Conference Realignment

[Augusta_Jacket]

That's incorrect. That's not how the carriage fees for ACC will work. That's like saying GT won't get any fees for Atlanta because UGA is in the SEC and SEC has an agreement with ESPN.

So ESPN is going to charge the DFW subscribers extra once SMU joins?

 

[RonJohn]

So ESPN is going to charge the DFW subscribers extra once SMU joins?

For the ACCN, yes they will.

 

[cpf2001]

Isn’t that exactly what the NFL did? Does anyone remember the Pottstown Maroons?

You'll forgive me if I don't think the entertainment market of 100 years ago is that relevant. LOTS more options out there today. That's not an answer to the question: if the NHL threw in the towel on 2/3 of its teams and said "who needs anything but Canada and the Northeast" would that make you think the league was healthy and future total NHL revenue was gonna go up? Would it make the value of the next NHL TV contracts higher?

For the ACCN, yes they will.

I'm sure they'll try, but I don't think that move works out as easily as we'd hope in 2023. "Let's just charge cable companies more" was a big part of Bally's plan too. But cable companies started saying no.

Even Spectrum didn't really get away with it for the Dodgers a decade ago.

It would be ACC-level competence/success if the outcome of SMU-in-the-ACC was carriers *dropping* the ACC Network in Dallas because ESPN was trying to extract higher fees.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

For the ACCN, yes they will.

So, correct me on this, but I thought the ACCN was subscription based. As someone who hasn't subscribed to cable in over 20 years my working knowledge of it is limited.

 

[cpf2001]

So, correct me on this, but I thought the ACCN was subscription based. As someone who hasn't subscribed to cable in over 20 years my working knowledge of it is limited.

It was in my base plan of YouTube TV last year for the base price. I'm assuming it will be again this year, but I'm not gonna renew until next Friday.

Behind the scenes a smaller or larger chunk of that $70/month is gonna get directed to it based on where you live. Subject to negotiation between each cable co and ESPN.

 

[Vespidae]

You'll forgive me if I don't think the entertainment market of 100 years ago is that relevant. LOTS more options out there today. That's not an answer to the question: if the NHL threw in the towel on 2/3 of its teams and said "who needs anything but Canada and the Northeast" would that make you think the league was healthy and future total NHL revenue was gonna go up? Would it make the value of the next NHL TV contracts higher?


I'm sure they'll try, but I don't think that move works out as easily as we'd hope in 2023. "Let's just charge cable companies more" was a big part of Bally's plan too. But cable companies started saying no.

Even Spectrum didn't really get away with it for the Dodgers a decade ago.

It would be ACC-level competence/success if the outcome of SMU-in-the-ACC was carriers *dropping* the ACC Network in Dallas because ESPN was trying to extract higher fees.

Industries evolve. Always have. And in very predictable patterns. You can ignore it if you want, but that same evolution totally displaced the national sport … baseball.

 

[orientalnc]

It was in my base plan of YouTube TV last year for the base price. I'm assuming it will be again this year, but I'm not gonna renew until next Friday.

Behind the scenes a smaller or larger chunk of that $70/month is gonna get directed to it based on where you live. Subject to negotiation between each cable co and ESPN.

The ACC Network is still part of the basic YouTube TV plan.

 

[cpf2001]

Industries evolve. Always have. And in very predictable patterns. You can ignore it if you want, but that same evolution totally displaced the national sport … baseball.

Yes. My claim is that CFB's actions are the actions of a sport that's well on its way to getting itself displaced.

I'm just trying to understand what direct fan metrics point to improved overall health. Doesn't seem to be a trend of increased attendance. The only ratings numbers I can find year-over-year easily seem to be going the wrong way too - it's been nine years since the highest watched CFP game. Are there any numbers that suggest health vs decline? Merch sales, maybe? I don't know, I just haven't found them.

So if the trend is going down, and the reaction is "let's just get smaller", where's the confidence in improved future health?

