Photo

Conference Realignment


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
342 replies to this topic

#41 Nuclear Dish

Nuclear Dish

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 573 posts
  • LocationZichron Yaakov, Israel

Posted 10 May 2012 - 05:39 AM

Also, the ACC and ESPN extended their TV deal through 2027. The original one was set to expire in 2023. NO word on how much more each school will be paid, if any, but the new deal makes way for the addition of Syracuse and Pitt along with the 18-game conference basketball schedule. There will also be 3 Friday Night Football games per season, one of which will be either BC or Syracuse hosting a game the Friday after Thanksgiving.

I'm sure there is language in the contract that spells out what will happen if (when) the ACC goes to 16 teams.

http://espn.go.com/c...ts-deal-2026-27


The money is that each ACC school will now get $17M/year from ESPN, an increase of $5M/year. The deal will be the same as it was the last time, which is to say that upon any expansion, the contract can be reopened by either side to renegotiate. That's why they signed this deal only 3 years after signing their last one.

"Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax..."

-Walter Sobchak


#42 Nuclear Dish

Nuclear Dish

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 573 posts
  • LocationZichron Yaakov, Israel

Posted 10 May 2012 - 05:48 AM

On topic, but rarely discussed, I believe that their is a MAJOR dark horse in all of this... New York University. Granted, NYU is a very unlikely dark horse in the rapidly changing world of Conference Realignment, but one to keep an eye on over these next few years. If NYU ever does decide to get back into 'The Game' at the BCS level, they would have to go through a few years of play at lower levels until qualified (under current rules). However, if the sleeping giant would but rise, the ACC would (seemingly) greatly benefit from their Phoenix-like resurgence.


Come on, seriously? NYU is a D-III school who has had limited success at that level. Their facilities are nowhere near up to D-I standards, and upgrading them would be astronomical. And to think that the mighty ACC would take in a tiny school with no recent history of success at D-I just to get a foothold in NYC is preposterous.

If that were the case, wouldn't they already have made a play for Columbia or Long Island or Manhattan or SUNY-Stony Brook? At least those schools have played in D-I for a while. Or convince St. John's to start a football program?

Rutgers is the only school that gives either the ACC or the Big 10 exposure in NYC, and even then, it's limited exposure. UConn gives almost as much exposure.

The ACC is holding out for ND. If they get them, they'll add either UConn or Rutgers as the 16th. If ND goes elsewhere, the ACC will have to consider UConn, Rutgers, Louisville, South Florida, and East Carolina, or just stick with 14.

Louisville will grab an invite from either the Big 12 or ACC as soon as it's offered. UConn will grab an ACC invite if it's offered, despite their claims otherwise (it's the ACC who hasn't wanted them, not vice versa). Rutgers is in a good position, because they are likely to find themselves in either the ACC or Big 10, so they can afford to wait.

"Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax..."

-Walter Sobchak


#43 Nuclear Dish

Nuclear Dish

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 573 posts
  • LocationZichron Yaakov, Israel

Posted 10 May 2012 - 05:56 AM

As for the Big 12 stealing ACC schools, it'll never happen. The conference is in too much flux already, it's a geographic nightmare for the ACC's east coast schools, and it makes no financial sense.

The SEC, on the other hand, could poach FSU and Clemson. It's questionable whether they want them, but if they need to go to 16 and they don't want to add Big 12 schools (W.Va, Texas, Oklahoma, et al.), they might go after the ACC's southern football powers.

It's one of the reasons the ACC moved quickly to add Syracuse and Pitt. The rumors of the SEC going to 16 and taking FSU and Clemson were already circulating, so they safeguarded themselves with 2 Big East teams, ensuring a conference championship game even if 2 schools were lost.

The ACC didn't like the suggestions that they'd have to add Central Florida and East Carolina just to be viable, so they were proactive, added the 2 Big East schools and actually were ahead of the curve. John Swofford is a terrific commissioner, and he's got the conference well positioned for pretty much any probability.

"Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax..."

