ACC Big East merger

[ScottVib]

I thought his meaning was pretty clear...

As to the ACC contract... Yes. UConn would've been treated like SMU, or any other G5 team.

But for what it's worth (bolding is mine):

The negotiations with Cal and Stanford, a desperate pair after the demise of the Pac-12, have centered on them only receiving a partial share of the league’s TV distribution, potentially in the 60-70% range.

SMU offers even more of a discount. With a serious desire to join a power league and a group of mega boosters at the ready, the Mustangs are offering to forego at least five and as many as seven years of conference distribution.

These two items are not insignificant. For many within the league, the driving force is the financial piece. A clause in the ACC’s contract with ESPN requires the network to pay the league an equal share for each new conference member.

If those new members do not take a full share, the remaining shares can be distributed to current league members, both offsetting travel costs and maybe even increasing annual revenue.

Source (Yahoo Sports)

 

[CL82]

I thought his meaning was pretty clear...

As to the ACC contract... Yes. UConn would've been treated like SMU, or any other G5 team.

But for what it's worth (bolding is mine):



Source (Yahoo Sports)

From the same article (from the paragraph immediately after the paragraph you bolded and included above):

If those new members do not take a full share, the remaining shares can be distributed to current league members, both offsetting travel costs and maybe even increasing annual revenue. That’s a big maybe. While the contract stipulates what is called a “pro-rata” share from ESPN, it’s unclear if the network is receptive to distributing three more full shares. The network has been selective lately.

“That’s the crux of the issue,” says one ACC official.

So, on one hand, they indicate that ESPN has an obligation to increase the value of the contract to maintain a pro rata share, but then the articles goes on to say that "it's unclear if the network is receptive to distributing three more shares" which sounds as if it's an option by ESPN rather than an obligation.

 

[Exit 4]

My own opinion is that the current clauses maybe out the window with respect to any next CRA move.

 

[ScottVib]

So, on one hand, they indicate that ESPN has an obligation to increase the value of the contract to maintain a pro rata share, but then the articles goes on to say that "it's unclear if the network is receptive to distributing three more shares" which sounds as if it's an option by ESPN rather than an obligation.

Contractually ESPN would've had too, but it would've damaged the relationship if they weren't on board and ESPN had an option in the deal allowing them to end it rather than running it out into the 2030s. That was the risk if they didn't get buy-in from the network. Essentially, they could've forced the increase and ESPN could've in turn said, well we're all set the deal ends (I forget the actual escape date). This contractual option and the deadline to exercise it (and whether that deadline had been properly extended) was the crux of FSU's argument that they should be clear of the GOR (arguing the GOR only covered the pre-option term, as the option hadn't officially been executed at that point).

 

[CL82]

Contractually ESPN would've had too, but it would've damaged the relationship if they weren't on board and ESPN had an option in the deal allowing them to end it rather than running it out into the 2030s. That was the risk if they didn't get buy-in from the network. Essentially, they could've forced the increase and ESPN could've in turn said, well we're all set the deal ends (I forget the actual escape date). This contractual option and the deadline to exercise it (and whether that deadline had been properly extended) was the crux of FSU's argument that they should be clear of the GOR (arguing the GOR only covered the pre-option term, as the option hadn't officially been executed at that point).

I think you're conflating two different provisions in the contract. The ability to add teams to the conference is a different thing than ESPN's option to extend the term. But I agree with the rest of your post. You said even if ESPN had a pro rata obligation, were ACC to exercise it with a team ESPN did not approve then ESPN could simply not exercise it's option, or not renew the contract the next time it reached the end of its term.

That takes me back to my original point with fishy, that the person (or entity) who's paying the bills, makes the decisions. So, ultimately, pro rata escalator clause or not, ESPN is making the decision on which teams to add to the ACC. When people are looking for a reason why we're not in that conference, they don't have to look any further than Bristol.

 

[ScottVib]

I mean it's a popular narrative, I just happen to disagree, in my opinion, it's an ACC issue

2011 - As per BC's AD. ESPN wanted Syracuse & UConn; the projections they sent through was for Syracuse & UConn. When the ACC balked, they asked if there was any other combination that would maintain the same payout. The sides compromised on Syracuse & Pitt.

