(02-28-2020 09:15 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(02-28-2020 08:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 04:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 03:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 02:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Every exit fee ever challenged in court has been limited to the last year's revenue which is what now? 32 million.

The only challenged settlement I am aware of is Maryland's ($52 down to $32, with extenuating circumstances).
The ACC won it's court case against Maryland but accepted a public settlement of a lesser amount.
The B1G provided a similar amount to the settlement ($32M) to Maryland and labeled it as a travel subsidy, but, in addition, so the story goes, that some additional funds left the B1G and found there way into the ACC's bank account to encourage the conference to settle before Maryland's football opener.

BTW the last year's revenue figure when Maryland left was $17 Million.

You didn't win a court case. You settled. And you settled to avoid disclosure.

On the contrary JR.
What the ACC won was a ruling that the ACC was a North Carolina corporation and that any and all future disputes between members were the jurisdiction of North Carolina State Courts.
Once that happened Maryland was forced to counter-sue the ACC in Greensboro (not Maryland) where they hired Chip Hagen to duke it out with Alan Duncan. Ironically those gentlemen sat every Sunday a few pews apart at the First Presbyterian Church.
The B1G seeing that an extended legal battle would ensue and without the benefit of a friendlier Maryland Court, started to throw money around to bring the process to a close before the 2014 football season.
The ACC "settled" for double what Maryland was expecting to pay plus any other B1G monies that were floating around AND most importantly the knowledge that any further legal action would have to take place in Greensboro.

What’s the governing law for ACC disputes? Did they contract out jury trials? A North Carolina venue is fine but if the agreed upon governing law for such disputes is, say, Delaware and if there’s no jury trial then it doesn’t really matter that it’s in North Carolina.

Also, The state of incorporation is wherever the entity filed documents of incorporation. Its not determined by a court ruling.

There's an interesting wrinkle when it comes to all this.

We're dealing with public institutions that form partnerships across state lines. Ultimately, the Federal courts would have jurisdiction to make definitive rulings, but it's a matter of whether or not the parties involved would be willing to take it that far.

Something tells me neither the ACC nor Maryland nor the Big Ten wanted to get the Feds involved.

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour...ights.aspx

Quote:But when the Pac-12 Conference negotiates its next media rights deal to start in the fall of 2024, conference executives expect the deep-pocketed digital companies to make serious bids.

Why?

“This is what they’re telling us,” Pac-12 Networks President Mark Shuken said. “Several of them have come to us and said that they want to be in this space.”

The most intriguing conversations have come with Apple, which so far has not settled on a financial model around sports rights. Apple executives have told conference and school officials that they see live sports as a programming genre that can set its direct-to-consumer business apart from its rivals.

Apple also was attracted by the conference’s physical location. The Pac-12 is based in San Francisco; Apple is in nearby Cupertino, Calif.

During one meeting, Apple executives told the Pac-12’s school presidents that it was only interested in the conference’s primary media rights package, not a digital one. ESPN and Fox currently hold the rights to the conference’s main package, paying a combined $250 million per year on average to the conference.

“They said that they are very interested in learning more about the rights and learning more about the business to determine whether or not they’d be a viable partner in 2024,” Shuken said. “They said that, on the surface, we look like a good partner to investigate.”

The issue the PAC will have to realize going forward is that the branding power pales in comparison to the Big Ten and SEC. It's possible that they may get something and will be content with that. But at what opportunity cost? If you're USC, Washington, Oregon and Stanford, you'd want exposure in the easternmost two time zones. Sure, if they get competitive and win CFP titles then that will solve much of the issues, but not all. I guess that's also why USC and Stanford hold on to the Notre Dame game like they have. But scheduling OOC would be tricky if the PAC goes the streaming route, unless it's against other western schools. I doubt the big SEC/Big Ten programs would want their fans to have to search for a specific streaming company to see their teams at PAC venues, as opposed to the tried and true method of the big networks and/or ESPN, FS1, etc..

At what point would the California 4 schools be content with staying isolated in their region before they have to put out serious feelers to other conferences?

(04-21-2020 04:14 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour...ights.aspx

Quote:But when the Pac-12 Conference negotiates its next media rights deal to start in the fall of 2024, conference executives expect the deep-pocketed digital companies to make serious bids.

Why?

“This is what they’re telling us,” Pac-12 Networks President Mark Shuken said. “Several of them have come to us and said that they want to be in this space.”