-Walter Sobchak


#44 Nuclear Dish

Nuclear Dish

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 573 posts
  • LocationZichron Yaakov, Israel

Posted 10 May 2012 - 06:22 AM

Posted this in the other thread too:

$17M/team/year, $5M/year more than last contract

Language to renegotiate upon expansion, just as there was in the last contract, which is why they renegotiated it now (Syracuse and Pitt) only 3 years into the last contract.

"Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax..."

-Walter Sobchak


#45 jsh

jsh
  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 10 May 2012 - 07:56 AM

SEC will never take FSU or Clemson. Neither open a new market, both would piss off schools already in the SEC (USCe for Clemson, Auburn/UGA/UF for FSU).

If the SEC is going to steal an ACC school, I doubt it will ever happen honestly, it will be VT or NCST. Both schools would expand the geographic footprint of the SEC which is really the name of the game in conference realignment.

Too many people have this notion that 4 16 team super conferences is the end game here, but it's not. Adding schools just to get to 16 doesn't make financial sense. VT and NCST would have to add something like 40M extra a year just to break even with the SEC's current TV contract and why add two schools if you're just going to break even? The B10 certainly isn't adding anyone unless it's Notre Dame, same with the ACC now. The PAC-12 won't add anyone unless it's Texas.
@jsh2185

#46 jsh

jsh
  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 10 May 2012 - 08:04 AM

The ACC is holding out for ND. If they get them, they'll add either UConn or Rutgers as the 16th. If ND goes elsewhere, the ACC will have to consider UConn, Rutgers, Louisville, South Florida, and East Carolina, or just stick with 14.

Louisville will grab an invite from either the Big 12 or ACC as soon as it's offered. UConn will grab an ACC invite if it's offered, despite their claims otherwise (it's the ACC who hasn't wanted them, not vice versa). Rutgers is in a good position, because they are likely to find themselves in either the ACC or Big 10, so they can afford to wait.


The ACC isn't expanding again unless they get Notre Dame. There's zero reason to go 16 without Notre Dame because it just doesn't make financial sense.

The only schools you mentioned that have a snowball's chance in hell of joining the ACC is UConn and Rutgers. The ACC will not let a school with the academics of Louisville/ECU/USF into the conference. If they were willing to take those types of schools than WVU would already be in.

Louisville's only shot is the B12, which will likely only invite Louisville if they can get BYU to come aboard as well. B12 is better off at 10 than trying to expand with the likes of Cincinnati as team #12.

I think UConn is likely stuck in the BE. BC lobbied against them when the ACC expanded to 14. We also have to remember that Notre Dame will likely get a say in who the 16th team will be and I think they'd prefer another stop in the NY area than Hartford.
@jsh2185

#47 Nuclear Dish

Nuclear Dish

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 573 posts
  • LocationZichron Yaakov, Israel

Posted 10 May 2012 - 08:29 AM

Good stuff, jsh. I agree with everything you said, except that there's no way the SEC will take NCSU. Talk about a school that couldn't add enough financially. In fact, there was a lot of talk in this last round of expansion that the SEC might try to convince UNC to move. UNC has made clear it'll never happen, but the SEC was thinking of making a pitch anyway.

To that end, Miami is a possible target. The only two ACC schools who could provide enough financially to the SEC to make it worthwhile are UNC and Miami. The Miami market is distinct from the northern Florida market, and brings in a big city to the mix. They are actually a great match with the SEC.

"Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax..."

-Walter Sobchak


#48 jsh

jsh
  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 10 May 2012 - 08:44 AM

Completely disagree about Miami being a great match. They're a small (semi) urban private school. The SEC is filled with large state schools with the exception being Vanderbilt. I also think Miami brings about as much of the Miami market as BC brings the Boston market. Miami simply doesn't care that much about sports just like Boston doesn't care about college sports.

