Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell.

[hoopsfan22]

Our state officials continue to allow ESPN to profit off the backs of CT taxpayers at the expense of our taxpayer funded university. It’s a double whammy and needs to be dealt with, now.

What would you like done? If the ACC doesn't want us, then they don't want us.

 

[JeepCSC]

I wonder where the $72m number is coming from. ACC’s television rights were at nearly $31 million last year. Maybe $24m is the base contract, and the other $7m came from the ACCN? So would the withholding only be for the ESPN contract, and the increased ACCN fees from California and Texas get evenly distributed? Lots of questions, little to no answers at this time.

 

[aburks41]

What would you like done? If the ACC doesn't want us, then they don't want us.

The ACC doesn’t want SMU. ESPN want SMU because of their delusions of the Dallas market for the ACCNetwork

 

[giddyup]

To engage whom? You? Because you have no friggin idea what contact they've had with the other conferences.

Res ipsa counselor. Generally hiding under rocks isn’t a formula for success. Battles are won and lost on perception and any business lawyer worth their salt ought to know you need a sophisticated messaging strategy to drive your objectives.

 

[huskymedic]

I wonder where the $72m number is coming from. ACC’s television rights were at nearly $31 million last year. Maybe $24m is the base contract, and the other $7m came from the ACCN? So would the withholding only be for the ESPN contract, and the increased ACCN fees from California and Texas get evenly distributed? Lots of questions, little to no answers at this time.

From the Dellenger article above: Sources: ACC expansion talks still alive as leaders consider new financial proposal

-> The ACC’s television contract with ESPN includes a pro-rata clause requiring the network to increase the value of the deal by one Tier 1 share for every new member — believed to be about $24 million a share, or about 70% of a full ACC share, which includes Tiers 1-3.

The ACC would stand to earn about $72 million in new money with the three expansion shares. Cal and Stanford have agreed to each take about 30% of the $24 million share, or roughly $7-10 million. After Cal and Stanford’s share and travel costs are off-set (roughly $1-2 million per school), the ACC stands to earn at least $30 million in revenue to re-distribute, likely through an incentive pool based on athletic success.

The incentives are expected to be heavily weighted toward football success, including such things as winning championships, final top-25 rankings and bowl assignments. <-

 

[CL82]

What would you like done? If the ACC doesn't want us, then they don't want us.

Lol, the ACC wants who whom ever ESPN says that they will give them additional income for. As the Boston College AD said "ESPN told us what to do."

@aburks41 got this exactly right.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Great thoughts after the fact.

Typical hypocrisy by Notre Dame and in the same paragraph no less: blames schools/conferences for forcing student athletes to travel so much and yet wants Calford to land in a conference where every member is 3,000 miles away.

 

[The Viking]

I’d love a local reporter or a national reporter to ask ACC, espn or UConn sources if UConn approached them about taking a Cal/Stanford type cut.
Yes the ACC may be a non-starter but I’d like to hear that from some anonymous sources as a curious mind.
I’m assuming we have because it would be stunningly foolish if we haven’t at least approached them about the idea

 

[Hoophound]

Unfortunately, this could set the bar for future expansion. “You want in, forego any money”.

That’s not very appealing.

 

[Muddler]

Our state officials continue to allow ESPN to profit off the backs of CT taxpayers at the expense of our taxpayer funded university. It’s a double whammy and needs to be dealt with, now.

I’ve never heard a media member ask any state official about their relationship with ESPN either, and the financial damage done to our flagship state university. If there is nothing they can do, I’d like to hear them say it. If we just added up how much Syracuse and Pitt have made from ESPN since joining the ACC, it has to be a few hundred million.

 

[hoopsfan22]

Unfortunately, this could set the bar for future expansion. “You want in, forego any money”.

That’s not very appealing.

Race to the bottom. Is there anything more American than that?

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Race to the bottom. Is there anything more American than that?

The haves and the have-nots.

 

[The Viking]

Unfortunately, this could set the bar for future expansion. “You want in, forego any money”.

That’s not very appealing.

Cal and Stanford will be getting full shares before the Contract ends per that article. It would be a gradual increase.

 

[BigTenFan]

I find it amazing that ESPN reports on this.
They are paying the league they are 'reporting on'
Sounds to me like they are the Wizard of OZ behind the curtain pulling the strings.....not much behind the curtain

 

[JeepCSC]

-> The ACC’s television contract with ESPN includes a pro-rata clause requiring the network to increase the value of the deal by one Tier 1 share for every new member — believed to be about $24 million a share, or about 70% of a full ACC share, which includes Tiers 1-3.

The ACC would stand to earn about $72 million in new money with the three expansion shares. Cal and Stanford have agreed to each take about 30% of the $24 million share, or roughly $7-10 million. After Cal and Stanford’s share and travel costs are off-set (roughly $1-2 million per school), the ACC stands to earn at least $30 million in revenue to re-distribute, likely through an incentive pool based on athletic success.

