ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment | Page 69 | Syracusefan.com

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

I am hearing the new contract for the BE will not be a significant bump in revenue
Fox doesn't have any money left for the BE after they gave the B1G that huge contract. I'm thinking that ESPN would rather grab the best markets and brands than to allow the Big12 to get them. The Cooley to Hoyas rumor perplexed me but makes more sense if PC is going to be left in the dustbin. Also Pitino to SJU makes more sense as well.
 
Don't believe any rumor about the networks not having money. They have more money than you think. ESPN has more money for the ACC than they let on. They will keep giving the ACC more money, probably just enough to placate the majority and keep the peace, but they have more than enough money to pay everyone SEC money. If you don't believe it, take a look at the annual payouts, the ACC is getting larger payouts than the base agreements. No, the ACC is not making SEC money, nor B1G money, but the B1G isn't making the B1G money yet and they still obfuscate the revenues by pooling gate revenues with the payouts. (Which may be one reason they refuse to assist Rutgers in any favorable manner as Rutgers' gate revenue is abysmal and they are benefitting immensely from the arrangement and contributing nothing more than easy victories to the remaining B1G foes).

For all the big mouths on the interwebs that think ESPN is going to cut out the east coast markets for the SEC alone and give the east coast from VA north to Fox free of charge while splitting the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida, they are allowing yourself to be deceived. ESPN is in the game to make money, not lose money or to give up money streams to Fox of any other network/streamer. You don't make money by giving up revenue streams. If nothing else, the northeast brings in huge hoops revenue. I still believe they bring in more football revenue than most will admit as NY and PA are large population states, but that would take advanced research analytics from a marketing specialist/advertising specialist or TV type (Matt Sarz(?) are you there? anyone else?) of which I am not. Regardless, that is not how business works. ESPN is a business, as is the Mickey Mouse network, neither ESPN nor the Mickey Mouse Network has a history of losing money.

ESPN owns the SEC and the ACC networks. That means ESPN already hold 30 properties. Fox holds less than 20 properties. The problem for Fox is that they don't have big names to go after right now. Sure, ND is "available" but they are committed to the ACC at least through 2036 and really have no interest in the B1G as it is formatted now. Regarding the Big 12 and Pac-Leftovers, ESPN does not need to make a move and pay big money, they will be able to cobble a conference together and offer a reasonable deal for cannon fodder for the SEC and ACC. Sure, the SEC is ESPN's premier conference, but ESPN cannot alienate the ACC so much so that they turn to Fox in 2036. ESPN must keep the deal close enough to keep the ACC in the fold. Nor can ESPN allow the ACC to break up because they lose the ACC as a whole and they lose too many properties, further, they cannot risk losing the northeast to the B1G nor sharing the southeast with the B1G. Again, to do so, they will have to keep the ACC placated and close enough to the other two (SEC and B1G) to keep the ACC together.

For the B1G to win over ND, they would need additional east coast teams to cover ND's "national" schedule. I am not mocking ND, they like to play Navy and 5 other east coast teams (3 home, 3 away) annually. Two west coast (1 home, 1 away), two midwest (1 home and 1 away) and two whatever (1 home, 1 away). Disclaimer: If an ND fan corrects me, go with their correction. Anyway, ND will need a conference that allows such a schedule. We can assume that the B1G wanted USC for that purpose, and another west coast team. Also, it is likely the B1G picks up another 2-6 west coast teams over the next few years, per chatter. The B1G easily meets the midwest requirement. The problem is the east coast requirement. As it stands, the B1G has PSU, Rutgers and UMD. While ND could conceivable play PSU regularly and possibly UMD, it is hard to fathom UND agreeing to play Rutgers - let alone at Rutgers - annually. Thus, the B1G needs a minimum of two teams (this assumes Navy is a non-conference game) from the ACC. Rumor has it that UVA, UNC and GATech are the targets. They are legitimate targets for the B1G based on academics. But once again, that does not fully match the ideals of the national schedule which tends to rotate between major populations centers on the east coast and hits several in the northeast because of the heavy catholic populations (you know, they target student population recruit for ND). That would require the B1G to take more likely at least 6-8 ACC schools to get the coverage to draw ND's attention. This raises two major points: 1) does the B1G want that kind of expansion and at once? 2) Will ESPN allow the ACC to break up and lose so many properties at once to Fox?

