Why I think ESPN will move B12 schools to the ACC. (2024)

Post: #41

(05-24-2024 11:17 PM)random asian guy Wrote:

(05-24-2024 06:39 PM)Section 200 Wrote: Does ESPN have the capacity to show the additional games with existing committments? What happens to the other 6 Big 12 teams? What if ESPN doesn't want to purchase the Raycom content - its 3rd tier ESPN+ type games, does that hold any value for ESPN? Has the ACC Network already entered the decline phase? Many questions to answer

ESPN would cherry-pick and move a few schools to the ACC and discontinue the Big 12 contract in 2030. How many schools are moved depends on ESPN's capacity.

The ACC can sell the Raycom content to a third party. It doesn’t have to be ESPN, but the ACC will get the revenue boost regardless.

The ACCN has been growing fast, but it may eventually hit its peak. We will see.

Why would espn discontinue its contract with the big12. The network renewed with the big12 when the conference was at its most vulnerable position ever, gave it a substantial raise per school. This was with former G5 schools joining the league. Arizona, ASU, Utah, Colorado we’re not priced in.

For some reason, when the league has seasoned, espn would walk away. That’s Nutty.

How’s espn going to finance moving schools to the ACC when the ACC can’t even distribute full ride to SMU, Cal and Stanford. With what contract ? ACC’s contract does not come up for renewal until 2036.

OP has no clue about espn posture regarding covering football in the south. It wants it all, ever block and inch of the rabid fan base. This isn’t the east coast or west coast.

The network, admittedly covers significant percentage of the south via the SEC, but if you are out of your mind if you think espn would willing cede whatever’s not in the SEC , in the south, to FOX.

(This post was last modified: 05-25-2024 11:05 AM by Acres.)

Post: #42

(05-24-2024 10:43 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote: " Why I think ESPN will move B12 schools to the ACC."

Why not move ACC schools to the B12?

ESPN does have full control of the ACC while they don't have no control of the Big 10, MWC and Big 12. ESPN do own the ACC Network, and in the future, they would stop bidding for the rights to the Big 12, and move the best property to the ACC.

Post: #43

(05-25-2024 09:40 AM)Big12HoopsHeaven Wrote:

(05-25-2024 09:10 AM)esayem Wrote:

(05-24-2024 11:04 PM)Big12HoopsHeaven Wrote:

(05-24-2024 07:50 PM)goofus Wrote: The academic snobs would never agree to it.

The Big 12 has a healthy share of AAU programs and state flagships.

The ACC only has 2 state flagships (UNC & UVA) and those teams are rumored to be leaving.

The ACC will likely poach OSU, WSU, USF, UConn, Tulane, Memphis, Colorado State, SDSU, Utah State...

What we love about the Big 12 is it's the most geographically condense conference outside of the SEC. UCF, WVU, and UC are perfect for the expanding Big 12 East wing.

The Big 12 is also the "SEC FB of Basketball." (only with insane depth throughout the roster... SEC FB is too top heavy)

ACC NEEDS the MWC and American to fill in the huge gap from coast to coast.

But are we really confident the ACC can survive with its leadership? Brett Yormark is a bullshark. Jim Phillips is still crying about the Alliance.

The Big XII spanning from WV to FLA to Utah is geographically condensed? You do know how far Texas is from Iowa right?

Most of the Big 12 conference is contiguous. Outside of the SEC, this is the best footprint by far.

From an Arizona fans standpoint, our travel is minimally different than it was in the Pac 10.

All Texas Tech needs ti to bring Hardin Simmons, UTEP, West Texas A&M, New Mexico, New Mexico State and Northern Arizona into the Big 12, and you get the old Border Conference reunited.

Post: #44

(05-24-2024 07:27 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:

(05-24-2024 06:39 PM)Section 200 Wrote: Does ESPN have the capacity to show the additional games with existing committments? What happens to the other 6 Big 12 teams? What if ESPN doesn't want to purchase the Raycom content - its 3rd tier ESPN+ type games, does that hold any value for ESPN? Has the ACC Network already entered the decline phase? Many questions to answer

ESPN didn't have the capacity to show all 11 games of the expanded CFP, either, so they sub-licensed games to TNT. In the case of the ACC, they sub-licensed to CW. IDK, but I feel like I'm seeing a pattern here...

They had the capacity. I think they just found a way to spread the risk and still make money.

Post: #45

Why I think this idea is bogus, just as moving ACC teams to the SEC is bogus.

ESPN has three goals: 1) contain costs; 2) stable, predictable revenue and offerings; 3) not to damage existing brands (see #1 and #2).