Sometimes the "very predictable pattern" is "fading business with out of touch leadership continues to fade away."

 

[Vespidae]

Yes. My claim is that CFB's actions are the actions of a sport that's well on its way to getting itself displaced.

I'm just trying to understand what direct fan metrics point to improved overall health. Doesn't seem to be a trend of increased attendance. The only ratings numbers I can find year-over-year easily seem to be going the wrong way too - it's been nine years since the highest watched CFP game. Are there any numbers that suggest health vs decline? Merch sales, maybe? I don't know, I just haven't found them.

So if the trend is going down, and the reaction is "let's just get smaller", where's the confidence in improved future health?

Sometimes the "very predictable pattern" is "fading business with out of touch leadership continues to fade away."

I think you need to study industry evolution.

Consolidation in CFB has been happening for 30 years. Technology is accelerating it, but it’s happening nonetheless.

The US fanbase is highly concentrated already into 16 teams. You can account for the majority of interest in the sport in just 40 teams.

Most fans won’t watch EVERY game, only the ones they are interested in. And nobody cares enough to watch Northwestern. Sad. But money will flow to the very biggest programs.

You mentioned Swag. Highly concentrated already. And ADs stopped being interested in attendance when they started looking at total engagement (attendance+streaming+views).

There‘s almost no dissent. CFB WILL end up as 30-40 teams. The rest will regroup into something else.

 

[cpf2001]

I think you need to study industry evolution.

Consolidation in CFB has been happening for 30 years. Technology is accelerating it, but it’s happening nonetheless.

The US fanbase is highly concentrated already into 16 teams. You can account for the majority of interest in the sport in just 40 teams.

Most fans won’t watch EVERY game, only the ones they are interested in. And nobody cares enough to watch Northwestern. Sad. But money will flow to the very biggest programs.

You mentioned Swag. Highly concentrated already. And ADs stopped being interested in attendance when they started looking at total engagement (attendance+streaming+views).

There‘s almost no dissent. CFB WILL end up as 30-40 teams. The rest will regroup into something else.

I'm not disagreeing with any of those claims about fanbase distribution or consolidation predictions.

You're just saying it's a good thing for the long term revenues of the sport.

But I'm not convinced that there's some inherent magic to consolidation that will turn "numbers going down" -> "numbers going up". Many of those dynamics aren't particularly unique to CFB anyway. The NBA has the Lakers. The NHL has the Maple Leafs. One of them is much healthier than the other.

As someone who's not living in either of the Southeast or Toronto, convince me that the downward trends for CFB aren't just as bad a sign for it as they are for the NHL.

Meanwhile, soccer is adding teams and I'm seeing more people wearing shirts and jerseys out there every year. So maybe it is that simple.

 

[Vespidae]

I'm not disagreeing with any of those claims about fanbase distribution or consolidation predictions.

You're just saying it's a good thing for the long term revenues of the sport.

But I'm not convinced that there's some inherent magic to consolidation that will turn "numbers going down" -> "numbers going up". Many of those dynamics aren't particularly unique to CFB anyway. The NBA has the Lakers. The NHL has the Maple Leafs. One of them is much healthier than the other.

As someone who's not living in either of the Southeast or Toronto, convince me that the downward trends for CFB aren't just as bad a sign for it as they are for the NHL.

Meanwhile, soccer is adding teams and I'm seeing more people wearing shirts and jerseys out there every year. So maybe it is that simple.

You can argue one of two points.

CFB is consolidating and the best programs are monetizing that consolidation.

Or …

CFB is perfect competition with no barriers to entry and consumers will enjoy wide variety of providers equally.

I will wager Option I as 100% likely.

I‘m NOT arguing that it’s good for universities. I think it’s terrible that college athletics has been reduced to this. But it is happening whether we like it or not.

 

[roadkill]

Y

I'm not disagreeing with any of those claims about fanbase distribution or consolidation predictions.

You're just saying it's a good thing for the long term revenues of the sport.