In my view, it is hard to view ESPN giving up a money making conference, losing several individual properties to Fox for no return benefit. This shift would mean the B1G/Fox would now have 30+ properties and the SEC/ESPN would have 20ish properties (this assumes the SEC takes 4 ACC teams tbd). Sure, they may enhance the SEC revenues in a small way, but closing off the northeast markets is not good business for ESPN; nor is blindly conceding these same properties to a competitor without any returned benefit as Fox would get ND and the north east en toto and a share of the the southeast. Unless the plan is for the SEC to expand to the northeast, ESPN is not allowing the ACC to fall apart, even then, the ACC - including the northern teams - are rolled largely into the SEC.

Nor can you have a simple 30-40 team league with the "factory" schools. The "factories" must have fodder to keep looking good. That is why the playoffs went to 12 teams and six conference champs.


With six conference champs, the deal ensures that there will be six conferences or more. At least for a while. We may see the number shrink as the conferences grow. However, the numbers are basically an admission that there needs to be a large number of teams to ensure enough teams to keep some illusion of elite teams. Bottom feeders must exist. SEC teams, other than Vandy, refuse to be viewed as bottom feeders and lose revenue though they lack impressive conference records and are likely to have less impressive conference records with the addition of UT and OU. SEC bottom feeders need someone else to beat up on. Based on the fact that there are now going to be 12 teams in the playoffs, the minimum number appears to be about 90 or more, presently there are 120-130. And there may not be a real intent to force FBS bottom feeders to drop down to FCS or Div.2, it may be that they simply want to secure the haves and have nots while they can see the only real long game option is ...

The real long game is when the universities and conferences get smart and start negotiating as one league, like the professionals do. Only then we will get a real idea of how much money is in the system. Until then, the networks hold enough cards to keep the conferences at bay and guessing what is really available. Just a reminder, at each deal for the last 20 or 30 years, each conference has been told there was no more money. Each deal after that was increased significantly. We are also told that football drives the bus, but revenues show that hoops and football are roughly equal for TV.
 
Htown...vg post

My only request. Can you expand out how basketball is roughly equal to football for TV?
 
Don't believe any rumor about the networks not having money. They have more money than you think. ESPN has more money for the ACC than they let on. They will keep giving the ACC more money, probably just enough to placate the majority and keep the peace, but they have more than enough money to pay everyone SEC money. If you don't believe it, take a look at the annual payouts, the ACC is getting larger payouts than the base agreements. No, the ACC is not making SEC money, nor B1G money, but the B1G isn't making the B1G money yet and they still obfuscate the revenues by pooling gate revenues with the payouts. (Which may be one reason they refuse to assist Rutgers in any favorable manner as Rutgers' gate revenue is abysmal and they are benefitting immensely from the arrangement and contributing nothing more than easy victories to the remaining B1G foes).

For all the big mouths on the interwebs that think ESPN is going to cut out the east coast markets for the SEC alone and give the east coast from VA north to Fox free of charge while splitting the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida, they are allowing yourself to be deceived. ESPN is in the game to make money, not lose money or to give up money streams to Fox of any other network/streamer. You don't make money by giving up revenue streams. If nothing else, the northeast brings in huge hoops revenue. I still believe they bring in more football revenue than most will admit as NY and PA are large population states, but that would take advanced research analytics from a marketing specialist/advertising specialist or TV type (Matt Sarz(?) are you there? anyone else?) of which I am not. Regardless, that is not how business works. ESPN is a business, as is the Mickey Mouse network, neither ESPN nor the Mickey Mouse Network has a history of losing money.

