BC's Louisville game time on hold as Jackson Heisman campaign heats up

The ACC's TV partners are "holding" the TV slots for the weekend of November 5. The only game released from the schedule is UVA-Wake, which got the 3 pm Regional Cable game. All the other games are up in the air, including the BC-Louisville game. Now given that Louisville will probably be a 20 points or more favorite, why would ESPN wait to hold that game? Lamar Jackson. After blowing away NC State, he's back in the driver seat for the Heisman. And if he keeps lighting up scoreboards, his games will take on a must see element. I know ESPN wouldn't root against BC, but all they have to do is look at what Clemson did to us. You know the idea of Jackson hanging 60 or more would be great afternoon fodder.

There is a viral nature to Jackson too. He's been trending during all of Louisville's games. In fact, BCDee's tweet about him was picked up by Raycom and run at the bottom of the screen during our game with Syracuse.

I really don't want to get embarrassed again. Maybe we can use it as motivation. If BC shuts him down and pulls off an upset, the Heisman campaign is over. 

Get ready for lots of 12:30 games

The ACC announced that the NC State game will be at 12:30 pm and shown over the air on local affiliates. I think our record and our TV market will lead to a few more 12:30 games before the season is over.

The over the air game is usually the third pick by the ACC. While the rest of the games are on cable, it is the lone Raycom production. The stations that pick up these games vary market to market, and that is where the benefit of BC comes into play. Most ACC games will always be shown in long-time ACC markets in the south. However, when BC is involved, Raycom is able to get coverage in less traditional ACC markets. Obviously Boston is going to carry a BC game, but it helps to get Providence and Springfield, etc. BC also helps a little on the west coast and other northern cities. If that game is between North Carolina and Virginia (like their matchup this weekend), many of those New England stations do not pick up the game.

Ideally BC goes on a run and some of our final games have national implications. But if we don't, the ACC's TV partners will still care enough to grab BC with their pick.

ACC Network coming in 2019

After years of speculation and enduring numerous changes in the college football and TV landscape, the ACC Network has a start date. It will come in 2019. The specifics and details will come later in the week at the ACC Media Days. But the highlights include extending the current TV, locking in Notre Dame and the ACC finally having a network. 

ESPN remains the key partner in the deal and that should help. Even in its decline, ESPN still has cash and leverage to get the ACC Network off to a good start. 

For BC this is continued good news. It provides stability. It provides more money. It keeps us on par with other Power 5 teams and for our fans, it means that much more coverage and content. 

BC's ACC revenue continues to grow

As a private institution BC keeps most of its financial matters close to the vest. However, the ACC needs to file public tax documents and they are very revealing. For the 2014-15 school year, BC's ACC revenue share was $26.8 million. That is the money the league pays us for media rights and other shared ticket revenues. In just the ten years we've been in the ACC the annual number has grown by nearly $16 million. This also doesn't include any additional money BC takes in via Hockey East, our own fundraising and our on game day revenues and sponsorship. Being in the ACC has been good business for BC. 

Now because of other league members' revenue streams and larger fanbases, BC is probably still one of the lower revenue teams in the conference. Because of the mix of private schools and BC's conservative nature of reporting, we will probably never get a true picture of where BC stands among its peers. 

What frustrates me about this number is that even with the healthy and growing revenues, BC remains so conservative. How has the indoor practice facility taken so long, when some of this revenue could have off set up-front costs? Also, why do we still nickle and dime so many coaches and balk at paying players? I don't want to spend money to just to spend, but it is clear that BC could do more.  

Final game gets 12:30 treatment

Thanksgiving weekend provides tons of TV spots. There are college games Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Despite those opportunities, BC will face Syracuse in the now familiar 12:30 PM Saturday slot. The game will be broadcast, not cable and you can probably find it on the usual ACC local stations.

BC is a good TV draw in general and certainly when we win. This year even started out well from a ratings standpoint. But losing takes its toll. I don't blame the ACC or the TV execs. Nearly every other ACC game has more appeal. Syracuse isn't even bringing much to the matchup.