2012 - UConn was the team... the ACC, led this time by Florida State, balked looking for a "football" school and taking Louisville.

The pro-rata clause meant the ACC could add whomever they wanted and ESPN had to take it. That doesn't mean that ESPN didn't have separate clauses (like the opt-out) that they could choose to act on or not, based on how they are feeling about the agreement. That said, just because ESPN accepted the other additions, doesn't mean that ESPN was trying to torpedo UConn's admission & even ESPN encouraging UConn (see 2011) doesn't mean the ACC had to accept it or that good business didn't keep ESPN & the ACC in bed together when the ACC did not.

I suppose if you're of the opinion that ESPN should've offered above market rate to add the home-state school, or torpedo an otherwise beneficial contract for them over the inclusion of UConn, then perhaps you have an argument, but given they're a part of a publicly traded firm, it would be a hard justification when it was revealed that the ACC got a greater than pro-rata deal as a favor to the "home state team"

 

[CL82]

I mean it's a popular narrative, I just happen to disagree, in my opinion, it's an ACC issue

2011 - As per BC's AD. ESPN wanted Syracuse & UConn; the projections they sent through was for Syracuse & UConn. When the ACC balked, they asked if there was any other combination that would maintain the same payout. The sides compromised on Syracuse & Pitt.

2012 - UConn was the team... the ACC, led this time by Florida State, balked looking for a "football" school and taking Louisville.

The pro-rata clause meant the ACC could add whomever they wanted and ESPN had to take it. That doesn't mean that ESPN didn't have separate clauses (like the opt-out) that they could choose to act on or not, based on how they are feeling about the agreement. That said, just because ESPN accepted the other additions, doesn't mean that ESPN was trying to torpedo UConn's admission & even ESPN encouraging UConn (see 2011) doesn't mean the ACC had to accept it or that good business didn't keep ESPN & the ACC in bed together when the ACC did not.

I suppose if you're of the opinion that ESPN should've offered above market rate to add the home-state school, or torpedo an otherwise beneficial contract for them over the inclusion of UConn, then perhaps you have an argument, but given they're a part of a publicly traded firm, it would be a hard justification when it was revealed that the ACC got a greater than pro-rata deal as a favor to the "home state team"

You have a tendency to selectively quote, or in this case paraphrase, from articles while leaving out pieces from the same article that contradicts your theory. Here's the actual quote from the DeFilippo article you referenced:

"We always keep our television partners close to us,’’ he said. "You don’t get extra money for basketball. It’s 85 percent football money. TV - ESPN - is the one who told us what to do. This was football; it had nothing to do with basketball.’’

That sure seems clear and unambiguous.

While it would be nice for them to offer their in state university, a premium, it's not necessary. To the point you actually made, at any of the points that the ACC expanded ESPN could simply have said "We prefer that the university of Connecticut be invited to the conference. We would look on it favorably when we have the option to extend or renew the contract". No premium would be needed.

As quoted above Boston College athletic Director DiFilippo made it clear that ESPN is the one calling the shots. That isn't particularly shocking since they're the one paying the bills. I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to manufacture an argument that it's that somehow is not the case.

 

[ZooCougar]

You have a tendency to selectively quote, or in this case paraphrase, from articles while leaving out pieces from the same article that contradicts your theory. Here's the actual quote from the DeFilippo article you referenced:

"We always keep our television partners close to us,’’ he said. "You don’t get extra money for basketball. It’s 85 percent football money. TV - ESPN - is the one who told us what to do. This was football; it had nothing to do with basketball.’’

That sure seems clear and unambiguous.

While it would be nice for them to offer their in state university, a premium, it's not necessary. To the point you actually made, at any of the points that the ACC expanded ESPN could simply have said "We prefer that the university of Connecticut be invited to the conference. We would look on it favorably when we have the option to extend or renew the contract". No premium would be needed.

As quoted above Boston College athletic Director DiFilippo made it clear that ESPN is the one calling the shots. That isn't particularly shocking since they're the one paying the bills. I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to manufacture an argument that it's that somehow is not the case.