ESPN owns the SEC and the ACC networks. That means ESPN already hold 30 properties. Fox holds less than 20 properties. The problem for Fox is that they don't have big names to go after right now. Sure, ND is "available" but they are committed to the ACC at least through 2036 and really have no interest in the B1G as it is formatted now. Regarding the Big 12 and Pac-Leftovers, ESPN does not need to make a move and pay big money, they will be able to cobble a conference together and offer a reasonable deal for cannon fodder for the SEC and ACC. Sure, the SEC is ESPN's premier conference, but ESPN cannot alienate the ACC so much so that they turn to Fox in 2036. ESPN must keep the deal close enough to keep the ACC in the fold. Nor can ESPN allow the ACC to break up because they lose the ACC as a whole and they lose too many properties, further, they cannot risk losing the northeast to the B1G nor sharing the southeast with the B1G. Again, to do so, they will have to keep the ACC placated and close enough to the other two (SEC and B1G) to keep the ACC together.

For the B1G to win over ND, they would need additional east coast teams to cover ND's "national" schedule. I am not mocking ND, they like to play Navy and 5 other east coast teams (3 home, 3 away) annually. Two west coast (1 home, 1 away), two midwest (1 home and 1 away) and two whatever (1 home, 1 away). Disclaimer: If an ND fan corrects me, go with their correction. Anyway, ND will need a conference that allows such a schedule. We can assume that the B1G wanted USC for that purpose, and another west coast team. Also, it is likely the B1G picks up another 2-6 west coast teams over the next few years, per chatter. The B1G easily meets the midwest requirement. The problem is the east coast requirement. As it stands, the B1G has PSU, Rutgers and UMD. While ND could conceivable play PSU regularly and possibly UMD, it is hard to fathom UND agreeing to play Rutgers - let alone at Rutgers - annually. Thus, the B1G needs a minimum of two teams (this assumes Navy is a non-conference game) from the ACC. Rumor has it that UVA, UNC and GATech are the targets. They are legitimate targets for the B1G based on academics. But once again, that does not fully match the ideals of the national schedule which tends to rotate between major populations centers on the east coast and hits several in the northeast because of the heavy catholic populations (you know, they target student population recruit for ND). That would require the B1G to take more likely at least 6-8 ACC schools to get the coverage to draw ND's attention. This raises two major points: 1) does the B1G want that kind of expansion and at once? 2) Will ESPN allow the ACC to break up and lose so many properties at once to Fox?

In my view, it is hard to view ESPN giving up a money making conference, losing several individual properties to Fox for no return benefit. This shift would mean the B1G/Fox would now have 30+ properties and the SEC/ESPN would have 20ish properties (this assumes the SEC takes 4 ACC teams tbd). Sure, they may enhance the SEC revenues in a small way, but closing off the northeast markets is not good business for ESPN; nor is blindly conceding these same properties to a competitor without any returned benefit as Fox would get ND and the north east en toto and a share of the the southeast. Unless the plan is for the SEC to expand to the northeast, ESPN is not allowing the ACC to fall apart, even then, the ACC - including the northern teams - are rolled largely into the SEC.

Nor can you have a simple 30-40 team league with the "factory" schools. The "factories" must have fodder to keep looking good. That is why the playoffs went to 12 teams and six conference champs.


With six conference champs, the deal ensures that there will be six conferences or more. At least for a while. We may see the number shrink as the conferences grow. However, the numbers are basically an admission that there needs to be a large number of teams to ensure enough teams to keep some illusion of elite teams. Bottom feeders must exist. SEC teams, other than Vandy, refuse to be viewed as bottom feeders and lose revenue though they lack impressive conference records and are likely to have less impressive conference records with the addition of UT and OU. SEC bottom feeders need someone else to beat up on. Based on the fact that there are now going to be 12 teams in the playoffs, the minimum number appears to be about 90 or more, presently there are 120-130. And there may not be a real intent to force FBS bottom feeders to drop down to FCS or Div.2, it may be that they simply want to secure the haves and have nots while they can see the only real long game option is ...

