ACC secures first carriage deals

http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal...work.aspx?

Sent from my XT1565 using CSNbbs mobile app

Nice.

It will make money. And it will get strong carriage. Why? Thanks to the package of rights that ESPN holds there is literally no viable avenue for advertisers to slip into the ACC/SEC footprint except on the extreme periphery of either conference.

In Florida ESPN holds all 5 key schools rights. In North Carolina they hold all 5 key schools rights. They hold all three in Tennessee. And they hold them all in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.

The only way advertisers can access college sports audiences in the region is to go through ESPN which means leverage for broader carriage and higher ad rates. That means better success for the ACC than most might believe.

The push is going to be on n strong fashion for Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State now. Expect the SEC and ACC to divide some of those brands. If ESPN can land those schools then both the SECN and ACCN will have the leverage in the world's largest college sports regional market. Right now FOX has 50% rights to the four Texas Big 12 schools and the two Oklahoma schools. If ESPN acquires them to go along with A&M and Houston, S.M.U. and Tulsa its lights out for anyone trying to get past ESPN to advertise for college sports in Texas/Oklahoma. Oklahoma is key only because they carry a significant % of DFW.

So if Texas takes a partial deal and T.C.U. and WVU come on board then the ACC picks up DFW and Texas for distribution. That would be the move that make a really strong opening a really great one. WVU solidifies the reach into the North. I would suggest Cincinnati but ESPN has them through the AAC for less. Maybe you see something like OU, OSU, TTU, and another (maybe Kansas) to to the SEC.

But I think it is very possible that we see additions to the ACC either just prior to the debut of the Network, or announced just prior to the Network debut. It should be some fun times for the ACC and it probably will trigger the final movement of this realignment sequence.

It wont make as much as the Big10 or SEC---but its going to do much better than the Pac12 Network.

(06-26-2017 07:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It wont make as much as the Big10 or SEC---but its going to do much better than the Pac12 Network.

Hell you could put me on Skype and I'd do better than the PACN!

(06-26-2017 07:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 07:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It wont make as much as the Big10 or SEC---but its going to do much better than the Pac12 Network.

Hell you could put me on Skype and I'd do better than the PACN!

lol...probably could. If the SEC schools are getting around 7 from the SEC Net, I'm thinking the AAC will be in the 4-5 million a team range.

(06-26-2017 08:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 07:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 07:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It wont make as much as the Big10 or SEC---but its going to do much better than the Pac12 Network.

Hell you could put me on Skype and I'd do better than the PACN!

lol...probably could. If the SEC schools are getting around 7 from the SEC Net, I'm thinking the AAC will be in the 4-5 million a team range.

That's what the SEC schools got the first year. We just had expenses for the start up come out of it the first two years. It will help the ACC play catch up for sure. They could jump into the third position among the P5 in the first year, but my money is on year three. I believe by year three they will solidly be in third in TV revenue.

(06-26-2017 07:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It wont make as much as the Big10 or SEC---but its going to do much better than the Pac12 Network.

I would be thrilled if they can get 35-40 cents.

(06-26-2017 07:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So if Texas takes a partial deal and T.C.U. and WVU come on board then the ACC picks up DFW and Texas for distribution. That would be the move that make a really strong opening a really great one. WVU solidifies the reach into the North. I would suggest Cincinnati but ESPN has them through the AAC for less. Maybe you see something like OU, OSU, TTU, and another (maybe Kansas) to to the SEC.

But I think it is very possible that we see additions to the ACC either just prior to the debut of the Network, or announced just prior to the Network debut. It should be some fun times for the ACC and it probably will trigger the final movement of this realignment sequence.

The ACC isn't adding anyone unless ND decided to join full. Then there would be a +1, which could be any one of a number of schools. They sure as hell aren't going to add TCU and WV as a pair just so ESPN can help lock Texas up. Let them stay in whatever is left of the B12 and pay them there. It sure will be a hell of a lot less than the $30M+ what they'd pay for them to be in the ACC.

(06-26-2017 08:38 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 07:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So if Texas takes a partial deal and T.C.U. and WVU come on board then the ACC picks up DFW and Texas for distribution. That would be the move that make a really strong opening a really great one. WVU solidifies the reach into the North. I would suggest Cincinnati but ESPN has them through the AAC for less. Maybe you see something like OU, OSU, TTU, and another (maybe Kansas) to to the SEC.

But I think it is very possible that we see additions to the ACC either just prior to the debut of the Network, or announced just prior to the Network debut. It should be some fun times for the ACC and it probably will trigger the final movement of this realignment sequence.