What an AD who is no longer an AD and might as well be dead said over decade ago has little bearing on decisions the ACC made recently. You’re taking on quote and building a Mt. Everest sized argument around it.

 

[CL82]

What an AD who is no longer an AD and might as well be dead said over decade ago has little bearing on decisions the ACC made recently. You’re taking on quote and building a Mt. Everest sized argument around it.

Nope, I'm expressing the real world concept that the person who pays the bills makes the decisions. That really shouldn't be particularly shocking to anyone with even a fundamental familiarity with the business world.

ScotVib brought up 2011. I just corrected his representation of DeFillipo's statement. Unsurprisingly, DeFillipo's statement is consistent with real world economics.

Appreciate your hopping on the conversation though Zoo.

 

[buddy]

I mean it's a popular narrative, I just happen to disagree, in my opinion, it's an ACC issue

2011 - As per BC's AD. ESPN wanted Syracuse & UConn; the projections they sent through was for Syracuse & UConn. When the ACC balked, they asked if there was any other combination that would maintain the same payout. The sides compromised on Syracuse & Pitt.

2012 - UConn was the team... the ACC, led this time by Florida State, balked looking for a "football" school and taking Louisville.

The pro-rata clause meant the ACC could add whomever they wanted and ESPN had to take it. That doesn't mean that ESPN didn't have separate clauses (like the opt-out) that they could choose to act on or not, based on how they are feeling about the agreement. That said, just because ESPN accepted the other additions, doesn't mean that ESPN was trying to torpedo UConn's admission & even ESPN encouraging UConn (see 2011) doesn't mean the ACC had to accept it or that good business didn't keep ESPN & the ACC in bed together when the ACC did not.

I suppose if you're of the opinion that ESPN should've offered above market rate to add the home-state school, or torpedo an otherwise beneficial contract for them over the inclusion of UConn, then perhaps you have an argument, but given they're a part of a publicly traded firm, it would be a hard justification when it was revealed that the ACC got a greater than pro-rata deal as a favor to the "home state team"

BS. ESPN is the master puppeteer. They never pushed for UConn. At best remained neutral.

 

[ZooCougar]

Nope, I'm expressing the real world concept that the person who pays the bills makes the decisions. That really shouldn't be particularly shocking to anyone with even a fundamental familiarity with the business world.

ScotVib brought up 2011. I just corrected his representation of DeFillipo's statement. Unsurprisingly, DeFillipo's statement is consistent with real world economics.

Appreciate your hopping on the conversation though Zoo.

He’s got you dead to rights here. Time to let this one go.

 

[ZooCougar]

BS. ESPN is the master puppeteer. They never pushed for UConn. At best remained neutral.

Scott had pages of evidence. You two guys are like “trust me bro”.

 

[Jetskies]

lots of insightful discussion in these last few posts above. i am too lazy to research this "ESPN pays the bills" topic in detail, but based on the posts, it just sounds like I don't need to overthink this uconn issue:

our football just isn't good enough (yet). so no eyeballs. no eyeballs, no revenue. no revenue, no P4 offer.
I don't need to think about bball or any other variable. if bball mattered, we wouldn't be having this discussion

please please JM bring us back. : (

 

[ZooCougar]

lots of insightful discussion in these last few posts above. i am too lazy to research this "ESPN pays the bills" topic in detail, but based on the posts, it just sounds like I don't need to overthink this uconn issue:

our football just isn't good enough (yet). so no eyeballs. no eyeballs, no revenue. no revenue, no P4 offer.
I don't need to think about bball or any other variable. if bball mattered, we wouldn't be having this discussion

please please JM bring us back. : (

Even if ESPN did, Clempsun, Miami and FSU didn’t and they had outsized influence. It’s kind of irrelevant.

 

[CL82]

Scott had pages of evidence. You two guys are like “trust me bro”.

Let me guess, you didn't actually read his links because if you did, you'd see, they contradict his point. Seriously Zoo you might want to sit on the sidelines for this or maybe actually spend some time reading the thread.

