That's right, FAU and FIU has fans down there also.

(07-25-2022 02:14 PM)green Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 02:09 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 02:00 PM)green Wrote:  

Quote:The Miami metropolitan area (also known as Greater Miami, the Tri-County Area, South Florida, or the Gold Coast) is the ninth largest metropolitan statistical area in the United States and the 34th largest metropolitan area in the world with a 2020 population of 6.138 million people.

300 miles of treadware separate U & the nearest comparable competitor ...
geographic isolation is our friend ...
state of Miami ...

FLAGSHIP

I bet S. FL is fairly evenly split between FSU, UF and Miami fans...with UCF fans creeping up too.

go to las vegas if you wanna bet ...
undeniably, school up north represents a duplicative market ...
already covered ...

TALKING OUT YOUR ASS

Your sales pitch is tired. Totally wrong pitch for B1G/SEC.

Interesting map.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/u...story.html

(07-25-2022 02:38 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  Interesting map.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/u...story.html

Yeah the problem is it doesnt show the %. And obviously how much folks actually support their preference (S. FL is very much a pro sports metro compared to anywhere else in the state). There are probably some counties that are 50.1% Cane fans...and other counties that are vast majority Gator or Nole. The most noteworthy thing to me is how much different that map would have looked just 20 years ago. There would have been almost no USF Green or UCF Gold. It's also great (my opinion) to see FSU very well represented in Orlando/Central FL. I wouldn't expect them to have a majority stake anywhere south of N FL.

(07-25-2022 02:41 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 02:38 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  Interesting map.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/u...story.html

Yeah the problem is it doesnt show the %. There are probably some counties that are 50.1% Cane fans...and other counties that are vast majority Gator or Nole.

Yes, I wish it did.

(07-25-2022 02:20 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  That's right, FAU and FIU has fans down there also.

sophisticated metropolis ignores minor-league athletics subsidized by the strong-arming of unsuspecting student body via obscene activity fees ...

CEILING FANS

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014...n-map.html

NYT college football fan map of Florida ...

PAPER OF RECORD

(07-25-2022 02:54 PM)green Wrote:  

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014...n-map.html

NYT college football fan map of Florida ...

PAPER OF RECORD

That's 2014, The Orlando Sentinel was from 2020.

(07-25-2022 02:04 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 01:26 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 12:21 PM)mike012779 Wrote:  The teams ESPN wants from Acc will be given deals to join the sec. The rest can stay and play on ESPN + or go. ESPN saves money and doesn’t have inventory tv issues. Plus gets some decent ESPN + options if the leftover agree to stay. Making them some nice side cash.

First of all ESPN is doing nothing without the consent of ALL members of the ACC. The GOR is separate from the TV contract. No one is going anywhere until 2036.

Now if ESPN wants to sweeten the pot for its ACC properties, it is welcome to do that. The scheduled “look ins” in the contract are there for that reason.

This fallacy that ESPN can somehow free whatever schools it wants to send to another conference is message board nonsense.

Do you have a link to the ACC Charter and Bylaws? If not, I don't believe this. I'm not talking about the 4-pager boilerplate GOR.

What do you need the Charter and Bylaws to confirm? This involves the media package and GOR.

(07-25-2022 03:00 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  l

That's 2014, The Orlando Sentinel was from 2020.

times >>>>> sentinel
omg ...
quibbling over trivial pursuit ...
bottom line ...
University of Miami domiciled in sunny South Florida ...
and you’re not ...

ONLY GAME IN TOWN

(07-25-2022 03:13 PM)green Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 03:00 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  l

That's 2014, The Orlando Sentinel was from 2020.

times >>>>> sentinel
omg ...
quibbling over trivial pursuit ...
bottom line ...
University of Miami domiciled in sunny South Florida ...
and you’re not ...

ONLY GAME IN TOWN

REALLY. You don't think that this hasn't changed in 6-8 years? UCF has grown significantly in those years.

(07-25-2022 01:38 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 07:01 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  The University of North Carolina chancellor mentioned in a press conference that they are working on a better contract with ESPN. What does this mean? Could ESPN rip up their sweetheart deal (a bargain that goes through 2036) just to make sure they don't lose any ACC teams to FOX & the Big Ten?

Link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb2u627Ged0

Actually I wouldn’t expect anything to be announced until after The PAC Media Days that begin on Friday 7/29.

