ACC Big East merger

[CL82]

ESPN wanted UConn in the Big 12. What I really mean is that there are only a few Big East teams that they really want.

I'm not entirely sure they did. The cynic in me suspects that they were willing to support it because they knew Fox would oppose it.

 

[History Geek]

I would love this. I can't see it happening though.

 

[ZooCougar]

If ESPN wanted UConn in the Big 12, UConn would be there. I thought Fox was the holdout, but ESPN could have ponied up the money for UConn if they really wanted to. Also, once again, what makes you think that the ACC wants UConn and Villanova. Absolutely no evidence of that anywhere.

Well there were plenty of credible sources that stated that ESPN was in favor of it. I guess you know better than them now?

Only like 2-3 Big East teams have any value, it makes the merger idea seem ludicrous. UConn and Nova might be the only two schools. And there are some ACC schools that want UConn and have wanted them. Just not enough of them and not the right ones.

 

[ZooCougar]

Somebody went and dug this thread out again?

Always blame the French.

 

[Ha Who]

It is hot and there are never any tweets so for you Charlie Brown fans

 

[UConnTrumbull]

It is hot and there are never any tweets so for you Charlie Brown fans

Was this typed on Microsoft word lol

 

[Fishy]

Always blame the French.

We should have let the Germans keep France.

 

[Kolumbo]

It is hot and there are never any tweets so for you Charlie Brown fans

 

[CL82]

Conspiracy Kitty says:
Seems credible to me.

 

[ZooCougar]

We should have kept the Germans in France.

There.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

I'm not entirely sure they did. The cynic in me suspects that they were willing to support it because they knew Fox would oppose it.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

The UConn women’s program is one that ESPN wishes they had
Exclusively owning the women’s tourney which still has growth potential and which they have for the next 5 years is a great fit. The men are very desirable but ESPN is shut out of post season. And ESPN can make a killing in a growth market .

 

[Fishy]

UConn in the Big 12 was a good way for ESPN to get UConn at a discount. It was much less good for Fox because they already have UConn and they would have had to actually pay us something other than the couch cushion money we get now.

 

[CL82]

UConn in the Big 12 was a good way for ESPN to get UConn at a discount. It was much less good for Fox because they already have UConn and they would have had to actually pay us something other than the couch cushion money we get now.

How was it a discount for ESPN? Agree that it made zero sense for Fox. That's why ESPN's approval was essentially empty words.

 

[ZooCougar]

The UConn women’s program is one that ESPN wishes they had
Exclusively owning the women’s tourney which still has growth potential and which they have for the next 5 years is a great fit. The men are very desirable but ESPN is shut out of post season. And ESPN can make a killing in a growth market .

I see what you are trying to say here, but UConn W are always in the tournament. They already have UConn.

 

[Fishy]

How was it a discount for ESPN? Agree that it made zero sense for Fox. That's why ESPN's approval was essentially empty words.

They get UConn without paying full freight as they would in the ACC. They have a fractional share of B12 rights.

 

[CL82]

They get UConn without paying full freight as they would in the ACC. They have a fractional share of B12 rights.

Yeah, they would pay, essentially, half the cost, for potentially half the games. More or less fair market value. I still think the engine that was driving that approval was the fact that they could be fairly confident that Fox would not agree since they would be giving up, potentially, half our content, and paying more for that privilege.

If they wanted our content, they could make an offer tomorrow for it. As long as they were willing to pay us substantially more than the big east, and pay enough for every ACC team to get any material increase, they could make this happen. Apparently, they aren't interested.

 

[Exit 4]

There is interest in all of this stuff; UConn to the ACC or UConn to the B12 by Fox and ESPN. The issue is that the ACC wants us on the back burner for if/when the next school departs and the B12 wants a firm financing plan to ensure we can compete during the interim years before we would get a full share starting in 2031+ (now is UConn slow playing this discussion to wait for the ACC? - IDK - its possible). Both conf also have to finish the arm wrestling with the Power 2 over the future of the CFB. Bad time to add a weaker football program during the Power 2 food fight.

Lets see what March 2026 brings in the days before the annual 4/1 BE conf withdraw notice date.

