ACC

[The Funster]

In my mind, Dan forever will be known as "slash".

 

[businesslawyer]

1) I don't see this being 3 games for long, and it may start at 7 games. If you are a network, and there is a playoff of some form out there, every other bowl game's value drops dramatically. Who wants to watch the Capital One Bowl when there is a playoff? Everything else just became the NIT. The interest in bowls was dropping already, it will crater now. Sponsors will evaporate, the whole gig is up if there is a playoff. I bet many of the mid-range bowls fold up shop over night. Why bother?.

Your logic puzzles me sometimes. You know, right, that rather than just go away the NIT was actually sold to the NCAA a few years ago? You know that there are two relatively new sub-NIT tournaments?

A playoff absolutely devalues all bowls. But makes them go away? Why?

 

[junglehusky]

Just saw a quote from delaney that the Rose Bowl is not going to stand in the way of a playoff. Must be a lot of favors and/or dollars being thrown around to keep those guys quiet. This is some Yalta conference level negotiating going on.

(because it's inevitable that someone else is going to make this joke I'll do it first - UConn to the Yalta Conference!)

 

[RS9999X]

I don't think the rest of the bowls will change at all. Maybe the venues if the Rose and Cotton bid upstream.

The major conferences will still have a bowl alignment providing their best available teams. These lesser bowls will pay much less than the current BCS but be based on similar criteria--9 guaranteed slots and .

The BiG #2 and PAC #2 will matchup.
The SEC #2 and B12 #2.
The SEC #3 and ACC #1
The B1G #3 and BE #1 or ND.
B12 #3 and PAC#3 or wildcard

The rest are ESPN's vanity bowl series.

 

[Dann]

8 team playoff with the big 5 getting auto bids
15 other bowl games for the next best 30 teams

why not?

 

[Marty Jackson]

I don't believe those schools would abandom ship unless they knew for certain the Big12 was dead. It's easy for us to speculate...
I just don't think those schools would have left with the possibility of the Big12 surviving. If it was the Big10 calling instead of the Big East, probably.
Teams don't move down the pecking order of conferences unless they are out of options. until Texas and OK said they were officially out, they had options. Doesn't matter of Marinatto gave them a 1 hour window.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Rumors out there on FSU and WVU message boards that the ACC is taking ESPN to arbitration in a bid to get $18MM/school. Anyone think the Big East is still #1 on ESPN's s*** list?

Edit: WVU "insider" on scout also saying that FSU wants Clemson, Miami and GTech to come with them.

 

[Hoophound]

Rumors out there on FSU and WVU message boards that the ACC is taking ESPN to arbitration in a bid to get $18MM/school. Anyone think the Big East is still #1 on ESPN's s*** list?

Edit: WVU "insider" on scout also saying that FSU wants Clemson, Miami and GTech to come with them.

I find the Miami and GTech rumor suspect. I'm not sure Tech really cares much about sports and Miami is a small private with an empty stadium. I am beginning to think Miami will slip further and further.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I find the Miami and GTech rumor suspect. I'm not sure Tech really cares much about sports and Miami is a small private with an empty stadium. I am beginning to think Miami will slip further and further.

Agree on both counts, but if FSU and Clemson are walking out the door anyway, GTech and Miami's options get real ugly, real fast. I think both want to remain major conference schools but aren't committed to being top programs. Tagging along with FSU is the right move in that situation.

I suspect FSU and Clemson's motives are a) both recruit Georgia and south Florida, b) both want regional rivals, and c) give the SEC the finger for their "gentlemen's agreement" never to invite schools from Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina.

 

[RS9999X]

Agree on both counts, but if FSU and Clemson are walking out the door anyway, GTech and Miami's options get real ugly, real fast. I think both want to remain major conference schools but aren't committed to being top programs. Tagging along with FSU is the right move in that situation.

I suspect FSU and Clemson's motives are a) both recruit Georgia and south Florida, b) both want regional rivals, and c) give the SEC the finger for their "gentlemen's agreement" never to invite schools from Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina.

The FSU, Clemson, G Tech rumors are the standard "add 3 states to the B12" Footprint argument. That's where Lousville has their best chance as a 14th in that scenario. At that point the North Carolina teams are gone eventually as well as V Tech and Miami as they pimp and preen for the SEC to take 2 leaving the other 2 to fall into the B12.