Disney is doing an awful job overall at all three of those, largely because they violate #3, having essentially killed Dr. Who, Indiana Jones, Pixar, Snow White, Star Wars, and put Marvels on life support due to their advanced DEI infection. ESPN has largely avoided this, because it's live sports. But the ramifications are massive from the parent company who increasingly depend on its revenue for survival. Instability in ESPN would be a disaster.

Let's look at the moves. ESPN was asked by the SEC to help fund a move to 9 games, with the SEC offering over a half dozen more marquee matchups with that extra game, like say Texas-Alabama, Georgia-LSU, Oklahoma-Florida, etc every year, content that in theory would allow a 2nd game of the week offering. ESPN declined, saying they were good. And they are, their plate is full. These offerings are more than FSU and Clemson could possibly bring to the table for the SEC. Why would ESPN, who already controls their content, want to pay these two schools a combined $600M more over the next decade than they are contracted to do? Throw in a North Carolina and somebody else, you are well over an extra $1B thrown at content they already control, with no new slots to air that content to make money from it. Hell, they have so much content they sublease even some ACC content to the CW.

Flipping over, the Big 12 is mostly generic A4 content. When a team is ranked there is interest. When not ranked they tend to be low value A4, interchangeable with anyone else. But in the Big 12 FOX at least takes 1/3rd the cost and CBS the basketball. Move the team over to the ACC and ESPN has to pay $11M more annually for them, and pads on more basketball games onto an already too many to air schedule (competing with their much higher rated NBA). What's more the Big 12 will backfill, for which ESPN is on the hook for $20M annually per school, with some G5 school, likely from the American, where ESPN is only paying $7M for their content. It also dilutes the Big 12 brand weakening its value.

Such moves violate #1, #2, and #3. But they do satisfy some OCD tendencies of posters.

Post: #46

The incumbent ACC members will pocket all the exit fees. There will be no rebuilding of the ACC (or BE at that point).

If it were me though, I would being in UC and UCF. I don’t think UVa, Pitt, UNC wants WVU in there. I’d add them as well, but with Cal/Furd now in there, there is no shot of that.

Post: #47

(05-24-2024 06:10 PM)random asian guy Wrote: I have been predicting that there is a high chance the ACC would raid the Big 12. People haven’t paid attention to my prediction because this is so contrary to what most pundits and reporters believe.

(Never mind that I was one of the few people who continually argued that the ACC would/should expand and add SMU and some Pac 12 schools, including Stanford. No pundits or reporters ever predicted that, to my knowledge.)

...

But there is no way that the FSU and Clemson issue would be settled before February 2025. And pundits don’t realize (or don’t want to talk about) this, but there is something extra that the ACC can sell to ESPN, starting in 2027.

The third-tier media content that was sublicensed to Raycom Sports (and CW now) would revert back to the ACC in 2027, meaning that the ACC can sell this to ESPN or another network.

As we all know, Jim Phillips is working on a “look-in.”

The league and its TV partner are in active negotiations over what Phillips did confirm is a “look-in” provision. “We are working internally with them on a piece of the contract. The partnership is not going away or being affected in a negative light,” Phillips said.

So, it’s possible that the ACC’s media value stays the same even if FSU and Clemson leave, or potentially increase a bit.

...

What Does ESPN Want?

But would ESPN support the ACC to expand? That’s the heart of the question. What does ESPN really want?

Well, obviously ESPN wants more profit and less cost. Then how would it make more money with respect to the ACC and the Big 12?

Contrary to what many people think, the simplest solution would be to move some of the Big 12 schools to the ACC.

Why is that?

The ACC is expected to make more money than the Big 12 for the Big 12’s next cycle by $5 to $10 million per year. But note the ACC has two separate deals with ESPN: the base contract and the ACCN contract.

The base contract with ESPN gives the ACC only the low $20s in 2023. Each ACC school received another $11 million from ACCN profit sharing. In other words, ESPN gives less money to the ACC than to the Big 12 if we only look at the base contract (and this is why some people erroneously claimed that the Big 12 would make more money than the ACC).

The ACCN money is subscription-based and is shared between ESPN and the ACC. Thus, the more people subscribe the ACCN, the more profit ESPN and the ACC would share. On top of that, cable companies are also required to pay higher in-network carriage fees for states where the ACC schools are located. Thus, if ESPN moves the Big 12 schools to the ACC, ESPN would pay less base contract pay and receive more ACCN profit.

Let’s look at the back-of-the-envelope numbers.

ESPN owns 63 percent of the Big 12 media deal at $31.7 million.

Assuming each school plays seven home games, ESPN owns about 70 Big 12 games (7 * 16 * 63%) at $320 million ($31.7 * 16 * 63%).

Now let’s say ESPN cherry picks 10 Big 12 teams and move them to the ACC and the base payment for the ACC would be $25 million.