The real long game is when the universities and conferences get smart and start negotiating as one league, like the professionals do. Only then we will get a real idea of how much money is in the system. Until then, the networks hold enough cards to keep the conferences at bay and guessing what is really available. Just a reminder, at each deal for the last 20 or 30 years, each conference has been told there was no more money. Each deal after that was increased significantly. We are also told that football drives the bus, but revenues show that hoops and football are roughly equal for TV.
Well sure, there's that.
 
Htown...vg post

My only request. Can you expand out how basketball is roughly equal to football for TV?
I will have to search for the article, I am not finding it quickly. I recall it from the negotiations with the B1G or SEC, if I recall correctly. Anyway, it explained that the network (possibly CBS?) was getting more hoops games and it was worth the larger increase that the B1G? wanted to for the extra hoops games because of the ratings to balance it out.

In terms of simple math, football has 12 games at 3 hours, or 36 hours of TV time. The P5 generally have 7 home games so their network controls 7/12ths of the 36 hours, or 21 hours.

Hoops plays 30 games at 2 hours or 60 hours of TV time. P5 schools often play 18-20 home games, or 3/5ths to 2/3rds of the TV time, or 36-40 hours, controlled by their network. Obviously, the share of the market, time slot, and audience matters, but that is for an analytics specialist to decipher, I am not that person. However, we can see that hoops offers much more revenue opportunity per team. Further, we know that the standard argument has been that football drives the bus at 75/25 split, a 3 to 1 ratio.

For that to be true, assuming straight numbers, football would require audiences nearly 6 times that of hoops to warrant the assumed justification. Assuming the 3/1 ration and the the fact that football has half the total hours of opportunity, to make the ratio of 3/1 work, the actual TV ratings MUST average 6 times better football to basketball on a per hour basis. Remember, football must generate 75% of the revenue in one third of the time. Hoops must generate 25% of the revenue in 2/3 of the time.

While the big games may draw some big numbers, the lesser games simply don't draw the numbers. Fans of the teams involved are the primary draws in lesser games, even in a UM/Butgers game, UM and Butgers fans will be the primary draw, not much else. The casual fan will look for a better game.

Again, a serious analyst will need to run hard numbers but the numbers I have viewed - admittedly annecdotally - have never been skewed enough to warrant the ratio described above.

To further complicate the matter, the second maxim used in calculations is that the ACC is the exception to the rule, that hoops is the real draw and it is closer to 50/50. That does not really compute as the ACC remains mostly a southern centered conference, but let's not let geography get in the way of a good negotiation tactic by ESPN (or is it BSPN?). Anyway, if that rule is true, the "football drives he bus" rule is a false claim to begin with and the ratio is a false claim. Neither can be true in general, as stated without further proof of claim because the claimants (the networks) are using the claims to control their contracts. In short, it is a claim in self-interest, not a claim in fact. The claimant has the duty to prove the facts, they never have proved the facts for any claim ("football drives the bus", "the ratio is 3:1", "the ACC is the exception", "The ACC is more like 50:50"). Again, these are their claims, they hold the cards, no one has called them on their claims.

We do know the 2019 numbers for ESPN's CFB ad revenue from an outside source: $800M College Football Advertising Dollars At Stake For ESPN.
Regular season $793MM, Bowls $345MM. Hoops numbers are not readily available online. ESPN is hiding their own numbers fairly well for obvious reasons.

Back to the numbers, while each hoops game does not average the same as a football game, I don't recall each hoops game coming in at 1/6 of the football games. While there are stinkers, there are also great ratings games, just like football.

Further, we do know that hoops brings in more than $1B to the NCAA for three weeks of March Madness. NCAA rebounds in '21 with $1.15B in revenue CBS must at least double that in ad revenue to make a profit. The regular season must bring in substantial revenue, too.

