As Predicted By Anyone With A Brain, The ACC Is NOT Getting A TV Network

[buckaineer]

Buckaineer, the ACC's current exit fee and GOR has been done, at least significantly in part, to dissuade other universities from leaving the conference. It may have ended what I believe was mutual distrust that some of the members have on each other. But I don't think the purpose of the lawsuit is to make other members think twice of leaving. I think Mr. Swofford somehow actually believes the ACC is legally entitled to extort $52 million from Maryland, or thinks he can convince a possibly biased North Carolina court of that. If his purpose is to try to keep all of the current membership in line, he is playing a dangerous game with the lawsuit. Maryland, of course, would have a better chance of prevailing than other members, because they voted against the grossly, excessive fee, and announced soon after they were leaving the conference. That would not be the case for the others, who (except for Florida State) voted for the fee, and enough time has passed. Whereas Maryland has a good argument to say that the ACC's bylaw procedures weren't followed, the others, even Florida State, can no longer make that claim (they could only try to convince a court that the exit fee is punitive, and they had temporary asininity when they voted for it). Sure, if the ACC prevails, then the other members will see that the current fee would most likely be enforceable for them. A big gamble in my opinion.

As for the ACC Network, I doubt it will happen any time soon, but it appears to me this ESPN announcement has nothing to do with whether the ACC Network is happening or not. That ACC hasn't made any announcement about the ACC Network is more indicative they have no news to report at this time.

i don't believe that having voted for the fee ( which as you mentioned FSU did not) or immediately leaving have any legal bearing whatsoever. If the court rules the buyout isn't legal- it isn't legal or valid anymore. Obviously schools had not been invited anywhere else at the time, and some would not be so of course they voted for the increase. If it wasnt a valid vote though, it would have to be done over probably, but the court may rule the fee to be punitive and unenforceable.

Some believe the announced network is indeed what the ACC will get. It is strange the conference hasnt commented one way or another on this development- they make official announcements for all new developments and if that is what its claimed then they would make an announcement about the increased exposure. no reason not to make an announcement as they have for everything else.

 

[Durks07]

I know you want to give the impression that somehow the BIG 12 is unstable or that schools are looking to move elsewhere to deflect from the instability of the ACC, buts it is simply misguided.

The numbers you see for the BIG 12 only include tiers 1 and 2 media rights for the league along with other things. They don't include tier 3, and all BIG 12 schools are making money from tier 3 tv deals despite what ACC fans and others will tell you.

Last year Texas and other members of the BIG 12 were paid out $22 million by the league. On top of that, Texas pulled in over $10 million for their tier 3 deal for television for the Longhorn Network. This year, UT will make more than $22 million in payouts from the BIG 12 conference as will other members and the number will increase throughout the tv deals. BIG 12 payouts for all media rights will remain on par with the top conferences.

Pac 12 payouts on the other hand --here is exactly what Oregon, the highest revenue earner for the 2012 year for the Pac 12 made:

• 
  [ ]UO projects to receive $18.43 Million from the Pac-12 and the NCAA in Fiscal Year 2013. This distribution includes television revenue (projected and budgeted as $14.74 M), bowl revenue, NCAA basketball or other event revenue the conference distributes.
  [ ]We received $14.69 Million last fiscal year from the Pac-12 and the NCAA.
  [ ]The net gain is $3.74 Million from the Pac-12 and the NCAA, which includes the television revenue increase.

http://www.goducks.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=205705405

You referenced a potential move of several years ago, prior to the BIG 12 signing new tv deals, GORs, Sugar bowl deal including ownership, Alamo bowl deal including ownership, and other revenues which on a per school basis are higher for the BIG 12 than any other league-coming online. You are talking about the past and inferring since teams were leaving the Big 12 years ago -and so some others explored options-that the same situation exists years later. It does not.

There isn't more stability in the Pac 12 and no BIG 12 schools are going to consider moving west--that is done.

Kansas would not jump at a chance to move to the Big Ten. Disregarding the GORs there is absolutely nothing to support that at all. Conference payouts for everything from the Big Ten were just over $25 million for full share members last year. Conference payouts for full share BIG 12 members were $22 million. But schools like Kansas also had tier 3 deals that boosted revenues for media rights above every Big Ten school.

