David Teel: 9-game conference football schedule possible for ACC

[The Public Enemy]

From the article from the best ACC Reporter:

As the ACC and ESPN envision the technology, finances and scope of their future partnership, one word or concept is central:

Inventory.

The ACC needs more revenue from its media rightsholder, and in exchange, ESPN surely is requesting more inventory.

Specifically, games. More specifically, football games. Conference football games.

Remember the parameters of the nine-game league schedule ACC schools adopted in 2012, only to shelve eight months later? Time to unearth that file.

Indeed, nine games are quite possible if, as expected, the ACC and ESPN agree by year's end to broaden the league’s exposure through traditional (cable) and progressive (online streaming) means.

Furthering the push: With the Big 12 adding a championship game starting in 2017 and the Big Ten expanding its league schedule to nine games this season, the power conferences are moving closer to providing the College Football Playoff selection committee with similar data.

All five will have a title contest in 2017, and an ACC shift to nine league games would leave the Southeastern Conference as the lone holdout at eight.

This would be a hallelujah moment for those of us who believe that playing nearly half of your ACC rivals (six of 13) once, on average, every six years, once every 12 at home, is preposterous.

This would be a teeth-gnashing moment for those who believe nine league games would curtail marquee non-conference matchups.

But if ACC schools want a channel, in whatever form that may be, and coinciding revenue bump, this is a change they would be wise to make.

(Not as pressing, but related: Some ACC basketball coaches, led by Notre Dame's Mike Brey, advocate expanding the league schedule from 18 to 20 games. They believe this would enhance teams' NCAA tournament credentials, with the added benefit of creating more content for ESPN.)

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-acc-nine-revisit-post.html

 

[topdecktiger]

You actually come out with less inventory going to 9 conference games. I understand his theory that conference games are typically better value, but some conference games are crap also. That's especially true because with so many schools, some of those extra games will be Wake Forest/Duke type games.

 

[EasyCard]

You actually come out with less inventory going to 9 conference games. I understand his theory that conference games are typically better value, but some conference games are crap also. That's especially true because with so many schools, some of those extra games will be Wake Forest/Duke type games.

How can't what your saying be true? Most ACC teams schedule 1 tough Team, 1 mediocre/rival team, and 2 guaranteed payout wins a year. Schools would just drop 1 of the payout games saving 1/2 mil- 1 mil a year. Plus, WF/Duke is much more marketable to sell then WF/FIU.

 

[topdecktiger]

How can't what your saying be true? Most ACC teams schedule 1 tough Team, 1 mediocre/rival team, and 2 guaranteed payout wins a year. Schools would just drop 1 of the payout games saving 1/2 mil- 1 mil a year. Plus, WF/Duke is much more marketable to sell then WF/FIU.

The "cupcake" game is not going to be the one that's dropped. It's going to be the good OOC game. The reason is money. You have four schools with OOC rivals. If they want to play home-and-home with a good OOC opponent, then that means giving up a 7th home game. The revenue lost by giving up a 7th home game is way more than the "savings" from dropping one of the cupcake teams.

Duke/Wake Forest isn't "much more" marketable that Wake Forest/FIU. Normally, Duke and Wake Forest are about as bad a FIU.

 

[wilkie01]

Playing a 9th ACC team is better than playing G5 or lower team!

 

[The Public Enemy]

Go to 10...have Kentucky as our P5 OOC and ND every 3 years...

 

[PushupMan]

You actually come out with less inventory going to 9 conference games. I understand his theory that conference games are typically better value, but some conference games are crap also. That's especially true because with so many schools, some of those extra games will be Wake Forest/Duke type games.

I understand what you are saying about losing inventory by going to a 9 game conference schedule (assumes that ACC schools play more non-conference games at home than on the road or at neutral sites, which they do) , but I do not think that is the issue for ESPN. They consider the large majority of the conference games as much more valuable inventory (and dependable from year to year) than they do the majority of the non-conference games. The exception to that "general" rule are the 5 games played every year against Notre Dame and 4 in-state rivalry games played every year against the SEC. But even there I think that ESPN assumes those games aren't going away if the ACC expands to 9 conference games.