Anyway, we have not addressed the fact that the northeast is argued as a non-CFB territory, pro-sports territory, College hoops secondary territory (yet another maxim which makes the others that much harder to prove). This only further compounds the arguments the networks put forth and the mindless mouthpieces regurgitate because nobody wants to challenge "conventional wisdom" when there is no documented basis for the "conventional" wisdom and some documented basis for questioning the "conventional wisdom".

Anyway, I hope this helps. I hope some serious marketing and advertising people can do the deep dive into this subject and show what is really happening. I know what I have provided is merely a simple overview and cannot be applied equally across a spectrum, rather it is a general hypothesis needing research. I neither have the time nor the skill to perform that kind of research.
 
I will have to search for the article, I am not finding it quickly. I recall it from the negotiations with the B1G or SEC, if I recall correctly. Anyway, it explained that the network (possibly CBS?) was getting more hoops games and it was worth the larger increase that the B1G? wanted to for the extra hoops games because of the ratings to balance it out.

In terms of simple math, football has 12 games at 3 hours, or 36 hours of TV time. The P5 generally have 7 home games so their network controls 7/12ths of the 36 hours, or 21 hours.

Hoops plays 30 games at 2 hours or 60 hours of TV time. P5 schools often play 18-20 home games, or 3/5ths to 2/3rds of the TV time, or 36-40 hours, controlled by their network. Obviously, the share of the market, time slot, and audience matters, but that is for an analytics specialist to decipher, I am not that person. However, we can see that hoops offers much more revenue opportunity per team. Further, we know that the standard argument has been that football drives the bus at 75/25 split, a 3 to 1 ratio.

For that to be true, assuming straight numbers, football would require audiences nearly 6 times that of hoops to warrant the assumed justification. Assuming the 3/1 ration and the the fact that football has half the total hours of opportunity, to make the ratio of 3/1 work, the actual TV ratings MUST average 6 times better football to basketball on a per hour basis. Remember, football must generate 75% of the revenue in one third of the time. Hoops must generate 25% of the revenue in 2/3 of the time.

While the big games may draw some big numbers, the lesser games simply don't draw the numbers. Fans of the teams involved are the primary draws in lesser games, even in a UM/Butgers game, UM and Butgers fans will be the primary draw, not much else. The casual fan will look for a better game.

Again, a serious analyst will need to run hard numbers but the numbers I have viewed - admittedly annecdotally - have never been skewed enough to warrant the ratio described above.

To further complicate the matter, the second maxim used in calculations is that the ACC is the exception to the rule, that hoops is the real draw and it is closer to 50/50. That does not really compute as the ACC remains mostly a southern centered conference, but let's not let geography get in the way of a good negotiation tactic by ESPN (or is it BSPN?). Anyway, if that rule is true, the "football drives he bus" rule is a false claim to begin with and the ratio is a false claim. Neither can be true in general, as stated without further proof of claim because the claimants (the networks) are using the claims to control their contracts. In short, it is a claim in self-interest, not a claim in fact. The claimant has the duty to prove the facts, they never have proved the facts for any claim ("football drives the bus", "the ratio is 3:1", "the ACC is the exception", "The ACC is more like 50:50"). Again, these are their claims, they hold the cards, no one has called them on their claims.

We do know the 2019 numbers for ESPN's CFB ad revenue from an outside source: $800M College Football Advertising Dollars At Stake For ESPN.
Regular season $793MM, Bowls $345MM. Hoops numbers are not readily available online. ESPN is hiding their own numbers fairly well for obvious reasons.

Back to the numbers, while each hoops game does not average the same as a football game, I don't recall each hoops game coming in at 1/6 of the football games. While there are stinkers, there are also great ratings games, just like football.

Further, we do know that hoops brings in more than $1B to the NCAA for three weeks of March Madness. NCAA rebounds in '21 with $1.15B in revenue CBS must at least double that in ad revenue to make a profit. The regular season must bring in substantial revenue, too.

