|
|
Post by vbcoltrane on Aug 3, 2023 11:19:10 GMT -5
The conference and media landscape has changed so much over the past decade. Honest question - How was the ACC media contract viewed at the time? Did knowledgeable people think it was a good deal, or a bad deal, or "meh"? Was the length of the contract considered a detriment (for the reasons we're seeing today) or was it seen as a positive - providing stability for a long period of time?
|
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Aug 3, 2023 11:23:35 GMT -5
Florida State situation is interesting. Brand has lost value in recent years (not that it's completely gone) and they're really stuck. You'd think someone would want them, no? The ACC is a good conference athletically, and generally academically as well. Nice fairly contained geography. But their deal is just SO bad and for SO long. If Florida State was a free agent soon like Texas, Oklahoma and USC, I think they'd be fine. The ACC's interminable contract is the issue. Florida State isn't even the most coveted school in the ACC; it's North Carolina, IMO. If the B1G and SEC had to choose one school to poach from the ACC, I'm confident North Carolina would be their first choice. |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Aug 3, 2023 11:31:20 GMT -5
The conference and media landscape has changed so much over the past decade. Honest question - How was the ACC media contract viewed at the time? Did knowledgeable people think it was a good deal, or a bad deal, or "meh"? Was the length of the contract considered a detriment (for the reasons we're seeing today) or was it seen as a positive - providing stability for a long period of time? It was seen as a desperate attempt to keep the conference together. The numbers weren’t great. They were so-so. But that was good for the ACC. It kept them competitive in the landscape at the time. But in order to even get that they had to collectiveiy bond themselves together with an onerous GOR and an absurdly lengthy deal. But realize, they had just lost Maryland to the Big 10, which was shocking. All the football powers were looking for better associations. It looked like the conference was finished. The media contract kept them together, but at the price of complete uncompetituveness in the last half of the deal. That said, no one was contemplating the size of the current SEC and Big 10 deals back then. And there’s no way to have foreseen the moves of UT/OU/USC/UCLA, nor the complete implosion of the PAC 12. But no one was lauding it as some kind of historic deal, either. It was a middling financial package that kept them competitive in the short run. They did get their network, so that was considered a bonus in terms of exposure. If the bottom had fallen out in terms of media deals, they might have looked smart. Who knows? Maybe the bottom has fallen out for everyone not currently in the Big 10 or SEC. In any case, they’re in a bad place now. |
|
|
|
Post by knapplc on Aug 3, 2023 11:46:38 GMT -5
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,302 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 3, 2023 13:05:06 GMT -5
The conference and media landscape has changed so much over the past decade. Honest question - How was the ACC media contract viewed at the time? Did knowledgeable people think it was a good deal, or a bad deal, or "meh"? Was the length of the contract considered a detriment (for the reasons we're seeing today) or was it seen as a positive - providing stability for a long period of time? It was seen as a desperate attempt to keep the conference together. The numbers weren’t great. They were so-so. But that was good for the ACC. It kept them competitive in the landscape at the time. But in order to even get that they had to collectiveiy bond themselves together with an onerous GOR and an absurdly lengthy deal. But realize, they had just lost Maryland to the Big 10, which was shocking. All the football powers were looking for better associations. It looked like the conference was finished. The media contract kept them together, but at the price of complete uncompetituveness in the last half of the deal. That said, no one was contemplating the size of the current SEC and Big 10 deals back then. And there’s no way to have foreseen the moves of UT/OU/USC/UCLA, nor the complete implosion of the PAC 12. But no one was lauding it as some kind of historic deal, either. It was a middling financial package that kept them competitive in the short run. They did get their network, so that was considered a bonus in terms of exposure. If the bottom had fallen out in terms of media deals, they might have looked smart. Who knows? Maybe the bottom has fallen out for everyone not currently in the Big 10 or SEC. In any case, they’re in a bad place now. This sounds right to me as I remember. I also remember that Florida State was seriously looking to join the Big 12 just before this deal. Here is an article in 2012 - about a year before the current ACC contract. bleacherreport.com/articles/1207609-why-florida-state-will-consider-a-move-from-the-acc-to-the-big-12I think the ACC wanted to lock in a long-term commitment from Florida State and possibly Miami - because they were coming close to leaving. I have been hearing for decades about a bubble or the bottom dropping out - or related - money in professional sports isn't sustainable. Yet, it just keeps going up. College football is huge - I don't see this going in a different direction anytime soon. |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,302
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 3, 2023 13:19:21 GMT -5
www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-ten-leaders-authorize-commissioner-to-explore-adding-oregon-washington-as-expansion-teams-per-report/Just another step for Oregon and Washington to the Big Ten. Stanford and Cal seem to be secondary or out for a current phase. As for the corner schools - there is no way they should stick around if they have an option with the B12. Way too much smoke with OR/WA. Then this leads to - 1) Does the B12 really want all 4 of the 'corner schools, or are they set on stopping at 14. 2) Would Arizona be able to split from Arizona State if only 1 spot was really available? 3) If the B12 was willing to take Arizona State in order to get Arizona and go to 16 - would they rather have Utah or UConn? Is UConn just a pawn in all of this. Also: If I understand correctly - the current Big 12 media contract expires after the 2024-25 season - then the new contract goes into effect. BYU, Cincinnati, UCF, and Houston are getting a portion of the money the rest of the B12 gets for this year and next - until the new contract starts. OK/TX was able to get out 1 year early. Colorado will start next year - 1 year before the new contract ($31.7M) - do they get a full share next year - which is more than the 4 new schools? Assuming that Arizona, Arizona State, and Utah would get a similar deal as Colorado - does this mean that Utah would get more TV money in 2024-25 than BYU? That seems like a tough pill for BYU? Maybe I have this wrong and they will get the reduced rate for that 1st year like the rest of the schools coming in this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Aug 3, 2023 13:37:34 GMT -5