Now if the SEC expands to 9 games, Kentucky has pretty much said that they would drop their game with Louisville - because they do not want 10 games every year against tough opponents.

 

[gocds]

Just wondering "out loud" if there would be a possibility of a 13th game? Almost every school has "off" weeks and some have two of those. Just askin'.

GO CARDS - BEAT EVERYBODY!!! God Bless America!!!

 

[PushupMan]

Just wondering "out loud" if there would be a possibility of a 13th game? Almost every school has "off" weeks and some have two of those. Just askin'.

GO CARDS - BEAT EVERYBODY!!! God Bless America!!!

Every conference with a championship game only has one bye week, so I don't see any schools looking to give up their bye week for a 13th game.

 

[mwatson61]

I understand what you are saying about losing inventory by going to a 9 game conference schedule (assumes that ACC schools play more non-conference games at home than on the road or at neutral sites, which they do) , but I do not think that is the issue for ESPN. They consider the large majority of the conference games as much more valuable inventory (and dependable from year to year) than they do the majority of the non-conference games. The exception to that "general" rule are the 5 games played every year against Notre Dame and 4 in-state rivalry games played every year against the SEC. But even there I think that ESPN assumes those games aren't going away if the ACC expands to 9 conference games.

Now if the SEC expands to 9 games, Kentucky has pretty much said that they would drop their game with Louisville - because they do not want 10 games every year against tough opponents.

UK has no options for wiggling their way out of the game at this point.

 

[The Public Enemy]

UK has no options for wiggling their way out of the game at this point.

Yeah the game now is a Conference TV deal it appears

 

[PushupMan]

Yeah the game now is a Conference TV deal it appears

Not sure where you are getting that. Maybe you think that because the game was moved to the end of the year? The game is still contracted between the University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky (not between the ACC and the SEC), and the contract runs for four more years (2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019). UK can definitely chose to end it after the 2019 season if they decide they need an easier non-conference opponent.

 

[Guardman]

Every conference with a championship game only has one bye week, so I don't see any schools looking to give up their bye week for a 13th game.

I see the season starting one week earlier.

 

[topdecktiger]

I understand what you are saying about losing inventory by going to a 9 game conference schedule (assumes that ACC schools play more non-conference games at home than on the road or at neutral sites, which they do) , but I do not think that is the issue for ESPN. They consider the large majority of the conference games as much more valuable inventory (and dependable from year to year) than they do the majority of the non-conference games. The exception to that "general" rule are the 5 games played every year against Notre Dame and 4 in-state rivalry games played every year against the SEC. But even there I think that ESPN assumes those games aren't going away if the ACC expands to 9 conference games.

Now if the SEC expands to 9 games, Kentucky has pretty much said that they would drop their game with Louisville - because they do not want 10 games every year against tough opponents.

It actually is an issue for ESPN, especially if you are talking about the ACC starting a network. The more games, the better. And again, I'll go back to the point that a lot of your 9th conference games are going to be Duke/Wake Forest, Boston College, etc. If it meant all those schools got an extra game against Clemson or Florida St (like in a round robin) it would be more compelling, but that's not the case.

It's also going to be an issue when somebody like Clemson or Florida St stops playing good OOC games because they don't want to lose the 7th home game. Dan Radakovitch has already said Clemson will have to stop scheduling home-and-home series if the conference goes to 9 games. Clemson makes about $5 million dollars a game, and that's just from ticket sales. It's not counting concessions, merchandise, parking, etc. Over the last 10-12 years, Clemson has played Georgia, Auburn, and A&M home-and-home. You think it's going to be good for ESPN or the conference to give up those games?

 

[Mike'sMarbles]

Not sure where you are getting that. Maybe you think that because the game was moved to the end of the year? The game is still contracted between the University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky (not between the ACC and the SEC), and the contract runs for four more years (2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019). UK can definitely chose to end it after the 2019 season if they decide they need an easier non-conference opponent.

