FSU vs The ACC

[Cheriehoop]

I don’t like the idea of giving FSU or Clemson a penny more than what’s already agreed to

Agree because if they cave, only more will follow with their own lawsuits - UVA, UNC etc

 

[kcsu]

At this point the ACC will say no. But this does open the door for a compromise one that keeps the GOR in place while also providing a premium distribution for viewership and on field results. One caveat is that I would also add a third element which would be classroom achievement.

 

[elimunelson]

I think it's very difficult to forecast out more than a couple years at this point. The insatiable greed need to grow revenue might be quenched by PE getting involved. If that happens then conference expansion may not be as necessary.

PE will be amazingly awful for college sports. They'll provide a ton of funding and a TON of job cuts in these bloated athletic departments. Could possibly be the best/worst thing ever for college administration. The likes of Ares, KKR, Bain would be frothing at the mouth looking under the hood at SUAD.

 

[HtownOrange]

Giving a partner more because of who he is = stupid.
Giving him more because he's getting a commission and he sold more = motivational.
If the ACC agrees to paying more based on TV ratings, isn't that a commission?

Sort of: because Clemson and FSU have the name and coverage presently, they will automatically get the lion's share. Both agreed several times over for an equal share. Both are costing member schools to foot huge legal bills. In short, if Clemson and FSU want to square up all of the damage they have caused and then argue a performance based plan, I might listen. As for now, they owe a lot to the ACC schools and have already committed themselves to an equal share the through 2036.

Just my take.

 

[WoadBlue]

ESPN is going to be sorry when Fran builds the program back to top level, and Red gets us back in Basketball, and they want a new extension, and we tell them go to H**L.

What the ACC has to do is survive this time intact and then it can be on the open market.

Survive.

 

[WoadBlue]

Sort of: because Clemson and FSU have the name and coverage presently, they will automatically get the lion's share. Both agreed several times over for an equal share. Both are costing member schools to foot huge legal bills. In short, if Clemson and FSU want to square up all of the damage they have caused and then argue a performance based plan, I might listen. As for now, they owe a lot to the ACC schools and have already committed themselves to an equal share the through 2036.

Just my take.

If both leave the ACC and are not replaced by a couple of schools that are large state schools with fairly comparable football history and proven TV power, then the ACC will no longer be a Major conference in any meaningful sense.

Will you think that result good for Syracuse or anybody else left in the ACC at that time? If not then you need to back something new that the ACC has not yet tried so that the chances of the ACC surviving intact to get back open the open market are maximized.

 

[HtownOrange]

If both leave the ACC and are not replaced by a couple of schools that are large state schools with fairly comparable football history and proven TV power, then the ACC will no longer be a Major conference in any meaningful sense.

Will you think that result good for Syracuse or anybody else left in the ACC at that time? If not then you need to back something new that the ACC has not yet tried so that the chances of the ACC surviving intact to get back open the open market are maximized.

Their lawsuits are weak at best and frivolous and fraudulent at worst. I am not sure why anyone believes the ACC should fold to their demands.

If they are going to walk, let them...in 2036. You nor I can stop them. Any placating their greed will only delay their actions.

I believe the landscape in 2036 is going to be much different. The top heavy SEC and B1G are going to push teams considered to traditional powers into mediocrity or worse. Teams will want expansion for in-conference tomato cans (Rutgers can only do so much to help the B1G in their own) or will be looking to go back to regional conferences.

 

[elimunelson]

Their lawsuits are weak at best and frivolous and fraudulent at worst. I am not sure why anyone believes the ACC should fold to their demands.

If they are going to walk, let them...in 2036. You nor I can stop them. Any placating their greed will only delay their actions.

I believe the landscape in 2036 is going to be much different. The top heavy SEC and B1G are going to push teams considered to traditional powers into mediocrity or worse. Teams will want expansion for in-conference tomato cans (Rutgers can only do so much to help the B1G in their own) or will be looking to go back to regional conferences.

That's fair Htown and you are a measured source of takes here. However, the ACC is also spending money to fight these lawsuits and there's a human toll on the ACC front office to deal with this chicanery from FSU/Clemson. It sucks to manage pleadings, lawyers, etc. No one wants this to keep going even if the legal arguments are 98-2 in favor of the ACC.