But I do hope that the ACC, BC and Syracuse keep playing this game on the final weekend. The only way to make it a true rivalry is to play it every year in this slot and hope for more meaningful matchups.

I don't think many casual BC fans will make a point of watching this game this year. However, if we upset Notre Dame, all the BC fans you know will come out of the woodwork.

How the ACC's dumb Raycom deal turned out to be smart

During the last ACC TV rights deal, ESPN bought the rights to all the conference's content. However, the old guard on Tobacco Road didn't want to leave their long-time media partner Raycom out of the package. So all agreed that ESPN would resell certain games back to Raycom for Raycom to then produce and distribute. (When you see the ACC Games on regional sports networks or your local broadcast station, those are Raycom productions.)

At the time many critics found the Raycom deal outdated and provincial. The ACC was keeping old friends happy at the expense of more dollars from ESPN and should have spent that energy pushing for its own ACC Network. ESPN didn't care. They got to resell games and reserved the right to all the content if and when the ACC put together a plan for the ACC Network. Basically the ACC Network couldn't happen during this contract without ESPN's involvement. 

But I don't think anyone truly anticipated the rush to cord cutting. Cable companies are bleeding traditional subscribers and ESPN is suffering from it. ESPN's rights fees and those expensive Network deals with Texas and the SEC are partially to blame. With a cloudy future and questionable business model the ACC Network seems less likely by the day.

But that is where the Raycom deal comes back into play. Because of that deal, the ACC is the only Power 5 conference with a traditional "over the air" syndicated distribution package [UPDATE: I forgot to mention the SEC's CBS deal. So the ACC is the only Power 5 where their secondary games are syndicated over the air. Pac 12's Fox deal is based on Fox powering their Network. All ABC games are part of ESPN cable deals. Notre Dame is not in a conference.]. You don't have to worry about cord cutting when there is no cord to cut. By having a traditional model for games the ACC/Raycom can sell advertisers consistent ratings and a growing audience. Right now the typical ACC Raycom advertiser is Carolina-centric (Bojangles, Food Lion, etc.) but that will change. I imagine the growing footprints and over the air aspect will get more national ads in the next few years. 

The Raycom games that are not over the air, are carried on regional sports networks (Fox Sports Whatever, NESN, etc.). This is also good for distribution. Those networks are not going away immediately and need content on late fall Saturdays after baseball ends. They are exposed to cord cutters but are not as controversial or as expensive as the new college network startups or any of the ESPN channels. 

Would the ACC like to have the SEC's or Big Ten's money right now? Of course. But what was once the table scrapes of the college football media world, now looks a whole lot better than it did at deal time. I still think there will be an ACC Network in the future, but I think the Raycom experience will change the way the channel is created and distributed. 

There are gaps in the ACC Network this week

Even as the season fell apart, there was generally easy access to BC games. We haven't had an ESPN3 game in weeks. This week it gets a little complicated. The ACC Network game is split between BC-NC State and Louisville-Syracuse. If you are in New England or the traditional ACC territories (Virginia, the Carolinas, etc.) you are fine. If you are in any market that might prefer Syracuse, you are watching online.

Here is the list of affiliates for the game. All of you in the Midwest, New York, New Jersey, and even the West Coast who watched BC locally last week are now stuck watching the stream. The good news is that the stream can come via ESPN3 or TheACC.com. I've never streamed using the ACC's feed, but I have heard it is better.

Now let's just hope the game is worth watching.

Start time announced for Virginia Tech

BC and the ACC released the TV schedule for BC-Virginia Tech. The game will start at 12:30 and be part of the regional ACC Network coverage. This is the over the air, not regional cable timeslot. Whatever local station that carries this week's game will likely carry the Virginia Tech game too. For those outside of the ACC's footprint, there is always the online stream

With the losses piling up, I don't see another national ACC game on our schedule. Notre Dame isn't even on NBC, but rather their cable channel NBCSN. If BC pulls out a win against Louisville, maybe ESPN will put our NC State game in a noon slot, but I am not counting on it. I think we are regional games the rest of the way.