Anyway, we have not addressed the fact that the northeast is argued as a non-CFB territory, pro-sports territory, College hoops secondary territory (yet another maxim which makes the others that much harder to prove). This only further compounds the arguments the networks put forth and the mindless mouthpieces regurgitate because nobody wants to challenge "conventional wisdom" when there is no documented basis for the "conventional" wisdom and some documented basis for questioning the "conventional wisdom".

Anyway, I hope this helps. I hope some serious marketing and advertising people can do the deep dive into this subject and show what is really happening. I know what I have provided is merely a simple overview and cannot be applied equally across a spectrum, rather it is a general hypothesis needing research. I neither have the time nor the skill to perform that kind of research.
FWIW one would think ADJW has something of a handle on those unknowns at least going back to his time at ESPN.
 
Fox doesn't have any money left for the BE after they gave the B1G that huge contract. I'm thinking that ESPN would rather grab the best markets and brands than to allow the Big12 to get them. The Cooley to Hoyas rumor perplexed me but makes more sense if PC is going to be left in the dustbin. Also Pitino to SJU makes more sense as well.
Pitino having dinner tonight with St. John's president. Looks like a done deal.
 
FWIW one would think ADJW has something of a handle on those unknowns at least going back to his time at ESPN.
I agree. Going forward, this should be a great benefit. However, ADJW was not involved on the ACC's or SU's side of the negotiations during the last contract. I do expect that he will pressure ESPN during any "look-ins", too.
 
The unknown is how much the football playoffs increase TV revenues?
The following articles estimate the new payout at $1.9BB total payout. Recall that the current payout for the bowls involved is about $670MM, thus an increase of $1.33BB. That is total payouts to the conferences.



There is a lot more money out there. The ACC is way under paid.
 
I agree. Going forward, this should be a great benefit. However, ADJW was not involved on the ACC's or SU's side of the negotiations during the last contract. I do expect that he will pressure ESPN during any "look-ins", too.

He was present for the first look in, 2021. It doesn’t appear that anything happened during that look in. Honestly, because of that I don’t expect anything to happen during any of the look ins until we get closer to the contract ending.
 
He was present for the first look in, 2021. It doesn’t appear that anything happened during that look in. Honestly, because of that I don’t expect anything to happen during any of the look ins until we get closer to the contract ending.
What are the payouts since then? I cannot find them. I am not mocking you or starting a board fight, I am stating a fact, I don't see anything to indicate that we would see any result of ADJW's effectiveness. It is also likely that the negotiation may take an additional year or two to take effect, depending on how the look=in is scheduled to take effect..

I can find the payouts in 2022 which over academic year '20-'21. ACC, Pac-12 see revenues move in differing directions

More than double of what was negotiated: Here’s a look at all the current conference TV deals

From $17MM to $36.1MM.
 
What are the payouts since then? I cannot find them. I am not mocking you or starting a board fight, I am stating a fact, I don't see anything to indicate that we would see any result of ADJW's effectiveness. It is also likely that the negotiation may take an additional year or two to take effect, depending on how the look=in is scheduled to take effect..

I can find the payouts in 2022 which over academic year '20-'21. ACC, Pac-12 see revenues move in differing directions

More than double of what was negotiated: Here’s a look at all the current conference TV deals

From $17MM to $36.1MM.

Totally understand. I have asked this question before on different boards too. But I have never heard a pin drop in any searches or news releases about the look-in since it was discussed. As part of the revised contract. I looked to see what year it was because I was hoping it didn’t happen yet. But I found out last year that it was 2021.

I assume, maybe wrongly that if something didn’t seem part of the ACC contract they would or someone would brag about it and talk about it. The ACC would have 100% thrown it into the media if something positive came out to change the whispers or perception of the conference. Something positive coming out of this wouldn’t be swept under the rug in my opinion.
 