For some reason you and others are under the mistaken belief that BIG 12 revenues remain static through 2025 but it isn't the case. By 2015 the conference payouts will be at $30 million per school and over $40 million by the end of the contracts. When you add in tier 3 media rights, BIG 12 schools will be just fine thank you. By 2025 the conference will have new tv deals that--if they are doing so for everyone else, will also be increasing for the BIG 12. Financially the BIG 12 is strong and will remain so, and also competitively.

ACC members are not going to keep pace financially and they know this and have expressed concern about it. No one in the BIG 12 is expressing any concern about stability of the league or a need to look around--and they aren't going to.

You "know" that I want to deflect from the instability of the ACC? How is that exactly? I am a UConn fan. I'm now predisposed to advocating for the ACC? Something I'd rather mainline battery acid than do. Not sure how you got to that point (other than taking any comment that the Big 12 is not as stable as the B1G or the SEC as an attack against the conference).

 

[clmssun]

From the link in the original post:
The deal doesn't include the Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 or SEC because those conferences either already have or are planning to launch their own networks.

What Big 12 network? Isn't the Big 12 missing from this list due to their Fox television contract? Or have I missed something?

 

[upstater]

I've noticed when posters like you have no legitimate rebuttal you resort to personal attack or childish staements. That is uncalled for.

Things change. Once upon a time Big 12 payouts weren't so good compared to some of the other leagues. That has all changed now. Once upon a time the BIG 12 didnt have ownership of the Sugar bowl, a deal to play their best against the best of the SEC in the Sugar bowl - or to receive the same money and exposure as the Rose bowl. Its all changed. You rest your hopes on things that transpired years ago, but none of the circumstances of that time exist in the BIG 12 now. No one is considering moving from the BIG 12. Some did years ago, but it has absolutely no bearing on today or going forward.

Teams left the SEC, and big ten in the past as well as the ACC--different times, different circumstances.

No need to be angry, you need to move into the present and quit hanging your hopes on four years ago.

Is it not idiotic to suggest Ohio State is just as likely to leave the B1G as Texas is the B12? USC? Come on!!!

 

[clmssun]

It's interesting the ACC office hasn't commented on this new ACC network. Usually they are out ahead of the game spinning every so called development but not a peep on this so far.

What I find particularly interesting is WVU's obsession with the ACC, an "inferior" conference, they argue.

 

[clmssun]

It's interesting the ACC office hasn't commented on this new ACC network. Usually they are out ahead of the game spinning every so called development but not a peep on this so far.

This is not a "new ACC network", and it has nothing to do with a possible future ACC network. This is not a "development", hence no comment. (No, at this point, I do not understand Syracuse's concerns.)

 

[pj]

i don't believe that having voted for the fee ( which as you mentioned FSU did not) or immediately leaving have any legal bearing whatsoever. If the court rules the buyout isn't legal- it isn't legal or valid anymore.

Of course it matters. The general principle of contract law is that you are liable only for those obligations that you voluntarily agreed to incur. If Maryland had voted for the exit fee increase, then the ACC would have a strong case that Maryland had agreed to the fee and was therefore liable to pay it.

Whereas, the ability of the ACC to impose an exit fee on Maryland against its will is much more doubtful. Particularly since the ACC was aware that some universities were considering/negotiating their departure at the time it imposed the fee increase. Clearly if Maryland had announced its departure, and then the ACC tried to retroactively impose a higher exit fee, courts would throw that out. But since it takes months for Maryland to negotiate its agreement with the B1G, and the ACC acted to impose the fee after it heard of B1G efforts to recruit ACC schools, Maryland can argue that the case is functionally similar.

 

[buckaineer]

Is it not idiotic to suggest Ohio State is just as likely to leave the B1G as Texas is the B12? USC? Come on!!!

No its not idiotic to suggest that Ohio State is just as likely to leave the Big Ten as Texas is the BIG 12. Its idiotic to suggest one is more likely than the other.

Neither one is likely to happen at all.

You are mistaking your preference for something that is a possibility.

 

[buckaineer]

Of course it matters. The general principle of contract law is that you are liable only for those obligations that you voluntarily agreed to incur. If Maryland had voted for the exit fee increase, then the ACC would have a strong case that Maryland had agreed to the fee and was therefore liable to pay it.