I don't remember hearing that UK is forced to play UofL. I think in theory they could cancel the series. But in practice, it may be a moot point.

Didn't the SEC put in a rule a few years ago that every SEC team has to play a P5 team? If that's still in effect, UK is essentially stuck with UofL for the long term. Because, who else has any reason to want to play them OOC? Indiana is the only one I can think of that might have an interest due to the "border war" concept, but there is so much bad blood between the basketball programs I doubt this game could happen. Maybe Kansas? Who else? Who would want to go on the road to UK's dumpy stadium, or have to host them?

If anything, it's more likely that UofL might end the series in order to upgrade that slot to a better opponent. I hope Jurich is talking to the ACC about Tennessee. However, if our league wants us to play UK, I'm happy to take one for the league after all they have done for us, so I don't mind playing UK even though honestly, I'd prefer to play a tougher opponent.

 

[kypecos]

I don't understand how this would affect Notre Dame. Wouldn't it have to become a full conference member in order for this to work?

 

[zipp]

Biggest issue I see with nine games is it makes it doubly tough to ever convince ND to join as a full member. Also consider if Texas is ever in that situation...

 

[cantmissprospect]

Don't worry UK won't drop UL anytime soon. The big blue will play anybody anywhere.

 

[The Public Enemy]

Not sure where you are getting that. Maybe you think that because the game was moved to the end of the year? The game is still contracted between the University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky (not between the ACC and the SEC), and the contract runs for four more years (2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019). UK can definitely chose to end it after the 2019 season if they decide they need an easier non-conference opponent.

Just putting 2 and 2 together....Games are determined by television and neither wanted the game moved...it is a $$$ maker for the ACC/SEC/ESPN-SEC Network...just got a hunch the folks in Birmingham & Bristol will not allow it to be dropped at this point...also as stated above every SEC school is basically required to play one P5 OOC....Louisville is that opponent for Kentucky...here you go:

The Southeastern Conference on Sunday announced the format for future football scheduling that is a continuation of the existing format and adds a strength-of-schedule component that requires all schools to play an ACC, Big 12, Big Ten or Pac-12 opponent on an annual basis. - LINK


Which SEC teams are already in compliance (and which ones need a P5 opponent for 2016)? Here is the list of P5 opponents for each SEC team (with ACC teams highlighted):

• Alabama: none (4 openings)
• Arkansas: @TCU
• Auburn: none (4 openings)
• Florida: @FSU
• Georgia: Ga Tech
• Kentucky: @Louisville
• LSU: Wisconsin @Green Bay
• Miss St: none (1 opening)
• Ole Miss: none (1 opening)
• Missouri: Indiana
• S Carolina: @Clemson
• Tennessee: Va Tech @Bristol Motor Speedway
• Texas AM: UCLA
• Vanderbilt: @Ga Tech

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2014/04/breaking-news-sec-to-stay-at-8-games.html

 

[The Public Enemy]

Biggest issue I see with nine games is it makes it doubly tough to ever convince ND to join as a full member. Also consider if Texas is ever in that situation...

That the issue but really ND ain't joining any conference but what we have now is a good deal for both the ACC & Notre Dame.

 

[wreckcard#22]

It actually is an issue for ESPN, especially if you are talking about the ACC starting a network. The more games, the better. And again, I'll go back to the point that a lot of your 9th conference games are going to be Duke/Wake Forest, Boston College, etc. If it meant all those schools got an extra game against Clemson or Florida St (like in a round robin) it would be more compelling, but that's not the case.

It's also going to be an issue when somebody like Clemson or Florida St stops playing good OOC games because they don't want to lose the 7th home game. Dan Radakovitch has already said Clemson will have to stop scheduling home-and-home series if the conference goes to 9 games. Clemson makes about $5 million dollars a game, and that's just from ticket sales. It's not counting concessions, merchandise, parking, etc. Over the last 10-12 years, Clemson has played Georgia, Auburn, and A&M home-and-home. You think it's going to be good for ESPN or the conference to give up those games?

