Non-Key Tweets | Page 633 | The Boneyard

Non-Key Tweets

huskymedic said:
FWIW:
Expand ...


If true, there are going to be a lot of SEC teams vying for a spot in the Birmingham Bowl with 7-5 records.

ACC programs get a lot of money and being a big fish in a medium pond offers a better route to the playoff than a below average sized fish in a lake. If you want the competition, play OoC games.

I don't believe it is true. The ACC GOR runs through 2035 and ESPN already owns the ACC. What is the motivation?
 
Husky25 said:
If true, there are going to be a lot of SEC teams vying for a spot in the Birmingham Bowl with 7-5 records.

ACC programs get a lot of money and being a big fish in a medium pond offers a better route to the playoff than a below average sized fish in a lake. If you want the competition, play OoC games.

I don't believe it is true. The ACC GOR runs through 2035 and ESPN already owns the ACC. What is the motivation?
Expand ...
I don’t believe it’s true as presented in the tweet but the motivation could be FOMO. ACC is getting lapped by SEC and B1G $$ wise.
 
Husky25 said:
That is true from a program standpoint, but realignment begins and ends with who pays for the product. What reason would ESPN have to pay more for Clemson and FSU?
Expand ...
Perhaps the end game is to make a superconference/consortium that in essence becomes akin to being MLB while sifting out as many AAA clubs from the bigs (or at least diluting the impact the AAA clubs have on the economic pie)?
 
.-.
billybud said:
As you guys are aware, I have always maintained that people watch marquis match ups. Brands.

The SEC has cornered major brands...Texas-LSU and Oklahoma-Alabama is of more interest than Indiana-Wisconsin or Wake Forest-Georgia Tech. ESPN has been evolving and the handwriting was on the wall when CBS had been paying the SEC $55 million per year for the one SEC Game of the Week.....and ESPN upped that to $300 million...

That one SEC game costs them almost what the whole year of ACC games does.

ESPN will have what amounts to NFL Saturdays. Big time programs with the best athletes that money can influence.

And...where things get murky..is that ESPN owns the SEC brand and is also the largest sports media outlet.

They will, as they have been doing, shill the SEC since they own it...their talking heads will play it up even during other games, the SEC games will dominate available band width in the prime hours of watching...all influencing public perception, rankings, etc...

And soon we will see lesser brands, like the ACC, relegated to the ACCN, ESPN+, etc.

The joke about E SEC PN will have become reality.

Fox will try to counter with their brands....it could be a binary world, kind of like Fox News is now to one set of viewers and CNN to the other set.

But no matter what, with streaming, we will be able to watch most of the teams of our choosing..

..and like in the story we read our kids..Horton Hears a Who....

“Don't give up! I believe in you all. A person's a person, no matter how small! And you very small persons will not have to die. If you make yourselves heard! So come on, now, and TRY!”
Expand ...
All well and good. But huge chunks of the country are going to tune out.

I've been a sports fan all my life, and many of my friends love sports.

Never once in my life have I discussed NASCAR with anyone.
 
Husky25 said:
That is true from a program standpoint, but realignment begins and ends with who pays for the product. What reason would ESPN have to pay more for Clemson and FSU?
Expand ...
The broadcast rights for the home games of FSU and Clemson have an estimated value. They're worth what they're worth. Broadcasters add the estimated values of member schools together when crafting media contract proposals to a league.

The Tigers and Seminoles would receive more from the SEC because their new conference mates' broadcast rights would on average be worth a lot more than their current league partners.

FSU and Clemson would only add value to the SEC if their broadcast rights are worth more than the average of existing members.
 
Eavesdrop said:
The broadcast rights for the home games of FSU and Clemson have an estimated value. They're worth what they're worth. Broadcasters add the estimated values of member schools together when crafting media contract proposals to a league.

The Tigers and Seminoles would receive more from the SEC because their new conference mates' broadcast rights would on average be worth a lot more than their current league partners.

FSU and Clemson would only add value to the SEC if their broadcast rights are worth more than the average of existing members.
Expand ...

Broadcast value is not estimated in this case. ESPN owns the rights for both the ACC and soon, the SEC. Why would they elect to pay more for two schools in the SEC, when they are getting them for a comparable bargain in the ACC?
 