 

[HartbeatHusky]

I would love to think that the writing is on the wall regarding the ACC. They are in the danger zone due to the attractiveness of their members and the undervaluation of their TV contract. There is really nothing they can do. If they are taking ESPN to arbitration that is a bad sign for them. They more than likely can't win the fight either. ESPN will argue they are giving them a fair increase relative to the value of their current contract and that the other recently signed conference contracts have little to do with how much the ACC should be compensated. There is absolutely no reason why FSU, Clemson, GTech, and Miami would not jump ship right now. The money is simply too good. There is also no reason why the B12 would be interested in Louisville or BYU if they can pry away those 4 ACC teams.

If this happens the SEC and B!G will certainly move in for the kill picking off UNC, NC State, Maryland, Virginia, and VTech. I could see the B!G taking UNC, Maryland, Virginia, and Duke to keep that old gang together and move into the mid-atlantic region in a big way. NC State and VTech would be headed to the SEC and WF and BC would be SOL. Cuse and Pitt would more than likely never leave the Big East. However doubtful this scenario seems, the money that those schools are leaving on the table by remaining in the ACC could just be too much to overcome.

 

[zls44]

I'd love nothing more than for the ACC to get the carpet pulled out from under them right as SU and Pitt join.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Rumors, which seem to be coming from multiple "insider" sources, that Swofford has jacked his demand to $315MM (or at least a very big number) a year for the ACC. The league is at $155 million right now, albeit with 12 members.

This says to me that his nuts are in a vise and he is going to lose some teams if he doesn't shoot for the stars. This may explain why the ACC is planning on going to arbitration, because the ACC deal will be worth more than the ACC and Big East deals would have been worth combined if ESPN had simply negotiated with the Big East in good faith. At $80MM per year each, Pitt and Syracuse could turn into the two most expensive expansion additions in college history.

Or ESPN could just gut the ACC. What do you think they will do?

 

[Dann]

Rumors, which seem to be coming from multiple "insider" sources, that Swofford has jacked his demand to $315MM (or at least a very big number) a year for the ACC. The league is at $155 million right now, albeit with 12 members.

This says to me that his nuts are in a vise and he is going to lose some teams if he doesn't shoot for the stars. This may explain why the ACC is planning on going to arbitration, because the ACC deal will be worth more than the ACC and Big East deals would have been worth combined if ESPN had simply negotiated with the Big East in good faith. At $80MM per year each, Pitt and Syracuse could turn into the two most expensive expansion additions in college history.

Or ESPN could just gut the ACC. What do you think they will do?

I think they will gut the ACC.

 

[Chuck]

Rumors, which seem to be coming from multiple "insider" sources, that Swofford has jacked his demand to $315MM (or at least a very big number) a year for the ACC. The league is at $155 million right now, albeit with 12 members.

This says to me that his nuts are in a vise and he is going to lose some teams if he doesn't shoot for the stars. This may explain why the ACC is planning on going to arbitration, because the ACC deal will be worth more than the ACC and Big East deals would have been worth combined if ESPN had simply negotiated with the Big East in good faith. At $80MM per year each, Pitt and Syracuse could turn into the two most expensive expansion additions in college history.

Or ESPN could just gut the ACC. What do you think they will do?

I think the ACC's best chance is to scare ESPN out of arbitration. ESPN won't be afraid of losing in arbitration (the reason baseball teams are afraid to mediate with players). They'll be afraid of what they'll have to do in order to win in arbitration. They will have to destroy the ACC, arguing that the basketball is two teams and a bunch of Washington Generals, and football is slightly better than Texas high school level (but without the fans). They wind up devaluing their own product. Then it gets devalued further when a few (or more) of the teams leave. Also, if the ACC gets desperate, they could pull out the "but you told us to destroy the Big East and you'd make it worth our while" argument.

I fully admit that I haven't looked at the ACC's contract. I don't know if their arbitration clause has a confidentiality provision, which might temper some of ESPN's problems with a more public arbitration. Then again, the sunshine laws for the state schools involved might cancel out the benefit of a confidentiality clause anyway. I guess I'm only really responding so I can say I posted in this thread.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The benchmark on the ACC deal is probably $210MM annually (14 schools x $15MM/school which ESPN already appears to have agreed to as part of the raid of the Big East). ESPN could take Clemson and FSU at $22.5 each (est.) and put them in the Big 12, and reduce the ACC contract by at least $30MM for the two lost teams, for a net cost to ESPN of $15MM per year, some of which will be picked up by Fox. In return, ESPN will increase the value of Clemson and FSU by giving them better matchups on a weekly basis.