The incentives are expected to be heavily weighted toward football success, including such things as winning championships, final top-25 rankings and bowl assignments. <-

But using that math, a full share of the ACC tv contract would be $34m. It wasn’t that high last year. And I don’t know how the ACCN fits in, since a sizable chunk of that $440m total tv rights payment is from that (and therefore separate cash flow from the contracted ESPN payouts).

 

[Patrick79]

I’d love a local reporter or a national reporter to ask ACC, espn or UConn sources if UConn approached them about taking a Cal/Stanford type cut.
Yes the ACC may be a non-starter but I’d like to hear that from some anonymous sources as a curious mind.
I’m assuming we have because it would be stunningly foolish if we haven’t at least approached them about the idea

That’s a terrible deal for UConn. We pay $30 million in exit fees to then make $10 million for several years while we get in a GOR to s league that is likely going to be picked apart in a few years.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Explain to me how a school that gets maybe 25k per game is relevant in the Dallas market? Going forward, brands matter more than markets.

After Texas and A&M, SMU is likely the 3rd or 4th biggest football brand (with Houston) in the State. It's bigger with a stronger history in football than TCU, which mattes to many. It is also less controversial in terms of it's sports history and religious affiliation than Baylor while Rice is seen nowadays as the Ivy League wannabe in Texas while everyone ignores Texas tech. With how big Texas is and how big football is in Texas, that have to bring value.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

After Texas and A&M, SMU is likely the 3rd or 4th biggest football brand (with Houston) in the State. It's bigger with a stronger history in football than TCU, which mattes to many. It is also less controversial in terms of it's sports history and religious affiliation than Baylor while Rice is seen nowadays as the Ivy League wannabe in Texas while everyone ignores Texas tech. With how big Texas is and how big football is in Texas, that have to bring value.

Pretty sure there is data that shows in Texas the brands above SMU are TX, TX A&M, TX Tech, TCU, Baylor, and Houston.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Very interesting...

Which could Leave Duek for the B1G along with UVA. While neither is a football power, Duke carries serious basketball value, something that B1G has been lacking, both have strong olympic sports (lacrosse, baseball, soccer) and the academic side of both would fit very well with the B1G.

 

[Drew]

 

[The Viking]

That’s a terrible deal for UConn. We pay $30 million in exit fees to then make $10 million for several years while we get in a GOR to s league that is likely going to be picked apart in a few years.

Its about getting your foot in the door. People can talk about the ACC getting picked apart in 11-12 years (or I guess sooner if a school comes up with hundreds of millions of dollars I suppose). But in the end our best hope from a football standpoint is the ACC anyway and the whole waiting until the ACC GOR is over isn't a great idea because we may not even survive independence for another 11-12 years.

Lets say we get 10 mil. What is that, an extra $5 mil per year? So lets say we throw that toward essentially paying off the exit fee over a 6 year period. Perhaps if Mora is in a real football league we are competing for some of that bowl incentive money to also help offset the exit fee. In the ACC our attendance goes up for football, more ticket revenue. And on and on.

I don't love the idea of begging but we are in a tough spot. Of course if one doesn't give a damn about the football program, it's definitely not worth it I suppose.

 

[UConnJim]

After Texas and A&M, SMU is likely the 3rd or 4th biggest football brand (with Houston) in the State. It's bigger with a stronger history in football than TCU, which mattes to many. It is also less controversial in terms of it's sports history and religious affiliation than Baylor while Rice is seen nowadays as the Ivy League wannabe in Texas while everyone ignores Texas tech. With how big Texas is and how big football is in Texas, that have to bring value.

Then why do they only draw 25k per game? And, they averaged 3.6k for basketball in 2021/2022. Yet, they bring the Dallas market? Isn't this the same mistake that the ACC made when they added Boston College?

Top 10 Texas college football attendance in 2022:

1) Texas 100.2k
2) Texas A&M 97.2k
3) Texas Tech 56.3k
4) TCU 46.6k
5) Baylor 45.5k
6) UTSA 28.9k
7) SMU 25.0k
8) Houston 24.8k
9) UTEP 19.1k
10) North Texas 19.0k

 

[JeepCSC]

SMU would likely make more money for the ACC than BC did simply because of the ACCN. Might not last for long, but if that Nebraska AD was correct about contraction coming, then grab the money while you can.

 

[Vowelguy]

After Texas and A&M, SMU is likely the 3rd or 4th biggest football brand (with Houston) in the State. It's bigger with a stronger history in football than TCU, which mattes to many. It is also less controversial in terms of its sports history and religious affiliation than Baylor while Rice is seen nowadays as the Ivy League wannabe in Texas while everyone ignores Texas tech. With how big Texas is and how big football is in Texas, that have to bring value.

Lol.
If SMU were a valuable brand, then the B12 would’ve taken them, not TCU, Houston, or even Baylor (20 yrs ago).

 

[Vowelguy]

Very interesting...

And yet remember Oklahomas comment, “We wanted to include Okla St, but that was not an option.”

Schools will ultimately do what’s in their best interest.

UNC may try to play the SEC off against the BiG — “winner gets us both.”