Whereas, the ability of the ACC to impose an exit fee on Maryland against its will is much more doubtful. Particularly since the ACC was aware that some universities were considering/negotiating their departure at the time it imposed the fee increase. Clearly if Maryland had announced its departure, and then the ACC tried to retroactively impose a higher exit fee, courts would throw that out. But since it takes months for Maryland to negotiate its agreement with the B1G, and the ACC acted to impose the fee after it heard of B1G efforts to recruit ACC schools, Maryland can argue that the case is functionally similar.

No. If a court rules that the buyout is illegal it doesn't matter if someone voted for it or not. Its illegal and unenforceable and void.

I agree with the second part of what you stated.

 

[buckaineer]

This is not a "new ACC network", and it has nothing to do with a possible future ACC network. This is not a "development", hence no comment. (No, at this point, I do not understand Syracuse's concerns.)

The ACC has announced every new development- certainly media agreements. Its interesting they did not comment on this network. This certainly is an ACC network- via ESPN. Syracuse is concerned because it isn't what they were promised and provides no financial increase.

 

[buckaineer]

What I find particularly interesting is WVU's obsession with the ACC, an "inferior" conference, they argue.

WVU didnt write the article or create the thread. Neither did WVu fans. I wonder why ACC fans always try to dismiss every bit of news that isnt positive for their league.

 

[Pat125]

i don't believe that having voted for the fee ( which as you mentioned FSU did not) or immediately leaving have any legal bearing whatsoever. If the court rules the buyout isn't legal- it isn't legal or valid anymore. Obviously schools had not been invited anywhere else at the time, and some would not be so of course they voted for the increase. If it wasnt a valid vote though, it would have to be done over probably, but the court may rule the fee to be punitive and unenforceable.

Some believe the announced network is indeed what the ACC will get. It is strange the conference hasnt commented one way or another on this development- they make official announcements for all new developments and if that is what its claimed then they would make an announcement about the increased exposure. no reason not to make an announcement as they have for everything else.

First of all, if Swofford had any civilized, adult human traits, he would have let Maryland go for $20 million and avoid a trial. This would have at least left the illusion that $52 million fee is enforceable, thus preventing other defections. Going to trial risked that.

As for the ACC Network, it is only tangentially or indirectly related to the ESPN announcement. Frankly, I don't know if Swofford typically responds to such news by making announcements. Even then, I don't know what can be interpreted by his silence this time.

 

[SouthronCross]

Of course it matters. The general principle of contract law is that you are liable only for those obligations that you voluntarily agreed to incur. If Maryland had voted for the exit fee increase, then the ACC would have a strong case that Maryland had agreed to the fee and was therefore liable to pay it.

As a member of the ACC, Maryland agreed to abide by league votes on things like the exit fee. That they voted against the $52M does not mean they are not bound by that decision, since the 10-2 vote confirming the fee easily surpasses the 75% threshold needed to make it a league law. If the ACC properly followed its own bylaws on the voting and implementing of the fee, the league will win the case.

Whereas, the ability of the ACC to impose an exit fee on Maryland against its will is much more doubtful. Particularly since the ACC was aware that some universities were considering/negotiating their departure at the time it imposed the fee increase. Clearly if Maryland had announced its departure, and then the ACC tried to retroactively impose a higher exit fee, courts would throw that out. But since it takes months for Maryland to negotiate its agreement with the B1G, and the ACC acted to impose the fee after it heard of B1G efforts to recruit ACC schools, Maryland can argue that the case is functionally similar.

Where do you get that the ACC imposed the exit fee upon Maryland? It was brought up, debated upon, and, passed by, the league's membership. All 12 members (at the time) were bound by the vote on it. That is not something that can be unilaterally slapped on a member institution by John Swofford. It looked more like a show of unity by the 10 who voted for it, IMHO.

To be sure, Clemson...who was having their own second thoughts about the league...would have certainly voted against it if they thought it was overly excessive.

 

[clmssun]

The ACC has announced every new development- certainly media agreements. Its interesting they did not comment on this network. This certainly is an ACC network- via ESPN. Syracuse is concerned because it isn't what they were promised and provides no financial increase.