 

[cellocgg]

UConn in the Big 12 was a good way for ESPN to get UConn at a discount. It was much less good for Fox because they already have UConn and they would have had to actually pay us something other than the couch cushion money we get now.

Plus Fox would be devaluing the Big East far more than the B12 would be bolstered

 

[CL82]

There is interest in all of this stuff; UConn to the ACC or UConn to the B12 by Fox and ESPN. The issue is that the ACC wants us on the back burner for if/when the next school departs and the B12 wants a firm financing plan to ensure we can compete during the interim years before we would get a full share starting in 2031+ (now is UConn slow playing this discussion to wait for the ACC? - IDK - its possible). Both conf also have to finish the arm wrestling with the Power 2 over the future of the CFB. Bad time to add a weaker football program during the Power 2 food fight.

Lets see what March 2026 brings in the days before the annual 4/1 BE conf withdraw notice date.

Good observations. I didn't realize April 1 was the withdrawal date for the big east. For some reason, I felt like July was the month. Maybe that's because that's when we joined. I also think that our exit fee drops to $15 million next year down from its current $30 million. I think in 2029, more or less, it drops down to $10 million.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

I see what you are trying to say here, but UConn W are always in the tournament. They already have UConn.

Sometimes I make the mistake of thinking everyone has the same background as I
My point was every UConn women’s regular season game which usually get good ratings are an opportunity to promote their tournament. If the last few years have taught us anything promotion for creating connection to a player is a ratings bonanza
If UConn goes to the Big 12 on ESPN’s dime
If Fox is reticent.
They not only get to cover the premier women’s team. but each game is a promotional opportunity. Those are bonus’s

 

[Fishy]

Yeah, they would pay, essentially, half the cost, for potentially half the games. More or less fair market value. I still think the engine that was driving that approval was the fact that they could be fairly confident that Fox would not agree since they would be giving up, potentially, half our content, and paying more for that privilege.

If they wanted our content, they could make an offer tomorrow for it. As long as they were willing to pay us substantially more than the big east, and pay enough for every ACC team to get any material increase, they could make this happen. Apparently, they aren't interested.

I don't really think you have a handle on how these things work - the ACC is our issue, not ESPN.

I guarantee you ESPN would have taken UConn over SMU, Cal or Stanford. They're paying a lot of money for schools that have no draw.

 

[CL82]

I don't really think you have a handle on how these things work - the ACC is our issue, not ESPN.

I guarantee you ESPN would have taken UConn over SMU, Cal or Stanford. They're paying a lot of money for schools that have no draw.

I suggest you're not thinking it all the way through Fishy. Nothing happens unless somebody is willing to put the bill for it. If ESPN is the one subsidizing expansion, the teams added, will be exactly the teams that they want to add. You understand that, right?

If they didn't want to add SMU, Cal or Stanford they could have simply said that they weren't willing to pay any additional money for those additions to the conference and it would've stopped right there. I guarantee that no member of the ACC was willing to have their share diluted in order to add two West Coast teams. SMU is a little bit different because they essentially came for free, but even then why add them if it doesn't put more money in existing members pockets?

Even ignoring the economics behind conference expansion, you don't have to take my word for for the notion that ESPN is calling the shots because former BC athletic director Gene DeFilippo expressly stated that "ESPN told us what to do."

So, while you might "guarantee" that ESPN would've preferred UConn over SMU, Cal or Stanford, the fact is that whether or not we joined the ACC was their choice.

 

[ZooCougar]

Sometimes I make the mistake of thinking everyone has the same background as I
My point was every UConn women’s regular season game which usually get good ratings are an opportunity to promote their tournament. If the last few years have taught us anything promotion for creating connection to a player is a ratings bonanza
If UConn goes to the Big 12 on ESPN’s dime
If Fox is reticent.
They not only get to cover the premier women’s team. but each game is a promotional opportunity. Those are bonus’s

True. But none of the big games that they play now are Big East games. So they more or less get the big ones like Tennessee or South Carolina.

