ACC Big East merger

[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)

 

[CL82]

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)

Understood, but not the question I was asking.
Fishy said

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

What he appears to be saying is that there was an automatic pro rata escalator clause for Cal or Stanford that wouldn't apply to UConn. So my question is "why not?" is it that the escalator clause only applies to P4 schools? Said differently, my question is about the payment from ESPN to the ACC not the payment from the ACC to Connecticut.

 

[Kolumbo]

Understood, but not the question I was asking.
Fishy said

What he appears to be saying is that there was an automatic pro rata escalator clause for Cal or Stanford that wouldn't apply to UConn. So my question is "why not?" is it that the escalator clause only applies to P4 schools? Said differently, my question is about the payment from ESPN to the ACC not the payment from the ACC to Connecticut.

the issue may be that at UConn, we believe in "No Escalators"

 

[CL82]

the issue may be that at UConn, we believe in "No Escalators"

 

[jostar1]

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?

I don't know about the ACC, but the Baylor AD said that certain G5 schools could get pro-rata share from the Big 12 media partners. I think he meant UConn.

 

[ScottVib]

Understood, but not the question I was asking.
Fishy said

What he appears to be saying is that there was an automatic pro rata escalator clause for Cal or Stanford that wouldn't apply to UConn. So my question is "why not?" is it that the escalator clause only applies to P4 schools? Said differently, my question is about the payment from ESPN to the ACC not the payment from the ACC to Connecticut.

That's not what he was implying. The escalator from ESPN would've pertained to UConn as well. His point is the ACC doesn't want UConn, even when it meant an extra $35M for the conference (of course that assumes that UConn would've accepted a $0 deal, which I don't know if it was ever offered).

UConn doesn't have an ESPN problem with the ACC; it has an ACC problem...


To that point, if you believe BC (well DeFilippo), the original 2011 value projections from ESPN were for the ACC to add Syracuse and UConn; it wasn't until BC balked that the ACC asked if there was anyone else that would allow for the same contract payout where Pitt took UConn's place; in 2014 again, it wasn't an ESPN problem, it was an ACC problem, with FSU throwing its weight behind Louisville and a "football" school ahead of UConn for the Maryland backfill.

 

[CL82]

That's not what he was implying. The escalator from ESPN would've pertained to UConn as well. His point is the ACC doesn't want UConn, even when it meant an extra $35M for the conference (of course that assumes that UConn would've accepted a $0 deal, which I don't know if it was ever offered).

UConn doesn't have an ESPN problem with the ACC; it has an ACC problem...


To that point, if you believe BC (well DeFilippo), the original 2011 value projections from ESPN were for the ACC to add Syracuse and UConn; it wasn't until BC balked that the ACC asked if there was anyone else that would allow for the same contract payout where Pitt took UConn's place; in 2014 again, it wasn't an ESPN problem, it was an ACC problem, with FSU throwing its weight behind Louisville and a "football" school ahead of UConn for the Maryland backfill.

So you are inferring what he is implying? Um okay.

My question remains the same, do you know for a fact that the ACC has an escalator clause built into it that would be applicable for the university of Connecticut?

Appreciate a direct yes or no answer to that question.

 

[buddy]

That's not what he was implying. The escalator from ESPN would've pertained to UConn as well. His point is the ACC doesn't want UConn, even when it meant an extra $35M for the conference (of course that assumes that UConn would've accepted a $0 deal, which I don't know if it was ever offered).

UConn doesn't have an ESPN problem with the ACC; it has an ACC problem...


To that point, if you believe BC (well DeFilippo), the original 2011 value projections from ESPN were for the ACC to add Syracuse and UConn; it wasn't until BC balked that the ACC asked if there was anyone else that would allow for the same contract payout where Pitt took UConn's place; in 2014 again, it wasn't an ESPN problem, it was an ACC problem, with FSU throwing its weight behind Louisville and a "football" school ahead of UConn for the Maryland backfill.

UConn has an ESPN problem period. Taking money from taxpayers and remaining at minimum neutral and not supportive. They could have put the kibosh on the ACC whenever they wanted to, but they didn't.

 

[jostar1]

I don't think anyone knows how adding UConn would affect the ACC media contract or if G5 schools are treated differently. This article says that when the ESPN media contract was released as part of the FSU lawsuit, much of the information was redacted.

"The heavily redacted document almost entirely hides “Conference Composition” clauses and how the additions and departures of schools to the league effect the contract."

Heavily redacted ACC-ESPN contract revealed

Much of the 200 plus pages handed over to Florida Attorney General Ashely Moody is heavily redacted however one piece of information now made public by the contract’s release seems to confirm a claim from FSU in its initial suit against the ACC

www.wctv.tv

 

[FfldCntyFan]

So you are inferring what he is implying? Um okay.

My question remains the same, do you know for a fact that the ACC has an escalator clause built into it that would be applicable for the university of Connecticut?

Appreciate a direct yes or no answer to that question.

I'm not sure what one can do with another's implication other than draw an inference from it.

 

[CL82]

I'm not sure what one can do with another's implication other than draw an inference from it.

True enough, but posting "I think this is what someone else means" isn't particularly probative of whether or not the underlying assumptions of the original post are factual or speculation, right?