Can the ACC still use the Pac 12 for leverage?

Fox's Clay Travis recently posted a ranking of the 15 most valuable sports networks. In the end he lists the Pac 12 Network as a cautionary tale. Although the network has decent reach, it doesn't generate high fees per household. Travis then mentions the ACC desire to have its own network. The chatter on the ACC Network is not new. However, it may be time to restart an old idea: a joint network between the ACC and Pac 12. Even if the ACC wants its own network, at least talking to the Pac 12 gives the conference leverage with ESPN and potential cable partners.

The History
Before the Pac 10 expanded and formed its own network, there was speculation that the ACC and Pac 10 could join together to form their own sports network. At the time the Big Ten was the only major conference with its own network. The ACC instead took a then record payout from ESPN. Since that deal, the Pac 12 went ahead and formed its own network, the SEC finally launched theirs and Texas started the Longhorn Network with ESPN.

The ACC's spot in the negotiation cycle
Since BC joined the ACC, the conference has always signed record-breaking TV deals only to see other conferences get bigger deals and more control over their inventory. The ACC has done a few things -- like add Notre Dame -- to improve the deals, but the pattern remains. The ACC signs a deal only to see it outdated the minute the ink is dry.

ESPN and the ACC
The ACC has a great relationship with ESPN. The network currently controls all the inventory and distributes it across their channels and resells select games to Raycom. But at times it feels like ESPN takes the ACC for granted. They helped the SEC get its network off the ground. They still give prime early timeslots to the Big Ten. I understand that ESPN is running a business and wants ratings regardless of teams, but I feel at times that the ACC could be in some of those better slots and generate equal ratings. But because of the exclusive partnership, ESPN can put the ACC wherever they choose. If the ACC had other distribution partners (or its own network), the conference's scheduling and revenue leverage would be better. If the ACC goes ahead with its own network ESPN will be involved. But can the ACC get ESPN to make the network a priority, like the SEC Network is/was?

Why partner with the Pac 12 now?
The ACC and Pac 12 compliment each other in multiple ways. The spread of the schools from the Eastern timezone to the Pacific means games wouldn't compete for air time. The ACC also brings huge east coast TV markets. Getting together means this could be the first college network with national reach and national appeal for advertisers. (No more FoodLion or Bojangles.)

The other big benefit for partnering with the Pac 12 is that they've already done a lot of the heavy lifting. They have the TV studios. They have the reach. They have the satellite signals. Adding the ACC just allows them to return to those 90 million homes and drive new, more lucrative deals.

The final reason to partner with the Pac 12 on a TV deal is that it ties them to the ACC. With all the talk of the Power 5, there is still an underlying fear of teams breaking away or forming a Power 4. With the Pac 12 and ACC in a partnership, the two conferences can act together on issues like paying players, freshman eligibility and the football selection committee.

Since it already has its own deal, it might not make sense for the Pac 12 to partner with the ACC. But it does provide them with a chance to jump start their network. Even with a revenue split with the ACC, the Pac 12 could come out way ahead of where they are now.

Why talk is important
The ACC spurned the Pac 12 years ago, so why would they enter an agreement now? Especially when they are finally close to getting what they want: The ACC Network. I think the ACC will probably get their network this time. But ESPN could drag its feet. Cable operators could balk. By at least exploring a Pac 12 partnership as a threat, the ACC gets a little more leverage. ESPN would rather give the ACC what they want instead of having a true competitor in a national ACC-Pac 12 Net that ESPN doesn't control.

How this ends
I would love to see the ACC make a bold mover. But my fear is more of the same -- an outdated TV deal and a half-baked ACC Channel. But before they sign a new deal it wouldn't hurt to call the Pac 12.