ESPN will have 70 games (7 * 10 * 100%) at $250 million ($25 * 10 * 100%).

On top of that, ESPN will get additional ACCN profit increases.

To me, this is a no-brainer.

********

The full article can be found on Hokie Mark's ACC football blog.

https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2024/...e-b12.html

I'm looking forward to 2030.

For the sheer fun of it, I'll assume that the reason for taking ten B12 teams is that the SEC has taken 3 ACC teams, bringing them down to 14, and bringing the SEC to 19. The three ACC teams are FSU, Clemson and UNC. I'll further assume the SEC goes to 20 by also taking Kansas. The ten B12 teams would then take the ACC to 24. The B1G doesn't like what's left in the ACC worth expanding for, so they stand pat at 18.

Taking a page out of the "ACC is doomed" playbook, the ACC suggests to the ten B12 teams that they want to invite that they vote to dissolve the Big 12, eliminating those nasty exit penalties and GoR settlements. So, which ten schools does the ACC poach? Since the ACCN is a critical piece of the conference revenues, I'd say they bring in as many new states to the ACCN as possible. That gives us (from west to east):

Arizona, Utah, Colorado, TCU, Oklahoma St, Kansas St, Iowa State, Cincinnati, West Virginia, and UCF. With 6 team scheduling pods, we could see:

Utah, Kansas State, Stanford, Arizona, Cal, Colorado
Oklahoma State, TCU, Miami, NC State, Iowa State, SMU
Virginia Tech, UCF, Georgia Tech, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia
Louisville, West Virginia, Pitt, Cincinnati, Boston College, Syracuse

Of course, that relegates several decent teams to G5, and they wouldn't be too happy about that. I would see Arizona State and BYU going to the MWC, along with Oregon State and Washington State, making that 16 team league the strongest G5. Last but not least, remnants Baylor, Texas Tech and Houston would have to find a home in what would be a 17 team AAC, which becomes the second best G5.

With only 3 P conferences left, maybe the CFP would give an autobid to both the MWC and AAC (or at least to the top two G5 champs) to soften the blow a bit.

Probability of this happening? 1%

So, I guess I'm saying there's a chance.

Post: #48

(05-25-2024 11:44 AM)Stugray2 Wrote: Why I think this idea is bogus, just as moving ACC teams to the SEC is bogus.

ESPN has three goals: 1) contain costs; 2) stable, predictable revenue and offerings; 3) not to damage existing brands (see #1 and #2).

Disney is doing an awful job overall at all three of those, largely because they violate #3, having essentially killed Dr. Who, Indiana Jones, Pixar, Snow White, Star Wars, and put Marvels on life support due to their advanced DEI infection. ESPN has largely avoided this, because it's live sports. But the ramifications are massive from the parent company who increasingly depend on its revenue for survival. Instability in ESPN would be a disaster.

Let's look at the moves. ESPN was asked by the SEC to help fund a move to 9 games, with the SEC offering over a half dozen more marquee matchups with that extra game, like say Texas-Alabama, Georgia-LSU, Oklahoma-Florida, etc every year, content that in theory would allow a 2nd game of the week offering. ESPN declined, saying they were good. And they are, their plate is full. These offerings are more than FSU and Clemson could possibly bring to the table for the SEC. Why would ESPN, who already controls their content, want to pay these two schools a combined $600M more over the next decade than they are contracted to do? Throw in a North Carolina and somebody else, you are well over an extra $1B thrown at content they already control, with no new slots to air that content to make money from it. Hell, they have so much content they sublease even some ACC content to the CW.

Flipping over, the Big 12 is mostly generic A4 content. When a team is ranked there is interest. When not ranked they tend to be low value A4, interchangeable with anyone else. But in the Big 12 FOX at least takes 1/3rd the cost and CBS the basketball. Move the team over to the ACC and ESPN has to pay $11M more annually for them, and pads on more basketball games onto an already too many to air schedule (competing with their much higher rated NBA). What's more the Big 12 will backfill, for which ESPN is on the hook for $20M annually per school, with some G5 school, likely from the American, where ESPN is only paying $7M for their content. It also dilutes the Big 12 brand weakening its value.

Such moves violate #1, #2, and #3. But they do satisfy some OCD tendencies of posters.

Stugray, by this logic, FOX should be against moving any brands to the B1G, and I know that's not the case. IMO, FOX is in a worse financial shape than ESPN!! No streaming service, and FS1 only competes against ESPN2, not ESPN. IMHO, if ESPN is having problems, FOX is sinking!!!

