Could It Help Big 12 and Pac-12 to Negotiate Media Rights as Consortium

When do conference revenue dollar become public for 21? Sec killed it I am super curious what the big 12 did in what seemed to be a very successful year

Screw the 12Pac, Robert, they would not add a red cent to our conference bottom line.

why let them drag us down too?

If you're going in that direction why not pair up with the ACC? that makes much more sense.

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

Screw the 12Pac, Robert, they would not add a red cent to our conference bottom line.

why let them drag us down too?

If you're going in that direction why not pair up with the ACC? that makes much more sense.

---

ACC media deal in place till 2036. The B12 would have no interest in waiting 15 years to potentially enhance a media deal.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

Screw the 12Pac, Robert, they would not add a red cent to our conference bottom line.

why let them drag us down too?

If you're going in that direction why not pair up with the ACC? that makes much more sense.

---

ACC media deal in place till 2036. The B12 would have no interest in waiting 15 years to potentially enhance a media deal.

---

good lord, contracts are made and broken all the time.....

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

Screw the 12Pac, Robert, they would not add a red cent to our conference bottom line.

why let them drag us down too?

If you're going in that direction why not pair up with the ACC? that makes much more sense.

---

ACC media deal in place till 2036. The B12 would have no interest in waiting 15 years to potentially enhance a media deal.

---

good lord, contracts are made and broken all the time.....

---

With associated fees. Just ask the Whorns and the zeros.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

Screw the 12Pac, Robert, they would not add a red cent to our conference bottom line.

why let them drag us down too?

If you're going in that direction why not pair up with the ACC? that makes much more sense.

---

ACC media deal in place till 2036. The B12 would have no interest in waiting 15 years to potentially enhance a media deal.

---

good lord, contracts are made and broken all the time.....

---

With associated fees. Just ask the Whorns and the zeros.

---

oh stop with the nonsense..... OU and UT owe the B12 fees, not ESPN. at least try to make cognizant comments while you dig yourself out of yet another mindless hole

Broken contracts, either schools breaking conference contracts or conferences breaking media contracts results in penalty related fees - in many cases prohibitively large fees.

No need to argue. There's just no realistic opportunity to partner with the ACC.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Broken contracts, either schools breaking conference contracts or conferences breaking media contracts results in penalty related fees - in many cases prohibitively large fees.

No need to argue. There's just no realistic opportunity to partner with the ACC.

---

then stop your stupid arguing and bickering.

YOU said broken contract, not I. You just want to argue with people about what you think is reality and possible.

You are always wrong. Every single time. Stop arguing already.

The ACC and ESPN can change their contract anytime that they want to renegotiate it, and for whatever reason makes sense to them.

It actually works sort of like this...... (so stop with your nonsense, you have no idea what the future holds)

"The Longhorn Network deal between ESPN and Texas runs through 2031 (it was a 20-year deal signed in 2011), but obviously, ESPN would be willing to renegotiate that if and when the Longhorns join the SEC.

It seems we could be seeing the last years of the Longhorn Network"

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Broken contracts, either schools breaking conference contracts or conferences breaking media contracts results in penalty related fees - in many cases prohibitively large fees.

No need to argue. There's just no realistic opportunity to partner with the ACC.

---

then stop your stupid arguing and bickering.

YOU said broken contract, not I. You just want to argue with people about what you think is reality and possible.

You are always wrong. Every single time. Stop arguing already.

The ACC and ESPN can change their contract anytime that they want to renegotiate it, and for whatever reason makes sense to them.

It actually works sort of like this...... (so stop with your nonsense, you have no idea what the future holds)

"The Longhorn Network deal between ESPN and Texas runs through 2031 (it was a 20-year deal signed in 2011), but obviously, ESPN would be willing to renegotiate that if and when the Longhorns join the SEC.

It seems we could be seeing the last years of the Longhorn Network"

---

This is my last post on this subject, so don't expect a reply from me if you reply to this.

