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

[Scooch]

There is a lot of certainty about ESPN's motives here from people who really have no idea. Maybe everyone should dial back their certainty.

 

[Moontan]

Maybe everyone should dial back their certainty.

That's not happening here. People are opinionated and don't want to kill this thread nor this board.

 

[Scooch]

That's not happening here. People are opinionated and don't want to kill this thread nor this board.

Opinions are great! Who doesn't love opinions?!

It's just that a bunch of people who have never set foot in Bristol, CT stating as fact a bunch of things about ESPN is the height of silliness.

 

[WoadBlue]

orange79 is agreeing with me that it is to their financial advantage (profit) to continue to underpay the ACC. Yes, they don't want it to die completely, but they don't want to have to pay them as much as they pay the SEC. That's indisputable, or they would have helped the ACC in the past, like they helped save the Big 12 (but did not help save the Pac-12). The evidence is out there that they manipulate conferences to ESPN's financial advantage. With player unions and pay scales coming, ESPN wants conference consolidation. Fewer parties to negotiate with.

KEY points: ESPN indeed over paid the Big 12 to keep it together, conveniently until the SEC could persuade Texas and OIU to join, and so never be left to join the BT (and be on Fox). ESPN then refused to offer nay help to the Pac, which left is with its neck tied to a railroad track. There ewer reports that the ACC offered to take 6 Pac schools, and that ESPN refused to fund that. And that move then meant that the BT got Oregon and Washington.

Why would ESPN prefer to have the value of Oregon and Washington on Fox rather than on ESPN in the ACC? And at the same time riddle us how come ESPN has been loathe to do anything to calm ACC waters?

 

[IthacaMatt]

KEY points: ESPN indeed over paid the Big 12 to keep it together, conveniently until the SEC could persuade Texas and OIU to join, and so never be left to join the BT (and be on Fox). ESPN then refused to offer nay help to the Pac, which left is with its neck tied to a railroad track. There ewer reports that the ACC offered to take 6 Pac schools, and that ESPN refused to fund that. And that move then meant that the BT got Oregon and Washington.

Why would ESPN prefer to have the value of Oregon and Washington on Fox rather than on ESPN in the ACC? And at the same time riddle us how come ESPN has been loathe to do anything to calm ACC waters?

I would say that ESPN sees little value in the Oregon and Washington State markets compared to California, and to a lesser extent Arizona.

 

[WoadBlue]

I would say that ESPN sees little value in the Oregon and Washington State markets compared to California, and to a lesser extent Arizona.

Do you mean the states of OR and WA, or Wazzou and Oregon State U? Nobody sees value in the latter. But the former are indeed worth a great deal.

 

[kcsu]

In 10 years, I think most college sports will be streamed. For ESPN, the enemy is not FOX, but cord cutting.

10 years is an eternity

 

[JimBoston]

10 years is an eternity

Yes, 10 years is an eternity, but if you are a corporation signing LT contracts, you have to have a view of the future.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I don't buy into the ESPN vs FOX narrative that some try to play. I think it more likely the two have a joint streaming venture. I think it would be better to have both B1G and SEC fans subscribing to one platform than separate ones.



This is interesting about MLS and Apple

Link

 

[Nick44]

I need a sanity check here. In 10 years, will Syracuse be in a conference with UConn and UMass or in something that still resembles major college football? Half joking but would appreciate a temperature check.

 

[dasher]

I need a sanity check here. In 10 years, will Syracuse be in a conference with UConn and UMass or in something that still resembles major college football? Half joking but would appreciate a temperature check.

No one knows anything for sure. If they think they do, they are very foolish.

 

[orangefog]

No one knows anything for sure. If they think they do, they are very foolish.

I am very foolish, does that mean I know things?

 

[dasher]

I am very foolish, does that mean I know things?

I have done a lot of research . No. It doesn't mean that

 

[All4SU]

I am very foolish, does that mean I know things?

