ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment

[GoSU96]

I am guessing that ESPN wanted to be protected in case the rollout of the ACCN was a disaster, a lot of major cable systems did not pick it up and it turned out to be a big money loser.

That is surely why the term option was 2 years after the ACCN went on air.

Why the ACC agreed to allow them to retain that and push it out 5 years (or whatever the extension length was) is beyond me. The ACC commissioner apparently did this on his own and it was stupid.

Regarding the ACCN, that would be something that within the deal I could see be subject to revocation, as in if ESPN didn’t hit certain numbers they could revoke their obligation to have a dedicated network. They might want to do that without terminating the entire agreement.

 

[Moontan]

Play an 11 game schedule and a four team conference tournament for the championship. The division and best highest wild card.

Everyone else plays a crossover game TBD to end the year. Have a marker team signed up to play the last odd team.

That's not going to work for the schools with an annual SEC game.
It would also affect all schools (?) that normally have an FCS game.

 

[All4SU]

C'mon over, Utah, and give us that lacrosse AQ!

It’s inconceivable to me that the ACC has t put pressure on the non-lax schools to add the sport.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

It’s inconceivable to me that the ACC has t put pressure on the non-lax schools to add the sport.

It's only 48 more scholarships.

SMU can afford it. Lots of LAX talent in Texas.

 

[sutomcat]

Regarding the ACCN, that would be something that within the deal I could see be subject to revocation, as in if ESPN didn’t hit certain numbers they could revoke their obligation to have a dedicated network. They might want to do that without terminating the entire agreement.

That makes some sense.

That said, I have never heard of any conference-network contract where the network has a chance to terminate it early. If it is a 10 year contract, it expires in 10 years. Period. And I think this was the case with the original contract the ACC signed with ESPN.

The clause was clearly tied to the ACCN and I assume it was added when ESPN made the commitment to make the ACCN happen. But in order to get ACCN, ESPN made the ACC extend their contract to 2036.

At that time, I think most industry experts knew this was a good deal for ESPN but no one knew just how great it was. I am thinking they asked for an out in case the industry collapsed, so they would not have to be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in payments for 15-20 years no matter what? They knew the ACC was desperate and would agree to pretty much anything they wanted.

Kind of surprised ESPN has not announced they are waiving their right to revoke the contract already but I assume they are using it as leverage to get the conference to do what they want it to do.

 

[Hoo's That]

It's only 48 more scholarships.

SMU can afford it. Lots of LAX talent in Texas.

At one point, UVa had 3 starters from Texas. There was some speculation about adding sports on their board.

 

[HtownOrange]

At that time, I think most industry experts knew this was a good deal for ESPN but no one knew just how great it was. I am thinking they asked for an out in case the industry collapsed, so they would not have to be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in payments for 15-20 years no matter what?

The Longhorn Network comes to mind. ESPN paid UT $10MM annually and ESPN lost a lot of money on the deal.

 

[Scooch]

It's only 48 more scholarships.

SMU can afford it. Lots of LAX talent in Texas.

My understanding is that It's not 48, it's whatever a school wants it to be. That's what the rule change meant.

It could go from 12.6 to 100 if a school wanted. Or it can go to zero.

I also find it hysterical when people think lacrosse has any impact on conference realignment. Like side splittingly hysterical. I know you weren’t doing that OX.