Post: #49

(05-25-2024 01:28 AM)templefootballfan Wrote: the ACC needs 14.5 schools to keep ESPN contract,
ACC can lose 3 and their still good, however Stanford & Cal get full shares
anything over 4, ACC has to replace immediately at cut rate price

here's their list
USF
Conn
Tulane
OSU
WSU
SDST
Colo St
Navy/VCU
Temple

These are schools that ACC doesn't want except UConn due to their success on NCAA men's basketball tournament. What ACC really wants are the schools in P4, but realistically only schools in Big 12. I mean the old Big 12 schools, not those new additions to Big 12. I think ACC wants Kansas, Kansas State, Baylor, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State. Even West Virginia won't make the cut.

Post: #50

Random, along the lines of what you're suggesting, a simple swap of SMU, Cal, and Stanford for Cincinnati, West Virginia, and UCF would make both conferences more money.

Big XII West
California
Stanford
Arizona
Arizona State
Colorado
BYU
Utah
Oklahoma State

Big XII East
Houston
Baylor
TCU
SMU
Texas Tech
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State

This makes infinitely more dollars (bigger brands for the Big XII) and common sense (less travel, more fan interest due to closer proximity) than the far-flung mess that is the current Big 12 membership.

I know, I know, but California academics and politics... *drumroll*

Have literally nothing to do with athletics. Russia will play Ukraine again someday in the worlds most popular sport. Germany has already played Israel in every international sport post-WW2. My point being, differences along the lines of "academics," "culture," "politics" etc. have no meaning on the field. Heck, a Stanford vs. BYU conference game might actually drive up TV ratings due to the culture clash. Any old timers remember Catholics vs. Convicts? That slogan is how CBS marketed the game!!

And for the ACC...

ACC North
Cincinnati
West Virginia
Louisville
Boston College
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Notre Dame - Olympic Sports
Virginia Tech
Virginia

ACC South
UCF
Miami
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Clemson
UNC
NC State
Duke
Wake

This lineup is clearly better than Wake-SMU in front of flies or Boston College-Cal in front of not even a single insect in attendance.

But, Cal doesn't want to...

I know. Cal is also flat broke. Maybe Cal needs to join the rest of humankind and embrace common sense. Maybe good ole "tolerant" Cal needs to realize how dumb it is to play Miami in Tennis because they can't "tolerate" the thought of saving money and playing Baylor in Tennis. Stanford just has piles of money and could be Notre Dame anytime they want to be. They are just as snooty as Cal (and both of these two killed the Pac-12 more than any other school did by insanely voting "no" to schools like Texas, A&M, and Oklahoma) but Stanford used be right-wing. It's not that along ago the Stanford Indians were THE dream school for West Coast Republicans. And SMU in the Big XII gives everyone another shot at Texas recruits (who aren't playing in the ACC anyway).

Post: #51

(05-25-2024 10:51 AM)DavidSt Wrote:

(05-25-2024 09:40 AM)Big12HoopsHeaven Wrote:

(05-25-2024 09:10 AM)esayem Wrote:

(05-24-2024 11:04 PM)Big12HoopsHeaven Wrote:

(05-24-2024 07:50 PM)goofus Wrote: The academic snobs would never agree to it.

The Big 12 has a healthy share of AAU programs and state flagships.

The ACC only has 2 state flagships (UNC & UVA) and those teams are rumored to be leaving.

The ACC will likely poach OSU, WSU, USF, UConn, Tulane, Memphis, Colorado State, SDSU, Utah State...

What we love about the Big 12 is it's the most geographically condense conference outside of the SEC. UCF, WVU, and UC are perfect for the expanding Big 12 East wing.

The Big 12 is also the "SEC FB of Basketball." (only with insane depth throughout the roster... SEC FB is too top heavy)

ACC NEEDS the MWC and American to fill in the huge gap from coast to coast.

But are we really confident the ACC can survive with its leadership? Brett Yormark is a bullshark. Jim Phillips is still crying about the Alliance.

The Big XII spanning from WV to FLA to Utah is geographically condensed? You do know how far Texas is from Iowa right?

Most of the Big 12 conference is contiguous. Outside of the SEC, this is the best footprint by far.

From an Arizona fans standpoint, our travel is minimally different than it was in the Pac 10.

All Texas Tech needs ti to bring Hardin Simmons, UTEP, West Texas A&M, New Mexico, New Mexico State and Northern Arizona into the Big 12, and you get the old Border Conference reunited.

And I guess they are all the same (including TxTech) as they were back then, eh, David?

Post: #52

(05-25-2024 01:42 PM)EdwordL Wrote:

(05-25-2024 10:51 AM)DavidSt Wrote:

(05-25-2024 09:40 AM)Big12HoopsHeaven Wrote:

(05-25-2024 09:10 AM)esayem Wrote:

(05-24-2024 11:04 PM)Big12HoopsHeaven Wrote: The Big 12 has a healthy share of AAU programs and state flagships.