ESPN and The ACC can’t announce anything that involves The PAC until the 30 day negotiating window with Fox and ESPN closes. Speculation is Fox won’t bid on The PAC media package this time around because they have a commitment from the two schools they valued in SC and UCLA.

Once that window closes, I would expect a broadcast arrangement with The ACC and The PAC will be announced along with The ACC expanding by two. Not sure who the expansion programs will be but it sure sounded like a Freudian slip when Phillips said 17 schools last week.

I am with you but this is what I am struggling to figure out.

The two schools have got to be UO and UW. But if the ACC adds two Pac schools, would the Pac be still willing to have a network partnership with the ACC? And if the Pac loses more schools, Pac would become even weaker and the B12 may be able to raid the Pac. That doesn’t sound like a good outcome for ESPN.

Or will the ACC poach schools from B12? I just don’t see a good candidate. Maybe Cincy? But it seems like Phillips want well established AAU schools.

(07-25-2022 03:11 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 02:04 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 01:26 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 12:21 PM)mike012779 Wrote:  The teams ESPN wants from Acc will be given deals to join the sec. The rest can stay and play on ESPN + or go. ESPN saves money and doesn’t have inventory tv issues. Plus gets some decent ESPN + options if the leftover agree to stay. Making them some nice side cash.

First of all ESPN is doing nothing without the consent of ALL members of the ACC. The GOR is separate from the TV contract. No one is going anywhere until 2036.

Now if ESPN wants to sweeten the pot for its ACC properties, it is welcome to do that. The scheduled “look ins” in the contract are there for that reason.

This fallacy that ESPN can somehow free whatever schools it wants to send to another conference is message board nonsense.

Do you have a link to the ACC Charter and Bylaws? If not, I don't believe this. I'm not talking about the 4-pager boilerplate GOR.

What do you need the Charter and Bylaws to confirm? This involves the media package and GOR.

Asking for a friend. Seriously...it's what a lot of us want to see.

(07-25-2022 03:21 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 03:11 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 02:04 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 01:26 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 12:21 PM)mike012779 Wrote:  The teams ESPN wants from Acc will be given deals to join the sec. The rest can stay and play on ESPN + or go. ESPN saves money and doesn’t have inventory tv issues. Plus gets some decent ESPN + options if the leftover agree to stay. Making them some nice side cash.

First of all ESPN is doing nothing without the consent of ALL members of the ACC. The GOR is separate from the TV contract. No one is going anywhere until 2036.

Now if ESPN wants to sweeten the pot for its ACC properties, it is welcome to do that. The scheduled “look ins” in the contract are there for that reason.

This fallacy that ESPN can somehow free whatever schools it wants to send to another conference is message board nonsense.

Do you have a link to the ACC Charter and Bylaws? If not, I don't believe this. I'm not talking about the 4-pager boilerplate GOR.

What do you need the Charter and Bylaws to confirm? This involves the media package and GOR.

Asking for a friend. Seriously...it's what a lot of us want to see.

I agree
That things harder to find than hen’s teeth.
I would expect it’s probably never been put online

(07-25-2022 03:16 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 01:38 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 07:01 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  The University of North Carolina chancellor mentioned in a press conference that they are working on a better contract with ESPN. What does this mean? Could ESPN rip up their sweetheart deal (a bargain that goes through 2036) just to make sure they don't lose any ACC teams to FOX & the Big Ten?

Link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb2u627Ged0

Actually I wouldn’t expect anything to be announced until after The PAC Media Days that begin on Friday 7/29.

ESPN and The ACC can’t announce anything that involves The PAC until the 30 day negotiating window with Fox and ESPN closes. Speculation is Fox won’t bid on The PAC media package this time around because they have a commitment from the two schools they valued in SC and UCLA.

Once that window closes, I would expect a broadcast arrangement with The ACC and The PAC will be announced along with The ACC expanding by two. Not sure who the expansion programs will be but it sure sounded like a Freudian slip when Phillips said 17 schools last week.

I am with you but this is what I am struggling to figure out.

The two schools have got to be UO and UW. But if the ACC adds two Pac schools, would the Pac be still willing to have a network partnership with the ACC? And if the Pac loses more schools, Pac would become even weaker and the B12 may be able to raid the Pac. That doesn’t sound like a good outcome for ESPN.