1. You first said "good lord, contracts are made and broken all the time..... ". So no, I didn't bring up broken contracts, you did
2. If you can produce one legitimate opinion from someone with just a basic knowledge of existing media deals that think a media alliance between the B12 and ACC is anything more than a very, very remote possibility, bring it on. That will be interesting reading. Feel free to invite other posters to comment. I'd love to read their opinions.
3. Why would ESPN be open to negotiating a new ACC contract unless the ACC was negotiating with a third-party media outlet?
4. Why would a 3rd party-media outlet negotiate a new deal with the ACC that would require the ACC break the ESPN
deal and risk a tortious interference lawsuit?
5. The LHN deal may get bought out, but only because it would make more money for both parties and would better facilitate the ESPN/SEC deal. There is no external pressure by a third-party media outlet, just pressure by the SEC if anyone.
6. The ACC would love to get out of their ESPN contract, it stinks for the ACC. But literally every media expert and sports commentator that have spoken on the issue has said - "the ACC is screwed until, at minimum, early in the 2030's".
7. I know you hate it when someone finds a flaw in your takes/opinions, but when you say something goofy, don't expect it to go unnoticed.

Later.

RA, I agree with your idea of partnering with the PAC. I think it might take a yearly series of games between the 2 conferences to add some synergy to a deal. Great thoughts though.

Robert Allen said:

---

3. Contracts can be broken, but the ACC is in a bad deal and ESPN is not going to let them out of it unless there is something in it for the world wide leader. The Longhorn Network deal has advantages to both parties to getting out of it.

---

other than reminding that based on past scenarios most of the Big12 fans are not in favor of anything to do with the Pac12. The B12 could pull up the 12Pac, but I am certain there are better ways to increase the value of the Big12, and I brought up the ACC as an alternative example.

1) because the ACC has a bad deal, they would be very interested, 2) ESPN would not turn a blind eye toward making even more money with a combined Big12/ACC contract, and 3) the Big12 could enhance their own contract value, all at the same time.

If #1 SEC is tied up, and #2 B1G is tied up, then why not focus on combining #3 and #4 into a strong unit?

Why would the ACC do nothing if their deal is so bad? They could drop teams to alter the contract impact, or anything else to make another deal become more palatable to ESPN.

3-way win.

The Pac12 can merge with the Mountain West for all anybody in Football country cares.

If the big 12 and Pac12 teamed up it would be a slow slow death. Nobody cares about the Pac12.

If they can together negotiate a better deal than the B12 could get on their own, who cares how the PAC performs in the ratings/viewership?

Robert Allen said:

---

You misunderstand. This is not a merger. It is a consortium.. The conferences stay separate, don't even have to have a scheduling alliance. All I'm saying is they bid their television rights as one inventory and they take the total sum and divide it by two. The combined schools, combined markets, and combine time zone availabilities make the total package worth more bringing in more dollars for both conferences to split.

The ACC is not up for bid, ESPN is not going to let them out of a deal that favors the network. No reason they should. You're not understanding this.

---

thanks for saying the same thing for the 3rd time Robert.... I understood you the first time... and EVERYTHING is always up for bid, with the right conditions.

I'm just not following the math... you take one lousy inventory and combine it with another lousy inventory and keep them in the same markets that they already exist in, and suddenly you create a beautiful flawless diamond that nobody can take their eyes off of....

you're implying some sort of blackmail attempt, or extorsion, "if you don't take both of us at the price we want, then you won't get either of us"!!

not changing who they play, not changing where they play, not changing the global time zones, not changing the media markets..... but it still adds value?

I'm just not feeling ya Robert.

I don't see how bidding them together without at least a scheduling alliance of 2 games a year would ever increase the value. Unless you had a new media partner looking for lots of inventory.

Frankly I think we're much better off going alone. Maybe approach the PAC about a single game scheduling alliance since they didn't get one with the B1G, that could help both conferences.

The PAC is in terrible shape. They have no fans, they have no audience, and they have no ability to see beyond their little perfect world. ASU has already publicly announced they are not going to play NIL ball and are willing to accept the on field consequences. And, that's closer to the PAC mindset than what is happening in the Big XII.

The PAC and ACC are destined to be a distant pair at the rear of the A5.

The ACC is locked into a contract that will reach $20M in 2036. By that point the B1G & SEC will be sitting around $150M a school. And, there contract is a full wrap that gives them limited exposure OTA & cable, and puts most of their inventory on the ESPN app streaming. In their final push for security, as the whole contract is locked up with the GoR, they gave ESPN all their tier 3 rights and the rights to the ACC basketball tournament. So the ACC owns nothing, and has signed over the rights to ESPN. Heck the ACC is so bad at business, they lead the charge against the playoff expansion that would have given them a real usable increase in revenue.

So honestly getting in league with them is just bad business because they are going to be a distant 5th in revenue for at least another 14 years. What shape will those schools be in by the time this ends?

