Jump to content

Hurtlocker

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2294
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hurtlocker

  1. doubtful, but they'd have a lot more inventory that isn't included on the ESPN contract, so they can bring in a second bidder. The part I don't get is the being able to do a new contract in 4 years. That seems pulled right out of buttdom
  2. Doing some rough math I'm pretty sure that is taking into account all the moves happening in 2024. Its just media rights, the rest of conference revenues, including whatever the post season works out to be, are not included. The difference between the Big Ten's number and the SEC's number is 9 conference games vs 8, having 3 networks pitch for slots, and having an ownership stake in BTN.
  3. Those are damning numbers for the ACC, they're properly fucked at the moment. Its like $500m ($120m is just the buyout, $350-400m is the rest of the grant of rights) for FSU to get out today. Its $120m to get out in 2036. By that time UCF would have made at least $190M more than FSU in media rights (likely more since the B12's deal goes out to bid 5 years before the ACC's is done) and Florida will have made at least $435m more.
  4. The only area where it makes sense to me is Scripps has 61 local stations, channels already on carriage lacking content, and $14b from their recent sale to Discovery. RSNs are melting down right now with Sinclair, who bought the regional fox channels from Disney, owning nearly $3b in rights fees. Ion could, technically, buy the Pac12 Network for pennies on the dollar, save Sinclair, and build a sports business with college and local baseball rights pretty quick. I doubt they'd overpay for the Pac's rights though. This is a bit like when Fox started getting to the CFB market, it will take a contract or two to be built up.
  5. Hayes: Sources convinced Big Ten isn't finished raiding the Pac-12
  6. Stew has a history of being wrong when trying to go against McMurphy.
  7. Their brands once included Food Network, HGTV, etc, so they do know how to form and grow channels, but, after selling to Discovery, Ion, Bounce, Grit, and Court TV are what's left. They definitely could become a player in this sports space with RSN's melting down rapidly, but they're a "grow with us" choice.
  8. Eh, but ESPN has FSU/Clemson locked up solid for 13 more years at half the cost of the SEC deal. Why pay FSU/Clemson twice as much, while paying the ACC 30% more (assuming their 15% comment is accurate), at a time when the brass is telling you to cut costs?
  9. Yeah, why would ESPN overpay by such a significant number?
  10. I really don't think it applies here, generally that's to protect the state from being sued. It doesn't keep the government from monetizing its rights. If that were the case no school in Texas would ever be or have been on TV. GoRs are not new, not even in college football, we just never talked about them because they were rolling one years so the broadcasters would know exactly what to plan for, for that season. You can't do that if a school can move its rights between broadcasters weekly. The first big change was when the Big Ten signed a big GoR for BTN and then the B12 did it to restabilize after the 2010 realignment. Now they are long term GoRs to decrease the risk to the broadcasters, which, in turn, provides more revenue to the conferences. All of them have one now. So, that's the difference here. It isn't that the ACC has an iron clad agreement AGAINST a government or that SI had to be waived, it is that it has an iron clad agreement with a government, who sold something of value for a set amount of time and will receive it back at the end of that time. If the government, in this case Florida, never received those rights back, then it would be on much less stable grounds. But at the end of the day, at no point does the ACC need to sue Florida. Florida has to sue the ACC, and that's why sovereign immunity doesn't apply
  11. They could have been in the SEC years ago too, but Bowden wanted to play the easier ACC schedule to pad wins.
  12. They're tasked with maximizing the value of the combined rights. Just because FSU wants more, doesn't mean they're worth more. Not much the ACC can do about that, especially when FSU agrees to the media contract. Now, if the vote was 13-1 and FSU was the one voting no.....maybe? But then why sign the GoR? I don't think there is any situation here where FSU's fingerprints all over the creation of the world they live in.
  13. The irony here is that FSU could end up being the third highest paid property in Florida in about two years. The Big 12's deal is slightly bigger than the ACC's and shorter. Now that has to sting.