The ACC only has 2 state flagships (UNC & UVA) and those teams are rumored to be leaving.

The ACC will likely poach OSU, WSU, USF, UConn, Tulane, Memphis, Colorado State, SDSU, Utah State...

What we love about the Big 12 is it's the most geographically condense conference outside of the SEC. UCF, WVU, and UC are perfect for the expanding Big 12 East wing.

The Big 12 is also the "SEC FB of Basketball." (only with insane depth throughout the roster... SEC FB is too top heavy)

ACC NEEDS the MWC and American to fill in the huge gap from coast to coast.

But are we really confident the ACC can survive with its leadership? Brett Yormark is a bullshark. Jim Phillips is still crying about the Alliance.

The Big XII spanning from WV to FLA to Utah is geographically condensed? You do know how far Texas is from Iowa right?

Most of the Big 12 conference is contiguous. Outside of the SEC, this is the best footprint by far.

From an Arizona fans standpoint, our travel is minimally different than it was in the Pac 10.

All Texas Tech needs ti to bring Hardin Simmons, UTEP, West Texas A&M, New Mexico, New Mexico State and Northern Arizona into the Big 12, and you get the old Border Conference reunited.

And I guess they are all the same (including TxTech) as they were back then, eh, David?

You missed the context which was narrated by Rod Serling. "You are now entering the Twilight Zone!"

The thread is implausible. ESPN and FOX both retain rights in the Big 12 therefore it is the most logical repository for schools not in the Big 10 or SEC. Each network has access without total responsibility for the overhead.

But never let business stand in the way of a realignment position. Though you have to appreciate David's novel and surrealistic approach as it isn't the usual, in fact in no way resembles such.

Post: #53

(05-24-2024 11:34 PM)Big12HoopsHeaven Wrote:

(05-24-2024 11:30 PM)random asian guy Wrote: I have been saying since last year that it’s likely the ACC will raid the Big 12 in 2030.

Nobody took it seriously last year. I am still in a very minor position as of now. But as time goes on, the revenue difference between the ACC and the Big 12 will become significant, and more and more people will see the point.

But until then, I expect lots of negative feedback.

I feel sorry for Hokie Mark. After he posted that article, he was confronted by unhappy Big 12 fans on Twitter.

I really do wish the ACC can collect a "war chest" like the Pac 2 have post-implosion.

That being said, we already rejected an ACC that had FSU and Clemson in it.

Jump forward to 2030 and it's a foolish fantasy to think Arizona will want to fly to Blacksburg. Or any school that already heard Jim Phillips overtures (and they DID happen).

The ACC *may* have done some preliminary vetting/screening for Zona, but as far as I know, the ACC never had any serious discussions with that school (or any other 4C schools).

So no, I don’t think what you claimed is true.

Post: #54

(05-25-2024 03:13 PM)random asian guy Wrote:

(05-24-2024 11:34 PM)Big12HoopsHeaven Wrote:

(05-24-2024 11:30 PM)random asian guy Wrote: I have been saying since last year that it’s likely the ACC will raid the Big 12 in 2030.

Nobody took it seriously last year. I am still in a very minor position as of now. But as time goes on, the revenue difference between the ACC and the Big 12 will become significant, and more and more people will see the point.

But until then, I expect lots of negative feedback.

I feel sorry for Hokie Mark. After he posted that article, he was confronted by unhappy Big 12 fans on Twitter.

I really do wish the ACC can collect a "war chest" like the Pac 2 have post-implosion.

That being said, we already rejected an ACC that had FSU and Clemson in it.

Jump forward to 2030 and it's a foolish fantasy to think Arizona will want to fly to Blacksburg. Or any school that already heard Jim Phillips overtures (and they DID happen).

The ACC *may* have done some preliminary vetting/screening for Zona, but as far as I know, the ACC never had any serious discussions with that school (or any other 4C schools).

So no, I don’t think what you claimed is true.

That's likely true because they would not have been willing to move a cut rate prices like Cal, or well-endowed enough to do so like Stanford, or SMU which basically agreed to move for nothing but inclusion and a hopeful future revenue if the ACC survives.

BTW: If that avatar is the picture of a new arrival to your family then a belated, "Congratuations!"

(This post was last modified: 05-25-2024 03:19 PM by JRsec.)

Post: #55

(05-24-2024 11:41 PM)Big12HoopsHeaven Wrote:

(05-24-2024 06:10 PM)random asian guy Wrote: I have been predicting that there is a high chance the ACC would raid the Big 12. People haven’t paid attention to my prediction because this is so contrary to what most pundits and reporters believe.