Or ESPN could pay the ACC another $105MM a year. The difference, $90MM, would be an incremental ANNUAL cost, so the total cost over the contract would be an incremental $900 million to ESPN. Is ESPN really feeling that generous?

The only way ESPN budges is if they still want the rest of the ACC and decide that FSU and Clemson are more valuable to ESPN within the ACC than they are in the Big 12. Is all that worth $900MM?

 

[Carl Spackler]

I think that the ACC leadership is very nervous, that the Big East may land a deal come 2013, with a competiting network to ESPN, that is better than what ESPN has in place for the ACC.

Crazy huh? i've been called crazy before. But it just might happen.

THe big east gets to meet with ESPN for contract renewal negotiations starting in September 2012, right after we give UMass their introduction to big boy football, and if nothing is done by November I believe, the Big East becomes a free agent.

 

[Marty Jackson]

I think Umass has played the 'big boys'

I think that the ACC leadership is very nervous, that the Big East may land a deal come 2013, with a competiting network to ESPN, that is better than what ESPN has in place for the ACC.

Crazy huh? i've been called crazy before. But it just might happen.

THe big east gets to meet with ESPN for contract renewal negotiations starting in September 2012, right after we give UMass their introduction to big boy football, and if nothing is done by November I believe, the Big East becomes a free agent.

I think Umass has played the big boys... They were very competitive with Michigan a few years back.
We should win that game, but I think it could be closer than people think. we're almost in a no win situation for that game. We lose it's a disaster. We win big and people will say 'well it's Umass' first season at this level'... We win a close game and people will say 'wow, Uconn isn't very good, barely beating Umass in it's first season at D1)...

And that's people on this board...

 

[RS9999X]

I think that the ACC leadership is very nervous, that the Big East may land a deal come 2013, with a competiting network to ESPN, that is better than what ESPN has in place for the ACC.

Crazy huh? i've been called crazy before. But it just might happen.
.

Crazy? Yes. But never for writing so few words

 

[RS9999X]

I think the ACC's best chance is to scare ESPN out of arbitration..

I'm sure the ACC has media consultants arguing otherwise.

 

[RS9999X]

Or ESPN could just gut the ACC. What do you think they will do?

I don't think they want ACC football. That will become obvious. They want V Tech, FSU, Clemson and NC State to Go to the B12.

Then let the ACC add UConn and Rutgers under the old contract terms -- everyone gets 12.9 million a team for 12 teams

 

[whaler11]

The benchmark on the ACC deal is probably $210MM annually (14 schools x $15MM/school which ESPN already appears to have agreed to as part of the raid of the Big East). ESPN could take Clemson and FSU at $22.5 each (est.) and put them in the Big 12, and reduce the ACC contract by at least $30MM for the two lost teams, for a net cost to ESPN of $15MM per year, some of which will be picked up by Fox. In return, ESPN will increase the value of Clemson and FSU by giving them better matchups on a weekly basis.

Or ESPN could pay the ACC another $105MM a year. The difference, $90MM, would be an incremental ANNUAL cost, so the total cost over the contract would be an incremental $900 million to ESPN. Is ESPN really feeling that generous?

The only way ESPN budges is if they still want the rest of the ACC and decide that FSU and Clemson are more valuable to ESPN within the ACC than they are in the Big 12. Is all that worth $900MM?

Well if you think the Big East is getting lets say 12 million a football team, thats 1.4 billion over 10 years. Is that Big east worth 500 million more than the ACC without Clemson and FSU?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Well if you think the Big East is getting lets say 12 million a football team, thats 1.4 billion over 10 years. Is that Big east worth 500 million more than the ACC without Clemson and FSU?

That's not the right math. Without Clemson and FSU, if ESPN just leaves the contract alone at 12 teams, they will be paying $180MM a year, or $1.8 billion over the life of the deal. So they would ALREADY be paying the ACC-Clemson-FSU more than they are paying the Big East. The extra $900 million would just be thrown in for fun.

 

[whaler11]

That's not the right math. Without Clemson and FSU, if ESPN just leaves the contract alone at 12 teams, they will be paying $180MM a year, or $1.8 billion over the life of the deal. So they would ALREADY be paying the ACC-Clemson-FSU more than they are paying the Big East. The extra $900 million would just be thrown in for fun.

Sorry I misunderstood your point the first time I read your post. I don't disagree on 22.5 each being an insane number for the ACC that they can't get.