The ACC isn't adding anyone unless ND decided to join full. Then there would be a +1, which could be any one of a number of schools. They sure as hell aren't going to add TCU and WV as a pair just so ESPN can help lock Texas up. Let them stay in whatever is left of the B12 and pay them there. It sure will be a hell of a lot less than the $30M+ what they'd pay for them to be in the ACC.

Swofford's dream has always been UT and ND as full members. If that ever happens, he probably retires after acheiving the dream.

(06-26-2017 05:56 PM)DukeFan Wrote:  Nice.

Except .... The article doesn't indicate any actual deals.

(06-26-2017 09:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 05:56 PM)DukeFan Wrote:  Nice.

Except .... The article doesn't indicate any actual deals.

It said they had them, they just weren't going to name them. That could mean that some might be contingent upon certain additions, or that ESPN doesn't want any others to know who is already in since that could disincentivize some prospects.

(06-26-2017 07:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It will make money. And it will get strong carriage. Why? Thanks to the package of rights that ESPN holds there is literally no viable avenue for advertisers to slip into the ACC/SEC footprint except on the extreme periphery of either conference.

In Florida ESPN holds all 5 key schools rights. In North Carolina they hold all 5 key schools rights. They hold all three in Tennessee. And they hold them all in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.

The only way advertisers can access college sports audiences in the region is to go through ESPN which means leverage for broader carriage and higher ad rates. That means better success for the ACC than most might believe.

The push is going to be on n strong fashion for Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State now. Expect the SEC and ACC to divide some of those brands. If ESPN can land those schools then both the SECN and ACCN will have the leverage in the world's largest college sports regional market. Right now FOX has 50% rights to the four Texas Big 12 schools and the two Oklahoma schools. If ESPN acquires them to go along with A&M and Houston, S.M.U. and Tulsa its lights out for anyone trying to get past ESPN to advertise for college sports in Texas/Oklahoma. Oklahoma is key only because they carry a significant % of DFW.

So if Texas takes a partial deal and T.C.U. and WVU come on board then the ACC picks up DFW and Texas for distribution. That would be the move that make a really strong opening a really great one. WVU solidifies the reach into the North. I would suggest Cincinnati but ESPN has them through the AAC for less. Maybe you see something like OU, OSU, TTU, and another (maybe Kansas) to to the SEC.

But I think it is very possible that we see additions to the ACC either just prior to the debut of the Network, or announced just prior to the Network debut. It should be some fun times for the ACC and it probably will trigger the final movement of this realignment sequence.

First let me say to all, "Hello, I am back". I've been off the boards for a couple of months. My previous handle was omniorange when I was last here.

Hail JRsec,

Interesting post, particularly the point about ESPN perhaps trying to become sole owners (in college sports at least) of the South.

I, myself, am not hopeful of the ACC getting Texas in an ND-type deal. But if this were to happen, I suspect the Longhorns might want spots #15 and #16 to both be Texas schools maybe moreso for olympic sports than for football scheduling wise as I discuss below. And this is coming from someone who has wanted to see WVU in the ACC since it was first announced that SU and Pitt were leaving back in September of 2011, so I would be more than fine with WVU and TCU myself. But I could see under this scenario, for example, TCU and Houston as well. Again, just an example.

I also think they might want to have those two schools (whoever they be) to be 2 of the 5 games they play against the ACC each and every year, unlike the ND situation. One negative to this from the ACC side is that perception wise it moves the ACC even further from their long held image of everyone in the conference being "equal", which I realize is debatable to some even prior to the ND deal (mainly due to long held gripes against Tobacco Road and an historical emphasis on basketball over football for a large portion of the conference's history).

On the positive side, with 16 full members it might be wise for the ACC to have two teams ND plays annually as well (such as Pitt and BC - again just as an example). Mainly for ease of scheduling, at least from my perspective, but also resulting in the ACC getting an enticing match-up in the northeast and the state of Texas annually - two areas the conference needs to bolster, imho if they do indeed go this route. The other 12 members get the remaining 6 games (either ND or Texas) which results in every member playing ND and Texas once each every four years. It also increases these "value" games overall for the ACC TV contract from 2 or 3 (ND alone) to 5 (ND and UT combined) each and every year.

But I would think this may not even come up at all, unlike the "sticking point" in the first paragraph due to the fact that Texas will need to develop an "indy" schedule anyway and might have the option of scheduling one or both every year if they so choose. Not entirely sure about this though. Does anyone know if ND could (if they wanted to) schedule Pitt or BC outside the current contractual obligation if they so wanted?