Perhaps if they can rejigger how the payouts occur and get to the same place as we would be in 2030 (where the buyout may be inevitably anyway for those schools) the idea of peace till then may be attractive to the schools and their presidents.

These presidents of universities are not sith lords. they are in a conference to be together. I sense a deal will happen. I always thought it would be a divorce settlement but a cohabitation agreement that gets us to 2030 (when it'll all blow up) is not a bad thing.

 

[Cusefan69]

It’s not the revenue that’s the prize, it’s the GOR ending in 2030.

Which I don't think anyone believes will happen.

 

[SUskibum]

Giving a partner more because of who he is = stupid.
Giving him more because he's getting a commission and he sold more = motivational.
If the ACC agrees to paying more based on TV ratings, isn't that a commission?

Not an insane thought in cocept but nearly impossible to practically implement

Were ratings higher/lower because the opponenent was a huge/terrible draw?

Were ratings higher/lower because of the better/worse day of week or time of day than others?

Were ratings higher/lower because of the network it was broadcast on?

Were ratings higher/lower because of other games being played at the same time that were great/terrible draws?

Were ratings higher/lower on more/less profitable platforms (ESPN+/Comcast/Spectrum/Hulu/YTTV/etc)


When you only have 12 games a year, you cant just use the average or median because the sample is too small to wash out all of the above drivers of ratings, independent of the actual team interest.

 

[orangefog]

Not an insane thought in cocept but nearly impossible to practically implement

Were ratings higher/lower because the opponenent was a huge/terrible draw?

Were ratings higher/lower because of the better/worse day of week or time of day than others?

Were ratings higher/lower because of the network it was broadcast on?

Were ratings higher/lower because of other games being played at the same time that were great/terrible draws?

Were ratings higher/lower on more/less profitable platforms (ESPN+/Comcast/Spectrum/Hulu/YTTV/etc)


When you only have 12 games a year, you can just use the average or median because the sample is too small to wash out all of the above drivers of ratings, independent of the actual team interest.

That is the key question. How do you balance who is on which network and at what time? The lower teams will be relegated to ACCNX exclusively, even more than now.

 

[baggerbob]

Not an insane thought in cocept but nearly impossible to practically implement

Were ratings higher/lower because the opponenent was a huge/terrible draw?

Were ratings higher/lower because of the better/worse day of week or time of day than others?

Were ratings higher/lower because of the network it was broadcast on?

Were ratings higher/lower because of other games being played at the same time that were great/terrible draws?

Were ratings higher/lower on more/less profitable platforms (ESPN+/Comcast/Spectrum/Hulu/YTTV/etc)


When you only have 12 games a year, you cant just use the average or median because the sample is too small to wash out all of the above drivers of ratings, independent of the actual team interest.

Actually what every other school in the conference should due is sue FSU and Clemson for attempting to devalue the Media contract and force them to defend themselves in all the ACC states.
That would be Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas, Kentucky, Indiana, and California. They are already in North Carolina.
They can all sue for damages caused by the FSU and Clemson law suits.
That's no more ridiculous then the FSU, and Clemson lawsuits.

 

[kirbivore]

ESPN is going to be sorry when Fran builds the program back to top level, and Red gets us back in Basketball, and they want a new extension, and we tell them go to H**L.

 

[WoadBlue]

Not an insane thought in cocept but nearly impossible to practically implement

Were ratings higher/lower because the opponenent was a huge/terrible draw?

Were ratings higher/lower because of the better/worse day of week or time of day than others?

Were ratings higher/lower because of the network it was broadcast on?

Were ratings higher/lower because of other games being played at the same time that were great/terrible draws?

Were ratings higher/lower on more/less profitable platforms (ESPN+/Comcast/Spectrum/Hulu/YTTV/etc)


When you only have 12 games a year, you cant just use the average or median because the sample is too small to wash out all of the above drivers of ratings, independent of the actual team interest.

