|
Replies: 20
| visibility 2,293
|
Associate AD [810]
TigerPulse: 57%
Posts: 1555
Joined: 8/31/03
|
ESPN is paying the ACC for FSU, Clemson and VT
May 29, 2012, 12:18 PM
|
|
In the new TV contract with the ACC, ESPN's reasoning for paying what it is paying is based on the football products of FSU, Clemson and VT.
Those of you who keep talking about the increase in revenue the Big 12 will see after adding FSU and Clemson, answer me this:
Why would ESPN be for the move? I can't imagine ESPN would want to be paying the ACC the same money without the likes of the football schools. If ESPN is really "pulling all the strings" as some suggest, do you pro-Big 12 folks really think ESPN will just sit there and let their ACC contract turn to nothing?
It would seem ESPN would fight tooth and nail against an FSU and Clemson move to the Big 12. And then also, why would the Big 12 want to tick off the goose that lays the golden egg (ESPN)?
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [3910]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7987
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Pretty sure clause in contract says....
May 29, 2012, 12:20 PM
|
|
...all is redone if members within the conference change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [79]
TigerPulse: 56%
Posts: 84
Joined: 5/27/12
|
Re: ESPN is paying the ACC for FSU, Clemson and VT
May 29, 2012, 12:20 PM
|
|
They would reduce the ACC's cut, pay roughly that much in an increase to the Big 12 and get more marketable games like Clemson-OU and FSU-Texas or both vs WVU instead of Wake every year.
Similar payout in total, much bigger return.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [865]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 2034
Joined: 10/4/10
|
You have a lot to learn about business if you did not know
May 29, 2012, 12:30 PM
|
|
that ESPN has protected themselves in their contract.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [810]
TigerPulse: 57%
Posts: 1555
Joined: 8/31/03
|
Re: You have a lot to learn about business if you did not know
May 29, 2012, 12:54 PM
|
|
There you guys go again talking like you know the details of these TV contracts. You don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [313]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 735
Joined: 10/6/06
|
Re: You have a lot to learn about business if you did not know
May 29, 2012, 1:02 PM
|
|
And yet you are imagining that you know what is in the contract as well--that ESPN would continue to pay the ACC the same amount of money after the ACC lost some teams. If you were ESPN, would you leave yourself open to all that downside risk when you can easily address it with a contract term that the ACC has no business objecting to? After all, the ACC wants the same clause in there in case the conference expands and they need a larger contract from ESPN based on expansion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [810]
TigerPulse: 57%
Posts: 1555
Joined: 8/31/03
|
You can search this phrase
May 29, 2012, 1:27 PM
|
|
Search:
"Big 12 ABC/ESPN 8 year $480 million that runs through 2015-16"
and you will find numerous references to the Big 12's contract with ESPN. It's 8 years and runs through 2015. This essentially means this contract went into effect in 2007. The Big 12 imploded in 2010 and 2011. News sources indicate this contract is still in place.
What gives? You contract wizards are saying ESPN has an out clause for such situations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [313]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 735
Joined: 10/6/06
|
Re: You can search this phrase
May 29, 2012, 2:07 PM
|
|
Well, all they have lost at this point in time is Colorado and Nebraska. Missouri and Texas A&M will leave this year and WVU and TCU will step in.
Just because ESPN might have the option to renegotiate after the loss of conference teams doesn't mean they have to exercise that option. One possibility is that due to the increasing value of college football (advertisers love programming that people watch live so there's no DVR commercial skipping) the new Big XII is worth as much as the old Big XII was when they negotiated the initial contract. The soon-to-be-approved ESPN/Fox deal demonstrates that the new Big XII is worth more than it used to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10400]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5714
Joined: 9/29/05
|
Re: ESPN is paying the ACC for FSU, Clemson and VT
May 29, 2012, 12:35 PM
|
|
ESPN wants the regular season to have week to week drama by having more quality games. In the end they will have 4 major conferences in football and the ACC/Big East merger of basketball schools will carry the winter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1053]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1741
Joined: 5/28/06
|
Re: ESPN is paying the ACC for FSU, Clemson and VT
May 29, 2012, 12:36 PM
|
|
Here is why...
ESPN needs to pay a ridiculous amount of money for the football rights to the three schools you mention. If those schools are moved to conferences that are already receiving similar payouts, ESPN can severely cut the contract size for the remaining ACC, as they don't have a football product worth a damn.This would result in an overall cost savings to ESPN while not drastically reducing the TV presence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94335]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95567
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Where did you get this from?