MH ver3@MH ver3 6h
Just wait for the B1G shoe to drop…

MH ver3@MH ver3 6h
Replying to
@Pennstatedanny
That’s a possibility but I’m hearing 5 Pac12 schools now plus ND.

MH ver3@MH ver3 5h
Per my source inside WVU AD: ACC membership is almost a complete certainty. ACC preparing to lose at least two schools to poaching-possibly 2 1/2. UNC/UVA not going anywhere.

MH ver3@MH ver3 3h
Hearing that FSU and Clemson are looking into the feasibility of fighting the GOR in court using the changing dynamics in college football and the way content is consumed as their grounds

MH ver3@MH ver3 3h
By no means is anything a “done deal”. Just take it for what it’s worth: FSU and Clemson are exploring their options.

MH ver3@MH ver3 3h
There are whispers that for FSU and Clemson getting out of that bad contract would be worth $100m up front because they’d make that up in 3 years with the SEC money.

MH ver3@MH ver3 3h
I think you’ll see the B1G make the next move though. I think the FSU/Clemson thing will take at least 6 months to bear any fruit…but I could be wrong. Their initial contact with SEC came just days ago while TXOU happened last year

MH ver3@MH ver3 3h
Word going around the conference is that espn is going to buyout the remainder of the LHN contract. So there’s UT’s exit money.

MH ver3@MH ver3 3h
Notes from Bob B’s last phone call with George K that was shared with B12 ADs:

MH ver3@MH ver3 3h
Pac12 appears to be in defensive mode much like B12. They are literally just waiting on something to happen

MH ver3@MH ver3 3h
There is indeed an issue with UCLA. They must go with Cal. It’s a package deal. B1G May end up with 5 of the 12.

MH ver3@MH ver3 3h
Eastward expansion for the PAC May actually help with some issues they’ve had with their content carriers. A merger could be very beneficial for both sides even without their flagship programs

MH ver3@MH ver3 3h
A Pac12/B12 remnants merger would be a similar television footprint population-wise to that of the ACC. Thinks they could get a comparable tv contract to an FSU/Clemson-less ACC.

MH ver3@MH ver3 1h
Remaining 8 tv value for base tv contracts with Fox and ESPN would be $14.7m per team. Bowlsby just told the ADs. So still twice the current AAC value.

MH ver3@MH ver3 1h
Thinks we could renegotiate with our tier 3 rights included and get close to $20m per team. That’s a far cry from SEC/B1G money

MH ver3@MH ver3 1h
There’s a feeling that espn would block us taking any aac teams to expand by severely undervaluing them in any negotiations. We aren’t on the networks good side as it is.

MH ver3@MH ver3 1h
Remaining 8 may be boxed in waiting on the next move to happen before being able to make any moves with the exception of backfilling 2 spots if/when TXOU leave early.

MH ver3@MH ver3 1h
What Bowlsby didn’t say today but is something he is championing behind the scenes: limiting the expanded playoff to 3 spots max per conference.
 
Husky25 said:
Broadcast value is not estimated in this case. ESPN owns the rights for both the ACC and soon, the SEC. Why would they elect to pay more for two schools in the SEC, when they are getting them for a comparable bargain in the ACC?
Expand ...
There are any number of good reasons why they would.

For one, they'd love to stop subsidizing Wake Forest, BC, Syracuse, Pitt and Va Tech.

Two, the FSU President couldn't have been clearer this week when he said FSU HAS TO explore joining the SEC.

In many ways this is bigger than ESPN. They want a super conference outside the NCAA and Florida State might remember way back when it was way outside the top leagues looking in. FSU has been a top football school for 55 years now. Before that, it was like Cincinnati. Granted that's a very long time, but some of these folks have long memories.

The tweet above throws cold water on the rumor mill about Clemson and FSU--did the tweeter miss the fact that the President of FSU gave an interview about all of this?
 
.-.
Husky25 said:
Broadcast value is not estimated in this case. ESPN owns the rights for both the ACC and soon, the SEC. Why would they elect to pay more for two schools in the SEC, when they are getting them for a comparable bargain in the ACC?
Expand ...
ESPN wouldn't pay more. The broadcast rights to the home games of Florida State and Clemson cost ESPN about the same regardless of conference affiliation.