And are you able to persuade ESPN/Disney that they should not be making payments based on their TV numbers and their assessments of those numbers? If not, your objections are as much wasted air as if you opposed incentives for teams making the playoffs because sometimes somebody gets left because of a very hard schedule while another gets in because of a fairly easy schedule.

Are you old enough to remember back in the early days of BE football that CBS showed BE football and also then began showing the SEC? CBS just totally dropped the BE because it learned that SEC games tended to draw at least as many viewers across the northeast as did BE games and draw much better then the BE in every other region of the country. Miami was in the BE back then.

I hope you are not so deluded that you think that the ACC could lose FSU and Clemson and have its next deal be as good as the one that clearly is losing ground big time to the SEC and BT. The pac surviving may give people hope, but that hope should be realistic. The new Pac is never again going to be a Major conference. If you know the value in being able to keep that designation and status, and you understand TV value, you should be focused on what things can keep the ACC intact and healthy until we can get a new deal.

 

[WoadBlue]

Which I don't think anyone believes will happen.

If ESPN holds that right to own the ACC until 2036, ESPN is not giving that up. ESPN is going to want to own all the top value in the ACC until 2036 and then keep it for another round. If ESPN is willing to allow the deal to end in 2030, it means ESPN has figured a way to use that to destroy the ACC as whole, making it the East Cost new Pac, while keeping the most vklaible ACC schools in some form that ESPN sees as more profitable for ESPN.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

YEAH!!!! Wait...where are we going to go?

The Big SEC

 

[grepal]

Can't say I ever root for Georgetown, ever. True story, While running a law firm I would not even bring a Georgetown grad in for an interview. Those guys are dead to me.

 

[HtownOrange]

If ESPN holds that right to own the ACC until 2036, ESPN is not giving that up. ESPN is going to want to own all the top value in the ACC until 2036 and then keep it for another round. If ESPN is willing to allow the deal to end in 2030, it means ESPN has figured a way to use that to destroy the ACC as whole, making it the East Cost new Pac, while keeping the most vklaible ACC schools in some form that ESPN sees as more profitable for ESPN.

If ESPN blows up the ACC, ESPN loses a valuable profit center, cedes CFB and CBB territory to the B1G. Fox will scoop up several programs just to squeeze ESPN out of the North East and as far down the coast as possible.

ESPN wil become a regional college sports programmer. Sure, they will own the SEC and a bit of content here and there, but Fox will rule sports for a long period just as ESPN has for 40 years

 

[TheCusian]

Viewership based distribution is a stupid concept and will blow up the conference within years. Distribution based on wins and success has a chance of working and at least passes a basic logic test.

Greed is killing this sport and there’s no one minding the shop

 

[DoctorBombay]

Yes, giving benefits for TV viewers drawn is a commission as is giving benefits for championships won and rankings earned.

I would say that before long both BT and SEC will do both, because their Biggest Brands will not want to keep supporting their least brands. That language of 'can no longer support mouths to feed' that has been used by all those (schools, conference leaders, and network people) who keep acting to destroy all 'Major' conferences but the BT and SEC will certainly be used by the Ohio States and Alabamas, Michigans and Texases against the Rutgers and Miss States, the Northwestern and Vanderbilts.

It is coming. It will come to the ACC eventually even if FSU, Clemson, Miami, and UNC all have left. I assert that it is far better to come to the ACC now in hope that it buys much needed time, to get the ACC to a time when the market may have changed and the ACC will get a better deal, rather than to wait while doing nothing to keep the Biggest Brands (in football terms) content.

That said, I also am in favor of the ACC playing ball with ESPN and FSU, as long as the ACC gets stabilized permanently from FSU leaving. For example, if the ACC lets FSU go on the cheap, then ESPN must facilitate the ACC expanding with schools that definitely will help the league with viewers and football quality. With the possible exception of South FL, that means Big 12 schools such as Utah, Arizona, Arizona St, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, WVU, Cincy.

