From another thread:

"If the TV networks thought the ACC was of value we wouldn't be in the fix we are in because we'd be making a payout like the rest."

-----------------


1) The ACC TV deal was negotiated during the economic meltdown, at a time when the schools with a strongest football brands like FSU and Miami were not winning the conference title.

The deal was also negotiated before NBC and other media companies started the bidding war for conference contracts.


2) See the interesting interview with the Clemson AD: where he talks about the ACC contract and difficulty of comparisons, value of ESPN coverage and exposure.

More importantly, he explains the 5 and 10 year lookins can be very significant, since they provide an opportunity to see whether the conference has improved its performance (markets/ratings/competitive rankings) and whether that may merit a significant increase in payout.


http://www.tigernet.com/view/story.do?id=10621


3) The creation of a true north-south Atlantic coastal conference with current schools plus a drastically weakened Big East is unprecedented.

It would be surprising if FSU and Miami and other ACC teams do not step up in the next 5 years (assuming the schools stay together).

So the 5 and 10 year lookins are considered very important and were discussed at the recent ACC meeting.

4) I'm sure all the ACC members will evaluate their best options; however the truth is that FSU last won the ACC title in 2005, Miami never and Clemson, aside from their embarrasing defeat by WVU last year, hasn't won the ACC title for approximately 20 years.

http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/r...champs.txt


A recent post discussed "perception":

Not sure how the ACC is responsible for the surprising Clemson loss to WVU last year.

WVU came out of that game looking like a powerhouse.

The reality is WVU lost to SU on October 21: 49-23;
they lost to UL on 11/5,
then won their last 3 games against Cin, Pitt and USF between 11/12 and 12/1 by a grand total of 7 points, almost the definition of parity.

Hopefully over the next 5 years, the ACC traditional football teams will be back, with improved recruiting and new coaches, along with other teams, and the lookins will raise the payout.

5) This all assumes the "reports" that FSU and ND to the Big 12 are not already done deals.

If that is the case, let me be the first to wish FSU and ND best wishes.

When I combine comments from Syracuse, Virginia, Clemson and ESPN itself, the picture I'm starting to get is that the $17M/yr ACC money and the $20M/yr for the "big 4" is mostly a case of "apples & oranges", and that the total TV revenues are actually about the same (and in fact some ACC schools may already make more per year than some Big 12 schools - but not more than Texas).

It is beginning to sound like ESPN has right of first refusal on all Olympic sports and WBB games but still pays when they carry them.

That is why they are saying our exposure is greater because these lacrosse games and soccer tournaments are being carried on ESPN instead of a regional sports network.

Now we're hearing this:
Darren Rovel (CNBC sports guy) tweets:

Quote:"CBS doesn't want to pay more for new SEC, arguing Missouri & Texas A&M don't add significant value."

This is from the Atlanta Journal (AJC):

Quote:Speaking of which, the same SportsBusiness Journal article noted that the SEC continues to renegotiate its main TV deal with CBS and the network is balking at paying as big an increase as the conference is seeking, arguing that Missouri and A&M don’t really add much value to the deal and the network shouldn’t pay more just because the SEC added two new schools.

Which prompts one fan who dropped me a note to ask: “So why did we add two new schools to split the pie further and completely screw up scheduling?”

and this from MrSEC:

Quote:Latest News: Could TV Negotiations Drive SEC To 9-Game Football Schedule?

(BTW - I told y'all this would happen in my blog and I'm sticking to it).

BOTTOM LINE: My, my how fast these things turn on a conference, don't they?

(05-22-2012 01:06 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Now we're hearing this:
Darren Rovel (CNBC sports guy) tweets:

Quote:"CBS doesn't want to pay more for new SEC, arguing Missouri & Texas A&M don't add significant value."

This is from the Atlanta Journal (AJC):

Quote:Speaking of which, the same SportsBusiness Journal article noted that the SEC continues to renegotiate its main TV deal with CBS and the network is balking at paying as big an increase as the conference is seeking, arguing that Missouri and A&M don’t really add much value to the deal and the network shouldn’t pay more just because the SEC added two new schools.

Which prompts one fan who dropped me a note to ask: “So why did we add two new schools to split the pie further and completely screw up scheduling?”

and this from MrSEC:

Quote:Latest News: Could TV Negotiations Drive SEC To 9-Game Football Schedule?

(BTW - I told y'all this would happen in my blog and I'm sticking to it).

BOTTOM LINE: My, my how fast these things turn on a conference, don't they?

Good stuff Hokie Mark. As I posted elsewhere, CBS's reaction should be no surprise. They get first choice of games and have only 15 to show. Most games in which ATM or Mizzou might appear will be a "wash" as far as ratings are concerned, with maybe one or two games showing any noticable increase. As a result, they are unlikely to do much to improve the average rating of the CBS package.

ESPN is where the action will be. They will get 12 more games to show, of which 8 will be conference games and one per year will be a quality OOC matchup. Still, the recent ACC deal demonstrates that as much or more value came from 1) going to a nine game schedule, 2) adding a few weeknight games, and 3) extending the contract. ESPN is undoubtedly asking for the same things from the SEC. If I were the SEC, I'd press for a joint venture SEC Network to give these concessions.

(05-22-2012 02:13 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Good stuff Hokie Mark. As I posted elsewhere, CBS's reaction should be no surprise. They get first choice of games and have only 15 to show. Most games in which ATM or Mizzou might appear will be a "wash" as far as ratings are concerned, with maybe one or two games showing any noticable increase. As a result, they are unlikely to do much to improve the average rating of the CBS package.

ESPN is where the action will be. They will get 12 more games to show, of which 8 will be conference games and one per year will be a quality OOC matchup. Still, the recent ACC deal demonstrates that as much or more value came from 1) going to a nine game schedule, 2) adding a few weeknight games, and 3) extending the contract. ESPN is undoubtedly asking for the same things from the SEC. If I were the SEC, I'd press for a joint venture SEC Network to give these concessions.

I think the SEC is going to get a network out of this renegotiation. Adding teams in Texas and Missouri greatly increased their potential subscriber base. I'd be interested in hearing mattsarz opinion on whether or not the SEC has a chance to get a network with ESPN. If they're willing to promote the LHN, why wouldn't an ACC or SEC network be possible.

Quote of the Day:

"Money doesn't always bring happiness. People with ten million dollars are no happier than people with nine million dollars". - Hobart Brown