ACC TV negotiations

[This is a no brainer]

ESPN has made it clear in private discussions with the ACC that it does not plan to approach the ACC’s lofty target rights fee of around $120 million per year, an aggressive 60 to 70 percent increase over its current deal. Media executives say the weakness of the ACC’s football teams puts the conference at a level below the Big Ten and SEC, putting it more on a par with the Pac-10 and Big 12

FYI Big Ten Network did $242 million profit

So basically media execs have gone on record to tell the rest of the college football world (UT included) that a number less than half of current BT earnings is way to high.

The more I think about expansion, the more this seems like a no brainer for any non-SEC school... Only outside forces (read politicians or super powerful doners) can derail Delany's plans.

I'll bet my $10 to your $1 the we end up the UT, ND, some school(s) near the NY market, and perhaps a few more. My money is no seismic.

[Richard]

Mar 13, 2010 19:56:38 GMT -6 @This is a no brainer said:

ESPN has made it clear in private discussions with the ACC that it does not plan to approach the ACC’s lofty target rights fee of around $120 million per year, an aggressive 60 to 70 percent increase over its current deal. Media executives say the weakness of the ACC’s football teams puts the conference at a level below the Big Ten and SEC, putting it more on a par with the Pac-10 and Big 12

FYI Big Ten Network did $242 million profit

So basically media execs have gone on record to tell the rest of the college football world (UT included) that a number less than half of current BT earnings is way to high.

The more I think about expansion, the more this seems like a no brainer for any non-SEC school... Only outside forces (read politicians or super powerful doners) can derail Delany's plans.

I'll bet my $10 to your $1 the we end up the UT, ND, some school(s) near the NY market, and perhaps a few more. My money is no seismic.

We might not get either Texas or ND due to stubborness/overplaying their hand/politics/alum backlash/perceived lack of cultural fit.

However, I hope Delany can convince the Big10 presidents on the merits of Miami & FSU. They're only a bit less enticing than Texas + TAMU, and would be more likely to behave. Even without ND, a Big10 with 2 Florida schools, Maryland, Rutgers, and one other won't be surpassed by any other conference

[theta]

is there a link for this?

[jake]

Mar 13, 2010 19:56:38 GMT -6 @This is a no brainer said:

ESPN has made it clear in private discussions with the ACC that it does not plan to approach the ACC’s lofty target rights fee of around $120 million per year, an aggressive 60 to 70 percent increase over its current deal. Media executives say the weakness of the ACC’s football teams puts the conference at a level below the Big Ten and SEC, putting it more on a par with the Pac-10 and Big 12

FYI Big Ten Network did $242 million profit

So basically media execs have gone on record to tell the rest of the college football world (UT included) that a number less than half of current BT earnings is way to high.

The more I think about expansion, the more this seems like a no brainer for any non-SEC school... Only outside forces (read politicians or super powerful doners) can derail Delany's plans.

I'll bet my $10 to your $1 the we end up the UT, ND, some school(s) near the NY market, and perhaps a few more. My money is no seismic.

The $242 million figure is the Big Ten's total TV revenue, not the profits, right? If they were raking in that much on top of expenses ... wow.

[Richard]

Well, the total money that gets sent to the Big10 in TV rights + BTN profits.

Essentially, the ACC is asking ESPN for roughly the same TV deal that the Big10 got a few years ago ($100M/year for 11 schools vs. $120M/year for 12) and ESPN is saying "No".

We might see the ACC on Fox (which would be good for the Big10, especially if we get the 2 Florida schools and/or ND and/or secure the Northeast, since the SEC will be CBS in the afternoon for the next 15 years, so the Big10 would have an even bigger patch of the ABC coverage map in the aternoon).

[joe4psu]

Mar 13, 2010 20:35:19 GMT -6 theta said:

is there a link for this?

Best I could find is this

cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=acc+ourand+tepid&d=755400772582&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=974aae56,269d1ed0

[duffman]

i thought big 10 had 51% and FOX had 49% of BTN..

it is a good question, as that would indicate that the 242M was 51% of total

[Richard]

Mar 13, 2010 22:16:00 GMT -6 @duffman said:

i thought big 10 had 51% and FOX had 49% of BTN..

it is a good question, as that would indicate that the 242M was 51% of total

Quite certain that the $242M is what the Big10 gets.

So how it works out is $242M - $100M = X*51% + Y

Where Y is the rights fee the BTN pays the Big10 (suppose to increase steadily over the length of the 25 year contract), and X is the BTN's profit.

[Ty Webb]

Mar 13, 2010 19:56:38 GMT -6 @This is a no brainer said:

ESPN has made it clear in private discussions with the ACC that it does not plan to approach the ACC’s lofty target rights fee of around $120 million per year, an aggressive 60 to 70 percent increase over its current deal. Media executives say the weakness of the ACC’s football teams puts the conference at a level below the Big Ten and SEC, putting it more on a par with the Pac-10 and Big 12

FYI Big Ten Network did $242 million profit

So basically media execs have gone on record to tell the rest of the college football world (UT included) that a number less than half of current BT earnings is way to high.

The more I think about expansion, the more this seems like a no brainer for any non-SEC school... Only outside forces (read politicians or super powerful doners) can derail Delany's plans.

I'll bet my $10 to your $1 the we end up the UT, ND, some school(s) near the NY market, and perhaps a few more. My money is no seismic.

The BTN did not do a 242 million profit. The TV revenue for the Big 10 was 242 million. That includes the BTN, ESPN, CBS and bowl money.

[Richard]

BTW, here's an informative article written before the BTN turned very profitable. I think it's safe to say that the profit-sharing portion of the BTN is yielding beyond projections.

www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/58254

[OT]

The Pac-10 is likely going to run into the same problem the ACC has run into.

ESPN, Inc. has paid a king's ransom to stop the SEC from starting its own network for 15 years.

The ACC is weak in football, while the Pac-10 is top heavy in football (USC being the brand that carries the entire league) and is now awful in basketball.

[no brainer]

Mar 13, 2010 22:34:42 GMT -6 @Ty Webb said:

The BTN did not do a 242 million profit. The TV revenue for the Big 10 was 242 million. That includes the BTN, ESPN, CBS and bowl money.

Dozens of sources have gone on record stating that each BT school gets $22 million a year in TV money... that's PROFIT, after the bills have been paid and the partners have taken their cut....

$22 million X 11 schools = $242 million

So the true formula is more like

BTN revenue + other TV $$$ - bills - partner's cut = $22 million / school

[no brainer]

CUSMIN3

Mar 13, 2010 23:22:23 GMT -6 @OT said:

The Pac-10 is likely going to run into the same problem the ACC has run into.

Exactly... that's the whole point... network execs have basically put the entire college football world on notice.

Big Ten get $$$, SEC gets $$$, Pac 10, Big 12 and ACC do not...

So if UT's had dreams for high dollar Big 12 money, those dreams are almost deal

[aps]

I believe one other factor that people are not factoring in is the state of the economy. Back when the SEC and the Big Ten got those deals, the economy was in a lot better shape. Now not being so good, the networks don't have the money they had before.

Does the ACC warrant the money that the SEC or Big Ten go, no. But the economy is distorting the difference more so.

Going forward the Pac 10 and Big 12 might not get as good as deals for the same reason, the economy.

[nobrainer]

Exactly... to quote the ACC Commish

Starting a network from scratch requires a lot of up-front money to be invested. The Big Ten did that at a time when they could attract that type of investment, in their case from Fox. So their case may be a little unique relative to the rest of us.