What ESPN does get out of this concept is a conference game that can have national implications, whether Clemson, FSU, VT, UofL, GT plays a lower tier team or not; any conference match up can have compelling interests that draw eyes much more than any of those teams playing the same level of competition ooc...sure, there's gonna be more UVA vs WF but with a good number of good teams the odds are in ESPN's favor with 9 conference games vs 8.

 

[topdecktiger]

What ESPN does get out of this concept is a conference game that can have national implications, whether Clemson, FSU, VT, UofL, GT plays a lower tier team or not; any conference match up can have compelling interests that draw eyes much more than any of those teams playing the same level of competition ooc...sure, there's gonna be more UVA vs WF but with a good number of good teams the odds are in ESPN's favor with 9 conference games vs 8.

Not really. Clemson vs. Georgia or Auburn, for example, has as much (if not more) national impact as Clemson vs. Duke or Virginia.

 

[wreckcard#22]

Not really. Clemson vs. Georgia or Auburn, for example, has as much (if not more) national impact as Clemson vs. Duke or Virginia.

Lose to Auburn and there is still a path to the final 4...lose to Duke and the path to the conference champ is now more complicated...if we're talking ACC network, the 9th game will have greater implication and create a bigger draw to multiple games...Additionally, the Clemson/Auburn game is early in the year; exciting but not hugely important. Extending the drama of the conference championship birth enhances the importance as the weeks roll by. Makes sense to me why the 9th game is on the table.

 

[topdecktiger]

Lose to Auburn and there is still a path to the final 4...lose to Duke and the path to the conference champ is now more complicated...if we're talking ACC network, the 9th game will have greater implication and create a bigger draw to multiple games...Additionally, the Clemson/Auburn game is early in the year; exciting but not hugely important. Extending the drama of the conference championship birth enhances the importance as the weeks roll by. Makes sense to me why the 9th game is on the table.

Actually no. Lose to Auburn, and that seriously hurts a path to the final 4. Just winning your conference isn't enough to get you into the playoffs (see Stanford and Baylor). What you are saying only holds true if the conference champion got an automatic birth to the playoffs. To be honest, the committee would probably judge a loss to Auburn more harshly than a loss in conference, because that would just make the ACC conference champ look weaker to the committee.

 

[kozmas]

Poor Duke taking some criticism here and I thought they have been pretty competitive the past few years.

 

[CATFANFOLIFE87]

Are you all arguing that a 9th conference game would position the ACC better to get a conference network? I think it could help the conference build its SOS for the playoff but I'm not sure that there's much interest from ESPN to take on another conference network at the moment based on an article I read recently and will link. ESPN is losing millions because of people dropping cable for TV streaming services and that may be an issue that a 9th conference game won't solve.

Let me also say that I don't think the SEC is going to poach the elite from the ACC and Big 12. The SEC commish would go after programs in states that would expand the SEC footprint so FSU and Clemson wouldn't be likely with Florida and South Carolina already members. I could see UNC and Oklahoma being potential targets for expansion although UNC would be tough to pull away from the ACC

Discrepancy in conference TV money might affect expansion

 

[zipp]

LPT fans need simply to hope that the SEC doesn't kick it's non-performing a$$ out of the conference for serially impersonating a football program. That would open up one more slot for a quality replacement.

LPT Football: And invite who, Louisville?...

 

[SchmidtyNole]

Are you all arguing that a 9th conference game would position the ACC better to get a conference network? I think it could help the conference build its SOS for the playoff but I'm not sure that there's much interest from ESPN to take on another conference network at the moment based on an article I read recently and will link. ESPN is losing millions because of people dropping cable for TV streaming services and that may be an issue that a 9th conference game won't solve.