Lastly, it is interesting that in your scenario you have the SEC expanding to 18, while the ACC would be expansion to 16 full with 2 partials. I assume this is to "hold open" those spots for ND and Texas in case they ever wanted to join fully. Still not sure I will see in my remaining lifetime ND give up football independence.

Anyway, another long-winded post from me. Not surprising, right.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-26-2017 09:39 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 07:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It will make money. And it will get strong carriage. Why? Thanks to the package of rights that ESPN holds there is literally no viable avenue for advertisers to slip into the ACC/SEC footprint except on the extreme periphery of either conference.

In Florida ESPN holds all 5 key schools rights. In North Carolina they hold all 5 key schools rights. They hold all three in Tennessee. And they hold them all in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.

The only way advertisers can access college sports audiences in the region is to go through ESPN which means leverage for broader carriage and higher ad rates. That means better success for the ACC than most might believe.

The push is going to be on n strong fashion for Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State now. Expect the SEC and ACC to divide some of those brands. If ESPN can land those schools then both the SECN and ACCN will have the leverage in the world's largest college sports regional market. Right now FOX has 50% rights to the four Texas Big 12 schools and the two Oklahoma schools. If ESPN acquires them to go along with A&M and Houston, S.M.U. and Tulsa its lights out for anyone trying to get past ESPN to advertise for college sports in Texas/Oklahoma. Oklahoma is key only because they carry a significant % of DFW.

So if Texas takes a partial deal and T.C.U. and WVU come on board then the ACC picks up DFW and Texas for distribution. That would be the move that make a really strong opening a really great one. WVU solidifies the reach into the North. I would suggest Cincinnati but ESPN has them through the AAC for less. Maybe you see something like OU, OSU, TTU, and another (maybe Kansas) to to the SEC.

But I think it is very possible that we see additions to the ACC either just prior to the debut of the Network, or announced just prior to the Network debut. It should be some fun times for the ACC and it probably will trigger the final movement of this realignment sequence.

First let me say to all, "Hello, I am back". I've been off the boards for a couple of months. My previous handle was omniorange when I was last here.

Hail JRsec,

Interesting post, particularly the point about ESPN perhaps trying to become sole owners (in college sports at least) of the South.

I, myself, am not hopeful of the ACC getting Texas in an ND-type deal. But if this were to happen, I suspect the Longhorns might want spots #15 and #16 to both be Texas schools maybe moreso for olympic sports than for football scheduling wise as I discuss below. And this is coming from someone who has wanted to see WVU in the ACC since it was first announced that SU and Pitt were leaving back in September of 2011, so I would be more than fine with WVU and TCU myself. But I could see under this scenario, for example, TCU and Houston as well. Again, just an example.

I also think they might want to have those two schools (whoever they be) to be 2 of the 5 games they play against the ACC each and every year, unlike the ND situation. One negative to this from the ACC side is that perception wise it moves the ACC even further from their long held image of everyone in the conference being "equal", which I realize is debatable to some even prior to the ND deal (mainly due to long held gripes against Tobacco Road and an historical emphasis on basketball over football for a large portion of the conference's history).

On the positive side, with 16 full members it might be wise for the ACC to have two teams ND plays annually as well (such as Pitt and BC - again just as an example). Mainly for ease of scheduling, at least from my perspective, but also resulting in the ACC getting an enticing match-up in the northeast and the state of Texas annually - two areas the conference needs to bolster, imho if they do indeed go this route. The other 12 members get the remaining 6 games (either ND or Texas) which results in every member playing ND and Texas once each every four years. It also increases these "value" games overall for the ACC TV contract from 2 or 3 (ND alone) to 5 (ND and UT combined) each and every year.

But I would think this may not even come up at all, unlike the "sticking point" in the first paragraph due to the fact that Texas will need to develop an "indy" schedule anyway and might have the option of scheduling one or both every year if they so choose. Not entirely sure about this though. Does anyone know if ND could (if they wanted to) schedule Pitt or BC outside the current contractual obligation if they so wanted?

Lastly, it is interesting that in your scenario you have the SEC expanding to 18, while the ACC would be expansion to 16 full with 2 partials. I assume this is to "hold open" those spots for ND and Texas in case they ever wanted to join fully. Still not sure I will see in my remaining lifetime ND give up football independence.

Anyway, another long-winded post from me. Not surprising, right.