I do disagree with the idea that they are trying gut the league. They are just playing hardball with them. Maybe their plan all along was to gut the ACC after they finished gutting the Big East but that doesn't make a ton of sense. Maybe the destruction of the ACC fell in their laps at this point and they see an opportunity, but they own the ACC - why destroy it over what will end up being much less than 90 million a year.

At some level FSU and Clemson have to understand they can make up a few million dollars in TV money by having a consistently better record in the ACC instead of tangling with more travel and a consistently tougher schedule.

That is the end game for Missouri. Welcome to the SEC - enjoy going 7-5 in your best years.

It's secondary but if ESPN is looking to dump the Big East, in the winter what are they selling for a basketball schedule if they weaken the ACC too badly? No one else but VPI can compete in football over the long term in the Big 12 or Big 10.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Sorry I misunderstood your point the first time I read your post. I don't disagree on 22.5 each being an insane number for the ACC that they can't get.

I do disagree with the idea that they are trying gut the league. They are just playing hardball with them. Maybe their plan all along was to gut the ACC after they finished gutting the Big East but that doesn't make a ton of sense. Maybe the destruction of the ACC fell in their laps at this point and they see an opportunity, but they own the ACC - why destroy it over what will end up being much less than 90 million a year.

At some level FSU and Clemson have to understand they can make up a few million dollars in TV money by having a consistently better record in the ACC instead of tangling with more travel and a consistently tougher schedule.

That is the end game for Missouri. Welcome to the SEC - enjoy going 7-5 in your best years.

It's secondary but if ESPN is looking to dump the Big East, in the winter what are they selling for a basketball schedule if they weaken the ACC too badly? No one else but VPI can compete in football over the long term in the Big 12 or Big 10.

This isn't a few million. Of FromTheInside's representation about Tier 3 rights from about 20 pages back is correct, and looking at the potential revenue of the new playoff system, FSU and Clemson could be looking at upwards of $30 million a year in the Big 12 vs. $15MM in the ACC. they would make up their $20MM departure fee in just over a year.

I am not sure what ESPN's game is, but they gave the Big 12 a contract that was by all accounts a hunting license, with the ACC being the biggest target. They may be pulling out the top properties to park them in a better football league, and treat the rest of the ACC as a basketball league with a football annex, basically pricing hoops at $10MM a year and football at $5. The reality for Duke is the number is more like $18 and -$3. If the NACC doesn't have a credible football league, ESPN won't have to put up with Swofford's silly demands for more money.

Assuming no other additions or subtractions, the remaining ACC is a very good basketball league and clearly the 6th best football conference. Adding UConn and Rutgers won't change that either.

 

[Dann]

warning, rant here:

there is only 1 conf that can be a top 4 football league and THE powerhouse bball league. its not the ACC or the BE. ITS THE B10!!!
The B10 no matter who they add are safe fball wise. They can go for a kill that no one saw coming. There are 8 potential huge adds out there for them. most are big publics who have 1 MAJOR sport with the other being good enough with potential.

right now:
bball fluff- nebraska/minn/iowa/wisc/nw/pur/psu
top 20 all time bball schools- ill/mich/msu/ind/tosu

all of these potential adds bring new tv sets to the network along with huge matchups. each carrys there own rate $$ wise for the b10 contract to get even better. all would extend b10 footprint and still be map pleasing look.

nd-ok bball, fball is king
kansas-great bball, rebuilding fball
unc-great bball, great potential for fball
ruty-potential for bball, great fball potential
md-up and down in both sports, comeback needing $$$ help
uconn-great bball, great potential in fball
uva-good fball on the rise right now, ok bball with potential
mizzu- good fball and good/rising bball

the b10 can go for the kill. if fsu/clem make a move the BE and ACC are both dead. the B10 will go for the northeast from philly to nyc and leave nothing untouched. going to 18 for the B10 is better than 16 for many reasons. it helps keeps a higher amount of the old rival games possible. it gives them better baseball/soccer/puck etc leagues no doubt. its the best bball league ever. your talking half of the league being in the top 20 teams all time. insane, they now own college bball and as result the b10 network is great $$ in the winter plus all the outsourcing to espn/cbs etc gets them even more $$. none of the schools that they added have issues with stadiums. uconn would expand in a second for that offer as would ruty if more were still needed. thats not even a question.