Let me also say that I don't think the SEC is going to poach the elite from the ACC and Big 12. The SEC commish would go after programs in states that would expand the SEC footprint so FSU and Clemson wouldn't be likely with Florida and South Carolina already members. I could see UNC and Oklahoma being potential targets for expansion although UNC would be tough to pull away from the ACC

Discrepancy in conference TV money might affect expansion

Nobody could or would leave the ACC at least until 2027. Every team in the ACC signed a Grant of Rights.

 

[The Public Enemy]

Nobody could or would leave the ACC at least until 2027. Every team in the ACC signed a Grant of Rights.

Exactly...the Big XII GoR expires in 2025 and the ACC doesn't expire until 2027...if any league is on the clock it is BEVO League not the ACC...But Kentucky fans just don't realize this...smh....

 

[SchmidtyNole]

Exactly...the Big XII GoR expires in 2025 and the ACC doesn't expire until 2027...if any league is on the clock it is BEVO League not the ACC...But Kentucky fans just don't realize this...smh....

The other thing that he is wrong about is when he said that ESPN is not interested in creating an ACC Network.

1) There is language is the ACC's TV deal with ESPN that says that ESPN owes the ACC $45 million if there is no agreement to create an ACC Network by July 1, 2016. That is three weeks away. So ESPN can either not create a Network and owe $45 million in exchange for nothing or they can get a Network going and make money off of it.
2) Yes, ESPN is losing subscribers so no one knows what an ACC Network would be in terms of a cable channel vs online streaming. It would probably be a combination of both.
3) There is a lot more demand for an ACC Network than there would be for a Big 12 Network. Why? Because there is a far higher population of people in the ACC's footprint than there are in the Big 12's footprint. Plus, the Big 12's Olympic Sports aren't near as competitive and interesting as the ACC's. And ACC Men's Basketball is the best conference the last two years as well as moving forward.
4) He made no reference to Notre Dame's role in an ACC Network. Notre Dame could join the ACC full time at any time and that would really help in the creation of an ACC Network as well as renegotiating a new TV deal. Will Notre Dame join full time? I don't know. But there always remains that possibility.

The ACC is nowhere near in trouble like the Big 12 is.

 

[The Public Enemy]

The other thing that he is wrong about is when he said that ESPN is not interested in creating an ACC Network.

1) There is language is the ACC's TV deal with ESPN that says that ESPN owes the ACC $45 million if there is no agreement to create an ACC Network by July 1, 2016. That is three weeks away. So ESPN can either not create a Network and owe $45 million in exchange for nothing or they can get a Network going and make money off of it.
2) Yes, ESPN is losing subscribers so no one knows what an ACC Network would be in terms of a cable channel vs online streaming. It would probably be a combination of both.
3) There is a lot more demand for an ACC Network than there would be for a Big 12 Network. Why? Because there is a far higher population of people in the ACC's footprint than there are in the Big 12's footprint. Plus, the Big 12's Olympic Sports aren't near as competitive and interesting as the ACC's. And ACC Men's Basketball is the best conference the last two years as well as moving forward.
4) He made no reference to Notre Dame's role in an ACC Network. Notre Dame could join the ACC full time at any time and that would really help in the creation of an ACC Network as well as renegotiating a new TV deal. Will Notre Dame join full time? I don't know. But there always remains that possibility.

The ACC is nowhere near in trouble like the Big 12 is.

Would not be at all surprised if NBC also has a role in the upcoming ACC Network...and as you said we are in the 5 year look-in and in about 3 weeks the Worldwide Leader is bout to pay the ACC $45 Million this year and I think it comes up again in another few years if no ACCN...

 

[American Male]

Don't worry UK won't drop UL anytime soon. The big blue will play anybody anywhere.

Really...tell that to Western Kentucky!!!

 

[CATFANFOLIFE87]

Nobody could or would leave the ACC at least until 2027. Every team in the ACC signed a Grant of Rights.