 

[CL82]

lots of insightful discussion in these last few posts above. i am too lazy to research this "ESPN pays the bills" topic in detail, but based on the posts, it just sounds like I don't need to overthink this uconn issue:

our football just isn't good enough (yet). so no eyeballs. no eyeballs, no revenue. no revenue, no P4 offer.
I don't need to think about bball or any other variable. if bball mattered, we wouldn't be having this discussion

please please JM bring us back. : (

I think stronger football would help us with the big 12, because that was one of the objections from their athletic directors, but truth be told, I don't think we're going anywhere.

 

[Hoophound]

I think stronger football would help us with the big 12, because that was one of the objections from their athletic directors, but truth be told, I don't think we're going anywhere.

We’re going somewhere. The issue is what our next stop will look like and when it will happen. Hopefully, we’ll be an addition rather than a replacement. That would be ideal.

 

[Kolumbo]

It seems evident we aren't going anywhere unless and until something happens with the ACC. There are no other likely options.

 

[CL82]

We’re going somewhere. The issue is what our next stop will look like and when it will happen. Hopefully, we’ll be an addition rather than a replacement. That would be ideal.

I hope you are right, but it won't be for at least 39 months, in all likelihood. We could leave sooner, but then we'd have to negotiate a bigger exit fee. Depending on what happens in the ACC 2030, I think it's possible we could be a backfill school, but who really knows?

 

[ScottVib]

You have a tendency to selectively quote, or in this case paraphrase, from articles while leaving out pieces from the same article that contradicts your theory. Here's the actual quote from the DeFilippo article you referenced:

I simply provided the relevant quote to helped formulate my opinion and provide the full link for folks to read the full context to form their own opinions. For the record here's the actual article from the Globe (it's paywalled now): Link

Here is the pertinent section

Enough was enough, and a master plan was devised to bring ACC basketball back to the top. The only real target was the Big East, for geographical and competitive reasons.

The first target was Syracuse, which had been on the original ACC expansion list eight years ago. The Orangemen, like BC, were disappointed when they didn't make the final cut, passed over for Virginia Tech and Miami.

Under coach Jim Boeheim, Syracuse was clearly one of the elite basketball teams in the country and would boost the ACC's stature in that sport.

The second target was Connecticut, which was part of the Northeast footprint the ACC wanted, and was coming off the daily double of a BCS bid in football and a championship in men's basketball (the third for Jim Calhoun).

In addition, the women's basketball program under Geno Auriemma had established itself as the most dominant in the sport over the past 15 years.

With growing instability in the Big East, both schools were bound to accept any offers.

While Syracuse presented no problem, UConn did – to BC, which was still fuming over what it perceived to be vitriolic comments made when BC was finally invited to join the ACC and started competing in 2005. UConn and Pittsburgh filed a lawsuit against BC, and Calhoun made comments about never playing BC again.

DeFilippo does not deny that BC opposed the inclusion of UConn.

"We didn't want them in" he said. "It was a matter of turf. We wanted to be the New England team"

As DeFillippo said and as you quoted: "We always keep our television partners close to us,’’ he said. "You don’t get extra money for basketball. It’s 85 percent football money. TV - ESPN - is the one who told us what to do."
However, the football spin didn't come until later, after Pitt was swapped in, here was Swofford's statement on the move:

“We wanted to do what is best for the conference,’’ he said, “in not only increasing our footprint in the Northeast but to help us competitively in all areas with schools who would also fit into what we wanted in the profile of our schools.

“Pittsburgh and Syracuse both are good fits, and they both have outstanding basketball programs. That’s definitely a plus.’’

If you accept the premise (as you seem to) that ESPN provided the direction, then it follows their first direction was for Syracuse and UConn to be the teams. Similarly, you can see from Swofford that the goals included bolstering basketball and the Northeastern presence (both areas where UConn exceeded Pitt). When the ACC balked ESPN ran the numbers and told them they could do the same thing with Pitt. The football spin came later and DeFillippo was forced to apologize for "speaking inappropriately and erroneously." (source). He also had to acknowledge his personal feelings:

“Further, while I harbor some ill feelings toward the University of Connecticut regarding the lawsuit, depositions and derogatory comments from UConn officials when we announced our decision to join the ACC, it was inappropriate to express personal feelings that might have been construed as the position of Boston College or the Atlantic Coast Conference.