If the ACC caves, and that's what it would be, caving- then we deserve to wither on the vine.
Someone mentioned it earlier, this "proposal" was put forward because both FSU/Clemson see the writing on the wall.
Unless ESPN is willing to fork over major ducets, and you'd have to ask "why" they'd agree to do that, then the only programs that will benefit this "plan" are the 2 litigants. The big prize will be losing 4-6 years of revenue AND stability, starting in 2030.
The terms for leaving are clear- and to quote Henry Hill of "Goodfellas" fame: "Fkc you, pay me". JMHO

 

[WoadBlue]

If ESPN blows up the ACC, ESPN loses a valuable profit center, cedes CFB and CBB territory to the B1G. Fox will scoop up several programs just to squeeze ESPN out of the North East and as far down the coast as possible.

ESPN wil become a regional college sports programmer. Sure, they will own the SEC and a bit of content here and there, but Fox will rule sports for a long period just as ESPN has for 40 years

So you want to play chicken with ESPN? The frirst problem in that is that Fox cares not one little bit about how gets burn over in such a game. But you seem to think that Syracuse is a must to age saved by Fox because Fox must have as much of the northeast as it can get.

If that is so, then Syracuse and BC must be as valuable a pair as FSU and Clemson, which means Cuse and BC should be willing to walk away and force Fiox to take them into the BT before ESPN gets wise and sticks them in the SEC.

Your position is the same basic fruit as the FSU position, The differences between you on Cuse/northeast and FSU are differences of degree not of kind. You each wish to push envelopes because of your arrogance in what you think you are and its immense value.

The SEC position, which ESPN seems to have accepted largely if not necessarily totally, is that it is long proven that SEC football plays VERY well nationally. SEC games even do top level numbers in the Chicago TV market. The SEC does not want the BT in what it sees as its turf and its adjacent areas, because it feels that such would start to undermine that ability of the SEC to maintain these huge football TV numbers across the nation, including NYC and Chicago. So the SEC began worrying about the BT attacking the ACC to move South, starting with Maryland. The SEC does not want the BT in VA or NC, and does not want FSU and Miami in the BT either. The line of thinking is what led to the SEC plans, which again seem to have been embraced significantly by ESPN, arrange matters so that the ACC schools that the SEC sees as most valuable to keep out of BT hands are in the SEC.

And all that is bound up with the SEC selfish frustration that the ACC also has a network.

The SEC position regarding big time TV audience CFB in the northeast is that for a league to gain it and keep it, it must have PSU. I agree with that. And that belief is the reason that the SEC would be more than fine if the BT could take Cuse and BC out of the ACC, if that facilitated the SEC getting UNC, UVA, and FSU.

And contrary to the FSU hubris, the top desire of the SEC is not FSU, not even close, It is keeping the BT permanently out of VA and NC. That means that the FSU arrogance which is destabilizing the ACC could mean a whole lot of bad for FSU. I say the same about the arrogance you assume should be Syracuse's stance. It only persuades FSU people even more that the ACC is hopeless and as doomed as BE football always was.

Again, I need to assert: if FSU and Clemson leave the ACC, the next TV deal the ACC could get will be even further behind the SEC and BT money than what we now face.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

So you want to play chicken with ESPN? The frirst problem in that is that Fox cares not one little bit about how gets burn over in such a game. But you seem to think that Syracuse is a must to age saved by Fox because Fox must have as much of the northeast as it can get.

If that is so, then Syracuse and BC must be as valuable a pair as FSU and Clemson, which means Cuse and BC should be willing to walk away and force Fiox to take them into the BT before ESPN gets wise and sticks them in the SEC.

Your position is the same basic fruit as the FSU position, The differences between you on Cuse/northeast and FSU are differences of degree not of kind. You each wish to push envelopes because of your arrogance in what you think you are and its immense value.

The SEC position, which ESPN seems to have accepted largely if not necessarily totally, is that it is long proven that SEC football plays VERY well nationally. SEC games even do top level numbers in the Chicago TV market. The SEC does not want the BT in what it sees as its turf and its adjacent areas, because it feels that such would start to undermine that ability of the SEC to maintain these huge football TV numbers across the nation, including NYC and Chicago. So the SEC began worrying about the BT attacking the ACC to move South, starting with Maryland. The SEC does not want the BT in VA or NC, and does not want FSU and Miami in the BT either. The line of thinking is what led to the SEC plans, which again seem to have been embraced significantly by ESPN, arrange matters so that the ACC schools that the SEC sees as most valuable to keep out of BT hands are in the SEC.