Why wouldn't that be a good outcome for ESPN, if you added say, Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Utah to the ACC, and four other PAC to the Big 12?

That new ACC would be a VERY strong 3rd power conference. It would be 3rd of 3 in revenue, but it would stand up extremely well against the Big 10 on the field. Nobody is touching the SEC on the field (including the new Big 10), so that almost doesn't matter.

It would give ESPN "Power 3" programming from noon to 1am every Saturday. And then a near-Power conference in the Big 12 that wouldn't be dog crap either. The Big 12 contract is up in 2025 so ESPN could absolutely get in for a piece or all of it. Is there some fear that FOX would be expected to go to the mat for the new Big 12? I tend to think Fox's interest in that new Big 12 would be relatively slim. And that would give ESPN more secondary programming in the late slot.

And there's nobody in the Big 12, save MAYBE Kansas, that the B1G would be in play for. ESPN could largely control everything but the Big 10 and 7 Notre Dame games.

None of that might keep FSU, Clemson, UNC, UW, OR etc from walking in 2036. But 2036 is a long time away. The ACC would also in 2036 be able to test the market for the first time in four decades, and maybe that changes the calculus on who wants to leave.

The idea that fourteen years from now ACC teams might be looking to leave is not a good argument against either the ACC or ESPN trying to improve position in the meantime.

(07-25-2022 03:44 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 03:16 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 01:38 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 07:01 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  The University of North Carolina chancellor mentioned in a press conference that they are working on a better contract with ESPN. What does this mean? Could ESPN rip up their sweetheart deal (a bargain that goes through 2036) just to make sure they don't lose any ACC teams to FOX & the Big Ten?

Link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb2u627Ged0

Actually I wouldn’t expect anything to be announced until after The PAC Media Days that begin on Friday 7/29.

ESPN and The ACC can’t announce anything that involves The PAC until the 30 day negotiating window with Fox and ESPN closes. Speculation is Fox won’t bid on The PAC media package this time around because they have a commitment from the two schools they valued in SC and UCLA.

Once that window closes, I would expect a broadcast arrangement with The ACC and The PAC will be announced along with The ACC expanding by two. Not sure who the expansion programs will be but it sure sounded like a Freudian slip when Phillips said 17 schools last week.

I am with you but this is what I am struggling to figure out.

The two schools have got to be UO and UW. But if the ACC adds two Pac schools, would the Pac be still willing to have a network partnership with the ACC? And if the Pac loses more schools, Pac would become even weaker and the B12 may be able to raid the Pac. That doesn’t sound like a good outcome for ESPN.

Why wouldn't that be a good outcome for ESPN, if you added say, Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Utah to the ACC, and four other PAC to the Big 12?

That new ACC would be a VERY strong 3rd power conference. It would be 3rd of 3 in revenue, but it would stand up extremely well against the Big 10 on the field. Nobody is touching the SEC on the field (including the new Big 10), so that almost doesn't matter.

It would give ESPN "Power 3" programming from noon to 1am every Saturday. And then a near-Power conference in the Big 12 that wouldn't be dog crap either. The Big 12 contract is up in 2025 so ESPN could absolutely get in for a piece or all of it. Is there some fear that FOX would be expected to go to the mat for the new Big 12? I tend to think Fox's interest in that new Big 12 would be relatively slim. And that would give ESPN more secondary programming in the late slot.

And there's nobody in the Big 12, save MAYBE Kansas, that the B1G would be in play for. ESPN could largely control everything but the Big 10 and 7 Notre Dame games.

None of that might keep FSU, Clemson, UNC, UW, OR etc from walking in 2036. But 2036 is a long time away. The ACC would also in 2036 be able to test the market for the first time in four decades, and maybe that changes the calculus on who wants to leave.

The idea that fourteen years from now ACC teams might be looking to leave is not a good argument against either the ACC or ESPN trying to improve position in the meantime.

Amen. I'd add Arizona State or Colorado to the 4 PAC that you mentioned. Then take WVU or Cincy to round out at 20, 4 divisions of 5 each.

(07-25-2022 03:44 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 03:16 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 01:38 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 07:01 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  The University of North Carolina chancellor mentioned in a press conference that they are working on a better contract with ESPN. What does this mean? Could ESPN rip up their sweetheart deal (a bargain that goes through 2036) just to make sure they don't lose any ACC teams to FOX & the Big Ten?