He was present for the first look in, 2021. It doesn’t appear that anything happened during that look in. Honestly, because of that I don’t expect anything to happen during any of the look ins until we get closer to the contract ending.
Pretty sure we got accn instead of a bump at that look in
 
Pretty sure we got accn instead of a bump at that look in
Announced in 2016, and It launched in 2019. 2 full years before the look in and was part of the Louisville entrance I believe.
 
Announced in 2016, and It launched in 2019. 2 full years before the look in and was part of the Louisville entrance I believe.
Doesn't mean it wasn't apart of acc network launch
 
Doesn't mean it wasn't apart of acc network launch
It wasn’t. The ACC network was announced at the press conference when the ACC extended the contract by 9 years and signed a GOR until 2036. It has nothing to do with the “look-in”. That contract was signed July 2016 and the ACC network was announced at that time with a launch date of 2019. That has nothing to do with the first live “look-in” for 2021.
 
Totally understand. I have asked this question before on different boards too. But I have never heard a pin drop in any searches or news releases about the look-in since it was discussed. As part of the revised contract. I looked to see what year it was because I was hoping it didn’t happen yet. But I found out last year that it was 2021.

I assume, maybe wrongly that if something didn’t seem part of the ACC contract they would or someone would brag about it and talk about it. The ACC would have 100% thrown it into the media if something positive came out to change the whispers or perception of the conference. Something positive coming out of this wouldn’t be swept under the rug in my opinion.
I would not be surprised on the silence regardless of the outcome, good or ill. Historically, you are spot on. However, with ADJW's advice, I assume, the ACC has toned down a lot of chatter. He plays negotiations and plans much closer to the vest than do most others, he is much more like a business man (which he was) than others.

Just my take, no inside info.
 
Excellent posts HtownOrange .

From what I gather:

1. ND considers itself an Eastern school that happens to be in the Midwest because the main population centers for their alumni are primarily East Coast cities (FL and the Northeast) and Chicago. They don't seem to schedule West Coast teams often, just USC (their blood rival) and Stanford.

2. They've played USC forever because USC would play them when many in the B1G wouldn't because of anti-Catholic bias. Remembering from back in the day, Purdue seemed to be the B1G team they'd play most often.

3. Stanford is viewed as a peer academically. While they played them sporadically in the past, the annual game is a fairly recent development.

4. ND fans seem to have a fairly strong aversion to the B1G (remembrance of past slights?), to the point that many of them really didn't like the idea that they have to play hockey in the B1G because of the "mandated" regionalization of the conferences.
 
I have read the Zags will join after the Tourney which will probably pull in the 4 corners teams. The BigEast doesn't have a contract so they are vulnerable. I read that the Big12 is exploring a UCONN, St John's, Nova, Gtown eastern pod.
The ACC better be proactive!
 
It wasn’t. The ACC network was announced at the press conference when the ACC extended the contract by 9 years and signed a GOR until 2036. It has nothing to do with the “look-in”. That contract was signed July 2016 and the ACC network was announced at that time with a launch date of 2019. That has nothing to do with the first live “look-in” for 2021.
unless you were in the negotiations there is no way to confirm or deny
 
unless you were in the negotiations there is no way to confirm or deny
There is literally dozens of articles about this. That would be pretty terrible negotiating if they said hey ESPN, we want 4 look ins during the contract to see if we deserve more money. Okay ACC, your first look in wont count because we are already giving you the ACC network. Why would they even place that specific ”look-in” in the contract?

Unless you know something from someone at Syracuse and not one single person has every reported on this in the past 7 years. You are wrong. It is well documented on this board and in articles of what was negotiated. The first look in was not the ACC Network. The ACC network was announced 5 years before the first ”look-in” and the “look-in” was negotiated as part of the new contract to extend the contract and sign a GOR until 2036. The timelines are well documented.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
170,325
Messages
4,885,074
Members
5,991
Latest member
CStalks14

Online statistics

Members online
62
Guests online
1,317
Total visitors
1,379


...
Top Bottom