And all that is bound up with the SEC selfish frustration that the ACC also has a network.

The SEC position regarding big time TV audience CFB in the northeast is that for a league to gain it and keep it, it must have PSU. I agree with that. And that belief is the reason that the SEC would be more than fine if the BT could take Cuse and BC out of the ACC, if that facilitated the SEC getting UNC, UVA, and FSU.

And contrary to the FSU hubris, the top desire of the SEC is not FSU, not even close, It is keeping the BT permanently out of VA and NC. That means that the FSU arrogance which is destabilizing the ACC could mean a whole lot of bad for FSU. I say the same about the arrogance you assume should be Syracuse's stance. It only persuades FSU people even more that the ACC is hopeless and as doomed as BE football always was.

Again, I need to assert: if FSU and Clemson leave the ACC, the next TV deal the ACC could get will be even further behind the SEC and BT money than what we now face.

That is a lot of words to say something wrong. There is a lot to counter but I only have time for a few.

The SEC adding Northeastern teams would draw interest from Southern teams playing locally. That has value.

The SEC being regional is a issue long term. Especially if the model changes to a subscription one. In that case you lose a lot of viewers outside of the South. Which in turn loses interest from advertisers. You need national interest. They are fine under the current TV model but will that even exist a dozen years from now?

 

[kirbivore]

That is a lot of words to say something wrong. There is a lot to counter but I only have time for a few.

The SEC adding Northeastern teams would draw interest from Southern teams playing locally. That has value.

The SEC being regional is a issue long term. Especially if the model changes to a subscription one. In that case you lose a lot of viewers outside of the South. Which in turn loses interest from advertisers. You need national interest. They are fine under the current TV model but will that even exist a dozen years from now?

If the ACC is toast please get SU into the SEC. I'll take the beatings in football for that cash.

 

[sutomcat]

Just listened to a FSU podcast that featured an FSU fan lawyer who regularly talks about the FSU-ACC lawsuits.

I think his name is Doug Rohan.

He is under the impression that ESPN has agreed to pay Clemson and FSU more money and that this is what has opened the dialogue. His impression, I think, is that this agreement would not cost any ACC school any money. The extra money for the disgrunted two would come from ESPN.

He makes a few good points. Says the ACC chancellors would not sit through a 6 hour meeting (which they apparently did last week) if they were not close to a resolution.

If you couple this with the projected ACCN revenue and costs to ESPN to pay the ACC, so the contract ends in 2030 instead of 2026, maybe the whole thing makes sense.

I didn't see anywhere that ESPN was okay with paying Clemson and FSU more money though.

Projected ACCN revenue, net cost to ESPN

This blog is about ACC Football - past glory, what went wrong, and how to fix it and get back to the glory days again.

accfootballrx.blogspot.com

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Just listened to a FSU podcast that featured an FSU fan lawyer who regularly talks about the FSU-ACC lawsuits.

I think his name is Doug Rohan.

He is under the impression that ESPN has agreed to pay Clemson and FSU more money and that this is what has opened the dialogue. His impression, I think, is that this agreement would not cost any ACC school any money. The extra money for the disgrunted two would come from ESPN.

He makes a few good points. Says the ACC chancellors would not sit through a 6 hour meeting (which they apparently did last week) if they were not close to a resolution.

If you couple this with the projected ACCN revenue and costs to ESPN to pay the ACC, so the contract ends in 2030 instead of 2026, maybe the whole thing makes sense.

I didn't see anywhere that ESPN was okay with paying Clemson and FSU more money though.

Projected ACCN revenue, net cost to ESPN

This blog is about ACC Football - past glory, what went wrong, and how to fix it and get back to the glory days again.

accfootballrx.blogspot.com

If we are reducing the contract to 2030 then we need to be compensated for it. Otherwise it should be a hard No. If there was an out after 2026 there would be no reason for the lawsuit in the first place. That seems like Kook folklore. Why would ESPN pay those two schools a bonus when they don't have too?