The most intriguing conversations have come with Apple, which so far has not settled on a financial model around sports rights. Apple executives have told conference and school officials that they see live sports as a programming genre that can set its direct-to-consumer business apart from its rivals.

Apple also was attracted by the conference’s physical location. The Pac-12 is based in San Francisco; Apple is in nearby Cupertino, Calif.

During one meeting, Apple executives told the Pac-12’s school presidents that it was only interested in the conference’s primary media rights package, not a digital one. ESPN and Fox currently hold the rights to the conference’s main package, paying a combined $250 million per year on average to the conference.

“They said that they are very interested in learning more about the rights and learning more about the business to determine whether or not they’d be a viable partner in 2024,” Shuken said. “They said that, on the surface, we look like a good partner to investigate.”

The issue the PAC will have to realize going forward is that the branding power pales in comparison to the Big Ten and SEC. It's possible that they may get something and will be content with that. But at what opportunity cost? If you're USC, Washington, Oregon and Stanford, you'd want exposure in the easternmost two time zones. Sure, if they get competitive and win CFP titles then that will solve much of the issues, but not all. I guess that's also why USC and Stanford hold on to the Notre Dame game like they have. But scheduling OOC would be tricky if the PAC goes the streaming route, unless it's against other western schools. I doubt the big SEC/Big Ten programs would want their fans to have to search for a specific streaming company to see their teams at PAC venues, as opposed to the tried and true method of the big networks and/or ESPN, FS1, etc..

At what point would the California 4 schools be content with staying isolated in their region before they have to put out serious feelers to other conferences?

Mark Shuken’s remarks come off as a pure blind man’s bluff after reading the previous two paragraphs in that article:
Big digital companies were nowhere to be found when the PGA Tour sold its media rights to CBS, NBC and ESPN earlier this year.

The FAANG companies — Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google — have not been especially active during early talks for NFL or MLB rights either, several sources say.

Why would these companies be interested in a shorter seasoned product with less national appeal? Is ESPN and Fox outbidding then or does this seemingly more regional conference provide a good litmus test for this streaming platforms to take on product that operates outside of the normal streaming model.

(04-21-2020 04:14 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour...ights.aspx

Quote:But when the Pac-12 Conference negotiates its next media rights deal to start in the fall of 2024, conference executives expect the deep-pocketed digital companies to make serious bids.

Why?

“This is what they’re telling us,” Pac-12 Networks President Mark Shuken said. “Several of them have come to us and said that they want to be in this space.”

The most intriguing conversations have come with Apple, which so far has not settled on a financial model around sports rights. Apple executives have told conference and school officials that they see live sports as a programming genre that can set its direct-to-consumer business apart from its rivals.

Apple also was attracted by the conference’s physical location. The Pac-12 is based in San Francisco; Apple is in nearby Cupertino, Calif.

During one meeting, Apple executives told the Pac-12’s school presidents that it was only interested in the conference’s primary media rights package, not a digital one. ESPN and Fox currently hold the rights to the conference’s main package, paying a combined $250 million per year on average to the conference.

“They said that they are very interested in learning more about the rights and learning more about the business to determine whether or not they’d be a viable partner in 2024,” Shuken said. “They said that, on the surface, we look like a good partner to investigate.”

The issue the PAC will have to realize going forward is that the branding power pales in comparison to the Big Ten and SEC. It's possible that they may get something and will be content with that. But at what opportunity cost? If you're USC, Washington, Oregon and Stanford, you'd want exposure in the easternmost two time zones. Sure, if they get competitive and win CFP titles then that will solve much of the issues, but not all. I guess that's also why USC and Stanford hold on to the Notre Dame game like they have. But scheduling OOC would be tricky if the PAC goes the streaming route, unless it's against other western schools. I doubt the big SEC/Big Ten programs would want their fans to have to search for a specific streaming company to see their teams at PAC venues, as opposed to the tried and true method of the big networks and/or ESPN, FS1, etc..

At what point would the California 4 schools be content with staying isolated in their region before they have to put out serious feelers to other conferences?

Thats a good point about what that would do to the non-conference games, unless it can be shown Apple TV can sell it to another network that will get national exposure but even in that case you have 2 networks trying to take a cut of the profit instead of one so its probably less efficient.