Wasn't that contract signed right before Maryland left the conference? I don't think it traps schools as much as you might think. They can pay the penalty which would be covered by their first year or two of TV money in the SEC

 

[The Public Enemy]

It was signed after Maryland left...Maryland never signed a GoR with the ACC...they had to pay a $32 Million Exit Fee...now if anyone leaves the ACC they have a $52 Million Exit Fee and they forfeit any TV or Concession revenue...Maryland announced they were leaving the ACC in November 2012...the ACC didn't sign the Grant of Rights until April 2013 which Louisville also signed...

Maryland announced in late 2012 that it would leave the ACC -- the conference it helped create in 1953 -- for the Big Ten. That came roughly two months after the league raised its exit fee for schools to leave to three times the league's annual operational budget, which amounted to nearly $52.3 million at the time of Maryland's announcement.

The ACC then sued the school seeking full payment of the fee -- which was increased twice in the span of 12 months, first to $20 million when Pittsburgh and Syracuse were announced additions in 2011 and then to the current level in 2012 when Notre Dame said it would join in all league sports except football.

After the ACC withheld Maryland's television and bowl revenue, the school followed by suing the ACC in January 2013, calling the fee an illegal penalty.

Earlier this year, the school filed a $157 million counterclaim against the conference, saying the ACC tried to recruit two Big Ten schools after the Terrapins announced their exit from the league.

While the exit fee was once the primary deterrent for a school to leave, the ACC took another step to protect itself five months after Maryland's announced move when it reached a deal to keep control of the member schools' media rights.

That grant-of-rights deal meant the ACC would control the TV rights -- and more importantly, the money that comes along with it -- for any school that chose to leave the league before 2027.

That agreement essentially locked schools into the league through the length of the current television deal and helped pump the brakes on years of realignment around college athletics.

Maryland officially joined the Big Ten, along with Rutgers, on July 1, and the Terrapins begin play in their new league this season. The ACC added Louisville to replace the Terps.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...and-terrapins-settle-legal-dispute-31-million

 

[CATFANFOLIFE87]

It was signed after Maryland left...Maryland never signed a GoR with the ACC...they had to pay a $32 Million Exit Fee...now if anyone leaves the ACC they have a $52 Million Exit Fee and they forfeit any TV or Concession revenue...Maryland announced they were leaving the ACC in November 2012...the ACC didn't sign the Grant of Rights until April 2013 which Louisville also signed...

Maryland announced in late 2012 that it would leave the ACC -- the conference it helped create in 1953 -- for the Big Ten. That came roughly two months after the league raised its exit fee for schools to leave to three times the league's annual operational budget, which amounted to nearly $52.3 million at the time of Maryland's announcement.

The ACC then sued the school seeking full payment of the fee -- which was increased twice in the span of 12 months, first to $20 million when Pittsburgh and Syracuse were announced additions in 2011 and then to the current level in 2012 when Notre Dame said it would join in all league sports except football.

After the ACC withheld Maryland's television and bowl revenue, the school followed by suing the ACC in January 2013, calling the fee an illegal penalty.

Earlier this year, the school filed a $157 million counterclaim against the conference, saying the ACC tried to recruit two Big Ten schools after the Terrapins announced their exit from the league.

While the exit fee was once the primary deterrent for a school to leave, the ACC took another step to protect itself five months after Maryland's announced move when it reached a deal to keep control of the member schools' media rights.

That grant-of-rights deal meant the ACC would control the TV rights -- and more importantly, the money that comes along with it -- for any school that chose to leave the league before 2027.

That agreement essentially locked schools into the league through the length of the current television deal and helped pump the brakes on years of realignment around college athletics.

Maryland officially joined the Big Ten, along with Rutgers, on July 1, and the Terrapins begin play in their new league this season. The ACC added Louisville to replace the Terps.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...and-terrapins-settle-legal-dispute-31-million

That is a lot of money for sure. I think it will deter expansion for a few more years while the SEC and other conferences wait to see how well the SECN does. If the SEC contract money rises as projected there's nothing that will stop schools that want to join the SEC from joining if invited. The $52 million exit fee would still pale in comparison to the long-term earnings of SEC member schools. The SEC projects the payouts to each school to balloon to 50 million per year in a few years.