TV Coverage of our lower-level games just got way better

One consistent complaint all of us share is the lack of preparation many broadcasters have when covering BC. Names are mispronounced. Generalizations and stereotypes about BC and Boston are embraced. It has  become funny because it is so frustrating. The further down the TV scale you go, often the worse it gets. There is good news on the horizon though as Wes Durham will now cover ACC football and basketball for Fox Sports South.

Most of you don't know or care about Durham, but he is the radio voice of the Falcons and has been the radio voice of Georgia Tech for the past 18 years. He's also hosted one of the best college football radio shows I've ever heard. Wes calls a great game and also does his homework. I've heard him talk about BC repeatedly and he doesn't just regurgitate the standard cliches.

Because his contract is with Fox Sports South, he will probably call a fair bit of BC games as we rebuild. ESPN and Raycom will still pick the first four ACC games each week, leaving Fox Sport South the right to pick the fifth or sixth game (which Wes will call). Those games will then be available on your respective regional Fox Sports Cable affiliate.

A mediocre broadcaster doesn't ruin a game, but a great one can make it better. I don't know how our team will play, but having a few Wes Durham calls ahead is something to look forward to.

Desperate times: Different ways to watch BC's game on the Pac 12 Network

I and most of you won't be able to watch BC's game against USC in our homes. If this were 1978 I'd understand, but inexplicably this is an issue in 2013. We have a million channels and a million ways to watch a game, yet this likely prime time game against a traditional power will be very hard to see. And it is all because of the stupid Pac 12 Network is carrying the game. These conference networks might be cash cows and security for the conferences, but the pissing matches they go through to get carriage is painful to fans like me. I am willing to pay to watch this game, but likely won't have that option. So what is real BC fan to do?

Fly to the game
Although I wanted to see BC in the L.A. Coliseum, I hadn't planned on going. As those of you with young kids understand, time and money is always an issue for indulgent trips. But when the TV schedule came out, I felt differently. Maybe I should go! I don't care if both teams suck, this is a chance to see USC in the Coliseum live. If your schedule and commitments are a little more flexible, I would recommend going. This is a rare opponent and a cool road trip. Use the Pac 12 Network as an excuse and enjoy yourself. As for myself...maybe I can sell some blood or pawn my Spaz memorabilia collection. How much do you think a game used Spaz yellow towel is going for on eBay?

Go to a GameWatch
I am the ultimate hypocrite when it comes to GameWatches. I post the Watch list every week but never go to the Atlanta ones. The kids are my current excuse, but I wasn't all that fun to watch a game with before I had children. I am really bad in sports bars, because I don't want to small talk and I hate not hearing what is going on in the game. I am tense during any BC game (less so during the Spaz years) and often pace. That's harder to pull off in a crowded bar. Walking around in front of fellow BC fans muttering to myself would just confirm to most of you that I am a lunatic. If I have to resort to a bar this fall, I will try to be on my best behavior.

Use someone else's cable/internet login
This game will not be accessible online to just anyone. Instead it will only be available through providers that have a deal with the Pac 12 network. Most of you know someone on the West Coast. Now you just need to lay the groundwork over the next two months so when you pop the "can I use your login" question it doesn't seem weird or out of the blue. My grandmother lives in California and has cable. She doesn't understand the blog or how half of this stuff works. I may be crazy but I think I can conference her in on a call to her cable company and figure out how to get the game online in her name.

Listen to Meter's radio call online
That would be real desperation.*

Kidnapping TV execs or even just your local DirecTV installer
Find someone tied to your TV provider and hold them hostage. Don't demand money. Don't demand leniency. Just ask for the ability to watch the game. Don't hurt anyone and turn yourself in after the game. If you behave in jail, you can probably get out by the time Addazio has the team bowl eligible.

*Meter does call a good game. 

Early game confirmed and other links

The ACC officially announced the starting times and broadcast partners for the first two weeks of the season (all other games will be determined on a week-to-week basis once play begins). The Villanova game will have a noon kickoff and will be shown on ESPN3. The Wake Forest game will be a Friday September 6 on ESPN 2.

