ACC, ESPN extend deal through 2026-27, brings $4.2M more per year per school.

[Will Stewart]

Old deal: 12 teams, $155 million per year, $12.9 million per school.

New deal: 14 teams, $17.1 million per school.

Thoughts?

http://www.techsideline.com/2012/05/...rough-2026-27/

[Compeau]

That's why you add new teams. To increase the the tv markets, and to be able to renegotiate the deal. The payout of these contracts have gone way up since the last ACC deal a couple of years ago.

[LansdaleHokie]

Thoughts?

Any changes in the third tier rights? If not, then the deal still sucks.

[BUGGZY]

Any changes in the third tier rights? If not, then the deal still sucks.

no, the ACC actually gave up MORE (advertising/sponsorship rights) in this extension.

while this deal is FAR superior to what we were previously stuck with, i really wish Swofford had taken this to mediation...

[BUGGZY]

no, the ACC actually gave up MORE (advertising/sponsorship rights) in this extension.

while this deal is FAR superior to what we were previously stuck with, i really wish Swofford had taken this to mediation...

and to point out something from the previous deal (if still intact which i imagine it is), there may still be a round about way to make money off our 3rd tier content down the road. as i read in one of the sport business articles following the last deal, the Raycom deal is basically fluid. currently, the ACC is giving them free use of the "ACC Network" brand to keep costs down as they ramp up the syndication network and improve production, etc. The way i read it was that as some point, the ACC would have the right to trigger a rev share agreement of some sort with Raycom whereas Raycom would pay a % of revenue or profit back to the ACC.

i don't know if this is till accurate, or even how much it could be worth, but ESPN seems to think their syndicated format with the SEC Network is going to be VERY successful, moreso than a 24/7 cable network would be. if that's true, maybe the ACC ends up getting another $25-30MM/year from Raycom a few years from now which would be another $2MM/school. maybe it could even be more, i don't really know. i do know that Raycom DRAMATICALLY expanded their network last year, airing ACC Network games well outside our footprint, including in CA. the advertising revenue potential is limitless, and the content is targeted, so it COULD be a windfall. i guess we'll see.

[Atlee Hokie]

But at what price is espn willing to sell games to Raycom(ACC Network)? Does anyone really believe Swofford included, as part of the deal, a reasonable buyback of games from espn by ACC Network? I don't.

and to point out something from the previous deal (if still intact which i imagine it is), there may still be a round about way to make money off our 3rd tier content down the road. as i read in one of the sport business articles following the last deal, the Raycom deal is basically fluid. currently, the ACC is giving them free use of the "ACC Network" brand to keep costs down as they ramp up the syndication network and improve production, etc. The way i read it was that as some point, the ACC would have the right to trigger a rev share agreement of some sort with Raycom whereas Raycom would pay a % of revenue or profit back to the ACC.

i don't know if this is till accurate, or even how much it could be worth, but ESPN seems to think their syndicated format with the SEC Network is going to be VERY successful, moreso than a 24/7 cable network would be. if that's true, maybe the ACC ends up getting another $25-30MM/year from Raycom a few years from now which would be another $2MM/school. maybe it could even be more, i don't really know. i do know that Raycom DRAMATICALLY expanded their network last year, airing ACC Network games well outside our footprint, including in CA. the advertising revenue potential is limitless, and the content is targeted, so it COULD be a windfall. i guess we'll see.

[BUGGZY]

But at what price is espn willing to sell games to Raycom(ACC Network)? Does anyone really believe Swofford included, as part of the deal, a reasonable buyback of games from espn by ACC Network? I don't.

ESPN either gets no money for a game if they don't air it, or they get a negotiated rate from Raycom. is $0 better the $X? Raycom will pay an amount that still allows them to make money off of advertising revenue via their syndication partners. Raycom offers ACC games of the week in multiple sports and often adds an unexpected game that ESPN didn't pick up because their own inventory was full.

[BUGGZY]

Old deal: 12 teams, $155 million per year, $12.9 million per school.

New deal: 14 teams, $17.1 million per school.

Thoughts?

http://www.techsideline.com/2012/05/...rough-2026-27/

as a 15 year deal, i assume it kicks off this year, so will the 12 current members actually get $20MM each this year then drop to $17.1MM each in 2013-14 or whenever we go to 14?

i'm sure the $3.6BN is actually broken up to escalate from something like $200MM in the first year to $300MM in the 15th year as opposed to $240MM every year of the deal, but i just figured i would throw it out there to see if anyone had thoughts...

[VT75]

as a 15 year deal, i assume it kicks off this year, so will the 12 current members actually get $20MM each this year then drop to $17.1MM each in 2013-14 or whenever we go to 14?

i'm sure the $3.6BN is actually broken up to escalate from something like $200MM in the first year to $300MM in the 15th year as opposed to $240MM every year of the deal, but i just figured i would throw it out there to see if anyone had thoughts...

Actually, Pitt And Syracuse will only get partial shares the first 2-3 years meaning every other school will divy up the remainder.

[VT75]

Old deal: 12 teams, $155 million per year, $12.9 million per school.

New deal: 14 teams, $17.1 million per school.

Thoughts?

http://www.techsideline.com/2012/05/...rough-2026-27/

My perspective, trying to be objective and not fall victim to 20/20 hindsight, is this is about as good as we could expect.

I remember at the time when the last round of negotiations were taking place everyone thought Swofford was a genius. Despite a weak economy, lackluster results on the court and field by most of the ACC, he was able to increase the payout substantially. Not SEC levels, but a healthy increase. The problem then was ESPN was the only serious bidder.

The next year when the PAC 12 set a new mark ESPN was trying to fend off Fox sports and maybe NBC/comcast ditto the Big 12(but really 10). Nothing can drive up the price in an auction like having earnest ,good faith bidders who covet the item, in this case TV rights. Fox and NBC are trying to get back in the sports arena and this helped the other 2 conferences tremendously.

Now back to the ACC and 2012. We already were locked into an exclusive contract with ESPN, while there was some wiggle room it isn't the same as allowing an open bid process. Therefore the ACC just didn't have the same leverage to make ESPN match the current going rate. That is my understanding of the current events.

The other 20/20 hindsight slam is how could the ACC give up their 3rd tier rights and not launch their own network. Well we just watched the SEC do the same thing, if any league other than the Big 10 could do it it would be the SEC, just too much trouble and start-up cost to have the ability to show women's field Hockey or such. I think it is a naive notion you just launch your own network and it is instanly profitable with by definition 3rd best "stuff" to air.