NCST is a possibility though. They have a large rabid (and delusional) fanbase and they're located in one of the fastest growing regions in the country. They don't have much national cache but if the SEC was interested in creating their own network than NCST would certainly provide value. That being said, I don't think the SEC is expanding again unless Texas or UNC were interested in joining and neither of them will be interested in joining.
@jsh2185

#49 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,680 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 10 May 2012 - 03:44 PM

I don't have time to find it right now, but a while back on the OH I posted a survey that involved different markets and the division and saturation of particular college teams in each.

If I am remembering correctly, New York was listed as a very minimal market for college sports, and the top teams were Notre Dame and a couple nationally-spread programs mixed with UConn and Rutgers and others.

It may have been just for college football, but I think it does illustrate that even going for that market may not make much sense.

#50 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 13,385 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 10 May 2012 - 04:03 PM

Good stuff, jsh. I agree with everything you said, except that there's no way the SEC will take NCSU. Talk about a school that couldn't add enough financially. In fact, there was a lot of talk in this last round of expansion that the SEC might try to convince UNC to move. UNC has made clear it'll never happen, but the SEC was thinking of making a pitch anyway.

To that end, Miami is a possible target. The only two ACC schools who could provide enough financially to the SEC to make it worthwhile are UNC and Miami. The Miami market is distinct from the northern Florida market, and brings in a big city to the mix. They are actually a great match with the SEC.


Agree on UNC. If the SEC could get them and VaTech, they'd expand to 16 in a heartbeat. But the ACC would pretty much have to implode before UNC would leave. NCSt would probably go, just to get out from under UNC's shadow (like Texas A&M did with UT), but they don't have anywhere near the appeal and brand that UNC does from the SEC's point of view.

I doubt Miami would be an SEC target. They just don't fit the profile of the sort of school that the conference is looking for. I disagree somewhat with jsh's take that the Hurricanes draw little interest in Miami though. That may be the case currently, but Miami is a front-runner town that will support a winner. I spent a lot of time in Miami during the 80's, a decade when the Hurricanes owned college football. And they got just as much, and some years more local support/attention than the Dolphins....and that was during the Shula/Marino era.

#51 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 13,385 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 10 May 2012 - 04:09 PM

I don't have time to find it right now, but a while back on the OH I posted a survey that involved different markets and the division and saturation of particular college teams in each.

If I am remembering correctly, New York was listed as a very minimal market for college sports, and the top teams were Notre Dame and a couple nationally-spread programs mixed with UConn and Rutgers and others.

It may have been just for college football, but I think it does illustrate that even going for that market may not make much sense.


Would this be it?

http://thequad.blogs...w-nytimessports

I posted that one a couple of times on OH. There was a UConn fan there who swore time and time again to me that UConn gets more penetration in the NYC market than Rutgers. I'd post the article that contained an actual study with data to the contrary, and this person would simply cite personal anecdotal evidence of a few people he/she knew in NYC that ignored Rutgers and followed UConn.

EDIT: According to the study, Rutgers fans in NYC outnumber Notre Dame fans by more than 2-to-1.

#52 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 13,385 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 10 May 2012 - 04:21 PM

Posted this in the other thread too:

$17M/team/year, $5M/year more than last contract

Language to renegotiate upon expansion, just as there was in the last contract, which is why they renegotiated it now (Syracuse and Pitt) only 3 years into the last contract.


An extra $5 million per year over the previous deal....not bad, and a little more in line with the other big conferences. Especially since the ACC could only renegotiate with ESPN, rather than reopen the package for bidding from other broadcasters. Still, I wish Swofford and Co. hadn't jumped at ESPN's offer so fast last time and had seen whether entities like Fox and Comcast would have driven up the bidding some....or done more exploration into a full-time ACC Network.

#53 jsh

jsh
  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 10 May 2012 - 04:48 PM

NY isn't a big college sports market but given the amount of people in NY just to get a small slice of it would bring in a lot of revenue.

I would imagine that if the ACC got Notre Dame the end game would be creating an ACC Network. The big thing with networks is subscriber fees. With Syracuse, Rutgers and Notre Dame I'd imagine they'd be able to get the ACC Network in most NY households which would bring in a lot of money.
@jsh2185

#54 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 13,385 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 10 May 2012 - 05:17 PM

NY isn't a big college sports market but given the amount of people in NY just to get a small slice of it would bring in a lot of revenue.

