I don’t know if it’s written in the contract with ESPN that they demand certain games annually like FSU-UM, FSU-Clem, etc., I think the prevailing common truth that it indeed is. Assuming it is, couid a few more shekels be deposited in the ACC piggy bank if ESPN was given free reign creative control? This could mean moving around end of year rivalry games to the beginning or middle of the season, new annual matchups, ditching FCS games for a 9th conference game, etc.

Or has ESPN gotten all the programming they wanted/needed already?

(01-06-2024 12:07 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I don’t know if it’s written in the contract with ESPN that they demand certain games annually like FSU-UM, FSU-Clem, etc., I think the prevailing common truth that it indeed is. Assuming it is, couid a few more shekels be deposited in the ACC piggy bank if ESPN was given free reign creative control? This could mean moving around end of year rivalry games to the beginning or middle of the season, new annual matchups, ditching FCS games for a 9th conference game, etc.

Or has ESPN gotten all the programming they wanted/needed already?

I think that with DIsney in general and ESPN specifically being in cost cutting mode that there's no more money to be found by mixing up the schedule.

ESPN is not giving the SEC or ACC more money for going to 9 conference games and as such neither conference is going to expand to 9 games.

(01-06-2024 06:51 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(01-06-2024 12:07 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I don’t know if it’s written in the contract with ESPN that they demand certain games annually like FSU-UM, FSU-Clem, etc., I think the prevailing common truth that it indeed is. Assuming it is, couid a few more shekels be deposited in the ACC piggy bank if ESPN was given free reign creative control? This could mean moving around end of year rivalry games to the beginning or middle of the season, new annual matchups, ditching FCS games for a 9th conference game, etc.

Or has ESPN gotten all the programming they wanted/needed already?

I think that with DIsney in general and ESPN specifically being in cost cutting mode that there's no more money to be found by mixing up the schedule.

ESPN is not giving the SEC or ACC more money for going to 9 conference games and as such neither conference is going to expand to 9 games.

They are going to have to budget at least 1 more pro-rata member, could it be diverted to something else?

(01-06-2024 06:54 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(01-06-2024 06:51 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(01-06-2024 12:07 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I don’t know if it’s written in the contract with ESPN that they demand certain games annually like FSU-UM, FSU-Clem, etc., I think the prevailing common truth that it indeed is. Assuming it is, couid a few more shekels be deposited in the ACC piggy bank if ESPN was given free reign creative control? This could mean moving around end of year rivalry games to the beginning or middle of the season, new annual matchups, ditching FCS games for a 9th conference game, etc.

Or has ESPN gotten all the programming they wanted/needed already?

I think that with DIsney in general and ESPN specifically being in cost cutting mode that there's no more money to be found by mixing up the schedule.

ESPN is not giving the SEC or ACC more money for going to 9 conference games and as such neither conference is going to expand to 9 games.

They are going to have to budget at least 1 more pro-rata member, could it be diverted to something else?

Sure. Just like we diverted most of the revenues for the last 3 additions to incentive monies for football and men's basketball.

But I'm not sure there's going to be another member. If FSU leaves, I think we hold at 16.

having an additional conference game does not mean more content for ESPN in fact it can mean less

year one ACCa plays at ACCb....that is one game for the media partner.....year two ACCb plays at ACCa......that is one game for the media partners.....so one game each year, two games total over two years

with the OOC year one ACCa host an OOC game......ACCb goes on the road for an OOC game.....one game for the media partner......year two ACCa goes on the road for an OOC game......ACCb host an OOC game.....one game for the media partner and two games total over two years

if either of those two years one or both of the ACC teams buy in an OOC game that means an additional game or games for the media partner and those are games that can go on the ACCn

there should be no situation where an ACC team is not getting a straight home and home much less going on the road for an OOC game without getting a return game at home

some will argue that a conference game will have more "value" than an OOC game especially one against a "buy in" type team or a home and home with a AAC or MWC team.....while that might be true for a single game it has been mathematically proven using the PAC 12 that 9 conference games hurts strength of schedule especially for the top teams in the conference and that is using a model that replaced a random conference game with a game equal to the WEAKEST OOC opponent on a teams schedule

so in the long run you are weakening the SOS of pretty much every team in the conference playing more conference games and that overall weakens the value of the conference in general especially over the long term

