Is FSU the ACC's Stalking Horse?

[OrangeHeel]

Help me out:

Is FSU really the ACC's stalking horse? Now Swofford can go back and tell them "see, I told you what would happen if you low-balled us). Sort of the same notion that helped propel the B12 contract when it looked Armageddon was at hand.

Why wouldn't ESPN want to come back and make ACC contract equivalent to B12? It would be cheaper for them and not destroy their leading source of programming (the ACC).

I know the following is simplistic because it doesn't take into account whether Texas v. FSU and ISU v. FSU is worth more than Miami v. FSU and SU v. FSU, but play along:

Big 12 is supposed to get new deal for $20M per school per year.

ACC deal right now is for $17M per team per year up from $13M. (I know about the backloading stuff, but this is the number bandied about.) B12 deal is supposed to increase the per team pay out by $5M per team according to reports.

ESPN has contract with both leagues (with Fox involved with B12 too).

If FSU goes to B12 & a 12th comes with them, the ESPN contract has to go up $40 million to just stay even. You would assume B12 looking to add at least $4M per team to deal like ACC just did.

Additional cost to ESPN for new ACC deal per year is $74M (12 teams x $4M increase + 2 teams (SU/Pitt) x $17M = $48M + $34M).

Additional cost to ESPN for new B12 deal per year is $50M (10 teams x $5M increase = $50M ).

Additional cost to ESPN for new B12 deal with an additional $4M bump per team (adding FSU + 1) is $138M ($50M + 10 teams x $4M increase + 2 teams (FSU/?) x $24M = $50M + $40M + $48M).

Additional cost to ESPN for to upgrade new ACC deal to get each team to $20M & keep FSU happy is $116M ($74 M under deal just announced + $3M x 14 teams = $74M + $42M).

Just throwing it out there for discussion.

 

[Toga]

Dumb it down.

 

[Ozcuse]

It's not as easy as that. The ACC contract won't be worth 17.1M until 2021. It will cost ESPN a whole lot more money to make it equivalent to the Big 12 deal.

The first shock to the system hit Wednesday, when the ACC came to terms with ESPN on a 15-year, $3.6 billion agreement that sure sounded good in the press release. Each school was supposedly getting an additional $4 million a year. The average would be $17.1 million annually. Not bad, it seemed.

The reality was bad, however. The initial bump in television revenue is actually just over $1 million a year, sources said, and a total in the $12 million range next season. The deal is back loaded so the bigger money comes in escalator provisions that, considering how broadcast rights keep growing, probably will be below market by the time any sizeable gains are realized.
That additional $4 million per school, per year? That won't come until 2021, nine years in, sources said.
Privately, almost everyone was troubled by the deal.

From Dan Wetzel's Yahoo article

 

[omniorange]

Maybe ESPN really isn't that into the ACC anymore?

Cheers,
Neil

 

[orangeinjersey]

Maybe ESPN really isn't that into the ACC anymore?

Cheers,
Neil

They have to be dont they? I mean ESPN only owns half the b12 right?

 

[SURules]

From what it looks like, the ACC made a long term contract as we all know and ESPN as a business is going to milk the ACC for all it's worth. They have cheap programing now. Losing FSU would be a BIG hit though and if you put FSU AND Miami, ACC is in serious trouble IMHO. Neither have been great lately but they both have brand names nationally that can't be replaced.

 

[PeteCalvin]

The more I think about it, the more I believe that the FSU statements are part of a bigger plan with Swofford involved behind the scenes. If ESPN had them bent over like it seems they did, then this would be one of the only ways to force the WWL into changing the contract.

As cunning as Swofford is, I can't imagine him being outfoxed like this. Something else is going on.

 

[omniorange]

They have to be dont they? I mean ESPN only owns half the b12 right?

For less than half the product, they well overpaid to keep the Big 12 afloat when they lost Nebraska and Colorado and now they again are reportedly way overpaying considering A&M and Mizzou left and were replaced by inferior product in WVU and TCU.

Their actions speak loudly to me. The ACC apparently is the new Big East in today's heirarchy meaning UT and OU together are worth way more than FSU, Miami, VT, Clemson, and GT together.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[kingottoiii]

For less than half the product, they well overpaid to keep the Big 12 afloat when they lost Nebraska and Colorado and now they again are reportedly way overpaying considering A&M and Mizzou left and were replaced by inferior product in WVU and TCU.

Their actions speak loudly to me. The ACC apparently is the new Big East in today's heirarchy meaning UT and OU together are worth way more than FSU, Miami, VT, Clemson, and GT together.

Cheers,
Neil

I get that and it seems to be true but isn't 100% of FSU and all still better than 50% of Texas and all? I really do not understand ESPN's angle here. If two ACC FB schools leave then ESPN will have overpaid for the ACC. Why not add more money to keep FSU happy? And it woudl still be under value for the product. Seems like a win win to me for ESPN.

 

[texasorange]

While I can see ESPN thinking that UT & OU are more valuable than FSU,GT,VT H Clemson; will either school bring in ratings on the east coast?

 

[baggerbob]

What the ACC schools should do is hold a meeting , dissolve, and petition the Big East for membership and screw the WWL. Then they can all tell the WWL where to go in future contract talks. That way they lose better, then half of their basketball programming in the winter.

 

[tipphill]

While I can see ESPN thinking that UT & OU are more valuable than FSU,GT,VT H Clemson; will either school bring in ratings on the east coast?

clemson is historically probably the most over rated team in college football. consistently a underachiever . much bravado, blowing in the wind