From what I've been able to gather the ACC is locked into an agreement with ESPN that pays a static 17 million per year to each school through 2027. It's going to be tough for any university no matter how much conference pride they have to say no to $250 million more in TV money per decade. It's an arms race and $25 million extra in pocket change every year buys a lot of toys

ACC ESPN contract

 

[Mike'sMarbles]

That is a lot of money for sure. I think it will deter expansion for a few more years while the SEC and other conferences wait to see how well the SECN does. If the SEC contract money rises as projected there's nothing that will stop schools that want to join the SEC from joining if invited. The $52 million exit fee would still pale in comparison to the long-term earnings of SEC member schools. The SEC projects the payouts to each school to balloon to 50 million per year in a few years.

From what I've been able to gather the ACC is locked into an agreement with ESPN that pays a static 17 million per year to each school through 2027. It's going to be tough for any university no matter how much conference pride they have to say no to $250 million more in TV money per decade. It's an arms race and $25 million extra in pocket change every year buys a lot of toys

ACC ESPN contract

You left out that they'd also forfeit their TV revenue for the life of the GOR they signed.

I have to wonder how many schools have $52 million just lying around for that kind of buyout, and want to gift all the revenue from their television appearances for the next decade. If someone's preparing a war chest for all that, it's some REAL long term thinking.

If $52 million starts to seem like nothing, what's to stop the ACC from sending a new GOR around for $104 million?

It's all conjecture at this point anyway. We'll have to wait and see if someone decides they want to get out bad enough to deal with the GOR restrictions. But that is a LOT of money plus extras.

 

[The Public Enemy]

That is a lot of money for sure. I think it will deter expansion for a few more years while the SEC and other conferences wait to see how well the SECN does. If the SEC contract money rises as projected there's nothing that will stop schools that want to join the SEC from joining if invited. The $52 million exit fee would still pale in comparison to the long-term earnings of SEC member schools. The SEC projects the payouts to each school to balloon to 50 million per year in a few years.

From what I've been able to gather the ACC is locked into an agreement with ESPN that pays a static 17 million per year to each school through 2027. It's going to be tough for any university no matter how much conference pride they have to say no to $250 million more in TV money per decade. It's an arms race and $25 million extra in pocket change every year buys a lot of toys

ACC ESPN contract

A couple of thing for correction....The ACC Schools get more than $17 Million and if they jump to another conference they get NON of the revenue...any money from a league like the B1G or SEC goes to the ACC...Thar is the poison pill of a Grant of Rights...from ESPN.com...Louisville got $24 Million for 2014-2015...

The ACC's grant of rights makes it untenable financially for a school to leave, guaranteeing in the 14 years of the deal that a school's media rights, including revenue, for all home games would remain with the ACC regardless of the school's affiliation.

"This announcement further highlights the continued solidarity and commitment by our member institutions," ACC commissioner John Swofford said in a statement. "The Council of Presidents has shown tremendous leadership in insuring the ACC is extremely well positioned with unlimited potential."

The ACC becomes the fourth league with a grant of rights, along with the Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12. The SEC is the only conference among the "power five" leagues that does not have a grant of rights.

"It was pretty cut and dry to unify this league," another ACC source said. "The ACC has been a really good league, and now it can become really special."

The grant of rights coincides with the ACC's TV deal with ESPN through the 2026-27 season. That deal was worth $17 million per school per year, but sources told ESPN last year it is expected to increase to at least $20 million per school per year with the addition of Notre Dame.

Duke men's basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski said the decision "secures the ACC's future, and thus Duke's, for years to come."

"It is one of the great days in the history of our conference as it shows the highest level of commitment -- not by words, but by actions," Krzyzewski said in a statement.

http://espn.go.com/college-football...media-rights-deal-lock-schools-okd-presidents

 

[The Public Enemy]

You left out that they'd also forfeit their TV revenue for the life of the GOR they signed.

