Hey guys, just wanted to jump in here. By way of intro, I'm an FSU fan and reallignment junkie and have been for many years. Since Nebraska left for the B1G I'd say. I've been following this stuff pretty closely, am pretty active on the WVU reallignment board and on Twitter. I'm not saying I know what I'm talking about...but I know a little more of what I'm talking about than just random message board idiots. And I have no sources. I don't drop inside information.
My biases up front...
- I wish FSU was in the SEC or was a candidate for an SEC invite
- I would definitely be interested in FSU getting in the B1G as part of a southern pod including GT, UNC, UVA, etc.
- I think the ACC has been terrible in football and generally terrible in managing their business over the last 10-15 years, to FSU's detriment
- I was not a big fan of adding SU/Pitt (sorry) mainly because of splitting the money more ways and not strengthening the football and requiring a 9th game
- I'm a lot more positive toward the SU/Pitt now that the contract increased, we replaced MD w/Louisville, and we went back to 8 games
- I actually think the moves the ACC has made in the last 18 mos are impressive considering how little leverage they have had
- I think the ACC has decent upside, better than the Big 12, but have a hard time seeing how it isn't buried by the B1G and SEC. That's a big deal when you are FSU and are seriously trying to win national championships, and you're surrounded by the SEC
- I was initially pretty intrigued by a move to the Big 12, but moves the ACC has made to close that gap have pretty much taken the steam out of that for me. I think the ACC is a better conference for FSU if the ACC can get it's affairs in order
Anyway, I wanted to jump in with the Raycom thing and explain it. I've been a big critic of the Raycom relationship, but people misunderstand some things.
Forever, the ACC had a relationship with Raycom as one of its broadcast rights partners. There is history and affinity there on Tobacco Road. Raycom actually used to have a ton of sports rights, but over the years they were not able to keep up and the ACC was their last property. If Raycom lost ACC sports, as a company they would fail.
With the last media deal, the ACC wanted to have all their rights held by one party (mistake). Raycom is not an option there obviously. So the ACC's plan was to hope to work out a deal with whoever won their rights, that that party would sublease some content to Raycom. It was sort of a "good ol' boy" or "for old-time's sake" thing that is romantic, but that most of college sports has moved on from. What that means is that the ACC made it clear to its potential suitors (at the time only ESPN and Fox, and Fox was only dipping it's toe in at the time) that it would be looked on favorably for whoever would work out a good deal with Raycom.
Tangential to this is the fact that the ACC was very clear that it wanted it's rights on ESPN. The ACC schools are not poor. They also for the most part don't have high aspirations for their football programs. What they do want is national exposure and bright lights, and that meant ESPN.
They did bring Fox in to drive the bidding up a little to the $13M, but they didn't even let Fox try to counter the final ESPN deal.
At the time, it put the ACC at $13M to the SEC's $17M, at a time when people still thought the SEC deal was insanely high, and would never be touched.
The problem is that Larry Scott and the PAC and Jim Delaney and the B1G weren't buying that at all. They understood the market, where it was going, and the ACC totally did not. The PAC deal came along and totally reset the market.
The cost of the Raycom situation is whatever money the ACC may have left on the table by putting an artificial requirement in place. As soon as you require (or request) something like that, you have to pay for it. That, combined with the clear stated preference of where they wanted to end up, ended up taking the ACC to the cleaners once it was established what college sports rights are actually worth. The proper way to go into a negotiation, when your contract is totally up and you are a free agent, is that you'll play your games on the Home Shopping Network if they pony up the most cash. If Raycom can sublease a piece, fine. If not, fine.
That's the Raycom deal. The fact that Swofford's son worked there may or may not have influenced it certainly, but the bottom line is they had a harmful and romantic attachment to this relationship that they should have been able to let go of. That, and piss poor foresight and general poor negotiating, got a deal that very quickly put the ACC in a bad financial position with few options.