 

[ZooCougar]

I suggest you're not thinking it all the way through Fishy. Nothing happens unless somebody is willing to put the bill for it. If ESPN is the one subsidizing expansion, the teams added, will be exactly the teams that they want to add. You understand that, right?

If they didn't want to add SMU, Cal or Stanford they could have simply said that they weren't willing to pay any additional money for those additions to the conference and it would've stopped right there. I guarantee that no member of the ACC was willing to have their share diluted in order to add two West Coast teams. SMU is a little bit different because they essentially came for free, but even then why add them if it doesn't put more money in existing members pockets?

Even ignoring the economics behind conference expansion, you don't have to take my word for for the notion that ESPN is calling the shots because former BC athletic director Gene DeFilippo expressly stated that "ESPN told us what to do."

So, while you might "guarantee" that ESPN would've preferred UConn over SMU, Cal or Stanford, the fact is that whether or not we joined the ACC was their choice.

They aren’t paying anything for SMU and the other two are on reduced payouts.

 

[Fishy]

I suggest you're not thinking it all the way through Fishy. Nothing happens unless somebody is willing to put the bill for it. If ESPN is the one subsidizing expansion, the teams added, will be exactly the teams that they want to add. You understand that, right?

If they didn't want to add SMU, Cal or Stanford they could have simply said that they weren't willing to pay any additional money for those additions to the conference and it would've stopped right there. I guarantee that no member of the ACC was willing to have their share diluted in order to add two West Coast teams. SMU is a little bit different because they essentially came for free, but even then why add them if it doesn't put more money in existing members pockets?

Even ignoring the economics behind conference expansion, you don't have to take my word for for the notion that ESPN is calling the shots because former BC athletic director Gene DeFilippo expressly stated that "ESPN told us what to do."

So, while you might "guarantee" that ESPN would've preferred UConn over SMU, Cal or Stanford, the fact is that whether or not we joined the ACC was their choice.

That's not how the ACC contract works. The ACC can add schools independent of whatever ESPN thinks.

ESPN is paying full freight for those west coast teams and SMU - the ACC is keeping most of that money, and all of in the case of SMU, and distributing it to its members. SMU gets nothing, I believe for the duration of the contract while Cal and Stanford start at 30% and eventually get 70% after eight years.

The rest of the ACC will share around an extra $60,000,000 a year.

ESPN has no interest in Cal or Stanford at $35,000,000 a year, but there they are. The ACC has no interest in us coming in for free, so here we are.

 

[CL82]

That's not how the ACC contract works. The ACC can add schools independent of whatever ESPN thinks.

ESPN is paying full freight for those west coast teams and SMU - the ACC is keeping most of that money, and all of in the case of SMU, and distributing it to its members. SMU gets nothing, I believe for the duration of the contract while Cal and Stanford start at 30% and eventually get 70% after eight years.

The rest of the ACC will share around an extra $60,000,000 a year.

ESPN has no interest in Cal or Stanford at $35,000,000 a year, but there they are. The ACC has no interest in us coming in for free, so here we are.

Why would we come in for free if there is an automatic pro rata escalating clause in the contract? Is it just limited to "P5" schools?

 

[buddy]

A few ACC Presidents with ties to Stanford and Cal aggressively pushed for them and won. FSU, Clemson, and UNC were opposed but caved. ESPN could have put the kibosh on it, like they have done to UConn on multiple occasions, but did not.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

A few ACC Presidents with ties to Stanford and Cal aggressively pushed for them and won. FSU, Clemson, and UNC were opposed but caved. ESPN could have put the kibosh on it, like they have done to UConn on multiple occasions, but did not.

Were the ACC presidents and ESPN chasing CA/TX carriage fee revenue that the ACC Network would gain by adding those markets?

 

[ScottVib]

Why would we come in for free if there is an automatic pro rata escalating clause in the contract? Is it just limited to "P5" schools?

You get into the conference as SMU did, you participate in the other conference distributions (SMU's share of the Playoff revenue was greater than the AACs TV deal) and when the next TV deal comes around you expect to participate. In the end, the only way SMU was getting in was for free... they did what they needed to do and are in the ACC, rather than the AAC (or PAC)