(Never mind that I was one of the few people who continually argued that the ACC would/should expand and add SMU and some Pac 12 schools, including Stanford. No pundits or reporters ever predicted that, to my knowledge.)

...

But there is no way that the FSU and Clemson issue would be settled before February 2025. And pundits don’t realize (or don’t want to talk about) this, but there is something extra that the ACC can sell to ESPN, starting in 2027.

The third-tier media content that was sublicensed to Raycom Sports (and CW now) would revert back to the ACC in 2027, meaning that the ACC can sell this to ESPN or another network.

As we all know, Jim Phillips is working on a “look-in.”

The league and its TV partner are in active negotiations over what Phillips did confirm is a “look-in” provision. “We are working internally with them on a piece of the contract. The partnership is not going away or being affected in a negative light,” Phillips said.

So, it’s possible that the ACC’s media value stays the same even if FSU and Clemson leave, or potentially increase a bit.

...

What Does ESPN Want?

But would ESPN support the ACC to expand? That’s the heart of the question. What does ESPN really want?

Well, obviously ESPN wants more profit and less cost. Then how would it make more money with respect to the ACC and the Big 12?

Contrary to what many people think, the simplest solution would be to move some of the Big 12 schools to the ACC.

Why is that?

The ACC is expected to make more money than the Big 12 for the Big 12’s next cycle by $5 to $10 million per year. But note the ACC has two separate deals with ESPN: the base contract and the ACCN contract.

The base contract with ESPN gives the ACC only the low $20s in 2023. Each ACC school received another $11 million from ACCN profit sharing. In other words, ESPN gives less money to the ACC than to the Big 12 if we only look at the base contract (and this is why some people erroneously claimed that the Big 12 would make more money than the ACC).

The ACCN money is subscription-based and is shared between ESPN and the ACC. Thus, the more people subscribe the ACCN, the more profit ESPN and the ACC would share. On top of that, cable companies are also required to pay higher in-network carriage fees for states where the ACC schools are located. Thus, if ESPN moves the Big 12 schools to the ACC, ESPN would pay less base contract pay and receive more ACCN profit.

Let’s look at the back-of-the-envelope numbers.

ESPN owns 63 percent of the Big 12 media deal at $31.7 million.

Assuming each school plays seven home games, ESPN owns about 70 Big 12 games (7 * 16 * 63%) at $320 million ($31.7 * 16 * 63%).

Now let’s say ESPN cherry picks 10 Big 12 teams and move them to the ACC and the base payment for the ACC would be $25 million.

ESPN will have 70 games (7 * 10 * 100%) at $250 million ($25 * 10 * 100%).

On top of that, ESPN will get additional ACCN profit increases.

To me, this is a no-brainer.

********

The full article can be found on Hokie Mark's ACC football blog.

https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2024/...e-b12.html

I'm looking forward to 2030.

Hey random asian guy,

Serious question... Would you welcome USF, Memphis, Tulane, UConn, etc to the ACC? They really do make the most sense for the ACC's predicament.

I don't think the ACC has exausted the pool they got SMU from. There are still some teams there that will like to combine with what's left of the ACC.

Honest answer:

I believe the prime targets for the ACC should be Utah and ASU, two schools that were least enthusiastic about joining the Big 12.

Post: #56

(05-25-2024 07:44 AM)ken d Wrote:

(05-24-2024 07:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:

(05-24-2024 06:10 PM)random asian guy Wrote: I have been predicting that there is a high chance the ACC would raid the Big 12. People haven’t paid attention to my prediction because this is so contrary to what most pundits and reporters believe.

(Never mind that I was one of the few people who continually argued that the ACC would/should expand and add SMU and some Pac 12 schools, including Stanford. No pundits or reporters ever predicted that, to my knowledge.)

...

But there is no way that the FSU and Clemson issue would be settled before February 2025. And pundits don’t realize (or don’t want to talk about) this, but there is something extra that the ACC can sell to ESPN, starting in 2027.

The third-tier media content that was sublicensed to Raycom Sports (and CW now) would revert back to the ACC in 2027, meaning that the ACC can sell this to ESPN or another network.

As we all know, Jim Phillips is working on a “look-in.”

The league and its TV partner are in active negotiations over what Phillips did confirm is a “look-in” provision. “We are working internally with them on a piece of the contract. The partnership is not going away or being affected in a negative light,” Phillips said.

So, it’s possible that the ACC’s media value stays the same even if FSU and Clemson leave, or potentially increase a bit.

...

What Does ESPN Want?

But would ESPN support the ACC to expand? That’s the heart of the question. What does ESPN really want?

Well, obviously ESPN wants more profit and less cost. Then how would it make more money with respect to the ACC and the Big 12?