To be clear...Raycom doesn't buy any rights from the ACC. The ACC sold all their rights to ESPN. But ESPN subleases some of the rights (and decent rights...we're talking about Big 10 network quality rights, plus the ACC tournament, not Big 12 3rd tier rights stuff) to Raycom. And on top of that, Raycom sub-subleases some of the rights they get to Fox.
So, we're in a very crappy deal. So what can the ACC do about it? It's limited. They extended the deal when they added SU/Pitt to get a higher average. They added ND olympics to get another $1-1.5M a year maybe. That pretty much cuts the difference enough with the Big 12, considering that nobody really wants to go to the Big 12. But it really doesn't cut enough of the difference with where the SEC and B1G and PAC are headed. We'll know more about that vis a vis the SEC tomorrow. And that's what schools, most of all FSU are looking at. Unless the ACC can seriously turn the paradigm around, it's going to be possible to break up the ACC via FSU. However, there are solid reasons why the B1G and SEC aren't likely to invite FSU. So there may be nothing FSU can do, unless that changes.
Which gives the ACC some time to make things right if they can. And the interesting thing is, the Raycom thing to me might be the thing that allows the ACC to put together a network. It's time for the ACC to call in their chit with Raycom. Raycom has to give back now, even if it comes out of their pocket. Yes, Raycom snuck their seat at the table for this contract, but there is no way or no how that it will be repeated next time around. It's become a laughing stock situation, it's anachronistic, and it's over. Which means that Raycom as a company has a terminal disease with a life expectancy of 15 years, unless they do something.
Now, I don't have a lot of faith in the idea of an ACC network. I agree that the actual calibre of the sports could actually be better than the SEC Network programming. But I don't have a lot of faith in ACC footprint schools desiring that programming, and demanding that programming from their cable operators. There's a reason ACC attendance in football is so good, they travel the most, buy the most merchandise. I just don't think the ACC Network will demand as high a carriage rate.
HOWEVER, Raycom gives the ACC some interesting options. Raycom already has sport production facilities and know how. They already have marketing. They already have the digital arm.
If I'm the ACC, I'm going to Raycom and saying, "Here's what's happening. We're starting a network. You're going to own x%, we're going to own x% and ESPN is going to own x%. It's going to be ESPN branded for the most part, and ESPN is going to be responsible for getting carriage. You guys are going to foot the bill for production and startup costs. And those games you've been subleasing out? No more, you're kicking those in, as well as replays on all the games you own, and all the backlog of 50 years of ACC tournaments. Yes, we know that's going to take a cut out of your bottom line. You might have to lay some folks off. No bonuses this year. But you'll live as a company. Or, you take your sweetheart deal, and start thinking about what all your employees will do in 15 years, because you're never getting another ACC minute of sports again."
You then need to convince ESPN to go in on it. Their startup costs are covered. Their basically getting a percentage just for the blood it takes to get carriage (which is not insignificant). They also get to keep the ACC together, and not see half the conference go to the Fox network, either completely (in the BTN) or partially (in the Big 12). No, in a vacuum, it might not make great financial success to ESPN, but they're not in a vacuum. They've got an investment in something that could lose tremendous value, and add tremendous value to their chief competitor for their new Fox Sports cable startups.
And for their part, the ACC throws in not breaking up. Maybe signs a grant of rights.
Now the big question is, even if it went down that way, is there enough money to be made from an ACC network anyway? I don't know. Can Syracuse get carriage in New York state, or BC in Mass? In this cable environment, it makes me very doubtful. But if they can, then we might be on to something.
Finally, I live in Atlanta, but I'm a Buffalo guy born and bread. I have a lot of significant memories surrounding Syracuse football and basketball, been to the Carrier Dome for both, etc. Growing up, I never rooted for Syracuse, because I was usually the contrarian, and SU was the main local team. But boy, I miss you guys being good in football, and have been rooting for you to get it together forever now. I now root for SU more than I ever did for football. You guys deserve to be better, and that part of the country needs it.