I have been Googling, and, thus far, I can find no comment suggesting that this ACC "subchannel" of WatchESPN is streaming any additional events beyond those which WatchESPN has already been streaming. This sounds like a purely cosmetic, superficial, user-friendly "ease of searching" mechanism so that ACC fans can find all of their Watch ESPN events (that have always been there) more quickly and easily.

 

[Pat125]

No its not idiotic to suggest that Ohio State is just as likely to leave the Big Ten as Texas is the BIG 12. Its idiotic to suggest one is more likely than the other.

Neither one is likely to happen at all.

You are mistaking your preference for something that is a possibility.

I'm afraid I disagree. By 2025, I believe the chances that Ohio St. leaves the Big Ten is < 1%. The chances that Texas is not in the Big 12 (including the possibility of the dissolution of the Big 12) is about 50%.

 

[clmssun]

Obviously the ACC doesn't believe in their Grant of Rights or they wouldn't still be suing Maryland which is all about trying to stop other schools from trying to leave the conference.

It's interesting FSU's president bolted just shortly before the announcement of this ACC network. He supposedly signed FSU up under promises of an ACC network coming into place from news accounts at the time.

Sometimes such things are unrelated, but then again sometimes they are.

He left for a better job at a better university, just as Clements left WVU for Clemson and Gee left WVU for OSU years ago. (And if UNC,UVa, or a Big Ten school, e.g., call Clements later, he'll leave Clemson...)

 

[btstimpy]

I have been Googling, and, thus far, I can find no comment suggesting that this ACC "subchannel" of WatchESPN is streaming any additional events beyond those which WatchESPN has already been streaming. This sounds like a purely cosmetic, superficial, user-friendly "ease of searching" mechanism so that ACC fans can find all of their Watch ESPN events (that have always been there) more quickly and easily.

You are correct. It is the segmentation of WatchESPN content by Conference. There is nothing stopping ESPN from adding more content from the ACC to this outlet. ESPN is showing more baseball, softball, lacrosse, soccer, and field hockey every year. They can certainly show more of this other stuff and football and basketball on WatchESPN. It has nothing to do with a traditional TV channel though that the ACC is working on with ESPN. This is their digital outlet, and they want to drive more usage through this outlet.

 

[buckaineer]

I'm afraid I disagree. By 2025, I believe the chances that Ohio St. leaves the Big Ten is < 1%. The chances that Texas is not in the Big 12 (including the possibility of the dissolution of the Big 12) is about 50%.

You disagree, but your reason is--you think so. It's not based on anything real or concrete. Your so called percentages are based on nothing, and there isn't a chance there can or will be a dissolution of the BIG 12.

Its no more likely or possible than the Big Ten dissolving or Ohio State leaving the Big Ten.

 

[buckaineer]

He left for a better job at a better university, just as Clements left WVU for Clemson and Gee left WVU for OSU years ago. (And if UNC,UVa, or a Big Ten school, e.g., call Clements later, he'll leave Clemson...)

Gee didn't leave WVU for OSU, he didn't go to OSU until years later. He did recently leave OSU and is now at WVU again. Clements didn't leave WVU after vigorously fighting against his BOT for trying to move to another league. It's debateable if its a better university.

FSU's president left at an interesting point just out of the blue, and at a time when an ACC school is leaving for the conference he moved to, and there is strife between the two conferences--right after proclaiming his adoration of the ACC for a year or more in the media.

 

[Pat125]

You disagree, but your reason is--you think so. It's not based on anything real or concrete. Your so called percentages are based on nothing, and there isn't a chance there can or will be a dissolution of the BIG 12.

Its no more likely or possible than the Big Ten dissolving or Ohio State leaving the Big Ten.

I've come to my conclusion the same way you did. Just like your belief on the stability of the Big 12 or Texas staying. We simply disagree. No biggie.

 

[Fishy]

The number of schools that have left the Big Ten - 0
The number of schools that have left the Pac 12 - 0
The number of schools that have left the SEC - 0
The number of schools that have left the Big 12 - 4

One of these things is not like the others.

 

[buckaineer]

Where do you get that the ACC imposed the exit fee upon Maryland? It was brought up, debated upon, and, passed by, the league's membership. All 12 members (at the time) were bound by the vote on it. That is not something that can be unilaterally slapped on a member institution by John Swofford. It looked more like a show of unity by the 10 who voted for it, IMHO.