I have to wonder how many schools have $52 million just lying around for that kind of buyout, and want to gift all the revenue from their television appearances for the next decade. If someone's preparing a war chest for all that, it's some REAL long term thinking.

If $52 million starts to seem like nothing, what's to stop the ACC from sending a new GOR around for $104 million?

It's all conjecture at this point anyway. We'll have to wait and see if someone decides they want to get out bad enough to deal with the GOR restrictions. But that is a LOT of money plus extras.

No P5 Conference want to open that Pandora Box...it would be open season especially with Oklahoma being the 1st target...no secret they are not real happy in the Big XII

 

[CATFANFOLIFE87]

A couple of thing for correction....The ACC Schools get more than $17 Million and if they jump to another conference they get NON of the revenue...any money from a league like the B1G or SEC goes to the ACC...Thar is the poison pill of a Grant of Rights...from ESPN.com...Louisville got $24 Million for 2014-2015...

The ACC's grant of rights makes it untenable financially for a school to leave, guaranteeing in the 14 years of the deal that a school's media rights, including revenue, for all home games would remain with the ACC regardless of the school's affiliation.

"This announcement further highlights the continued solidarity and commitment by our member institutions," ACC commissioner John Swofford said in a statement. "The Council of Presidents has shown tremendous leadership in insuring the ACC is extremely well positioned with unlimited potential."

The ACC becomes the fourth league with a grant of rights, along with the Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12. The SEC is the only conference among the "power five" leagues that does not have a grant of rights.

"It was pretty cut and dry to unify this league," another ACC source said. "The ACC has been a really good league, and now it can become really special."

The grant of rights coincides with the ACC's TV deal with ESPN through the 2026-27 season. That deal was worth $17 million per school per year, but sources told ESPN last year it is expected to increase to at least $20 million per school per year with the addition of Notre Dame.

Duke men's basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski said the decision "secures the ACC's future, and thus Duke's, for years to come."

"It is one of the great days in the history of our conference as it shows the highest level of commitment -- not by words, but by actions," Krzyzewski said in a statement.

http://espn.go.com/college-football...media-rights-deal-lock-schools-okd-presidents

The addition of ND added 1.2 million to the TV revenue. The $24 million is the total conference revenue per school including bowl revenue, NCAA tourney revenue, TV revenue, ect. not just the TV revenue alone. I haven't read where the ACC would benefit from increased viewership of their games. The addition of ND increased the payout but I don't think it's set up to increase every year over the life of the contract based on ratings. The 18.2 they received is ballpark for what the ACC schools can expect until 2027.

The SEC distributed $31.2 million per school for the 2014-15 fiscal year (again not just TV revenue). It was a jump of over $10 million per school in the first year of the SEC network and is expected to increase substantially in the coming years.

 

[gocds]

The addition of ND added 1.2 million to the TV revenue. The $24 million is the total conference revenue per school including bowl revenue, NCAA tourney revenue, TV revenue, ect. not just the TV revenue alone. I haven't read where the ACC would benefit from increased viewership of their games. The addition of ND increased the payout but I don't think it's set up to increase every year over the life of the contract based on ratings. The 18.2 they received is ballpark for what the ACC schools can expect until 2027.

The SEC distributed $31.2 million per school for the 2014-15 fiscal year (again not just TV revenue). It was a jump of over $10 million per school in the first year of the SEC network and is expected to increase substantially in the coming years.

And what exactly is uahkay's contribution to this $ecN money? I'll tell you what . . . NOTHING, NADA, ZIP and ZERO. It must be nice being a welfare recipient in their conference. I'd think that uahkay (and Vandy) would be just a little bit nervous that their "conference brothers" just might get damned sick and tired of handing all of that money to either of them. If I were uahkay and Vandy I'd push for a GOR just to protect my money grubbing ass before I found myself knocking on the door of another conference for membership.

GO CARDS - BEAT EVERYBODY!!! God Bless America!!!