(01-06-2024 07:40 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  having an additional conference game does not mean more content for ESPN in fact it can mean less

year one ACCa plays at ACCb....that is one game for the media partner.....year two ACCb plays at ACCa......that is one game for the media partners.....so one game each year, two games total over two years

with the OOC year one ACCa host an OOC game......ACCb goes on the road for an OOC game.....one game for the media partner......year two ACCa goes on the road for an OOC game......ACCb host an OOC game.....one game for the media partner and two games total over two years

if either of those two years one or both of the ACC teams buy in an OOC game that means an additional game or games for the media partner and those are games that can go on the ACCn

there should be no situation where an ACC team is not getting a straight home and home much less going on the road for an OOC game without getting a return game at home

some will argue that a conference game will have more "value" than an OOC game especially one against a "buy in" type team or a home and home with a AAC or MWC team.....while that might be true for a single game it has been mathematically proven using the PAC 12 that 9 conference games hurts strength of schedule especially for the top teams in the conference and that is using a model that replaced a random conference game with a game equal to the WEAKEST OOC opponent on a teams schedule

so in the long run you are weakening the SOS of pretty much every team in the conference playing more conference games and that overall weakens the value of the conference in general especially over the long term

While I agree, what I suggested was a throw away FCS opponent if it meant more money from a 9th conference game.

The way to monetize this is for the ACC to get another TV partner. The CW could be that partner, but only if the fees they pay actually find their way back to the ACC.

Let's say The CW is interested in expanding their ACC football inventory to 2 or even 3 games per week.

Now, in order to provide the volume of inventory, the first thing the ACC would need to do is spread out the OOC games throughout the season. You can't have every team playing OOC in Week 1 (thus creating 17 games) while no one plays OOC in Week 8, maybe with 7 teams on Bye (leaving only 5 conference games). By the time the ACCN gets 3 games and ESPN gets one or two, that leaves little or nothing for The CW. How do you get 2 more games? Instead of 5 conference games, you schedule 3 conference games and 4 OOC games (7 total games instead of 5).

Smart scheduling can also spread the quality games out enough so that The CW is not always stuck with garbage (of course, ESPN needs to be onboard - but I doubt they want Clemson vs FSU dropping to the ACCN every year because of an overcrowded SEC schedule, either!)

Bottom Line: ABC + ESPN + ESPN2 = 9 games per Saturday, maximum, which are split between the ACC, SEC, and some Big XII games. If the ACC wants to get a decent number of those slots, they need to be smart with the scheduling!

(01-07-2024 12:08 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The way to monetize this is for the ACC to get another TV partner. The CW could be that partner, but only if the fees they pay actually find their way back to the ACC.

Let's say The CW is interested in expanding their ACC football inventory to 2 or even 3 games per week.

Now, in order to provide the volume of inventory, the first thing the ACC would need to do is spread out the OOC games throughout the season. You can't have every team playing OOC in Week 1 (thus creating 17 games) while no one plays OOC in Week 8, maybe with 7 teams on Bye (leaving only 5 conference games). By the time the ACCN gets 3 games and ESPN gets one or two, that leaves little or nothing for The CW. How do you get 2 more games? Instead of 5 conference games, you schedule 3 conference games and 4 OOC games (7 total games instead of 5).

Smart scheduling can also spread the quality games out enough so that The CW is not always stuck with garbage (of course, ESPN needs to be onboard - but I doubt they want Clemson vs FSU dropping to the ACCN every year because of an overcrowded SEC schedule, either!)

Bottom Line: ABC + ESPN + ESPN2 = 9 games per Saturday, maximum, which are split between the ACC, SEC, and some Big XII games. If the ACC wants to get a decent number of those slots, they need to be smart with the scheduling!

Great Point!