The Big XII has an opening. They are by all rights the 3rd best league in football and will still have a pretty good claim to being the best in basketball in quality of teams. We are there as well when you're talking ratings. We don't have the big names that drive OTA ratings, but we are as good as anyone not named the B1G when it comes to cable numbers.

Without either of these anchors we should be able to get a contract that pays more than our current one. Somewhere around 2/3's of what the SEC/B1G is getting. So say SEC total comp is $70M as they claim, then something between $40M & $50M is doable.

Then comes the hard part. Winning and keeping our name up there. 4 teams should emerge that will start to build that "blue blood" profile as they consistently show up in the polls & playoffs.

Although a couple of folks on this site want to keep poo-pooing the ACC contract negotiations, the folks at Heartland have a bit of a different take on the supposed permeance of the ACC contract....



Does ACC Need a New TV Deal to Keep Miami From Leaving?

By Matthew Postins December 10, 2021


New Miami (FL) athletic director Dan Radakovich has a lot to worry about as he takes over the program, including the ACC's television deal.

Might that deal, if it's not re-worked or doesn't yield more revenue for the Hurricanes, lead Miami to shop itself to another conference?

That's what Manny Navarro of The Athletic wrote about in a piece on Thursday. The piece was an expansive one on the challenges that Radakovich a Miami alum faces as he takes over the athletic department.

Money is one of them. Per the report, the ACC's current television deal yields the least revenue of any of the Power 5 conferences. That deal runs through 2036, and new ACC athletic director Jim Phillips now has the task of turning that current contract into something more.

Radakovich, who just left as Clemson's athletic director, told The Athletic that he's been involved in larger conversations about that issue.

"It doesn't happen overnight," Radakovich said. "But a lot of inroads have been made as it relates to that. The alliance that we talked about with the Big Ten and the Pac-12, I think may have some legs and some different ways of doing some things (that will) gather revenue for the league. But because football is the linchpin for that and scheduling in football has been done so far ahead, it's not going to be immediate. So it's a challenge for Jim, and it's a challenge for each one of the member institutions."

Radakovich also said that in five to eight years college athletics "may look very different than it is today."

Miami has won five national championships in football and joined the ACC in 2004. But, the glory days of the 'U' haven't followed the program to the ACC, where the Hurricanes haven't won an ACC title and have made the ACC title game just one time. The Hurricanes are on their sixth head coach since joining the ACC, with former Hurricanes player Mario Cristobal leaving Oregon to take over the program.

Multi-market, multi-time zone inventory. But I agree, it might take inter-conference games to create necessary synergies.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Multi-market, multi-time zone inventory.

---

what does that even mean?

Isn't the B12 already multi-market / multi-timezone? What benefit is there to adding Seattle/SF/LA and the pacific time zone?

I can assure you that people in LA already get ESPN games (i.e., B12 games).

ESPN is going to pay more money to show B12 games in LA simply because of a deal with the 12Pac?

More people in LA are going to watch B12 games because those games are played in different timezones?

Pac12 are going to play more games at 9:00 am to make their viewing more palatable for the viewing public?

The B12 is going to agree to start games at 9:00 pm to make it better viewing for their new Pac12 time zone viewers?

That would make zero sense for espn to do. Acc is screwed for awhile.

Something earth shattering has to happen for ESPN to re-visit the ACC deal. That could be either the ACC adds ND and another school or three, or, if several high-value schools were to leave the ACC. If it's the former, the ACC probably wouldn't be interested in partnering with the B12. If the latter, the B12 probably wouldn't be interested in the ACC.

The ACC is a complete non-starter. Really no need to incur the brain damage trying to figure how it could work.

I agree near-term scheduling between the B12 and PAC would be difficult, but I'd think there could be some room in upcoming schedules for a few games at minimum. Heck, we have a home and home with ASU on the books already. If the value of a new deal was good enough, the B12 replacing FCS/G5 games with PAC games is not the worst answer while the PAC could put aside some of their MWC games. As someone said, contracts are made to be broken.

I am holding out hope we still poach some more schools. Maybe we steal some big guns from the acc and or pac 12 and just provide more value ourselves down the road. Grab Utah and Boise from the mwc and take that whole area. Maybe even the Arizona schools. Swoop Miami and nc and join sec and big 10 as super conferences

to be clear, I am not saying that the ACC contract will be revised, I said it would be a better option for the Big12 than the 12Pac - which is a flat out silly option.