Hoffses reported that Johnathan Coleman decided to bypass his final year of eligibility. He graduated earlier this week. Coleman was a better off the field story than on the field. He never became an elite receiver but with Amidon stepping up and our offense constantly evolving, very few players could reach their potential. This sort of attrition is also to be expected. It doesn't do Addazio much good though since Coleman's scholarship was coming off the books this year anyway.

Momah is doing well in Philadelphia and taking advice from an Eagles legend.

The benefits of an eight-game ACC schedule

The ACC has gone back and forth on the issue, but it seems like now there is a consensus that the conference should stick to an eight-game football schedule. This makes the most sense for the ACC from a standpoint of history, money and football.

The driving force behind the initial flirtation with nine games was leveraging that extra game as a tool to get more money out of ESPN. But Notre Dame, the Grant of Rights and the ACC Network have given the conference multiple triggers to expand the TV deal. Adding another game now doesn't make sense. It is one of the conference's last cards to play, so it should be saved for when there might be another need to re-open the TV deal.

Although BC doesn't benefit directly from this, I like that the eight-game schedule allows ACC teams to keep their non-conference rivalries. Games like Louisville-Kentucky, Georgia-Georgia Tech and Florida State-Florida would be less likely if the ACC only had three non-conference games a season. Those games could still be in jeopardy if the SEC expands to nine-conference games, but for now those intersectional games are safe. And playing those games is good for the conference. It gets fans excited and allows us to change the perception of the league (assuming we start winning some of the contests).

Finally this is good for BC football (and the ACC). We know games against the FCS are not going away. We also know that schedule fodder like New Mexico State is not going away. Those games are too important financially and those two wins are critical to perception and bowl eligibility. A ninth ACC game would have left BC with just one non-conference game of note. Eight games allow us to play at least two interesting games. My preferred mix is one peer school (Northwestern, Vanderbilt, etc) and one traditional power (Ohio State, USC, etc.). With eight games that can still happen.

ACC finally gets around to cable network

Sports Business Daily is reporting that the ACC is once again exploring the viability of its own cable network. The conference has missed various windows and opportunities over the years and now it might be too late. I still think they need to move forward just as a hedge in case the market turns again. I don't know if there will ever be demand in various markets or if we can ever generate the carriage fees the Big Ten and Pac 12 Networks are now getting, but the ACC needs to try. Of course ESPN -- our lone partner -- is lukewarm on the idea. They've already committed to the SEC Network and truthfully they have no need to help us. Our contract with them is pretty binding. But as I've said before, it is in ESPN's best interest to keep the ACC healthy and whole. If they don't, they will end up paying more for content they already have and surrender even more control.

No assistant announcement coming, TV ratings and other links

Beyond Ryan Day there is still no official word on who will be part of Addazio's BC staff. I reached out to BC for some sort of confirmation on the various rumors and was told everything is still TBD.

If you're a frustrated BC fan and cannot understand why Notre Dame received a partial membership in the ACC, just look at this TV ratings chart. The resurgent Irish proved to be a solid TV draw throughout the season. If you look further into this listing you'll see that even in a very down year, BC held its own on the TV front.

If you want to get a feel for how College Presidents and ADs scramble during this conference shuffling, read what Cincinnati did in an attempt to join the ACC.

Local Atlanta FBS newbie Georgia State hired Jags as their OC. Jags has been through a lot professionally since he left. I hope he succeeds this time around.


Hockey East name Michael Matheson Co-Rockey of the Week.

Several Eagles are trying out for the MLS.

Kickoff time for Wake and other links

The ACC announced that BC's game at Wake Forest will be a 3:30 kickoff and carried on regional networks (probably the same ones that carried the Georgia Tech game). While I would prefer the ESPN channels, I am encouraged that even during a terrible season our games are getting broadcasts. It speaks to the lasting power of our BC's brand. Imagine what things would be like with aggressive Marketing?

Over the weekend Steve Donahue picked up a recruit for the 2013 class. Garland Owens is a wing player but does bring more of a slashing style of play to Donahue's offense. The idea of becoming a better shooter was one of BC's appeals.

