyout for SEC schools. I believe the line of thinking is that if you’re dumb enough to leave the conference not being a part of it is punishment enough.

 

[WhenUrVolUrVFL]

I can't totally agree. Adding schools is adding eyeballs THAT WATCH. Subscriptions are only a fraction of the revenue money ESPN makes. If they can pull in more ACTUAL VIEWERS for games, they can sell ads for higher prices. I'd argue the ads are really where the money is anyway.

You discount ad revenue from having more of those subscribers actually watching their channel as negligible and I really don't think it is. With more quality teams, ESPN would expect more folks actually watching their broadcasts.

This.

Marquee matchups drive this entire thing. NC state vs Tennessee isn’t going to be NEAR the draw that Tennessee/Clemson or Tennessee/Florida State is.

It’s not just the 1 week either. After Clemson plays Tennessee, they’re playing Alabama. Or LSU. Or Florida. Or Georgia.

Having higher profile teams in the conference make the product better. You’re going to have top 10/top 15 matchups every week. With these profile of schools in the conference, you’re going to have 1/2 matchups regularly. It’s going to be tremendous for the sport.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

This.

Marquee matchups drive this entire thing. NC state vs Tennessee isn’t going to be NEAR the draw that Tennessee/Clemson or Tennessee/Florida State is.

It’s not just the 1 week either. After Clemson plays Tennessee, they’re playing Alabama. Or LSU. Or Florida. Or Georgia.

Having higher profile teams in the conference make the product better. You’re going to have top 10/top 15 matchups every week. With these profile of schools in the conference, you’re going to have 1/2 matchups regularly. It’s going to be tremendous for the sport.

Don't get me wrong, though. I don't think the Grant of Rights is going anywhere for the ACC. Unless the whole conference wants to leave (and many shouldn't because they're riding for cheap like Vandy does,) the ACC has them by the short and curlys.

TX and OU couldn't get out of the B12 GoR and TX has money to find lawyers.

I think this talk of FSU and Clemson or any ACC teams being available is premature. I don't see it.

 

[1974Vol]

I voted NC and VA. From a true football prospective it would be Clemson and either FSU or Miami. However, if you're looking at TV footprint, NC and either VaTech or Virginia make the most sense.

 

[tricky13]

this is getting out of hand

 

[EZE]

Don't wany any of them. Already too many with 16 teams.

Same here for sure. When you only play nine conference games per year, even 16 teams are too many unless you have divisions (which I actually like).

With that said, that ACC contract will be very hard and very expensive to break. So Florida State’s whining doesn’t really mean that much IMO.

 

[Volador]

I mean, it could come down someday to the BIG 30 and the SEC, just like the NFL has the NFC and AFC. I don't necessarily want to expand the SEC anymore than we have but, it might, just might, be to our advantage someday to consider expanding if the ACC sees serious signs of defectors. The prez of FSU sounded very serious about his demands/wishes.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

View attachment 568358this is getting out of hand

Stanford just tossing up a balloon to the Big 10+ saying......"You know you want us and ND. Just do it."

The ACC isn't taking Stanford and costing their schools a fortune to travel to the West Coast. They don't have that kind of revenue.

 

[Lars]

Nothing “southern” about Miami other than its geographic location being the furthest south. It’s NYC moved real far south. Zero southern culture. That’s why Mizzou should have never been let in and should be shown out. JMO.

You appear to be saying that Missouri, like Miami, is NYC gone south and does not have Southern culture. The school has a few issues, but I could not confuse it with Miami or NYC.

 

[Lars]

Exatcly. Miami is the 18th largest TV market in the US.
Top 200 Nielsen DMA Rankings (2023) – Full List.

St. Louis is #23, and we got folks wanting to boot Mizzou.

 

[EconVol92]

I thought that I read somewhere that the ACC grant of rights could be cancelled if like 8 teams or more vote to get out.

If that is true, I think that 8 teams would have to have a landing spot secured before that vote could happen.

At this time I could see, VA, UNC, Duke, W/F, B/C going to the big 10 and Clemson, FL State going to the SEC.

The question then is where do NC State ,GA Tech, Syracuse, Louisville, Miami, and Pitt go?

 

[fryeguy93]

I can't totally agree. Adding schools is adding eyeballs THAT WATCH. Subscriptions are only a fraction of the revenue money ESPN makes. If they can pull in more ACTUAL VIEWERS for games, they can sell ads for higher prices. I'd argue the ads are really where the money is anyway.

You discount ad revenue from having more of those subscribers actually watching their channel as negligible and I really don't think it is. With more quality teams, ESPN would expect more folks actually watching their broadcasts.