Cheers,
Neil

Good to see you back Neil!

What I think could be accomplished with your suggestion is this:
In an 18 member (partials included) ACC you could break up into 3 six team divisions with Notre Dame attached to the one in the North and Texas attached to the one in the South. Both agree to a 6th ACC game. Now their games are with their 5 division mates and 1 rotating annually from the others. If N.D. wins their division that is their ticket into the ACC champioship series. Ditto for Texas. The three division champs and the best at large play it off. It more than accomplishes what you were suggesting.

B.C., Louisville, *Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech

Clemson, Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest

Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, *Texas, T.C.U., #2nd Texas School

Now Both N.D. and Texas still have 6 games to schedule elsewhere. Both have a way to win the Conference Championship. They could both designate three additional P5's to count on their overall record for conference positioning.

It's not a developed idea but it could be the start of a talking point.

JR

BTW: There are several other workarounds with the distribution of incoming schools.

If Notre Dame were to ever join the ACC full-time, which I don't think will ever happen but let's pretend, it would be completely insane to not have them play Miami annually.

We're talking about one of the great rivalries in the history of the sport. Why would you not seek to maximize that? I think you have to play that game every year no matter what should the Irish reverse course and join the ACC as full members.

The AAC needs to be proactive and bring Cincinnati into the conference before they end up in the B12.

I can see a situation where the B12 is raided and Cincinnati is at the top of the list BUT the ACC decides to scoop up both UC and UConn before the B12 can get their hands on them. That is somewhat how they handled Pitt and Syracuse additions, proactively.

They aren't going to be able to raid the B1G or SEC for anybody. B12 schools are largely too far away. UCF and USF aren't ready quite yet and you'll need them immediately if Clemson and FSU leave.

(06-26-2017 10:15 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The AAC needs to be proactive and bring Cincinnati into the conference before they end up in the B12.

I can see a situation where the B12 is raided and Cincinnati is at the top of the list BUT the ACC decides to scoop up both UC and UConn before the B12 can get their hands on them. That is somewhat how they handled Pitt and Syracuse additions, proactively.

They aren't going to be able to raid the B1G or SEC for anybody. B12 schools are largely too far away. UCF and USF aren't ready quite yet and you'll need them immediately if Clemson and FSU leave.

Add Cincinatti to a conference they're already in?

(06-26-2017 10:58 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 10:15 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The AAC needs to be proactive and bring Cincinnati into the conference before they end up in the B12.

I can see a situation where the B12 is raided and Cincinnati is at the top of the list BUT the ACC decides to scoop up both UC and UConn before the B12 can get their hands on them. That is somewhat how they handled Pitt and Syracuse additions, proactively.

They aren't going to be able to raid the B1G or SEC for anybody. B12 schools are largely too far away. UCF and USF aren't ready quite yet and you'll need them immediately if Clemson and FSU leave.

Add Cincinatti to a conference they're already in?

ACC/AAC typo.

(06-26-2017 10:15 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The AAC needs to be proactive and bring Cincinnati into the conference before they end up in the B12.

I can see a situation where the B12 is raided and Cincinnati is at the top of the list BUT the ACC decides to scoop up both UC and UConn before the B12 can get their hands on them. That is somewhat how they handled Pitt and Syracuse additions, proactively.

They aren't going to be able to raid the B1G or SEC for anybody. B12 schools are largely too far away. UCF and USF aren't ready quite yet and you'll need them immediately if Clemson and FSU leave.

Cincy doesn't add enough to justify the $30+M payout the ACC will have after the network launches (they don't carry their weight fir the current payout). They bring nothing to the table but another punching bag in football -- which we don't need --and the ACC doesn't need to add bball-centric schools.

There are several reports, especially one, saying ESPN wasted money by over paying for sports rights.

NBA Overpaid to keep the rights.
Monday Night Football, overpaid the NFL to just show one game a week.
BCS, overpaid the college football for all the rights to the bowl games, and keeping them off the broadcasts.
Longhorn Network, overpaying the Longhorns who have not been relevant for some years.
SEC, promised to much for their network.
ACC, made a promise when ESPN do not have the money, and have to cut costs.
Tennis, overpaid the rights to certain tennis tournaments.
PGA, overpaid to have rights to have certain tournaments.

ESPN outbid their competitor 100X more.

People are cord cutting because they can't afford the cable bills since ESPN and Disney are overcharging for broadcast rights on cable and Dish companies. Millions more people already cut the cord this year alone. There may not be anybody left to watch these networks.