JRsec
Super Moderator
Posts: 38,198
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7916
I Root For: SEC
Location:
|
RE: Could Division-less Status Become the Silver Bullet Which Solves Final Realignment?
(01-28-2022 01:39 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: (01-27-2022 09:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: (01-27-2022 09:06 PM)XLance Wrote: What you will see from ESPN is two conferences of 15 broken down into three divisions each
Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri
LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Tennessee
Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Georgia, Auburn, Florida
Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, Miami
Wake Forest, NC State, Clemson, South Carolina, Florida State
Virginia, Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech
No X. 40 million in deficits won't play out that way. ESPN will shelter the ACC product they most want in the SEC and pay to do it. Then they'll buy all NB12 rights and move the rest over. They aren't going to let Phillips, or the ACC screw up their plans. When that is accomplished, they'll have what they want. A P4. Why? Because when the current CFP contract expires, they won't risk having 3 P conferences to vote against them about changes. They'll settle for an impasse and status quo or perhaps bet on a desperate PAC 12 voting with them. So, 7 or 8 ACC schools (depending on ND's wishes) get a 40 million dollar raise and the rest get a 3-5-million-dollar bump to fill out the NB12 which starves the PAC 12 and B1G of any targets outside of each other.
So, UNC / Duke / UVa / Clemson / FSU and either ND or Kansas is in and 2 of Va Tech / Ga Tech / N.C. State / Miami.
The others move to the fully owned NB12.
ESPN owns schools from the 2 most viewer saturated regions SE & SW and marries both to the largest potential market (Atlantic Coast).
FOX keeps the #1 overall market and who knows what happens with the PAC 12.
With this vision...
To split the ACC, ESPN would likely need to invest $350M more per year than its current contracted plans through 2036. $4B is a lot of money and risk, even for the mouse.
This doesn't include incremental payments to the B12 schools.
I could see schools pursuing whether this proposal has traction. It's ESPN that would likely pump the brakes on this thought process. ESPN may be angry at Phillips' direction, but collaborating with the ACC could be more profitable.
350 million is a fraction of an expanded playoff. You act as if these are big numbers. ESPN just paid over 350 million for T1 rights. Yes early reports said 300 million but the CBS bid which was rejected was 305. And the amount was not revealed (though Thompson the ad exec who handles ESPN/Disney and Coca-Cola said the final amount was closer to 400 than to 350) because of OU and UT's inclusion.
Networks look at potentials beyond the next contract period. The Big 12 currently makes 37 million, the ACC 32. Adding 8 to the B12 only raises the ESPN outlay by 40 million. The 7 likely to the SEC would add 280 million. So we aee looking at 320 actually to complete the moves. Now in the process ESPN gets national viewership boosts with games each week which adds millions per week in ad money. When your pool includes Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Florida, FSU, Clemson, Tennessee, Georgiar, and say Virginia Tech or possibly Notre Dame and you have 2 premier games per week on ABC and solid games for ESPN it's a winner.
How about Winter? UNC, UVa, Kentucky, Kansas, Tennessee, Auburn, LSU, Texas, Oklahoma, A&M, and possibly Duke to go with Florida you have a slate of must see hoops.
Summer? I'd say 75% of what will likely be the 8 schools in Omaha. And possibly even a tad more for the WCWS in Oklahoma City.
It's one helluva annual slate for a fraction of an NFL bid and just a tad under SEC T1 for football and it covers college sports for the entire year.
Networks don't look at value like conferences do. They look at how much more they could make with a stouter slate of must-see games. Clemson and FSU are worth much more in the SEC. Miami and Va Tech would be as well. Kentucky and Kansas are worth even more if playing UNC, Duke, UVa. Networks look at content multiplication and low yield game elimination.
This is product placement. The combination offered exceeds in value the individual parts and it is what all realignment has been about (for the networks).
|
|