Ad revenue is negligible. The Disney/ESPN business model is built entirely on subscription revenue. A portion of every cable or streaming bill goes each network. ESPN has the most expensive channels at this time and it's not even close. EVERY single cable or streaming subscriber pays at lease $10 per month for all the ESPN channels (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNNews, SEC, ACC, etc) whether they watch them or not. ESPN wants ever channel as part of the "basic" package and the conference networks really only reach basic status when an in-state- or at least nearby, team is in that conference.

The conferences members get no ad revenue. They get a fixed payment. And ad revenue barely scratches the surface of operating expenses and licensing fees.

The only tangible way a conference network- and this is where most of the conference revenue is generated, makes more money is to be part of more basic cable packages.

Someone may think of a better business model in the future, but right now, all the rights deals and costs are tied almost completely to this model.

I believe the cord cutting trend and somewhat reversed as streaming costs are slowly reaching cable costs. ESPN has learned the cannot go to subscription model and reach the profit they currently have from "basic cable".

ESPN is "holding on" until the old model returns or a better idea presents itself.

Keep an eye on the Saudis by the way.

 

[Vol737]

You appear to be saying that Missouri, like Miami, is NYC gone south and does not have Southern culture. The school has a few issues, but I could not confuse it with Miami or NYC.

Not saying that at all. Nobody could confuse Missouri for Miami or NYC. I have just never thought Mizzou is a good cultural fit either for the SEC. I also have never been thrilled with aTm and now Texas/Oklahoma. Culturally, however, those teams are a better fit, imo.

 

[fryeguy93]

This.

Marquee matchups drive this entire thing. NC state vs Tennessee isn’t going to be NEAR the draw that Tennessee/Clemson or Tennessee/Florida State is.

It’s not just the 1 week either. After Clemson plays Tennessee, they’re playing Alabama. Or LSU. Or Florida. Or Georgia.

Having higher profile teams in the conference make the product better. You’re going to have top 10/top 15 matchups every week. With these profile of schools in the conference, you’re going to have 1/2 matchups regularly. It’s going to be tremendous for the sport.

Clemson/Tennessee would be one Saturday every 3 years.
The SEC Network in North Carolina is 52 weeks every year.
Not sure where I am losing you.
Even if Clemson played nothing but a schedule of Tennessee, Alabama, LSU, Florida and Georgia; That's 5 weeks compared to 52 weeks with SEC Network in North Carolina.
The individual SEC schools are not going to approve taking less shared revenue if they accept Clemson and FSU. Both schools would increase revenue for B1G and only Clemson would increase revenue for Big12

I was surprised they accepted Texas but that school is far more of a unicorn than Clemson and FSU.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Ad revenue is negligible. The Disney/ESPN business model is built entirely on subscription revenue. A portion of every cable or streaming bill goes each network. ESPN has the most expensive channels at this time and it's not even close. EVERY single cable or streaming subscriber pays at lease $10 per month for all the ESPN channels (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNNews, SEC, ACC, etc) whether they watch them or not. ESPN wants ever channel as part of the "basic" package and the conference networks really only reach basic status when an in-state- or at least nearby, team is in that conference.

The conferences members get no ad revenue. They get a fixed payment. And ad revenue barely scratches the surface of operating expenses and licensing fees.

The only tangible way a conference network- and this is where most of the conference revenue is generated, makes more money is to be part of more basic cable packages.

Someone may think of a better business model in the future, but right now, all the rights deals and costs are tied almost completely to this model.

I believe the cord cutting trend and somewhat reversed as streaming costs are slowly reaching cable costs. ESPN has learned the cannot go to subscription model and reach the profit they currently have from "basic cable".

ESPN is "holding on" until the old model returns or a better idea presents itself.

Keep an eye on the Saudis by the way.

I understand your position but then why isn't the PAC getting a big contract? Why isn't the ACC getting SEC money if it's all subscription based?

You seriously think less people on the crowded left coast have PAC in their subscription? You think the ACC market has less folks with ESPN packages than the SEC?

Why aren't they the same then?

 

[Carp]

ACC can't implode. The conference TV lasts until 2036. It's iron clad and basically states that each relinquishes rights to their TV rights for the duration of the deal. So Clemson regardless if Clemson leaves, their TV rights belong to the ACC, and Clemsob won't be paid since they are I longer in the ACC. We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars they would be losing out on.

They could always fight it in court, but it's unlikely to change anything. They could potentially negotiate an out, but I can't imagine the total cost of what that would be, but i would assume over 100 million and it would likely be due all up front.

 

[tennesseeduke]

These 4 make the most sense but I do not see how an ACC team gets out of that contract.

If I give you $38mill but give me nearly $200mill over the next 4 yrs and beyond, the return on that investment is worth it! Where do I sign?