No. It’s when you know you know nothing that you know the most important thing.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[HtownOrange]

Thanks OX. AA basically stated what this board has surmised. There will be winners and losers on the money side. Teams will be fighting for time slots and exposure on the better networks, gives example of GATech owning the best ratings last fall based on Week Zero game with FSU, big Miami game, and the multiple overtime game with UGA. [Can SU be a player in the ratings war next fall w/Tennessee, Miami, Clemson, ND, UNC?] Teams can leave when they want (are offered a spot in the B1G or SEC), no one probably leaves right away but once the dust settles anything goes. The five years of stability can be cut short if the B1G or SEC make an offer, thus "stability" has no clear definition. Non-revenue sports may see cuts in team numbers to accommodate the expected ruling on NIL/Pay for play.

 

[AcAndAc]

Serious question... do additional ACCT basketball games increase our viewership/revenue share under the new system? Or is it something along the lines of eyeballs per game? For example... is FSU's early exit going to cost them... whereas our win yesterday is a bonus? I am sure we are talking couch money differences here no matter what... but if going on a win streak is financially lucrative... no matter how much you doubt Red, wins matter.

 

[NJCuse97]

Serious question... do additional ACCT basketball games increase our viewership/revenue share under the new system? Or is it something along the lines of eyeballs per game? For example... is FSU's early exit going to cost them... whereas our win yesterday is a bonus? I am sure we are talking couch money differences here no matter what... but if going on a win streak is financially lucrative... no matter how much you doubt Red, wins matter.

Great question, and I know nothing, but I hope wins matter. That was the case with this year’s football playoff. We should not be punished for extra games. I could imagine they compare average viewership, but total viewership would better benefit wins/extra games I assume.

 

[Scooch]

Serious question... do additional ACCT basketball games increase our viewership/revenue share under the new system? Or is it something along the lines of eyeballs per game? For example... is FSU's early exit going to cost them... whereas our win yesterday is a bonus? I am sure we are talking couch money differences here no matter what... but if going on a win streak is financially lucrative... no matter how much you doubt Red, wins matter.

No one knows because the ACC hasn't determined a method to deploy this new ratings-based system.

Most of the arm chair, online analysis has focused on the average game ratings for football. But there likely should be a volume component. Having 2 games that average 3 million viewers isn't as valuable as having 10 games that average 2.7 million viewers.

That being said, who knows if men's basketball will be included, and it so, how it will be weighted vs. football.

 

[Scooch]

Here's a pretty interesting analysis of CFB ratings from this past season...

 

[kcsu]

If SU is good and is playing a good team it will be a good time slot and rating. I think that our ratings this year could be very good as long as we have a solid team as we have the schedule for it.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Thanks OX. AA basically stated what this board has surmised. There will be winners and losers on the money side. Teams will be fighting for time slots and exposure on the better networks, gives example of GATech owning the best ratings last fall based on Week Zero game with FSU, big Miami game, and the multiple overtime game with UGA. [Can SU be a player in the ratings war next fall w/Tennessee, Miami, Clemson, ND, UNC?] Teams can leave when they want (are offered a spot in the B1G or SEC), no one probably leaves right away but once the dust settles anything goes. The five years of stability can be cut short if the B1G or SEC make an offer, thus "stability" has no clear definition. Non-revenue sports may see cuts in team numbers to accommodate the expected ruling on NIL/Pay for play.

Would Tennessee and Notre Dame even count if they are not ACC owned games?

 

[orange79]

Here's a pretty interesting analysis of CFB ratings from this past season...

View attachment 250274

Huh.

I must need much stronger glasses.



I can't see Florida St anywhere on that grid.

 

[HtownOrange]

Would Tennessee and Notre Dame even count if they are not ACC owned games?

Per the ESPN article referenced last week, the agreement is not completed (it may be done so now, I have not seen anything on the matter) and is not resolved on the exact issues of which games will count, cutoffs (X schools or any school of above X), it appears to settled that the split between football and hoops will be 75%/25%. Also up for debate is if/how the ratings will be adjusted for various networks (ABC has more exposure than CX, etc.).

All we can do right now is speculate. I am not sure all of the details will be released publicly.

 

[AcAndAc]

Here's a pretty interesting analysis of CFB ratings from this past season...

View attachment 250274

This is my concern... if the metric is average... a noon ACCT, 12-13 games is worse than the 7:00 p.m. game the same day. So we kind of make out well yesterday. But more games could be a detriment.

Interestingly, we might be set up well for next year in football with all the big viewership games due to opponent.