Conference Realignment

[g0lftime]

Maybe the plan by FSU and Clemson is to formally leave the ACC the end of 2026, pay the exit fee, and assume ESPN will not extend the GOR contract without those 2 premier teams. It would get very interesting if UNC and others did the same.

 

[Techster]

That’s so redacted it’s not even worth talking about

It's really disappointing. Was hoping @RonJohn and I could have another lively debate of 3-5 pages.

 

[cpf2001]

A GOR to 2036 but a unilateral option past 2027 for ESPN does seem fairly clownshoes, could it be that FSU’s strategy is to get wheels turning now for a challenge to GOR assuming the contract doesn’t last past 2027?

With bonus seeding of bad PR to make it less likely ESPN extends?

 

[CEB]

That’s so redacted it’s not even worth talking about

I’d argue that it’s just as clear as the CFP Selection criteria.

 

[ThatGuy]

A GOR to 2036 but a unilateral option past 2027 for ESPN does seem fairly clownshoes, could it be that FSU’s strategy is to get wheels turning now for a challenge to GOR assuming the contract doesn’t last past 2027?

With bonus seeding of bad PR to make it less likely ESPN extends?

That's what I've been thinking from the beginning.

FSU's approach to this whole thing has seemed fairly "We don't know what we're doing, but we're going to throw as much sh!t against the wall as we can to see what sticks. It hasn't seemed to be a very smart strategy, especially if they don't have anywhere set to land.

That being said, if the heavily-redacted clause in question does simply state that ESPN has the unilateral option to renew starting in 2026, then perhaps FSU's intention all along has been to simply influence that decision. If they can get any foothold with some of the sh!t they're throwing against the wall, then ESPN may reconsider whether they want to renew the ACCN through 2035. Not sure what exactly that buys FSU, aside from more arguments that the ACC is falling behind - or leverage with the ACC of "I'll burn this to the ground unless you let me go."

All of which still seems rather tenuous - although I'll allow that IANAL, and I'm likely missing a lot of the strategy that's at play here. But hey, they're FSU, so it still could be that they came up with their strategy at a party over a couple of funnels.

 

[Richard7125]

Why do people think ESPN will opt out of the ACC agreement? There's a reason ESPN puts on 30+ crappy bowl games each year that no one cares about - it's content. I'm sure ESPN thinks they are spending enough on the SEC and Big12. Do you think they want to get rid of the ACC to give those conferences more money? Is it in ESPNs best interest to be even more unbalanced focusing on the SEC? People who run successful businesses typically try to spread their eggs into multiple baskets not consolidate them into one.

By all accounts the ACC network is good business for ESPN.

 

[stinger78]

Why do people think ESPN will opt out of the ACC agreement? There's a reason ESPN puts on 30+ crappy bowl games each year that no one cares about - it's content. I'm sure ESPN thinks they are spending enough on the SEC and Big12. Do you think they want to get rid of the ACC to give those conferences more money? Is it in ESPNs best interest to be even more unbalanced focusing on the SEC? People who run successful businesses typically try to spread their eggs into multiple baskets not consolidate them into one.

By all accounts the ACC network is good business for ESPN.

I have thought this all along. I agree and then I think about advertising rates. I would be shocked if anything approaches the rates sEcSPN can charge for advertising during an SECheat or B1G game.

 

[Richard7125]

Why do people think ESPN will opt out of the ACC agreement? There's a reason ESPN puts on 30+ crappy bowl games each year that no one cares about - it's content. I'm sure ESPN thinks they are spending enough on the SEC and Big12. Do you think they want to get rid of the ACC to give those conferences more money? Is it in ESPNs best interest to be even more unbalanced focusing on the SEC? People who run successful businesses typically try to spread their eggs into multiple baskets not consolidate them into one.

I have thought this all along. I agree and then I think about advertising rates. I would be shocked if anything approaches the rates sEcSPN can charge for advertising during an SECheat or B1G game.

Think of it more like a college football mutual fund.

 

[stinger78]

Think of it more like a college football mutual fund.

LOL. Yeah.

 

[Vespidae]

I have thought this all along. I agree and then I think about advertising rates. I would be shocked if anything approaches the rates sEcSPN can charge for advertising during an SECheat or B1G game.

There are two different vehicles here. The SEC Network and ACC Network are comparable in viewers and demographics.

It is the ESPN channel itself (the “UNO”), that has real value. Those rates are substantially higher. It just means more.

As to FSU, a former SEC commissioner once quipped that controversy and conflict are good for football. It drives ratings. I wouldn’t be surprised to see ESPN loving this. Who isn’t going to watch FSU on an ESPN channel (include ABC in that) and root for them to lose? The new Bad Boys of Football.

 

[GTJake]

Why do people think ESPN will opt out of the ACC agreement? There's a reason ESPN puts on 30+ crappy bowl games each year that no one cares about - it's content. I'm sure ESPN thinks they are spending enough on the SEC and Big12. Do you think they want to get rid of the ACC to give those conferences more money? Is it in ESPNs best interest to be even more unbalanced focusing on the SEC? People who run successful businesses typically try to spread their eggs into multiple baskets not consolidate them into one.