But I'm not convinced that there's some inherent magic to consolidation that will turn "numbers going down" -> "numbers going up". Many of those dynamics aren't particularly unique to CFB anyway. The NBA has the Lakers. The NHL has the Maple Leafs. One of them is much healthier than the other.

As someone who's not living in either of the Southeast or Toronto, convince me that the downward trends for CFB aren't just as bad a sign for it as they are for the NHL.

Meanwhile, soccer is adding teams and I'm seeing more people wearing shirts and jerseys out there every year. So maybe it is that simple.

You raise some interesting points. Will too much consolidation shrink the pie? I don’t know the answer, but it seems logical that in-person game attendance, and fan interest, will be adversely affected by the disruption of rivalries. There is probably some optimum number of teams that maximize the broadcast market. Too few, and you lose a lot of fans, and just as importantly, you don’t have enough variance in the teams to generate broad interest. Too many, and you will have a lot of games that no one cares about outside of a narrow fanbase and are hardly worth televising. That’s already the case with some teams. As @Vespidae suggests, it may end up being only 30-40 teams when the consolidation reaches some level of stability. I'm not convinced yet that the number will be that small, but it's certainly feasible.

Regarding your point on market trends, I looked at the CFP viewer numbers (https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/2021/9/7/tv-viewership-history) and it does appear that the Championship games are seeing a general decline, although it’s not consistent year over year. However, the semi-finals do not show a sport in decline. Last year’s semis had two of the five highest historical viewership ratings. Since we are dealing with a relatively small dataset, it is also possible that the specific matchups are an important factor. It’s telling that last year’s UGA-Ohio St. Semi had many more viewers than the Championship. It's also likely that many fans, especially those outside of the SE, are tiring of the championship matchups. That issue could have a bearing on the future of the sport.

 

[cpf2001]

I thought this chart was interesting for how it ranks by playoff viewership vs semis-to-semis or whatever. https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-playoff-ratings-bcs-history/

The overall bad things seem to be: we haven’t hit a 30M game in almost a decade, and struggling to break 25 in the last three years.

Some of the matchup numbers were the most interesting to me, though. Oregon in the highest viewed game of the last decade? Some novelty factor? UGA Alabama 2021 with a lot fewer viewers than 2017? TCU/Michigan with more viewers in the semi than Georgia/TCU with higher stakes? UGA fatigue? Probably a lot of matchup- and year- specific factors to each, but overall to me it doesn’t feel to me like it’s only the biggest names that are viable and attractive to viewers in those games.

“At least 4 million people who watched TCU against Michigan didn’t care to see what they did against UGA” isn’t the typical way that championship game viewer level is reported, but it’s weird - as is the 5M drop off from UGA/OSU. I’m perfectly ok with saying UGA is the problem

 

[1979jacket]

If you had told me two years ago that the PAC12 was going to implode and be split up between the existing conferences, Stanford would have been one of the teams I would have wanted for the ACC. USC of course too but you don't always get what you want. I also like Cal over Colorado and the 3 corners. Oregon and Washington had some appeal but not enamored with them. I don't think the ACC is taking leftovers. BigI wins out but like ACC pickups over the Big12 pickups. As far as SMU, the school academically matches up very well with ACC and has money. Let's just hope they don't end up getting into scandals.

 

[stinger 1957]

One thing is apparent in the SMU, CAL, Stanford potential move is big media mkts driving that bus.

 

[AugustaSwarm]

So, correct me on this, but I thought the ACCN was subscription based. As someone who hasn't subscribed to cable in over 20 years my working knowledge of it is limited.

Yes and no. For cable, you can add it on as a package. But nowadays, most folks are streaming. The ACCN is included in many base packages of streaming services (YouTube Tv, Sling, etc). Cable TV has effectively been undercut by streaming services and the fierce competition in streaming services has shown consumers to be fickle and very price aware.