It was seen as a desperate attempt to keep the conference together. The numbers weren’t great. They were so-so. But that was good for the ACC. It kept them competitive in the landscape at the time. But in order to even get that they had to collectiveiy bond themselves together with an onerous GOR and an absurdly lengthy deal. But realize, they had just lost Maryland to the Big 10, which was shocking. All the football powers were looking for better associations. It looked like the conference was finished. The media contract kept them together, but at the price of complete uncompetituveness in the last half of the deal. That said, no one was contemplating the size of the current SEC and Big 10 deals back then. And there’s no way to have foreseen the moves of UT/OU/USC/UCLA, nor the complete implosion of the PAC 12. But no one was lauding it as some kind of historic deal, either. It was a middling financial package that kept them competitive in the short run. They did get their network, so that was considered a bonus in terms of exposure. If the bottom had fallen out in terms of media deals, they might have looked smart. Who knows? Maybe the bottom has fallen out for everyone not currently in the Big 10 or SEC. In any case, they’re in a bad place now. This sounds right to me as I remember. I also remember that Florida State was seriously looking to join the Big 12 just before this deal. Here is an article in 2012 - about a year before the current ACC contract. bleacherreport.com/articles/1207609-why-florida-state-will-consider-a-move-from-the-acc-to-the-big-12I think the ACC wanted to lock in a long-term commitment from Florida State and possibly Miami - because they were coming close to leaving. I have been hearing for decades about a bubble or the bottom dropping out - or related - money in professional sports isn't sustainable. Yet, it just keeps going up. College football is huge - I don't see this going in a different direction anytime soon. And, thinking back to that time, why was the Big 12 (after the defections of Nebraska, A&M, Mizzou, and Colorado) their best (only) option? Why wasn't it the B1G or the nearby SEC? That's what tells me the SEC doesn't have FSU as a main target for its next expansion. I still believe it wants new territories (like in North Carolina and Virginia). It wouldn't surprise me if Miami (and its metro and south Florida presence) is higher on the SEC's wishlist than Florida State. |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Aug 3, 2023 13:48:10 GMT -5
It was seen as a desperate attempt to keep the conference together. The numbers weren’t great. They were so-so. But that was good for the ACC. It kept them competitive in the landscape at the time. But in order to even get that they had to collectiveiy bond themselves together with an onerous GOR and an absurdly lengthy deal. But realize, they had just lost Maryland to the Big 10, which was shocking. All the football powers were looking for better associations. It looked like the conference was finished. The media contract kept them together, but at the price of complete uncompetituveness in the last half of the deal. That said, no one was contemplating the size of the current SEC and Big 10 deals back then. And there’s no way to have foreseen the moves of UT/OU/USC/UCLA, nor the complete implosion of the PAC 12. But no one was lauding it as some kind of historic deal, either. It was a middling financial package that kept them competitive in the short run. They did get their network, so that was considered a bonus in terms of exposure. If the bottom had fallen out in terms of media deals, they might have looked smart. Who knows? Maybe the bottom has fallen out for everyone not currently in the Big 10 or SEC. In any case, they’re in a bad place now. This sounds right to me as I remember. I also remember that Florida State was seriously looking to join the Big 12 just before this deal. Here is an article in 2012 - about a year before the current ACC contract. bleacherreport.com/articles/1207609-why-florida-state-will-consider-a-move-from-the-acc-to-the-big-12I think the ACC wanted to lock in a long-term commitment from Florida State and possibly Miami - because they were coming close to leaving. I have been hearing for decades about a bubble or the bottom dropping out - or related - money in professional sports isn't sustainable. Yet, it just keeps going up. College football is huge - I don't see this going in a different direction anytime soon. Me neither. It’s just too valuable for advertisers to capture eyeballs. Audiences are splintering all over the place. The ratings numbers required to get advertisers excited don’t need to be going up. Of course, that’s what has people excited about women’s volleyball. The numbers are going up. And I still think the college football playoff is going to produce big numbers. What we are seeing is a massive merging of the most valuable football brands, centered around the SEC and Big 10, with the Big 12 the premier refuge for schools not in either one of those clubs. I don’t know if there’s room for a fourth conference or not. What’s clear is no one else will get a Big 10 or SEC type deal. On the distributor side we have a massive disruption in how revenue is generated. But entertainment spending isn’t going to go down. It’ will just be generated in a different way, and no one has figured out who the ultimate winners are going to be at capturing that revenue. But when that’s been determined college football will remain a desirous piece of the puzzle, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by knapplc on Aug 3, 2023 13:48:25 GMT -5
Washington's Board of Regents meets today. The offer from Apple ends tomorrow.