I cannot imagine that the ACC will sit pat with their "deal" while the rest of the college football world makes double what they get... that is the most improbable scenario that could happen in the long term (2036) regardless of how highly you regard ESPN.

The ACC will more than likely breakup before they get doubled over by the other conferences for an entire decade..... I posted an article from only 2 months ago showing that Miami may be the first to go.

the college football landscape is changing quickly and for any of you to suggest you know what will happen, or even what won't happen is way presumptuous on your parts.

..... Miami and Clemson to the Big 12 (for example) would be way more palatable and profitable than any alliance with the Pac12. Why would schools like those two sit and suffer, when a few million dollars here or there can buy them a decade of prosperity?

Yeah, who needs media revenue for 15 years?

I think espn is the thing. It's not how respected any of us think they are it's just they hold the power. They won't renegotiate a deal with the acc when they are making a killing. I do agree with you though that the deal could fall apart cuz teams decide to leave. Miami Clemson to big 12 would be ideal and our league could just negotiate a strong deal on its own

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Yeah, who needs media revenue for 15 years?

---

If that's your position, I have not heard anybody suggest that, except apparently you, just now.

how about if you actually try to participate in the conversation.... It's actually an interesting discussion, except for your continual attempts to derail it.

Could the Pac and B12 conspire to strong arm ESPN?

Could the ACC renegotiate their contract - it happens all the time?

Could teams leave the ACC for the B12 because of their bad contract? We are talking about conference realignment remember.

Could the ACC actually remain competitive for an entire decade of 1/2 the revenue of other conferences?

Lots and lots of interesting points to discuss.

Here's what's interesting.

ACC schools are bound by a GOR agreement just like B12 schools. How's that working out for OU and UT? You think the B12 should just forget the GOR agreement? Exit fees?

Nobody is leaving the ACC anytime soon. And ESPN isn't going to renegotiate their "cheapest" P5 football content.

Discussion is fine, but at some point people just have to acknowledge economic and legal reality.

Yeah the ACC is in bad shape. The contract is not just iron bound because the big driver for the length was to insure no one could leave any time soon. Their GoR is as good as ours. But ESPN has no reason to improve anything. The ACC went all in: ESPN owns all three tiers of media rights and the rights to the ACC CCG & the ACC Basketball tournament. So no one is leaving the ACC, and they'll be making a third of what the SEC/B1G will be making in 2036 if they're lucky. So no one may want any of the ACC schools.

Actually their one way out, would be to raise the attendance level for FCS or a new division and that would cut about 6 of their schools out. That might cause the conference to end, and then they could move on to something new. But, the tricky thing is that this move would also cause the PAC to end as well. So probably not going to happen. The Big XII would be OK, KU is the only school this would kill.

RA I get your thought that it would give inventory, but I don't see how it helps the Big XII. W'e be bringing more TV's and the better time slots. So we'd help the PAC get more money based on our value rather than just get it ourselves and let the PAC fall behind.

I'd say if you want to get some West Coast market value you'd be better off adding SDSU & FSU or UNLV. Then you'd have boots on the ground and we'd have teams going out there to play in those late night slots. And I'd say that is still an option as Bowlsby said yesterday on Sic'em 365 that going as large as 20 wasn't out of the question it was a matter of what was best for the conference. I think the moves we have made and can make have more value than the PAC 12.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Here's what's interesting.

ACC schools are bound by a GOR agreement just like B12 schools. How's that working out for OU and UT? You think the B12 should just forget the GOR agreement? Exit fees?

Nobody is leaving the ACC anytime soon. And ESPN isn't going to renegotiate their "cheapest" P5 football content.

Discussion is fine, but at some point people just have to acknowledge economic and legal reality.

---

In my opinion, OU and Texas would have paid the GOR immediately if not for the event happening at the same time as a pandemic, with budget cuts and unknown futures. You cannot prove that they wouldn't just pay them right now if the games were not scheduled so far in advance. At this point, the wheels are set in motion and there is no urgent need for them to leave early, which is not to say that they still won't leave early and pay whatever remains of their GOR penalty.

Teams leave conferences all the time. We have teams joining the B12 that got out of their deals.

Sure there are some hurdles to overcome, but the possibility of meeting (paying) the economic and legal realities happens all the time. In coaches contracts. In conferences. In MLB lockouts. The teams of the ACC are not bound by your opinion of what their options are.