 Hockey East voted Johnny Gaudreau its player of the week.

As everyone noted, the point spread for BC-Maryland has already had some funny shifts.

I've seen the future of BC start times and it is 11 AM kickoffs

BC and Maryland will play at 1 PM and the game will be available online via ESPN3. While few seem to like the internet broadcasts, everyone raves about the 1 PM kickoff. I guess it is the perfect timeslot for tailgating, getting to the game and still having time left on your Saturday. For all those fans of the 1 PMers, I have a warning: don't get used to it. With the changing TV landscape I don't see many 1 PM starts in our future.

Did anyone watching Louisville-Pitt this week? ESPN2 showed the game nationally and it started at 11 AM Eastern. This makes a lot of sense for ESPN. It provides live football action opposite GameDay and allows for staggered starts across all their networks. Just like the Friday night timeslots, the 11 AM is becoming more popular with teams as it allows for national exposure and more money. The success of the broadcast means ESPN is just going to add more and more games on ESPN 2 at 11. In fact, I predict ESPN will have a full season of 11 AM Saturday kickoffs within the next three years. But the 11 AM poses a unique scheduling challenge. Realisticly the only teams that can really start that early must be in the Eastern Time Zone. That means some MAC, some Big Ten, some SEC, some Big East and all the ACC. Now the Big Ten and SEC will probably avoid the 11 AMers in the near future. Aside from the Central Time Zone challenges facing half their teams, both have more desirable time slots either on their own network or on ESPN's family of networks. The MAC will do it (just look at their embrace of Wednesday games) but they don't provide the cache that ESPN wants. The Big East is ESPN's logical partner for the 11 AM games, but there is a problem. First the expanded Big East is going to have many teams outside the East. Second, there is still a very good chance the the Big East might sign a TV deal with another network. 

Where do you think ESPN will turn if the Big East is gone and none of their other premium partners agree to start their games that early? The ACC will get the first pitch from Bristol. Pitt and Syracuse are willing participants now. Don't you think they will be in the future. BC is contractually obligated to play on Friday nights in the new TV deal. It is not a stretch to think we will also agree to an 11 AM start if it meant national TV. ESPN3 has been a great resource for fans, but public perception and among recruits, it still feels like minor leagues. Having a game on ESPN 2 nationally -- even with an odd start -- is preferred by coaches and TV execs. 

I am o nboard for the early starts but I watch most games on TV and I am rarely in Boston for a tailgate. I hope if ESPN comes calling for ACC Guinea Pigs BC leverages the opportunity to try new things. Maybe have a shortened pregame tailgate for extended post game tailgating. That might fill the stands. But BC should view it as a promotional opportunity because it is not going away. 

TV Rights Q&A with sports lawyer Timothy Epstein

There has been so much speculation on the ACC TV contract, that ESPN felt the need to post a press release explaining and defending the deal. BC guy Tim Epstein specializes in sports law. He is familiar with standard TV rights deals and has some knowledge of the ACC TV deal. To get a better understanding of the situation and the ACC's options, I asked him the following questions. His answers follow.

1. Why would the ACC give the Commissioner the right to agree to a deal without their approval? Is this common among college conferences?

Tim Epstein: With the TV deals, these were unanimously approved by the schools. There is an ACC television committee among the members. There is no carte blanche given to the Commissioner to get a deal done. When expansion was agreed upon in September, this was done by the school presidents. They agreed upon the expansion knowing that money would be adjusted relative to the existing ESPN deal. Any specific details get floated to the television committee after the big picture is decided by the presidents (in consultation with the ADs, financial consultants, and legal).