Contrary to what many people think, the simplest solution would be to move some of the Big 12 schools to the ACC.

Why is that?

The ACC is expected to make more money than the Big 12 for the Big 12’s next cycle by $5 to $10 million per year. But note the ACC has two separate deals with ESPN: the base contract and the ACCN contract.

The base contract with ESPN gives the ACC only the low $20s in 2023. Each ACC school received another $11 million from ACCN profit sharing. In other words, ESPN gives less money to the ACC than to the Big 12 if we only look at the base contract (and this is why some people erroneously claimed that the Big 12 would make more money than the ACC).

The ACCN money is subscription-based and is shared between ESPN and the ACC. Thus, the more people subscribe the ACCN, the more profit ESPN and the ACC would share. On top of that, cable companies are also required to pay higher in-network carriage fees for states where the ACC schools are located. Thus, if ESPN moves the Big 12 schools to the ACC, ESPN would pay less base contract pay and receive more ACCN profit.

Let’s look at the back-of-the-envelope numbers.

ESPN owns 63 percent of the Big 12 media deal at $31.7 million.

Assuming each school plays seven home games, ESPN owns about 70 Big 12 games (7 * 16 * 63%) at $320 million ($31.7 * 16 * 63%).

Now let’s say ESPN cherry picks 10 Big 12 teams and move them to the ACC and the base payment for the ACC would be $25 million.

ESPN will have 70 games (7 * 10 * 100%) at $250 million ($25 * 10 * 100%).

On top of that, ESPN will get additional ACCN profit increases.

To me, this is a no-brainer.

********

The full article can be found on Hokie Mark's ACC football blog.

https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2024/...e-b12.html

I'm looking forward to 2030.

The problem is those Big12 teams have to pay 500+ million collectively in exit fees (plus they will need to negotiate a GOR buyout on top of that) just to make roughly the same pay check in the ACC. Thats going to take a lot of convincing---and even then--I doubt any administration would try to raise the money just to pay exit fees with all the new player expenses on the way. Not to mention ESPN could easily find themselves embroiled in a law torturous interference law suit if it comes out this was an attempt to destroy a conference in order to save money (keep in mind they took similar shot across the bow just a few years ago when there was talk of using the AAC to save money of Big12 member TV rights). The easier way for ESPN to save money is to just use the boiler plate conference composition clause in the ACC contract to lower the per team payout to the rump ACC members after Florida/Clemson and company move on to the SEC and Big10.

Sorry, but there is no place for a rational post like this during silly season. The more fantastic the proposition, the better. It doesn't actually have to be doable.

I remember you were very skeptical when I first suggested that the ACC should target the Pac-12 schools back in 2022.

The B12 exit fee is less than $100 million. And how much is the ACC going to get from FSU and Clemson?

Post: #57

(05-25-2024 11:44 AM)Stugray2 Wrote: Why I think this idea is bogus, just as moving ACC teams to the SEC is bogus.

ESPN has three goals: 1) contain costs; 2) stable, predictable revenue and offerings; 3) not to damage existing brands (see #1 and #2).

Disney is doing an awful job overall at all three of those, largely because they violate #3, having essentially killed Dr. Who, Indiana Jones, Pixar, Snow White, Star Wars, and put Marvels on life support due to their advanced DEI infection. ESPN has largely avoided this, because it's live sports. But the ramifications are massive from the parent company who increasingly depend on its revenue for survival. Instability in ESPN would be a disaster.

Let's look at the moves. ESPN was asked by the SEC to help fund a move to 9 games, with the SEC offering over a half dozen more marquee matchups with that extra game, like say Texas-Alabama, Georgia-LSU, Oklahoma-Florida, etc every year, content that in theory would allow a 2nd game of the week offering. ESPN declined, saying they were good. And they are, their plate is full. These offerings are more than FSU and Clemson could possibly bring to the table for the SEC. Why would ESPN, who already controls their content, want to pay these two schools a combined $600M more over the next decade than they are contracted to do? Throw in a North Carolina and somebody else, you are well over an extra $1B thrown at content they already control, with no new slots to air that content to make money from it. Hell, they have so much content they sublease even some ACC content to the CW.

Flipping over, the Big 12 is mostly generic A4 content. When a team is ranked there is interest. When not ranked they tend to be low value A4, interchangeable with anyone else. But in the Big 12 FOX at least takes 1/3rd the cost and CBS the basketball. Move the team over to the ACC and ESPN has to pay $11M more annually for them, and pads on more basketball games onto an already too many to air schedule (competing with their much higher rated NBA). What's more the Big 12 will backfill, for which ESPN is on the hook for $20M annually per school, with some G5 school, likely from the American, where ESPN is only paying $7M for their content. It also dilutes the Big 12 brand weakening its value.