(01-06-2024 08:03 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(01-06-2024 07:40 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  having an additional conference game does not mean more content for ESPN in fact it can mean less

year one ACCa plays at ACCb....that is one game for the media partner.....year two ACCb plays at ACCa......that is one game for the media partners.....so one game each year, two games total over two years

with the OOC year one ACCa host an OOC game......ACCb goes on the road for an OOC game.....one game for the media partner......year two ACCa goes on the road for an OOC game......ACCb host an OOC game.....one game for the media partner and two games total over two years

if either of those two years one or both of the ACC teams buy in an OOC game that means an additional game or games for the media partner and those are games that can go on the ACCn

there should be no situation where an ACC team is not getting a straight home and home much less going on the road for an OOC game without getting a return game at home

some will argue that a conference game will have more "value" than an OOC game especially one against a "buy in" type team or a home and home with a AAC or MWC team.....while that might be true for a single game it has been mathematically proven using the PAC 12 that 9 conference games hurts strength of schedule especially for the top teams in the conference and that is using a model that replaced a random conference game with a game equal to the WEAKEST OOC opponent on a teams schedule

so in the long run you are weakening the SOS of pretty much every team in the conference playing more conference games and that overall weakens the value of the conference in general especially over the long term

While I agree, what I suggested was a throw away FCS opponent if it meant more money from a 9th conference game.

but you are missing what I am saying

throwaway D1-AA games can actually mean MORE content for the media partner....because the media partner owns the conference home games and two conference members laying home and home is one game each year for the media partners.....while those conference members playing buy in D1-AA games can mean more games each year for the media partner

in addition you are missing out on the long term aspect of what I am saying because of a desire for short term money (that leads to a long term lessening of value to the conference)

when you have conference members with more wins that helps the strength of schedule of the conference overall even against D1-AA teams

over the long term more teams with more wins, going to more bowl games, and having a better record to end the year means more teams ranked to start the next year and that builds on itself

your idea is to try and take the top members in the conference and make things even tougher for them by pairing them up for a "big game" for the media partners......that only works in the very short term and in the long term it damages the conference and you go into a negotiation 8 or 10 years down the road with a weakened conference

you need a stronger conference from top to bottom to monetize that you do not need a few teams fighting back and forth to be the top couple of teams every year (and wearing themselves out doing it) while the rest of the conference serves as "wins" and "space takers"

people support winners....they view games that have meaning.....you give more meaning to the conference games by having better teams with better records even if that is against a D1-AA team and two weak G5s for some of them.....because no matter what for strength of schedule and for rankings a win even against a really bad team is always better than a loss even to the best team.....and the study on the PAC 12 proved this

there is not short term solution for the ACC (or Big 12) to get more TV money there are only long term solutions that involve the conference gaining strength through OOC wins instead of thinking that the media partners will pay more for pandering to them with "big games" or "conference games" that bring guaranteed losses to the conference without the chance to get a win for the conference WITHOUT a guaranteed loss as well

I don't know if more inventory of worthless games is the answer, but the ACC should strive to get multiple teams in the playoffs every year, that's where the most money can be gained. If the ACC was smart, they'd game the system by keeping their best team out of the ACCCG and put in the 2 vs 3. No sense in saddling your #2 team with an extra, unnecessary loss if they played the #1 team. ACC champs can be determined after the playoff committee does the end of season ranking.

(01-09-2024 04:45 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I don't know if more inventory of worthless games is the answer, but the ACC should strive to get multiple teams in the playoffs every year, that's where the most money can be gained. If the ACC was smart, they'd game the system by keeping their best team out of the ACCCG and put in the 2 vs 3. No sense in saddling your #2 team with an extra, unnecessary loss if they played the #1 team. ACC champs can be determined after the playoff committee does the end of season ranking.

if a conference cannot draw "top teams" that will improve the conference by their addition then the other answer is to improve the teams in the conference that are not doing as well (which is a long term proposition)

you do that by having more teams in the conference with more wins and then the conference games that you do play "just mean more" because it is better teams facing each other across the board

if a conference has 10 teams and they play 12 games each that is 120 total wins and losses that the conference has

if a conference plays 9 conference games that means there will be 45 guaranteed wins for the conference and 45 GUARANTEED losses for the conference and then 30 OOC games that have the POTENTIAL to be 30 wins for the conference in an ideal situation with 0 losses for the conference

so playing 9 conference games the best record a conference can have is 75-45

if you reduce that to 8 conference games then you have 40 guaranteed wins and 40 guaranteed losses and then the POTENTIAL for 40 wins with no losses