To be sure, Clemson...who was having their own second thoughts about the league...would have certainly voted against it if they thought it was overly excessive.

Read Maryland's countersuit. The ACC did impose the exit fee. It was brought up and voted on in the same meeting. There was supposed to be a 15 day window for evaluation and comment and that didn't happen. There was supposed to be a year long wait for a change to the bylaws that didn't happen. It was slapped on the member institutions and more than Maryland commented on the illegality and punitive nature of the change.

 

[buckaineer]

I've come to my conclusion the same way you did. Just like your belief on the stability of the Big 12 or Texas staying. We simply disagree. No biggie.

No. I came to my conclusions based on facts. Money in Texas's league, competition and strength of Texas' league and most importantly there hasn't been the slightest indication from any leader from Texas stating anything other than that they are happy with their situation and the BIG 12.

Ohio State's recently departed president on the other hand has spoken about the Big Ten keeping its hands out of OSU's pockets, and many in Buckeyeland are not happy that the rest of the league is bringing down OSU's strength of schedule.

You are making something up out of nothing, based on nothing.

 

[buckaineer]

The number of schools that have left the Big Ten - 0
The number of schools that have left the Pac 12 - 0
The number of schools that have left the SEC - 0
The number of schools that have left the Big 12 - 4

One of these things is not like the others.

WRONG

The number of teams that have left the Big Ten--1--Chicago
The number of teams that have left the SEC--2--Tulane and Georgia Tech
The number of teams that have left the ACC--2--Maryland and South Carolina

The Pac 12 may not have any departures in the past--will check on that but don't think so.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with anything. The situation in the BIG 12 is not the same as it was 4 or 5 years ago and has 0 bearing on today.

 

[Fishy]

Holy crap, you're delusional if you think Chicago and Tulane play into this conversation.

Go post somewhere else - you're way too simple for our website.

 

[buckaineer]

You ACC posters better take up this new ACC network with your conference mates. Both Syracuse and BC writers have expressed their concern and discontent with this new network-perhaps more.

The ACC could of course squelch the entire conversation by reporting that this new ACC Network has nothing to do with the imaginary ACC network you have all been trumpeting for over a year, but hasn't materialized. Of course the ACC hasn't said anything at all--completely out of character for themselves.

 

[buckaineer]

Holy crap, you're delusional if you think Chicago and Tulane play into this conversation.

Go post somewhere else - you're way too simple for our website.

Facts are facts. You are delusional if you think teams that left the BIG 12 years ago have anything to do with the schools that are in the league now or the future stability of the conference.

 

[Fishy]

What you have are hopes and dreams - not facts. You're not even in the ballpark of facts.

Facts are that Texas A&M, Colorado, Nebraska and Missouri have all left the Big 12 within the past two or three years. They replaced those schools with the likes of West Virginia and TCU. The conference got significantly weaker, not stronger.

Those schools left for a reason - the conference is entirely dependent on Texas.

The Big 12 is hanging on only because Texas wants to pursue the Longhorn Network - that's why UT, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and OSU are not in the Pac 16 right now. If the Longhorn Network fails, and it's not going well, the Big 12, like the Southwestern Conference before it, will go away.

But again, you're not bright enough for this sandbox - you have to go somewhere else.

 

[btstimpy]

You ACC posters better take up this new ACC network with your conference mates. Both Syracuse and BC writers have expressed their concern and discontent with this new network-perhaps more.

The ACC could of course squelch the entire conversation by reporting that this new ACC Network has nothing to do with the imaginary ACC network you have all been trumpeting for over a year, but hasn't materialized. Of course the ACC hasn't said anything at all--completely out of character for themselves.

I very much will enjoy Watch ESPN when I travel. I do today. Most hotels I stay in don't carry ESNU. When games I want to watch happen to be on ESPNU, Watch ESPN comes in very handy. I'm glad ESPN is making it much easier to find the ACC content. This isn't a new network. Watch ESPN has been around for several years now.

I also watch the ACC Digital Network. The ACC isn't saying anything today because there isn't anything to say. It's an ESPN announcment.

 

[Fishy]

Exactly.

This isn't a story - this is ESPN creating segments in their Apple TV app.

Basically, they've added a submenu.

The imaginary ACC Network is still imaginary, but it's not more anymore imaginary than it was two days ago.