Such moves violate #1, #2, and #3. But they do satisfy some OCD tendencies of posters.

You don’t get it.

ESPN would cherry-pick and move a few schools to the ACC and drop the Big 12 contract in 2030. By doing this ESPN would save costs , which is their #1 goal as you said.

That’s exactly what ESPN did to the old Big East. They moved the best content of the OBE to the ACC, and how much did they pay for the AAC?

A similar thing happened to the Pac-12. Near the end of a media contract, networks would have an interest in moving the best content and dropping the remaining low-value schools.

Post: #58

(05-25-2024 03:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:

(05-25-2024 03:13 PM)random asian guy Wrote:

(05-24-2024 11:34 PM)Big12HoopsHeaven Wrote:

(05-24-2024 11:30 PM)random asian guy Wrote: I have been saying since last year that it’s likely the ACC will raid the Big 12 in 2030.

Nobody took it seriously last year. I am still in a very minor position as of now. But as time goes on, the revenue difference between the ACC and the Big 12 will become significant, and more and more people will see the point.

But until then, I expect lots of negative feedback.

I feel sorry for Hokie Mark. After he posted that article, he was confronted by unhappy Big 12 fans on Twitter.

I really do wish the ACC can collect a "war chest" like the Pac 2 have post-implosion.

That being said, we already rejected an ACC that had FSU and Clemson in it.

Jump forward to 2030 and it's a foolish fantasy to think Arizona will want to fly to Blacksburg. Or any school that already heard Jim Phillips overtures (and they DID happen).

The ACC *may* have done some preliminary vetting/screening for Zona, but as far as I know, the ACC never had any serious discussions with that school (or any other 4C schools).

So no, I don’t think what you claimed is true.

BTW: If that avatar is the picture of a new arrival to your family then a belated, "Congratuations!"

Thank! It is an old picture of my son. He is five now.

Post: #59

The ACC could have added Kansas, Oklahoma State, TCU, and West Virginia when they had the chance.

They then could've grabbed Stanford, Cal, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and Arizona State.

This could've been the ACC:

PAC: Stanford, Cal, Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado

XII / Post-1954 ACC: Kansas, Oklahoma St, TCU, Florida St, Georgia Tech, Louisville

OG ACC: Clemson, NC State, UNC, Duke, Virginia, Wake

BIG EAST: Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, Miami, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Post: #60

(05-25-2024 01:38 PM)YeahNirvana Wrote: Random, along the lines of what you're suggesting, a simple swap of SMU, Cal, and Stanford for Cincinnati, West Virginia, and UCF would make both conferences more money.

Big XII West
California
Stanford
Arizona
Arizona State
Colorado
BYU
Utah
Oklahoma State

Big XII East
Houston
Baylor
TCU
SMU
Texas Tech
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State

This makes infinitely more dollars (bigger brands for the Big XII) and common sense (less travel, more fan interest due to closer proximity) than the far-flung mess that is the current Big 12 membership.

I know, I know, but California academics and politics... *drumroll*

Have literally nothing to do with athletics. Russia will play Ukraine again someday in the worlds most popular sport. Germany has already played Israel in every international sport post-WW2. My point being, differences along the lines of "academics," "culture," "politics" etc. have no meaning on the field. Heck, a Stanford vs. BYU conference game might actually drive up TV ratings due to the culture clash. Any old timers remember Catholics vs. Convicts? That slogan is how CBS marketed the game!!

And for the ACC...

ACC North
Cincinnati
West Virginia
Louisville
Boston College
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Notre Dame - Olympic Sports
Virginia Tech
Virginia

ACC South
UCF
Miami
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Clemson
UNC
NC State
Duke
Wake

This lineup is clearly better than Wake-SMU in front of flies or Boston College-Cal in front of not even a single insect in attendance.

But, Cal doesn't want to...

I know. Cal is also flat broke. Maybe Cal needs to join the rest of humankind and embrace common sense. Maybe good ole "tolerant" Cal needs to realize how dumb it is to play Miami in Tennis because they can't "tolerate" the thought of saving money and playing Baylor in Tennis. Stanford just has piles of money and could be Notre Dame anytime they want to be. They are just as snooty as Cal (and both of these two killed the Pac-12 more than any other school did by insanely voting "no" to schools like Texas, A&M, and Oklahoma) but Stanford used be right-wing. It's not that along ago the Stanford Indians were THE dream school for West Coast Republicans. And SMU in the Big XII gives everyone another shot at Texas recruits (who aren't playing in the ACC anyway).

That simple swap would cost the ACC a pile of money. The reason they were added in the first place was because adding California and Texas brought in a huge windfall from carriage fees for the ACCN. They aren't giving that up to swap for smaller states.