so then a conference can have a record of 80-40 or the potential to have 5 more wins playing 8 conference games vs 9

if you take the idea that the best 2 teams in the conference will be 12-0 or 11-1 under either situation then that is 33 of those potential wins that the top two team eat up out of those potential 75 or 80 wins (9 or 8 conference games)

from there when you spread the remaining wins around the other teams in the conference if you want teams with 9 wins or even 10 wins (records that could be in the top 12 and making the playoffs) you start eating up a lot more of those potential wins

that means the bottom 5 of 6 teams in the conference start looking at records that will at best be 4 or 5 wins and some even less

so when you take 5 potential wins (playing fewer conference games) that also do not guarantee a conference loss well those potential wins are there for the teams that are weaker in the conference.....the teams that the conference really needs to improve to make an overall better and more appealing conference.....when you get a team with one more win and they get a bowl bid that is better for the conference especially if they win that bowl game....if you get a couple of teams in that situation it is even better for the conference

if you have two teams that are generally 9+ win teams avoid each other in season and instead of one beating the other (what has to happen in a game) and instead they both get an OOC win then you may well have an additional team with 10 wins and in the rankings to make the playoffs.....instead of a team that lost a "tough conference game" and is now #17 with 9 wins instead of #11 with 10 wins

an example of this in 2023 would be Louisville.....if Louisville had avoided a conference game over Pitt and instead had beat a tomato can on Oct. 14th when Louisville was #14 then they would have at least stayed at #14 if not moved up a spot or two in the rankings

instead they dropped to #18 and beat Duke, VT, UVA, and Miami (Fl) to get back to being ranked #10 before they lost to Kentucky......with the loss to Kentucky they fell to #14 to face FSU.....after the loss to FSU they fell to #15

if they had avoided that 4 spot drop with the loss to Pitt and instead had stayed ranked the same or slightly moved up there is a good chance they would be #11 even after the loss to FSU (when they ended up #15) and they would be in the playoffs

another example would be FSU in 2022.....they were #16 when they beat Florida so 5 spots out of the playoffs if the top 5 conference champs are going to get in (Clemson being the conference champ)....FSU lost to Wake, NC State, and FSU all in a row and they were #23 facing Wake and they were still #16 heading into bowl season after winning the rest of their games

if they had avoided one of those 3 teams especially Wake #22 at the time when FSU was #23 and instead they beat an OOC tomato can then they would have been still ranked to play #14 NC State (so your conference media partners would have a game with two ranked teams facing each other) and there is a chance that even with a loss to NC State and Clemson and a win over an OOC tomato can (much less a half decent OOC game) they would have been higher than #16 to end the regular season and possibly as high as #11 to make the playoffs

and with that OOC win instead of a conference loss to Wake they would have been a better strength of schedule opponent for NCState and Clemson

lastly some will say "well there is no guarantee that you win the OOC games and that is true, but if a conference as a whole is winning well over 50% of their OOC games (say 70%) then you still have 70% X 5 (in the case of a 10 team conference) or 3.5 more wins to spread out in the conference.....and as shown above if those wins happen to spread the right way (they will some years and some years they might not) then you end up with more ranked teams to head into the playoffs (or bowl season in the past) and you build from there

in a 14 team conference (we will exclude ND because they only play 5 conference games) then you are looking at a POTENTIAL 7 additional wins for the conference without the guaranteed loss of a conference game.....and if you are as a conference winning 70% of your OOC games then 70% X 7 = 4.9 or basically 5 extra wins to spread around the conference.....and as shown with 2022 and 2023 as an example of those 5 wins happen to fall right it can make a major difference.....while it makes little of any difference that there were fewer conference games

and the reality is the media partners pay for ranked teams facing ranked teams and teams that have playoff potential against teams that have playoff potential.....they do NOT pay for a few good teams in a conference beating up on a lot of teams that are generally not going to sniff the playoffs or a bowl game

and year in and year out when you sneak an extra team in the playoffs, get an extra team or two or three in a bowl game, and have a couple of more teams with 9 or 10 win and ending the year ranked that builds into the next year and beyond.....it is what the SEC SEC SEC does year in and year out....combined with their tomato cans being late in the season when other conferences that have not figured it out are beating up on each other and knocking each other down in the rankings