Let's arbitrarily declare that ESPN estimates that Florida State home games are worth $50 million per year. Subtracting the Seminoles from ACC would reduce that conference's overall annual broadcast value by $50 million. And ESPN likely would invoke the composition clause of its ACC media contract to reduce its payment to the league by $50 million per year.

Adding Florida State to the SEC would meanwhile add $50 million per year in value to the conference's pooled broadcast rights. And the SEC would assuredly invoke the composition clause in its deal with ESPN to seek the addition of that $50 million per year.

What many neglect is that both ESPN and Fox stabilized the Big 12 a decade ago. They allowed the league to keep the same overall payout after the exchange of Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and Texas A&M for TCU and West Virginia. The league's overall valuation had drastically changed. The networks opted to overpay to calm things down.
 
.-.
huskymedic said:
You’re turn Clemson:

Expand ...

I do not believe him. What does he mean by "contact"? Does he know what the meaning of "is" is? He's the one encouraging his administration to definitely look into moving from the ACC--out of necessity.
 
The SEC would certainly trade South Carolina for Clemson
but adding Clemson with South Carolina doesn’t seem like an SEC move . The only states with two teams will be Texas and Tennessee. Vanderbilt was always an odd fit., but they‘re legacy and would never be considered for addition today,nor would they be dumped.
They just told Texas A&M to take a walk if they didn’t want Texas.
so South Carolina wasn’t the issue .
I think the B1G screwed up Big Time in not adding Texas
I realize Okla is repugnant to the Powers in that conference
but Texas plus Kansas would have been great for Nebraska, and Iowa. Apparently they lack leadership at the moment.
 
I'm not sure Texas wanted to go to the B1G, even if asked. Texas and OK fit much better in the SEC.
 
.-.
upstater said:
There are any number of good reasons why they would.

For one, they'd love to stop subsidizing Wake Forest, BC, Syracuse, Pitt and Va Tech.

Two, the FSU President couldn't have been clearer this week when he said FSU HAS TO explore joining the SEC.

In many ways this is bigger than ESPN. They want a super conference outside the NCAA and Florida State might remember way back when it was way outside the top leagues looking in. FSU has been a top football school for 55 years now. Before that, it was like Cincinnati. Granted that's a very long time, but some of these folks have long memories.

The tweet above throws cold water on the rumor mill about Clemson and FSU--did the tweeter miss the fact that the President of FSU gave an interview about all of this?
Expand ...

The full interview is not quoted by the twitterati...the rest of the story...where President Thrasher says that the GOR makes it near impossible for FSU to actually leave the ACC.

“At the end of the day, it’s all about money,” Thrasher said. “It’s all about TV revenue, contracts. Nobody can leave a conference without a significant buyout penalty, including us, so it would have to be something very special for us to leave.


I think he is pushing the ACC to do what it can...take a couple of schools, etc.
 
huskymedic said:
Expand ...

That kind of bugs me a bit. I feel like KU is a variation on Connecticut with less basketball success and documented history of basketball cheating.

Oh but they are AAU... probably cheat to get grants too.
 
billybud said:
The full interview is not quoted by the twitterati...the rest of the story...where President Thrasher says that the GOR makes it near impossible for FSU to actually leave the ACC.

“At the end of the day, it’s all about money,” Thrasher said. “It’s all about TV revenue, contracts. Nobody can leave a conference without a significant buyout penalty, including us, so it would have to be something very special for us to leave.


I think he is pushing the ACC to do what it can...take a couple of schools, etc.
Expand ...
It would have to be very special.

More special than the SEC?
 
CL82 said:
That kind of bugs me a bit. I feel like KU is a variation on Connecticut with less basketball success and documented history of basketball cheating.

Oh but they are AAU... probably cheat to get grants too.
Expand ...
Why now for the B1G? It could have added Kansas at any point.
 
If that happens the BIG is weaker then I thought. Grabbing SEC scraps basically. SEC we got TX and OK...BIG oh yeah...we just grabbed KU......
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,253
Messages
4,560,047
Members
10,448
Latest member
MillerLitEd


Top Bottom