so pick your 18 of that group. i'll say that mizzu stays in the sec and that nd joins up. so then it comes down to kan/md/uconn for the final 2 spots and that nd and the b1o want to go east so kansas stays in the B12.

fball you play your division, plus a cross game. thats 9 games. maybe a 2nd cross game instead of a ooc game?!?!? then most teams play a pac12 game for 11(thats a ooc bcs game), then a warmup fcs/mac type. can't argue with that right? those who don't play the pac12 game can get a ooc game elsewhere. thats the highest amount of tv for the newtork possible.

in fball play a round robin for all teams plus 1 rival game(same as fball would be a good idea). have the B10 tney rotate chicago/nyc/phili/dc/ohio somewhere every 5 years. or pick a perm spot. 1 or the other. maybe laying a new claim to NYC is the way to go with that...

something like:
west- neb/minn/wisc/iowa/msu/mich/ill/nw/pur
east- tosu/nd/psu/ind/md/uva/unc/ruty/uconn

that lets neb/msu/mich and tosu/nd/psu go at it most years for each division. winners go to the ship game for a playoff bid. thats a great fball setup. in bball is epic and in other sports its now a monster as well. huge tv markets, huge products, huge fanbases etc etc....

 

[Carl Spackler]

The following is all pure opinion on my part and any similarity to real life, well you decide.

I think that ESPN is very much aware of their own situation as a business. They are a company that was founded approx 30 years ago now (a little more) which was founded on the concept of broadcasting basketball games that weren't showing up on the major networks. In the 30 years since, they've taken the business model that they came up with in that trailer parked in the dirt lot across from the access road to Lake Compounce from West Street, and they've built that same model up into a global sports news reporting and sports broadcasting platform.

THe problem they face, is that they never changed the model from what they came up with in that trailer. They simply keep adding channels, when they want to broadcast more content and/or reach new people, and they've farmed out regional broadcasting to affiliates and they for 3 decades have battled broadcasting companiers for access on each additional channel on their basic carrier packages for viewers, after first battling companies to carry ESPN on their basic package in the first place, rather than having to pay extra for additional espn channels. What movie was it - the dodgeball one - where the joke was the Ocho - espn 8.

ESPN people, I think, know that they can't keep adding channels. The online world, and the streaming world is the direction they've got to go now if they want to reach a wide range of people, there is no where else for them to go. The ESPN broadcasting model, works poorly for reaching regional, target audiences for sports broadcasts, especially when sports events are occuring simultaneously, and the online world doesn't seem to capable of doing that either, although the streaming of the NCAA tournament online seems to have gone really well for CBS this year.....but I wonder what productivity in office buildings cubicles in the country was like in March.....through the floor.....I bet......

basketball broadcasting and football broadcasting is not the same, and I can't begin to see how streaming online is going to fit into football, that's for the ESPN people to figure out. FOr basketball, it seems to be working for CBS, but in football, I only see it dilutes the potential viewership rather than increasing it. We'll see.


Because, when it comes to the actual business of sports and broadcasting, regional viewership is becoming extremely important.

All of that said, I believe that a year ago, the ACC(motivated by ESPN) simply had the intent of significantly weakening the Big East conference to strenghten it's own BASKETBALL presence on the east coast in competition with the Big East, and at the same time pad their own football conference against the movement occuring at the time. Nobody is telling me that PItt and Cuse were added to the ACC to strenghten the football league.

ESPN interest in weakening the big east would be to avoid the rise of competition in broadcasting in sports, as they've cornered nearly every major broadcasting realm in sports - with the model they created 32 years ago, AND they are very much aware of their business model deficiencies, and what the rise of competition may do to expose it.

I do believe that had Syracuse and UConn been invited to the ACC - we would have gone with Cuse, and the Big East would not have survived as an athletic league, never mind weakening, Buh-bye big east. But UConn got hung up in expansion committee for the ACC b/c of certain committee member's efforts from Chestnut Hill, and the ACC settled on Pitt.

Even still, the big east nearly died, and it appears that the major television networks have uncovered ESPN's weakness in the sports broadcasting world.

We'll see what ESPN comes up with for the Big EAst in September.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The Big 10 MIGHT add 2 teams in UVa and UNC if they were very, very hungry. They have analyzed Rutgers 10 ways from Sunday and the answer is a firm "no". They could have had Rutgers at any point in the last 8 years. They looked, but they didn't buy. Nothing has changed to make then want Rutgers.