2. Do the schools have the right to veto the agreement? Is a simple majority needed to ratify the deal?

Tim Epstein: I am sure that the response from both the ACC and ESPN would be that a right to veto is moot here since there was unanimous approval on the initial deal. Each conference has voting procedures set out in its constitution or bylaws, but these are not usually readily available to the public, so it is difficult to know what is “common” amongst the conferences in terms of voting. Since the ACC Bylaws are available for purchase, but not for free viewing, it would be inappropriate for me to cite to the specific bylaws. One example that has been brought out in public by ESPN is the Big Ten’s process of voting in Nebraska a couple of years ago. Pursuant to Big Ten Bylaws, acceptance of Nebraska into the Conference required an affirmative vote of seventy percent of membership, voted on by the presidents and chancellors of the member schools. You could extrapolate something similar for TV revenue.

3. Even though the ACC is in a long term deal with ESPN that includes "look ins" why can't they sue ESPN for bad faith? This deal is clearly undermarket but because the ACC doesn't have a true out, they can't shop their rights to NBC/Comcast, FOX, or CBS.

Tim Epstein: While there may be disappointment in the deal, there were financial consultants involved who would place the ACC deal above true market. There are timing aspects of other deals. This is undermarket relative to Pac-12, but again this is not necessarily apples to apples. The Pac-12 might actually be an overpayment. Keep in mind that course of dealing with ESPN has been good for the ACC. The ACC hired multiple financial consultants on this deal, so it was not done without knowledge.

Even though some may view this deal as disadvantageous to the ACC and its member schools, the ACC probably does not have a valid claim for bad faith against ESPN for a number of reasons. Primarily, while this contract (15 years, $3.6 billion) may fall short of the other four power conferences’ TV deals; it is by no means unfair or unconscionable from a substantive perspective. As the examples of Syracuse and Pittsburgh demonstrate, the ACC is still an attractive location for schools, in large part due to its television revenue. Just because the contract is not ostensibly on par with the Big Ten, SEC, Pac 12 and Big XII does not mean that the ACC is getting an unfair shake here. Revenues upward of $17 million per school per year would have been unheard of just a few years ago.

From a procedural point of view, a bad faith or unconscionability claim is equally weak. ESPN has broadcast ACC content since its inception in 1979, and the two entities have maintained a strong relationship since that time. This relationship hurts the ACC’s chances of proving bad faith, because the network has historically proved quite advantageous to the Conference, and the working relationship creates a presumption that the dealings were conducted at arms-length. It is not at all uncommon for business entities that have contracted for a long period of time to pay for goods or services slightly below market rate in order to maintain the strong relationship. Moreover, as was stated in the question, ESPN does not have a monopoly on the broadcast of collegiate athletics. The ACC could have looked to NBC/Comcast, FOX, or CBS as an alternative to the contract it signed with ESPN. The Conference chose not to do so, and instead, signed this deal.

I think that people are focusing on the additional members being a change in material circumstances as a reason to renegotiate the deal. That is true, which is why different numbers are in with the entrance of new members, but people simply want these numbers higher. That brings us to valuation, which intelligent minds will differ on whether the new numbers on the May 9th ESPN deal are at, below, or above market.

4. Why are we still at the stage where the conferences allow ESPN to poach member schools? I know the ACC has been guilty of it in the past, but I could never understand the ESPN angle. For example, ESPN was paying $7 million for the rights to Syracuse Football. Now they will pay $17 million. Florida State is getting $17 million but might get $25 million in the Big XII. ESPN knows this and knows what it will pay in the new conference. Shouldn't the conferences build in some sort of protection so their main supplier doesn't manipulate membership?

Tim Epstein: This question requires a few separate responses that may be a bit disjointed. Initially, I think ESPN's influence on conferences is a bit overstated. The conferences surely recognize that bigger is better, and conference realignment is a direct result of the drive to increase television revenues, but to suggest that ESPN is actually dictating the movement of institutions is misguided. At most, ESPN can say, “if you add member school X, we will pay you Y.” While money talks, conference affiliation is still a decision made by university presidents and chancellors, and one would hope that academic and non-football considerations still come into play. Also, the Syracuse example focuses too much on the small picture. Syracuse may be earning a greater share of revenue as a result of its move, but ESPN is not paying the school $10 million more per year just so it can broadcast Syracuse football. ESPN and the ACC are looking at the big picture -- ESPN is paying this sum for the rights to broadcast all ACC football, and the Conference is undoubtedly more attractive as a fourteen team conference than the current Big East is as a cross-continental amalgamation of schools. This, and an academic upgrade, is why Syracuse left, and this is why ESPN is paying.