May 29, 2012, 12:56 PM
|
|
"Why would ESPN be for the move? I can't imagine ESPN would want to be paying the ACC the same money without the likes of the football schools. If ESPN is really "pulling all the strings" as some suggest, do you pro-Big 12 folks really think ESPN will just sit there and let their ACC contract turn to nothing? "
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [887]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 1245
Joined: 2/3/04
|
Don't be ridiculous! Why do you think Swoffool is
May 29, 2012, 12:57 PM
|
|
giving face time to Clemson only media. He's shaking in his boots. If CU & FSU leave that contract would be null and void! ESecPN did not grow to the giant that they are by being Stupid!!! Think Man!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: ESPN is paying the ACC for FSU, Clemson and VT
May 29, 2012, 1:23 PM
|
|
Know this - NOBODY in the country, outside the ACC, wants to watch CLEMSON play Wake Forest or Duke, but a huge audience would want to watch CLEMSON play OU or Texas. It doesn't take too much to understand the business side of CLEMSON playing in the Big 12 is more 'tv-worthy' than playing teams in the ACC (other than FSU, VT or Miami). If ESPN has any input into these decisions, then CLEMSON will definitely go to the Big 12.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [810]
TigerPulse: 57%
Posts: 1555
Joined: 8/31/03
|
Streaking, if that is the case...
May 29, 2012, 1:31 PM
|
|
then why not just schedule OU and Texas for OOC games instead of going through this huge deal of conference realignment? Wouldn't that make a lot more sense from ESPN's point of view?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [887]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 1245
Joined: 2/3/04
|
One reason is the 9 game schedule Swoffool
May 29, 2012, 2:00 PM
|
|
put on the conference!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2217]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3280
Joined: 3/7/12
|
It seems to me like ESPN is wanting us to stay
May 29, 2012, 1:30 PM
|
|
I don't know if y'all check out Heather Sammich's blog but look at how much she has posted about us or FSU moving and how many stories have been pro moving. I don't know if the network is against it or just her, because she is most certainly out of her cushy job if the proposed moves take place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [887]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 1245
Joined: 2/3/04
|
Re: It seems to me like ESPN is wanting us to stay
May 29, 2012, 2:06 PM
|
|
I agree, Ed Cunningham on the College football today has acted like an idiot (I personally don't think he's cating) Saying that Clemson and FSU are foolish to leave the ACC. Company line, they conveniently bring in Adre Ware (on camera, not in studio) to argue the opposite! They are manipulating the landscape, make no mistake about it!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2217]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3280
Joined: 3/7/12
|
Because the ACC is moving to a 9 game sched
May 29, 2012, 1:36 PM
|
|
We have SCAR and a smaller SC school each season, and one other game. And we are locked into playing UGA the next 2 seasons, a series with Ole Miss after that, and finally OKSU in 2020. So unless we meet in a bowl game, it ain't happening
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2217]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3280
Joined: 3/7/12
|
And ESPN doesn't schedule games
May 29, 2012, 1:37 PM
|
|
########
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [810]
TigerPulse: 57%
Posts: 1555
Joined: 8/31/03
|
Re: And ESPN doesn't schedule games
May 29, 2012, 2:33 PM
|
|
Don't really get the ######## namecalling but I assume it means something to you.
Anyway, ever heard of the Chick-Fil-A Kickoff Game? You know the one Clemson is playing in this year? Well that game is a partnership between ESPN and the Chick-Fil-A Bowl (search it if you like). I guess ESPN has nothing to do with what teams are playing in that game according to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7913]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13703
Joined: 1/8/02
|
having completed many contracts over the years
May 29, 2012, 1:38 PM
|
|
there are always provisions in them if changes occur...if you aren't able to delivery XYZ then we are no longer obligated to pay or if you deliver XYZ for a decreased amount/period of time then we will pay less on a sliding scale. There are also provisions for an increase in fees....if you provide more value in a certain manner/method. I have no interest whatsoever to read a media contract but there is no way ESPN would pay the ACC a certain amount if the value decreased for them. They are obviously very savy and would protect themselves with a decreased payment if Clemson, FSU, and VT left.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 20
| visibility 2,293
|
|
|
50
