MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread: Stories, Tales, Lies, and Exaggerations

[DTP]

Are there guarantees that the networks will be paying the Big 10, SEC, and Big 12 the same payouts per team as they each continue to expand?

I’ve been wondering the same thing. To me, it seems like every time you add a team to a conference, you’d be splitting the pie into more pieces. I haven’t seen anywhere that says the TV contract money grows with conference expansion. I guess it’s possible that’s the case but if I’m ESPN, I’m not just throwing more money into the pot every time the league expands.

 

[Rickd]

It’s just the rebranded AT&T stream. I don’t think they use the satellite dishes anymore

Definitely still use satellite dishes ... have one in my back yard.

 

[Cane6]

 

[Rickd]

I’ve been wondering the same thing. To me, it seems like every time you add a team to a conference, you’d be splitting the pie into more pieces. I haven’t seen anywhere that says the TV contract money grows with conference expansion. I guess it’s possible that’s the case but if I’m ESPN, I’m not just throwing more money into the pot every time the league expands.

Big 10 expansion into the East Coast and the SE will add some huge TV markets to the Big 10 = added viewers.

 

[DTP]

Big 10 expansion into the East Coast and the SE will add some huge TV markets to the Big 10 = added viewers.

I get that. What I’m saying is that ESPN negotiated a contract to pay, say the SEC “x” amount of dollars annually. That dollar amount gets split between the 14 teams. Now say, two more teams join the league. Does that same dollar amount get split between 16 teams? Or does ESPN have to pay more than they negotiated originally?

 

[passitback]

Wonder what this is about:

 

[Ispyin]

Wonder what this is about:

Breaking news today

 

[Baba Yaga]

Wonder what this is about:

 

[JTKoval]

Wussy Connecticut? Besides being a completely weird thing to say, ESPN is a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company which is a multi-national conglomerate headquartered in Burbank, CA. Furthermore I'd guess that somewhere between 0% and 0% of the decision makers at ESPN are from Connecticut.

So anyway, where is the leverage to play hardball with? What makes you think that ESPN has any interest in paying more for ACC football under any circumstances? Especially when they will end up with half the cream of the crop in the SEC if the ACC falls apart anyway. And even if they did, the ACC is an incredibly inferior product when compared to the B1G and SEC, so if ESPN paid us closer to fair market value in the next few years, it would be incrementally higher (think $5M per school) which would still leave us at a massive competitive disadvantage to the B1G/SEC and we'd be in the exact same spot, with the schools with a landing spot itching to get out. The only difference is ESPN, which is not in a strong financial position right now, would have less money in their coffers. Does that sound like something ESPN would agree to?

Us: hardball!

ESPN: eat a ****!

"You gonna help fix this or not?" is not a strong negotiating point.

Lol. California v Connecticut. Hmm. I am amazed that you don’t see the play here. Raise the contract price or this blows up in litigation for years. If they balk, it should be blown up. Hardball.

What do you do for a living? You write a lot. But you aren’t saying much. Serious question.

 

[JTKoval]

That should do it. I’ll call jimmy pittaro

Pitaro is JAG.

 

[Negro-Wan Kanobi]

Lol. California v Connecticut. Hmm. I am amazed that you don’t see the play here. Raise the contract price or this blows up in litigation for years. If they balk, it should be blown up. Hardball.

What do you do for a living? You write a lot. But you aren’t saying much. Serious question.

I think you missed the point, man.

The ACC HAS NO LEVERAGE TO GET MORE $$$.

ACC = BIG EAST 2003-2004

So what hardball, again?

And what does someone's livelihood have to so with this? We're grown, not kids.

 

[Rickd]

I get that. What I’m saying is that ESPN negotiated a contract to pay, say the SEC “x” amount of dollars annually. That dollar amount gets split between the 14 teams. Now say, two more teams join the league. Does that same dollar amount get split between 16 teams? Or does ESPN have to pay more than they negotiated originally?

New teams added ... ESPN revenue increases ... payout increases. That is even included in the horrible ESPN deal with UM. If new teams are added to the conference then the contract is renegotiated.

 

[Cryptical Envelopment]

Lol. California v Connecticut. Hmm. I am amazed that you don’t see the play here. Raise the contract price or this blows up in litigation for years. If they balk, it should be blown up. Hardball.

What do you do for a living? You write a lot. But you aren’t saying much. Serious question.