The ACC will become very unstable if FSU and Clemson leave. Apparently Swofford is passing around a Grant of Rights for everyone to sign, which is part of the urgency in leaving now. If Clemson and FSU leave, I don't see a lot of interest in signing that document. No Grant of Rights, no renegotiated TV contract.

 

[whaler11]

This isn't a few million. Of FromTheInside's representation about Tier 3 rights from about 20 pages back is correct, and looking at the potential revenue of the new playoff system, FSU and Clemson could be looking at upwards of $30 million a year in the Big 12 vs. $15MM in the ACC. they would make up their $20MM departure fee in just over a year.

I am not sure what ESPN's game is, but they gave the Big 12 a contract that was by all accounts a hunting license, with the ACC being the biggest target. They may be pulling out the top properties to park them in a better football league, and treat the rest of the ACC as a basketball league with a football annex, basically pricing hoops at $10MM a year and football at $5. The reality for Duke is the number is more like $18 and -$3. If the NACC doesn't have a credible football league, ESPN won't have to put up with Swofford's silly demands for more money.

Assuming no other additions or subtractions, the remaining ACC is a very good basketball league and clearly the 6th best football conference. Adding UConn and Rutgers won't change that either.

If their number is really 30 million and the ACC would be very lucky to get to 20, then it should happen quite quickly. If the difference is 5 million a year and it takes 4 years to pay the exit fee, I don't see it happening.

The problem with putting all the good programs in fewer leagues is that they cant all win 9-10 games a year which is what those fanbases expect. When everyone goes 8-5 they all damage themselves.

There also comes a point where when you exclude too many schools you shrink the total amount of people interested in the sport in general. If UConn and Rutgers and Maryland and a dozen other schools aren't at the table a good number of people lose interest.

 

[whaler11]

The following is all pure opinion on
I think that ESPN is very much aware of their own situation as a business. They are a company that was founded approx 30 years ago now (a little more) whic



ESPN people, I think, know that they can't keep adding channels. The online world, and the streaming world is the direction they've got to go now if they want to reach a wide range of people,




Because, when it comes to the actual business of sports and broadcasting, regional viewership is becoming extremely important.

All of that said, I believe that a year ago, the ACC(motivated by ESPN) simply had the intent of significantly weakening the Big East conference to strenghten it's own BASKETBALL presence on the east coast in competition with the Big East, and at the same time pad their own football conference against the movement occuring at the time. Nobody is telling me that PItt and Cuse were added to the ACC to strenghten the football league.

ESPN interest in weakening the big east would be to avoid the rise of competition in broadcasting in sports, as they've cornered nearly every major broadcasting realm in sports - with the model they created 32 years ago, AND they are very much aware of their business model deficiencies, and what the rise of competition may do to expose it.

I do believe that had Syracuse and UConn been invited to the ACC - we would have gone with Cuse, and the Big East would not have survived as an athletic league, never mind weakening, Buh-bye big east. But UConn got hung up in expansion committee for the ACC b/c of certain committee member's efforts from Chestnut Hill, and the ACC settled on Pitt.

Even still, the big east nearly died, and it appears that the major television networks have uncovered ESPN's weakness in the sports broadcasting world.

We'll see what ESPN comes up with for the Big EAst in September.

I don't disagree that college sports is based on regional interest - it's why most of us care more about USCe than USC.

On a typical Saturday night ESPN has 4 games on. ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU. Who is better off if they used one channel and broadcasted those four games regionally?

The fans can watch all four. ESPN can charge carriers for four separate channels. Its better for the schools to allow their fans access to their games across the whole country.

Can you please describe the disadvantages of this? People can watch what they want, they can stagger the games so you can watch multiple endings. I don't have television feeding me BC/Virginia when I want to watch LSU/Mississippi or Oklahoma St/Baylor.

Who is regional coverage better for? The schools that people don't want to watch? Well if you stick me with a game I don't want to watch you risk me changing the station.

Hell the NCAA tournament has moved away from regional coverage and people love it - why would anyone want to go back in that direction?

As for where football fits online, I quite like espn3. I usually have a game on the laptop while I watch another on TV. My only access to the syndicated ACC game is through their website. I like NC State from my time living in Raleigh so I have an interest in many ACC games. i watched UConn-Baylor and UConn-Buffalo online. People seem to like streaming Sunday Ticket. It's only going to add to your audience if you get people watching on mobile devices. I'd watch games while I tailgate at Rentscher if I could - how is more options a bad thing?