  14. There isn't much to be honest. What makes GoRs tough is they are not overly complicated, and the stuff like sov immunity is worked out in advance. You can't sign if you can't grant, period. So, FSU would have to pitch they were tricked in some way, maybe breach of contract if they thought they were promised something they weren't delivered, but when FSU and Clemson reupped what they wanted was to have an ACCN, which they got. Now, it doesn't make any money, which isn't a surprise to anyone, but they did receive what they asked for. Now someone could test a GoR, but it is not like they haven't been tested numerous times over the years. They aren't new nor unique to conferences. There are millions of these things dictating how many albums an artist's owes, to how Spiderman can get in the MCU, to what a production company is making for Netflix. Chip and Joanna even have a giant one with Discovery's creation of Magnolia. In nearly every case, nullifying it is likely not an option. It comes down to a financial transaction...a make whole. For Texas and the Big 12, it was giving Fox a Michigan game to make up for a Red River. The problem for FSU is, i don't think they have the leverage they think they do. 15% of the value of the ACC isn't like 15% of the value in the Big Ten or SEC. It is closer to Big 12 money than SEC money. So what you have left is one property worth its weight, ND, about four properties worth about $50m (FSU, Clemson, Washington, Oregon) and a mess worth between $25-40. FSU's buyout I think is 3-4 years in the ACC's contract, so that's where the $120m came from (since its years of revenue it grows the longer the contract goes on as all have an inflationary growth year to year). They'll need to make up the GoR, for 13 more years, which is valued at around $400m. They're not going anywhere. What they're going to push for is unequal post season revenue payout. That's the part that people haven't spent yet and with the networks focused on that, no one will be paying more for the regular season for a while.
  15. Nothing of note here, except the Arizona paper speculating what the Arizona schools in the Big 12 would look like. The PR machines in the Pac 12 are churning. Big 12 realignment, expansion: Pac-12 school additions would alter look of conference
  16. Yeah, I don't disagree. Just meant from a game length standpoint, the EPL makes colossal money and the game only breaks at half. So there is a way. Upside being if you could get the game down to 2 hours instead of 3.5, you could fit 3 games in an afternoon instead of two.
  17. Agree, or maybe lessen the ad breaks and follow soccer's approach of branding on screen. If they can run 45s with only a handful of subs and without a commercial break and make a bazillion dollars, so can football.
  18. yeah I'd likely go... 12 (16) North: WSU, Boise, OSU, CSU, Fresno, Cal (Wyoming, Nevada) South: Stanford, SDSU, UNLV. Air Force, New Mexico, SMU (Utah State, Tulsa)
  19. Do you have a link to that? I hadn't seen they'd hammered out any payout format yet, outside consulting crews like Navigate estimating various options. Though even if it is per team, we're talking about a potential growth from $700m/year to $2b. That is still enough to safely assume a doubling of current payouts, with plenty left over. My point is that that newfound money could have the majority direct by the ACC/PAC to participating teams, without effecting current payouts, to bring up the yearly revenue closer to B1G/SEC competitiveness.
  20. The problem isn't it can't be accessed, its that it doesn't grow your brand. If you look at the numbers even terrible teams on ESPN or the major networks get watched. Big brands score big, but everyone scores big because those are the channels people tune in to just see any game. The more they have to look, the less people show up.
  21. It gets it closer. The post season is going to skyrocket shortly. Some is inflation, some is the games doing well, some is the added inventory. Regardless, if they keep it similar to how they do it now, conferences should see a doubling of their payouts. No matter what happens, i don't see the splitting evenly by conference going away. It keeps congress from looking too close. Or they'll like share 80% evenly and 20% will go to teams playing per round to help offset expenses. However it works, the Pac is going to get a very big playoff payday, if they survive long enough to be there when the dust settles. Prior the Pac-12 made about $50m for the playoff and $40m for the rose. This is why the B12 made $20m in TV, but paid out $40m. So, lets say they pull in $200m a year in playoff now. If their TV deal is $30m a year and they split this evenly, they're at $50m. Still a big gap. But if they give 50% to the teams representing and 50% to the rest, then if two teams got in a year, which seems very likely: 8 Non-playoff teams = $30m + $12.5 = $42.5m 2 Playoff teams = $30m + $50m = $80m Now Oregon and Washington may not care to change, because they're much closer to the B1G/SEC and their odds of getting into the playoffs are astronomically higher in the Pac10/12 The ACC could do something similar for FSU/Clemson, spending new money to keep them around. After this upheaval, I cannot imagine Oregon State or Cal arguing against this approach. Everyone believes they have a chance, especially if your name is Oregon, Washington, Utah, Washington State, Colorado Primetime, or the Arizona schools. The downside, for those who think they have a chance, but don't, is that the rich will only get richer because they can't afford to NOT make the playoffs.
  22. My guess is the deal is post season revenue isn't equal payout. That way Oregon or Washington can gain massively on the new playoff payout, which could be a $200m number on its own (its already $90m) for the Pac, and everyone else can stick it out. If they did this with basketball Arizona would clean up too.
  23. You just described every post on this thread dating back over a decade on two boards.
×
×
  • Create New...