I regret any misunderstandings or negative fallout my actions may have caused.’’

For ESPN's part here was their statement on the matter (Source)

“The driving force on realignment lies with the conference and universities,” Soltys said. “Every college deal has conference composition clauses that lead to a value discussion whenever a conference adds or subtracts teams. We will be having similar discussions with the SEC and Big 12, too. Perhaps the Big East, too, depending on timing.”

It's my opinion that UConn has, and has had an ACC problem, not an ESPN problem. ESPN will do whatever is in its financial best interest to do, but the ultimate decision makers on conference membership are the conferences themselves. Until UConn can overcome the hesitancy from the current members of the ACC, Big XII or any other conference, they'll remain on the outside.

 

[Jetskies]

do we want to be in an ACC that has lost UNC, Duke, UVA, FSU, and Clemson?
replace those with Memphis, USF... Delaware? JMU? and us --- surely this would begin the breakdown of the conference as VT, Louisville, NCST, Pitt, Syracuse, look for their lifeline too, just to not be associated with those schools i just mentioned.

Just feels like PAC-12 part 2, and then we'd be stuck in it.

 

[CL82]

As DeFillippo said and as you quoted: "We always keep our television partners close to us,’’ he said. "You don’t get extra money for basketball. It’s 85 percent football money. TV - ESPN - is the one who told us what to do."
However, the football spin didn't come until later, after Pitt was swapped in, here was Swofford's statement on the move

Lol, it's literally in the same quote from the same article. It's disingenuous to take part of the quote as being valid and then discount the rest because it "it doesn't support (your) opinion.

The material that you quoted from the globe actually points out that Connecticut was an ACC target for expansion.

The second target was Connecticut, which was part of the Northeast footprint the ACC wanted, and was coming off the daily double of a BCS bid in football and a championship in men's basketball (the third for Jim Calhoun).

In addition, the women's basketball program under Geno Auriemma had established itself as the most dominant in the sport over the past 15 years.

Famously, Boston College blackballed Connecticut even though it was the ACC target along with Syracuse saying "We didn't want them in" he said. "It was a matter of turf. We wanted to be the New England team."

At that point, ESPN could have said "Connecticut is the team we want for expansion along with Syracuse." They did not. That is exactly the point.

At the time the DeFillippo quote was published in the Globe it raised considerable uproar because it exposed ESPN as the manipulator of college conference realignment. They caught a considerable amount of blowback because of it. The quote from DeFilippo and ESPN attempting, unsuccessfully by the way, to walk that back came a little over a week later, as part of damage control. (I note that you conveniently omit the timing of those quotes from your post above.)

Again, the material that you posted shows, unequivocally, that ESPN was the motivating behind the ACC's raid of the big east. It expressly states that "ESPN told (the ACC) what to do". At that point in time, and for every single ACC expansion, ESPN could have indicated that it preferred the university of Connecticut be one of the expansion targets. It did not. That is exactly the point.

 

[billybud]

“The driving force on realignment lies with the conference and universities,” Soltys said. “Every college deal has conference composition clauses that lead to a value discussion whenever a conference adds or subtracts teams. We will be having similar discussions with the SEC and Big 12, too. Perhaps the Big East, too, depending on timing.”

ESPN has a clause in every conference contract "deal" that allows the negotiation of "value" up or down with any conference additions or subtraction. And value in a conference ESPN Media "deal" is an ESPN construct...(conferences may value academics, proximity, culture, etc while ESPN values their bottom line).

 

[Ha Who]

We’re going somewhere. The issue is what our next stop will look like and when it will happen. Hopefully, we’ll be an addition rather than a replacement. That would be ideal.

OK, Chuck

 

[CL82]

do we want to be in an ACC that has lost UNC, Duke, UVA, FSU, and Clemson?

Tell me what their media rights deal is at that time and I will tell you my answer.