 

[RonJohn]

So, correct me on this, but I thought the ACCN was subscription based. As someone who hasn't subscribed to cable in over 20 years my working knowledge of it is limited.

For YoutubeTV, which I have, it is included in the service. My understanding is that ESPN charges based on whether there is an ACC team in the market or not. It is much higher if there is a team in the market.

For Xfinity I found the following on Google:

ACC Network (ACCN), the 24/7 national network dedicated to ACC sports, is officially now available nationally to Comcast's Xfinity customers. ACCN is available on Xfinity channel 1325 on Digital Starter in states within the ACC footprint and available in other Comcast markets on Digital Preferred.

That indicates that ACCN gets nothing if the subscriber is out of an ACC market and subscribes to the starter package. (which few people do I believe) If you are out of market, it is included in the packages that the great majority of people get.

My understanding from reports, although the TV distribution contracts are all non-public, is that the rates are negotiated as in-market and out-of-market rates. When the SEC Network first started the reports were that cable/sat companies were paying about 30-40 cents for the network out of market, but paying $1.30-1.40 in market. When the SEC added Texas A&M, the SECN revenue jumped by 5-10 million per month for the state of Texas. If the ACC were to add SMU, I expect that the ACCN revenue would have a similar bump, maybe not as high. Adding Stanford or Cal should have a bump for the Northern California area. That money wouldn't all go directly to the ACC because the network is a partnership and the costs would likely increase with the larger footprint to manage/cover.

That is the reason I have said that markets still matter monetarily at this point. The Big10 moving in the Southern California means that cable, sat, and streaming broadcast services like YoutubeTV will pay more for the Big10 Network per subscriber in an area with a very large TV base. That would happen in Atlanta or in Miami. Rutgers had that kind of bump for them in NY, but that bump was very large. I have seen reports that the Big10 Network revenue in the NY area was larger than the yearly Big10 media payouts. In other words, Rutgers brought more money into the Big10 than they were paid out of the Big10. That happened even though Rutgers hasn't been a very good team and hasn't been a highly viewed team. The financial aspects are a lot more complicated than simply highly rated games equals the most money for the conference.

 

[bobongo]

Maybe it doesn’t. Maybe Stanford, Cal, and SMU get nothing and the $72 M just goes to the teams who win in the post-season. That’s how they’ll get FSU and Clemson on board.

How long does that last? For how long will these desperados sign away the money they're bringing in just to get a seat at our table?
Unless they can drag ND with them, it's more a sign of a coming dissolution than a long-range solution.

 

[yeti92]

You'll forgive me if I don't think the entertainment market of 100 years ago is that relevant. LOTS more options out there today. That's not an answer to the question: if the NHL threw in the towel on 2/3 of its teams and said "who needs anything but Canada and the Northeast" would that make you think the league was healthy and future total NHL revenue was gonna go up? Would it make the value of the next NHL TV contracts higher?


I'm sure they'll try, but I don't think that move works out as easily as we'd hope in 2023. "Let's just charge cable companies more" was a big part of Bally's plan too. But cable companies started saying no.

Even Spectrum didn't really get away with it for the Dodgers a decade ago.

It would be ACC-level competence/success if the outcome of SMU-in-the-ACC was carriers *dropping* the ACC Network in Dallas because ESPN was trying to extract higher fees.

I believe ESPN can threaten to withhold all ESPN products from those cable companies if they don't agree to pay extra for the ACC network, it's part of the bundle. ESPN has a lot more leverage in that regard than Bally. Almost nobody is dropping their cable provider over Bally not being available, but lots of people will drop their cable provider if they can't get ESPN.

 

[Jim Prather]

I’ve got a slightly different question. I know CA has some pretty strict laws on the books regarding states which it won’t pay for its public employees to travel to. I think I remember the NCAA having to pay for a team to travel to the final 4 a couple of years ago because of it. I’m pretty sure a bunch of the states in the ACC are on that list. As a private school Stanford will be fine, but how will that work for Cal?