By all accounts the ACC network is good business for ESPN.

Diversify !!!, Conference rivalries are good for TV ratings, ESPN doesn't want to decrease the P5 conferences it wants to maintain the rivalries.

 

[slugboy]

There are two different vehicles here. The SEC Network and ACC Network are comparable in viewers and demographics.

It is the ESPN channel itself (the “UNO”), that has real value. Those rates are substantially higher. It just means more.

As to FSU, a former SEC commissioner once quipped that controversy and conflict are good for football. It drives ratings. I wouldn’t be surprised to see ESPN loving this. Who isn’t going to watch FSU on an ESPN channel (include ABC in that) and root for them to lose? The new Bad Boys of Football.

We need professional wrestling managers and commentators.

 

[WreckinGT]

Why do people think ESPN will opt out of the ACC agreement? There's a reason ESPN puts on 30+ crappy bowl games each year that no one cares about - it's content. I'm sure ESPN thinks they are spending enough on the SEC and Big12. Do you think they want to get rid of the ACC to give those conferences more money? Is it in ESPNs best interest to be even more unbalanced focusing on the SEC? People who run successful businesses typically try to spread their eggs into multiple baskets not consolidate them into one.

By all accounts the ACC network is good business for ESPN.

ESPN was heavily accused of tampering with the Big 12 when Texas and Oklahoma left. That was two years after ESPN signed a deal with them. ESPN made little attempt to rescue the Pac 12 when they could have. They chose to drop out of Big 10 media negotiations. They aren't making really any push to diversify in general. They seem to be fine with concentrating their top tier content on the SEC and filling in lower tier slots with whatever they can get from other conferences. The real question is, how much is the ACC worth with ESPN now owning all SEC content and with SEC content continuing to grow in size? Would they be better off letting some of the better ACC teams go elsewhere, dropping the ACC network, and signing a smaller deal with the teams that remain? Maybe.

It's worth remembering also that ESPN is losing subscribers and revenue right now. They aren't the cash cow that they used to be. Disney was shopping them around for a while and probably still are. Their streaming network plans are still up in the air. Somebody is making long term plans for ESPN with all of this in consideration. ESPN won't be the same network in 10 years that it is now.

 

[Vespidae]

ESPN was heavily accused of tampering with the Big 12 when Texas and Oklahoma left. That was two years after ESPN signed a deal with them. ESPN made little attempt to rescue the Pac 12 when they could have. They chose to drop out of Big 10 media negotiations. They aren't making really any push to diversify in general. They seem to be fine with concentrating their top tier content on the SEC and filling in lower tier slots with whatever they can get from other conferences. The real question is, how much is the ACC worth with ESPN now owning all SEC content and with SEC content continuing to grow in size? Would they be better off letting some of the better ACC teams go elsewhere, dropping the ACC network, and signing a smaller deal with the teams that remain? Maybe.

It's worth remembering also that ESPN is losing subscribers and revenue right now. They aren't the cash cow that they used to be. Disney was shopping them around for a while and probably still are. Their streaming network plans are still up in the air. Somebody is making long term plans for ESPN with all of this in consideration. ESPN won't be the same network in 10 years that it is now.

ESPN offered the PAC12 $30 million a team. The PAC demanded $50 million. ESPN said good-bye. So I’m not sure about them “concentrating“ when it’s clear they wanted the deal. CFB ratings just aren’t worth much on the West Coast.

The ACCN is profitable and growing, it’s just growing at a slower rate. There’s no reason to pay SEC prices for ACC teams when they can get them for ACC prices.

ESPN isn’t what it was, but it’s still the number 1 draw on linear television.

 

[stinger78]

ESPN was heavily accused of tampering with the Big 12 when Texas and Oklahoma left. That was two years after ESPN signed a deal with them. ESPN made little attempt to rescue the Pac 12 when they could have. They chose to drop out of Big 10 media negotiations. They aren't making really any push to diversify in general. They seem to be fine with concentrating their top tier content on the SEC and filling in lower tier slots with whatever they can get from other conferences. The real question is, how much is the ACC worth with ESPN now owning all SEC content and with SEC content continuing to grow in size? Would they be better off letting some of the better ACC teams go elsewhere, dropping the ACC network, and signing a smaller deal with the teams that remain? Maybe.

It's worth remembering also that ESPN is losing subscribers and revenue right now. They aren't the cash cow that they used to be. Disney was shopping them around for a while and probably still are. Their streaming network plans are still up in the air. Somebody is making long term plans for ESPN with all of this in consideration. ESPN won't be the same network in 10 years that it is now.

There is only so much that advertisers will pay, and my bet is that sEcSPN nearing the top of that range. I just cannot see how much more can be squeezed out of the cow, but they always seem to find a way (and this is why I think their fingers are all over this "expansion"). However, if we slip into a recession of any severity, and advertising budgets are cut, we may see them start to squeal. They are way out there in their financial commitments. If that happens, I can see them letting the ACC go in 2026 and focusing their assets on sustaining the SECheat. I'm confident that is not their plan going forward as they have too much sunk costs in the ACC model, but if push comes to shove don't anyone tell me they would sacrifice the SECheat for the ACC. Ain't happening.