I would imagine that if the ACC got Notre Dame the end game would be creating an ACC Network. The big thing with networks is subscriber fees. With Syracuse, Rutgers and Notre Dame I'd imagine they'd be able to get the ACC Network in most NY households which would bring in a lot of money.


Except that they're joined at the hip with ESPN through 2027, so a conference-owned network would be a long way off. The broadcasting and college sports landscapes could look vastly different by then. However, if the ACC did get Notre Dame, then we could certainly expect that $17 million/yr per school that ESPN is paying to jump significantly.

#55 jsh

jsh
  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 10 May 2012 - 05:26 PM

NY isn't a big college sports market but given the amount of people in NY just to get a small slice of it would bring in a lot of revenue.

I would imagine that if the ACC got Notre Dame the end game would be creating an ACC Network. The big thing with networks is subscriber fees. With Syracuse, Rutgers and Notre Dame I'd imagine they'd be able to get the ACC Network in most NY households which would bring in a lot of money.


Except that they're joined at the hip with ESPN through 2027, so a conference-owned network would be a long way off. The broadcasting and college sports landscapes could look vastly different by then. However, if the ACC did get Notre Dame, then we could certainly expect that $17 million/yr per school that ESPN is paying to jump significantly.


Swofford said on conference call yesterday that the deal includes a "look-in" every five years that will allow the league enhance their revenue, such as an ACC channel*. If it's profitable, why wouldn't ESPN create an ACC network themselves?

*I got that off of a tweet (@davidteelatdp) but I believe Swofford specifically mentioned an ACC channel. If I'm correct in assuming that Swofford himself mentioned it than it's certainly on the table down the road.
@jsh2185

#56 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 13,385 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 10 May 2012 - 05:32 PM



Except that they're joined at the hip with ESPN through 2027, so a conference-owned network would be a long way off. The broadcasting and college sports landscapes could look vastly different by then. However, if the ACC did get Notre Dame, then we could certainly expect that $17 million/yr per school that ESPN is paying to jump significantly.


Swofford said on conference call yesterday that the deal includes a "look-in" every five years that will allow the league enhance their revenue, such as an ACC channel. If it's profitable, why wouldn't ESPN create an ACC network themselves?



That's why I specifically used the term "conference-owned" network when I mentioned an ACC Network...like what the Pac-12 is doing. On the other hand, yes, I could see ESPN doing something similar to the Longhorn Network with the ACC. ESPN would still own and operate it, but it would be dedicated and branded for the ACC and the conference would see its rights fees increase substantially, since having Notre Dame would nearly guarantee nationwide carriage.

#57 jsh

jsh
  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 10 May 2012 - 05:47 PM

I think, and of course it's speculation, that any ACC Network would be joint owned between ESPN and the ACC much like FOX owns a part of the B10N.
@jsh2185

#58 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 13,385 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 10 May 2012 - 06:01 PM

I imagine a BTN-like business model could be on the table. I'm sure it's spelled out more specifically in the contract. I would think that with the nearly $3.1 billion ESPN is already committing to in the recently-negotiated deal that they will hold the most leverage in the 5-year "look-ins", and that any model for an ACC Network will primarily ensure ESPN's revenue streams first and foremost.

#59 jsh

jsh
  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 10 May 2012 - 06:11 PM

FOX owns 51% of the B10N so I imagine a similar setup would be appealing for the ACC.
@jsh2185

#60 Chris B

Chris B

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 21,508 posts
  • LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 11 May 2012 - 10:13 AM

Not surprisingly, Boise St. might be having second thoughts about joining the Big East for football. As reported earlier, they are having trouble placing their other sports in a solid conference and without the AQ, the Big East becomes less valuable for the Broncos.

http://www.cbssports... ... t-big-east

Thus far in this realignment saga, Brett McMurphy has been pretty much spot-on.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners