|
Replies: 8
| visibility 4
|
Top TigerNet [30023]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Just an outside (way outside) the box thought.
2
May 26, 2023, 7:54 AM
|
|
ESPN is obviously having at least a modicum of financial troubles.
What if ESPN decides that dissolving the ACC, thereby relieving ESPN from paying any money to the conference (since it no longer exists) is preferable to continuing to honor the contract?
What if the group of 7 or 8 or 9 or whatever is making this pitch to ESPN - If you remove the GOR from the ACC, we will vote to disband the conference. Then you will save (whatever the contract is) and you can use some or all of that money to make competitive TV bids on other conferences.
Just a crazy thought, but a thought anyway.
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Phenom [14654]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
Re: Just an outside (way outside) the box thought.
2
May 26, 2023, 7:57 AM
|
|
A counter argument would be that the ACC is a bargain for ESPN and they make considerable profit from the deal. Why let go of that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11369]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
|
Re: Just an outside (way outside) the box thought.
1
May 26, 2023, 8:06 AM
|
|
That was my thought a well. Not to mention the infrastructure they invested to launch it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3515]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Re: Just an outside (way outside) the box thought.
May 26, 2023, 7:58 AM
|
|
Nothing is crazy in todays sports/entertainment/media. Interesting thought indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14218]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
ESPN could work with the ACC to modify or cancel the TV
1
May 26, 2023, 8:05 AM
|
|
Contract, but they’re not part of the GOR. The GOR is an agreement among the member institutions that they’ll collectively negotiate the TV et al rights; then the TV contract comes after that. If a significant number of members prove that they have enough power to dissolve the GOR it could force ESPN back to the table, but if ESPN were to allow the conference to modify its contract I think that would go a long way towards ensuring the conference’s survival not destruction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5383]
TigerPulse: 92%
38
|
I don’t see this happening because
2
May 26, 2023, 8:38 AM
|
|
ESPN isn’t really in a position financially to throw more $ out. The best they possibly can do right now economically is reallocate what is being spent now (I.e. reallocate the ACC $$).
They very much could tell the SEC if they add certain ACC schools (enough to insure the dissolution of the ACC), then they will reallocate the current ACC funds to the SEC so the SEC can afford to add those schools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14218]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
Yeah that’s my hope is that we can convince ESPN that the
1
1
May 26, 2023, 9:43 AM
|
|
Contract is so bad it’s even bad for them. In 5 years we’ll have been at such a financial disadvantage for so long that most of the ACC is now basically group of five level in resources and quality. So, for the next 8 years you are paying a conference that is basically just the MAC for most schools $30M per school; when you pay most G5 conferences $1M - $2M per school. So void the contract, let the teams like Clemson and FSU who have value go to a real conference, reallocate most of the ACC contract budget to the new super conference, and the remainder to whatever small conferences the dregs of the ACC end up in. They’d be putting their premium money in the premium conference and their secondary money into the G5 while still maintaining the content volume they need to fill air time. That’s the argument I would be pushing with ESPN. However, even if they did agree with that argument you would need enough teams in the ACC to support that plan in order to be able to alter the contract.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5383]
TigerPulse: 92%
38
|
Or they could take the ACC $$ and give it to the SEC to pay
1
May 26, 2023, 8:33 AM
|
|
For the newly added SEC schools from the ACC… once enough vote to dissolve the conference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1959]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Now that we’re out of the box…
May 26, 2023, 10:09 AM
|
|
Here’s another one. What if the B1G decided they had to establish the brand in the Southeast at all costs, including some $$$ exit help? Legalities/contracts aside, I’m not saying they should or even could, but since we’re spitballing, let’s completely shake off the bonds of this stinking box!
Seriously, I am GUESSING that the b1g must be weighing some decisions of their own with respect to outcomes and consequences. And let’s be honest, we’re in uncharted, Wild West space here - almost anything could happen.
I’m not an expert, but I did sleep with a Clemson graduate last night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 8
| visibility 4
|
|
|
50