Announcements coming Monday?
|
|
|
|
Post by vbcoltrane on Aug 3, 2023 13:53:40 GMT -5
This sounds right to me as I remember. I also remember that Florida State was seriously looking to join the Big 12 just before this deal. Here is an article in 2012 - about a year before the current ACC contract. bleacherreport.com/articles/1207609-why-florida-state-will-consider-a-move-from-the-acc-to-the-big-12I think the ACC wanted to lock in a long-term commitment from Florida State and possibly Miami - because they were coming close to leaving. I have been hearing for decades about a bubble or the bottom dropping out - or related - money in professional sports isn't sustainable. Yet, it just keeps going up. College football is huge - I don't see this going in a different direction anytime soon. And, thinking back to that time, why was the Big 12 (after the defections of Nebraska, A&M, Mizzou, and Colorado) their best (only) option? Why wasn't it the B1G or the nearby SEC? That's what tells me the SEC doesn't have FSU as a main target for its next expansion. I still believe it wants new territories (like in North Carolina and Virginia). It wouldn't surprise me if Miami (and its metro and south Florida presence) is higher on the SEC's wishlist than Florida State. In regard to the Big 10, I'm guessing that they weren't even thinking of blowing up the geographic footprint at the time. Yeah, just two years later, they added Rutgers and Maryland, but those schools were at least in states contiguous with an existing Big 10 state. Plus, all Big 10 schools remained roughly in the North-East quadrant of the U.S. Maryland and Rutgers added big media markets, which was oh so important at the time, without completely destroying the concept of geographic density. But all of that is a guess. Maybe the Big Ten did talk about FSU or other schools in 2012 when FSU was considering what to do. |
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Aug 3, 2023 14:05:10 GMT -5
And, thinking back to that time, why was the Big 12 (after the defections of Nebraska, A&M, Mizzou, and Colorado) their best (only) option? Why wasn't it the B1G or the nearby SEC? That's what tells me the SEC doesn't have FSU as a main target for its next expansion. I still believe it wants new territories (like in North Carolina and Virginia). It wouldn't surprise me if Miami (and its metro and south Florida presence) is higher on the SEC's wishlist than Florida State. Yeah, just two years later, they added Rutgers and Maryland, but those schools were at least in states contiguous with an existing Big 10 state. Plus, all Big 10 schools remained roughly in the North-East quadrant of the U.S. Maryland and Rutgers added big media markets, which was oh so important at the time, without completely destroying the concept of geographic density. But all of that is a guess. Maybe the Big Ten did talk about FSU or other schools in 2012 when FSU was considering what to do. Based on what I recall reading back then, the B1G was showing preliminary interest in Georgia Tech and Florida State. www.reddit.com/r/CollegeBasketball/comments/1422x1/realignment_rumors_georgia_tech_to_join_the_b1g/ |
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Aug 3, 2023 17:35:40 GMT -5
Projected conference payouts:
|
|
|
|
Post by vbcoltrane on Aug 3, 2023 18:25:10 GMT -5
Dang, the BIG and SEC really do really pull away. But what happens in 2026 that gives the SEC that massive boost. They end up $10 million ahead of the BIG.
|
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 3, 2023 18:29:17 GMT -5
Dang, the BIG and SEC really do really pull away. But what happens in 2026 that gives the SEC that massive boost. They end up $10 million ahead of the BIG. Probably the CFP Expansion hitting. It's notable that these projections are estimating future CFP playoff payments and March Madness win shares, and may be overly rosy for some conferences. A lot of people seem to be confusing TV deal payouts with these numbers (or deliberately mixing-and-matching in comparisons). |
|
|
|
Post by vbcoltrane on Aug 3, 2023 18:32:28 GMT -5
Dang, the BIG and SEC really do really pull away. But what happens in 2026 that gives the SEC that massive boost. They end up $10 million ahead of the BIG. Probably the CFP Expansion hitting. It's notable that these projections are estimating future CFP playoff payments and March Madness win shares, and may be overly rosy for some conferences. A lot of people seem to be confusing TV deal payouts with these numbers (or deliberately mixing-and-matching in comparisons). Good info. I didn't read the fine print and was thinking these are the per school guarantees, which do seem high. |
|