Link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb2u627Ged0

Actually I wouldn’t expect anything to be announced until after The PAC Media Days that begin on Friday 7/29.

ESPN and The ACC can’t announce anything that involves The PAC until the 30 day negotiating window with Fox and ESPN closes. Speculation is Fox won’t bid on The PAC media package this time around because they have a commitment from the two schools they valued in SC and UCLA.

Once that window closes, I would expect a broadcast arrangement with The ACC and The PAC will be announced along with The ACC expanding by two. Not sure who the expansion programs will be but it sure sounded like a Freudian slip when Phillips said 17 schools last week.

I am with you but this is what I am struggling to figure out.

The two schools have got to be UO and UW. But if the ACC adds two Pac schools, would the Pac be still willing to have a network partnership with the ACC? And if the Pac loses more schools, Pac would become even weaker and the B12 may be able to raid the Pac. That doesn’t sound like a good outcome for ESPN.

Why wouldn't that be a good outcome for ESPN, if you added say, Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Utah to the ACC, and four other PAC to the Big 12?

That new ACC would be a VERY strong 3rd power conference. It would be 3rd of 3 in revenue, but it would stand up extremely well against the Big 10 on the field. Nobody is touching the SEC on the field (including the new Big 10), so that almost doesn't matter.

It would give ESPN "Power 3" programming from noon to 1am every Saturday. And then a near-Power conference in the Big 12 that wouldn't be dog crap either. The Big 12 contract is up in 2025 so ESPN could absolutely get in for a piece or all of it. Is there some fear that FOX would be expected to go to the mat for the new Big 12? I tend to think Fox's interest in that new Big 12 would be relatively slim. And that would give ESPN more secondary programming in the late slot.

And there's nobody in the Big 12, save MAYBE Kansas, that the B1G would be in play for. ESPN could largely control everything but the Big 10 and 7 Notre Dame games.

None of that might keep FSU, Clemson, UNC, UW, OR etc from walking in 2036. But 2036 is a long time away. The ACC would also in 2036 be able to test the market for the first time in four decades, and maybe that changes the calculus on who wants to leave.

The idea that fourteen years from now ACC teams might be looking to leave is not a good argument against either the ACC or ESPN trying to improve position in the meantime.

I should say...the "bad outcome" for my scenario is that to make it happen, they would have to shell out significant money, including to ACC teams it already has under contract, and doesn't have to. It's not like it's a no brainer.

ESPN can hold the ACC tight to the revenue terms of its contract for 14 more years, and likely get good brands like Oregon, Stanford, Washington, etc, as well as the Big 12, on a relative pittance deal in diminished Big 12 and PAC contracts.

It would be no small investment to bring the ACC plus a few PAC brands up to something like $60M+ per year to stabilize them as a legit 3rd power conference.

The calculus (I think) is:

Spend a whole lot of money you aren't contracted to in an effort to solidify a strong third power conference with programming coast to coast, and own two out of three power conferences.

vs

Spend a lot less money now, have 14 years of a declining (and agitated) ACC, no power conference programming west of CST, and let half the ACC's best brands walk off to the B1G in 2036, and own half of two power conferences.

I can at least see a path to option one being appealing to ESPN. But the bottom line is that its a LOT of money it would take to get the ACC (at 18 teams now) where they would need to be. I could also see them saying that its not worth that.

(07-25-2022 02:54 PM)green Wrote:  

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014...n-map.html

NYT college football fan map of Florida ...

PAPER OF RECORD

NYT is trash.

365 sports suggests ESPN is only offering $24.5M/school to PAC. This raises interesting thoughts concerning values of Washington and Oregon Markets.

Does this suggest ESPN may be more interested in investing in ACC rather than adding the PAC to the Line Up. are they trying to bait only a few PAC teams into moving to the ACC?

(07-25-2022 04:07 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 03:44 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 03:16 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 01:38 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 07:01 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  The University of North Carolina chancellor mentioned in a press conference that they are working on a better contract with ESPN. What does this mean? Could ESPN rip up their sweetheart deal (a bargain that goes through 2036) just to make sure they don't lose any ACC teams to FOX & the Big Ten?

Link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb2u627Ged0

Actually I wouldn’t expect anything to be announced until after The PAC Media Days that begin on Friday 7/29.