(04-22-2020 01:36 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(04-21-2020 04:14 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour...ights.aspx

Quote:But when the Pac-12 Conference negotiates its next media rights deal to start in the fall of 2024, conference executives expect the deep-pocketed digital companies to make serious bids.

Why?

“This is what they’re telling us,” Pac-12 Networks President Mark Shuken said. “Several of them have come to us and said that they want to be in this space.”

The most intriguing conversations have come with Apple, which so far has not settled on a financial model around sports rights. Apple executives have told conference and school officials that they see live sports as a programming genre that can set its direct-to-consumer business apart from its rivals.

Apple also was attracted by the conference’s physical location. The Pac-12 is based in San Francisco; Apple is in nearby Cupertino, Calif.

During one meeting, Apple executives told the Pac-12’s school presidents that it was only interested in the conference’s primary media rights package, not a digital one. ESPN and Fox currently hold the rights to the conference’s main package, paying a combined $250 million per year on average to the conference.

“They said that they are very interested in learning more about the rights and learning more about the business to determine whether or not they’d be a viable partner in 2024,” Shuken said. “They said that, on the surface, we look like a good partner to investigate.”

The issue the PAC will have to realize going forward is that the branding power pales in comparison to the Big Ten and SEC. It's possible that they may get something and will be content with that. But at what opportunity cost? If you're USC, Washington, Oregon and Stanford, you'd want exposure in the easternmost two time zones. Sure, if they get competitive and win CFP titles then that will solve much of the issues, but not all. I guess that's also why USC and Stanford hold on to the Notre Dame game like they have. But scheduling OOC would be tricky if the PAC goes the streaming route, unless it's against other western schools. I doubt the big SEC/Big Ten programs would want their fans to have to search for a specific streaming company to see their teams at PAC venues, as opposed to the tried and true method of the big networks and/or ESPN, FS1, etc..

At what point would the California 4 schools be content with staying isolated in their region before they have to put out serious feelers to other conferences?

Mark Shuken’s remarks come off as a pure blind man’s bluff after reading the previous two paragraphs in that article:
Big digital companies were nowhere to be found when the PGA Tour sold its media rights to CBS, NBC and ESPN earlier this year.

The FAANG companies — Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google — have not been especially active during early talks for NFL or MLB rights either, several sources say.

Why would these companies be interested in a shorter seasoned product with less national appeal? Is ESPN and Fox outbidding then or does this seemingly more regional conference provide a good litmus test for this streaming platforms to take on product that operates outside of the normal streaming model.

I would bet on that.

For one, a college conference would be cheaper to purchase anyway. Big time pro sports do not come cheap so there's more risk out of the gate.

(02-28-2020 08:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 04:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 03:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 02:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 02:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  Under-performing?
Well I will have to admit that NC State under-performs at almost everything they do.

And as to rebellion......the current exit fee is around $100 Million and the conference will still own the media rights of any "rebels" you care to name, until 2037.

Every exit fee ever challenged in court has been limited to the last year's revenue which is what now? 32 million.

The only challenged settlement I am aware of is Maryland's ($52 down to $32, with extenuating circumstances).
The ACC won it's court case against Maryland but accepted a public settlement of a lesser amount.
The B1G provided a similar amount to the settlement ($32M) to Maryland and labeled it as a travel subsidy, but, in addition, so the story goes, that some additional funds left the B1G and found there way into the ACC's bank account to encourage the conference to settle before Maryland's football opener.

BTW the last year's revenue figure when Maryland left was $17 Million.

You didn't win a court case. You settled. And you settled to avoid disclosure.

On the contrary JR.
What the ACC won was a ruling that the ACC was a North Carolina corporation and that any and all future disputes between members were the jurisdiction of North Carolina State Courts.
Once that happened Maryland was forced to counter-sue the ACC in Greensboro (not Maryland) where they hired Chip Hagen to duke it out with Alan Duncan. Ironically those gentlemen sat every Sunday a few pews apart at the First Presbyterian Church.
The B1G seeing that an extended legal battle would ensue and without the benefit of a friendlier Maryland Court, started to throw money around to bring the process to a close before the 2014 football season.
The ACC "settled" for double what Maryland was expecting to pay plus any other B1G monies that were floating around AND most importantly the knowledge that any further legal action would have to take place in Greensboro.

The ACC avoided disclosure, period. The Big 10 should have stiff-armed it. Having venue was just another cheat, like the academic scandal over bogus classes. You managed to job the system nothing more.