 

[Vespidae]

There is only so much that advertisers will pay, and my bet is that sEcSPN nearing the top of that range. I just cannot see how much more can be squeezed out of the cow, but they always seem to find a way (and this is why I think their fingers are all over this "expansion"). However, if we slip into a recession of any severity, and advertising budgets are cut, we may see them start to squeal. They are way out there in their financial commitments. If that happens, I can see them letting the ACC go in 2026 and focusing their assets on sustaining the SECheat. I'm confident that is not their plan going forward as they have too much sunk costs in the ACC model, but if push comes to shove don't anyone tell me they would sacrifice the SECheat for the ACC. Ain't happening.

During a recession, men tend to stay home more (unemployed). Sales of snacks (especially chips like Fritos, Doritos, etc) and beer go up as they tend to watch more sports.

The ACCN makes $140 million a year for ESPN at very low risk. Why walk away from that? Not only that, keeping the ACC viable is in Notre Dame’s interests as it gives them a schedule that gives them an 80% wpt, ensuring a path to the CFP. And since ESPN broadcasts that, THAT is where ESPN makes bank.

Look at the whole picture. Not just one part of it.

 

[WreckinGT]

ESPN offered the PAC12 $30 million a team. The PAC demanded $50 million. ESPN said good-bye. So I’m not sure about them “concentrating“ when it’s clear they wanted the deal. CFB ratings just aren’t worth much on the West Coast.

The ACCN is profitable and growing, it’s just growing at a slower rate. There’s no reason to pay SEC prices for ACC teams when they can get them for ACC prices.

ESPN isn’t what it was, but it’s still the number 1 draw on linear television.

ESPN lowballed the PAC on their offer and the PAC idiotically responded by high balling. ESPN made no real play for them after that. They were open to getting them for a bargain bin price but they were showing no desire to diversify by making a big push for them just like they showed no real desire in paying the Big 10 what they are worth. They are all in on the SEC.

As for the ACC/SEC prices. You can't really compare that. If FSU and Clemson went to the SEC you all of the sudden add many huge games to your inventory. FSU vs LSU last year brought in over 9 million viewers. FSU and Clemson vs UGA, Bama, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Auburn, etc. is worth far more than FSU vs NC State or Clemson vs VT. Yes you pay a higher price for them. You also get more in return. You also pay the remains of the ACC less because they are now less valuable. Clemson vs NC State last year, a game between two pretty good teams was relegated to the CW and got 600k in viewers. That's not worth as much as say Clemson vs Tennessee or even Clemson vs Miss St. Especially in the future streaming world where traditional subscriber revenue continues dwindle.

 

[Vespidae]

ESPN lowballed the PAC on their offer and the PAC idiotically responded by high balling. ESPN made no real play for them after that. They were open to getting them for a bargain bin price but they were showing no desire to diversify by making a big push for them just like they showed no real desire in paying the Big 10 what they are worth. They are all in on the SEC.

As for the ACC/SEC prices. You can't really compare that. If FSU and Clemson went to the SEC you all of the sudden add many huge games to your inventory. FSU vs LSU last year brought in over 9 million viewers. FSU and Clemson vs UGA, Bama, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Auburn, etc. is worth far more than FSU vs NC State or Clemson vs VT. Yes you pay a higher price for them. You also get more in return. You also pay the remains of the ACC less because they are now less valuable. Clemson vs NC State last year, a game between two pretty good teams was relegated to the CW and got 600k in viewers. That's not worth as much as say Clemson vs Tennessee or even Clemson vs Miss St. Especially in the future streaming world where traditional subscriber revenue continues dwindle.

True, but there’s not an unlimited number of broadcast slots. That’s one reason that ESPN said no to a 9th SEC conference game.

Funny, CBS had the SEC game of the week for years and I dont recall similar comments about them. Broadcasters go after the content most favorable to their model.

 

[UgaBlows]

Why do people think ESPN will opt out of the ACC agreement? There's a reason ESPN puts on 30+ crappy bowl games each year that no one cares about - it's content. I'm sure ESPN thinks they are spending enough on the SEC and Big12. Do you think they want to get rid of the ACC to give those conferences more money? Is it in ESPNs best interest to be even more unbalanced focusing on the SEC? People who run successful businesses typically try to spread their eggs into multiple baskets not consolidate them into one.

By all accounts the ACC network is good business for ESPN.

Espn is losing money, do you think anyone is watching those trash ACC games between BC and WF etc? What kind of ad revenue do you think they can get from those games? Alien-Tape and Winn-Dixie ads don’t cut it…

 

[Vespidae]

Espn is losing money, do you think anyone is watching those trash ACC games between BC and WF etc? What kind of ad revenue do you think they can get from those games? Alien-Tape and Winn-Dixie ads don’t cut it…

They made $140 million last year from the ACCN. 46 million viewers.