ESPN and The ACC can’t announce anything that involves The PAC until the 30 day negotiating window with Fox and ESPN closes. Speculation is Fox won’t bid on The PAC media package this time around because they have a commitment from the two schools they valued in SC and UCLA.

Once that window closes, I would expect a broadcast arrangement with The ACC and The PAC will be announced along with The ACC expanding by two. Not sure who the expansion programs will be but it sure sounded like a Freudian slip when Phillips said 17 schools last week.

I am with you but this is what I am struggling to figure out.

The two schools have got to be UO and UW. But if the ACC adds two Pac schools, would the Pac be still willing to have a network partnership with the ACC? And if the Pac loses more schools, Pac would become even weaker and the B12 may be able to raid the Pac. That doesn’t sound like a good outcome for ESPN.

Why wouldn't that be a good outcome for ESPN, if you added say, Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Utah to the ACC, and four other PAC to the Big 12?

That new ACC would be a VERY strong 3rd power conference. It would be 3rd of 3 in revenue, but it would stand up extremely well against the Big 10 on the field. Nobody is touching the SEC on the field (including the new Big 10), so that almost doesn't matter.

It would give ESPN "Power 3" programming from noon to 1am every Saturday. And then a near-Power conference in the Big 12 that wouldn't be dog crap either. The Big 12 contract is up in 2025 so ESPN could absolutely get in for a piece or all of it. Is there some fear that FOX would be expected to go to the mat for the new Big 12? I tend to think Fox's interest in that new Big 12 would be relatively slim. And that would give ESPN more secondary programming in the late slot.

And there's nobody in the Big 12, save MAYBE Kansas, that the B1G would be in play for. ESPN could largely control everything but the Big 10 and 7 Notre Dame games.

None of that might keep FSU, Clemson, UNC, UW, OR etc from walking in 2036. But 2036 is a long time away. The ACC would also in 2036 be able to test the market for the first time in four decades, and maybe that changes the calculus on who wants to leave.

The idea that fourteen years from now ACC teams might be looking to leave is not a good argument against either the ACC or ESPN trying to improve position in the meantime.

I should say...the "bad outcome" for my scenario is that to make it happen, they would have to shell out significant money, including to ACC teams it already has under contract, and doesn't have to. It's not like it's a no brainer.

ESPN can hold the ACC tight to the revenue terms of its contract for 14 more years, and likely get good brands like Oregon, Stanford, Washington, etc, as well as the Big 12, on a relative pittance deal in diminished Big 12 and PAC contracts.

It would be no small investment to bring the ACC plus a few PAC brands up to something like $60M+ per year to stabilize them as a legit 3rd power conference.

The calculus (I think) is:

Spend a whole lot of money you aren't contracted to in an effort to solidify a strong third power conference with programming coast to coast, and own two out of three power conferences.

vs

Spend a lot less money now, have 14 years of a declining (and agitated) ACC, no power conference programming west of CST, and let half the ACC's best brands walk off to the B1G in 2036, and own half of two power conferences.

I can at least see a path to option one being appealing to ESPN. But the bottom line is that its a LOT of money it would take to get the ACC (at 18 teams now) where they would need to be. I could also see them saying that its not worth that.

Well, I don’t think ESPN is very bullish on the B12. Below is from John Canzano:

Ex-Fox Sports Network president Bob Thompson told me recently not to expect the networks to play well together. The Big 12 blames ESPN for ushering Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. And Fox, no doubt, greased the wheels for the USC and UCLA move to the Big Ten.

“I think the days of Fox and ESPN partnering on things like the Big 12 and Pac-12 are probably over for now,” Thompson said.

It is reported that Fox is not negotiating with the Pac for its next media deal. We will see once the BIG announces its media deal but I think Fox will get BIG and B12 while ESPN keeps SEC, ACC and Pac.

I would be happy to see ACC adding four to six teams from Pac but from ESPN’s perspective, maybe the best deal is:

1. Keep both Pac and ACC in tact. Give a couple of million dollars per team for media pooling
2. Move two Pac schools to ACC. Raise the ACC payout by $5 million or so. Keep the remaining Pac schools at much lower price.
3. Move Cincy and another B12 school to ACC. This would be most likely revenue neutral. Give a couple of million dollars for media pooling with Pac.

For ESPN to make a move from Pac to ACC, a saving from smaller Pac deal should be larger than the additional payments to the ACC. I don’t think ESPN is willing to pay $60M+ to an ACC team.