I own three companies, have hundreds of people who work for me, have concerns in media and entertainment, and have negotiated hundreds if not thousands of contracts in my lifetime. Thanks for your inquiry.

I hope I passed the @JTKoval competency test. Now I'm off to facepalm your senseless post like everyone else.

 

[Cryptical Envelopment]

The little leverage the ACC had is the threat of some programs leaving to the competition, aka B1G. Also there may be a business case for ESPN that supporting the ACC network is less attractive than consolidating top teams in another conference (SEC) and killing the ACC deal. Not a lot, but there are arguments to be made.

I hear you amigo, but game it out. Let's say there is realignment. I know there will be even numbers, but we don't know who is going where so let's just for the sake of equity split the six programs with the most value between the B1G and SEC:

UM, UVA and ND go to the B1G.

Clemson, FSU, UNC go to the SEC.

So ESPN gets to cherrypick Clemson, FSU and UNC (and pay the SEC for the three team addition). They now own numerous new marquee games with these programs vs the many quality teams in the SEC. Think Clemson-Bama and FSU-UGA and they also own UF-FSU outright now as a bonus.

They lose UVA and Miami. That's it in this scenario. They also get to stop paying 11 of the 14 schools in the ACC and replace BC vs. Syracuse etc. broadcast content with SEC matchups between schools that have massive budgets to recruit with and huge, passionate fanbases.

There is no leverage. Which is why in every discussion both public, private, and in the media, ESPN giving the ACC a new deal with no consideration is a non-starter.

 

[JTKoval]

I think you missed the point, man.

The ACC HAS NO LEVERAGE TO GET MORE $$$.

ACC = BIG EAST 2003-2004

So what hardball, again?

And what does someone's livelihood have to so with this? We're grown, not kids.

Disagree. The ACC brand is far superior to the Big East then. ESPN’s view of value has to be a long game. We are only at a crap number because we negotiate long ago and for two long. ESPN doesn’t want the ACC to implode and go BIG10. That would be way short sighted on the future value of CFB.

 

[pacusmc]

The acc signed one of those record deal contracts where even if you fart into a microphone when you’re 70 years old they own any money you make from it.

This contract is the exact reason why any artist needs a good lawyer. And yet the exact same lawyers you would hire are the same ones that signed that ridiculous deal.

 

[mcnaire2004]

[BGCOLOR=initial]This deal only looks bad because of what the B1G and SEC have done. Dollar wise the ACC is doing better than it hoped when it made the deal. They wanted iron-clad solidarity against the breakup up of the league after MD left and they got it. The ACC chose stability over flexibility. This is what they wanted. Maybe a life lesson in there somewhere. [/BGCOLOR]

ESPN has no need to even entertain the idea of a negotiation. They aren't running a charity.

 

[Negro-Wan Kanobi]

Disagree. The ACC brand is far superior to the Big East then. ESPN’s view of value has to be a long game. We are only at a crap number because we negotiate long ago and for two long. ESPN doesn’t want the ACC to implode and go BIG10. That would be way short sighted on the future value of CFB.

Yea... I'm not listening or reading anything else you have to say, no offense.

Imma listen to @Cribby and @TheOriginalCane for this one.



You're a good poster, but on this one, I just can't, my guy.

 

[Cane6]

[BGCOLOR=initial]This deal only looks bad because of what the B1G and SEC have done. Dollar wise the ACC is doing better than it hoped when it made the deal. They wanted iron-clad solidarity against the breakup up of the league after MD left and they got it. The ACC chose stability over flexibility. This is what they wanted. Maybe a life lesson in there somewhere. [/BGCOLOR]

ESPN has no need to even entertain the idea of a negotiation. They aren't running a charity.

“Better than hoped” ?????…… tell me the other hopes the acc had back in 2012 and 2016

Gtfoh

 

[mcnaire2004]

“Better than hoped” ?????…… tell me the other hopes the acc had back in 2012 and 2016

Gtfoh

They just reported record revenue.

It is simply a failure of imagination on their part. The idea of the scale of the super conferences and size of the media deals wasn't a realistic conception at the time.

Other than that the current deal is working as well as they hoped. Why else would they have renewed it for 20 years back in 2016? This isn't some kind of accident. They didn't go outside and fall **** first into this deal. It's hilarious to play the victim after being so proud of the deal initially. Especially since the deal is working as well or better than they originally hoped.