One must also not forget that Syracuse and Pittsburgh make ACC basketball all the more attractive as well because the schools will play regular matchups with traditional powerhouses like UNC and Duke. Obviously football reigns, but in the ACC especially, basketball cannot go unnoticed. Finally, the conferences do have some level of protection against schools exiting in the way of exit fees and waiting periods. The Big East, for example, just voted to raise that fee from $5 million to $10 million. Again though, this protection is more against schools leaving in general.

While ESPN has a great deal of market power, it is not the sole supplier of college football, and cannot really manipulate schools other than by offering economic incentives. From the ACC’s point of view, its strongest protection against departure of member institutions could be more success on the field. Its traditional top football programs ( Miami and Florida State ) have not faired well on the national stage, and this has hurt the Conference’s attractiveness to its suppliers (read ESPN). This perceived weakness has only exacerbated the problem, as now, schools like Florida State are worried that the ACC will no longer be viewed as a “top-tier” conference, and thus, the Big XII has become a viable alternative from a football-centric perspective. So for Florida State, it has really made its own bed by underperforming as a national power in football, thus potentially adversely affecting the price ESPN was willing to pay for the ACC as a whole.

Finally, $25 million is not something that I have seen justification for. The only fact out of the Big 12 is that the average of the deal comes out to $20 million per year. This does not start until 2015. These are graduated deals. For the ACC, the whole length of the deal is $17 million plus, but a different formulation puts the ACC at $19 million. So, you could really be talking about another million per year if a school went to the Big XII. ESPN has no interest in creating a have-not conference when they have created a have in the ACC. The ACC is probably the most balanced from markets, geography, sports, and academics. My read is that TV values are maybe 30% of athletic budgets at this point. It is big, but not everything. The SEC gets more than the ACC, and deserves more for football. The Big 10 got a big investor at the right time, and you could say the same for the Pac-12, so timing factors in. Those conferences also get more rights from their members than the ACC gets from its membership in areas to monetize. I love BC, but in terms of football, the ACC does not have the same value from a branding standpoint, particularly with FSU and Miami being down recently.

Game times announced and other links

BC and the ACC announced the kickoff times for our first two home games. Miami will start at 3:30 and will be shown on ESPN2 or regionally on ABC. The Maine game will start at 1 PM and be available on ESPN3.

Chase Rettig's old QB coach had some insight into his development.

HD is back from her leave and thinks our game against Miami is crucial for building momentum.

Presnap read further explains his stance on BC. It is another tough read. What is interesting though is that he is so critical in part because of our prior success, self inflicted wounds and that we still have upside. But the unlikely upside makes it all more depressing.

Baseball dropped their first game against Duke.

The Hockey team's celebration tour took them to the Capitol.

ESPN3 is the ACC network and that's the problem

The ACC seems vulnerable and is dealing with unhappy members because of the new TV deal. All the gripes relate to money and third tier rights. As with most unhappy partnerships both sides are not seeing the value of the other. ESPN and the ACC can make ESPN3 one of the most viable new distribution platforms in TV and the Internet. But to do so, ESPN needs to revise the ACC deal again and pay a premium for the ACC's third tier rights.

ESPN3 is the perfect network

New sports networks have had varied levels of success in their distribution. ESPN3 hasn't had the same political or financial hurdles because they are dealing with Internet Service Providers and not cable and satellite companies. Most major ISPs carry the network and have for a few years.

I've complained like everyone else about having to watch games on my laptop, but technology is making that less of an issue. There are a variety of streaming devices and gaming systems that enable putting ESPN3 on a big screen. As ESPN continues to invest in ESPN3 the production quality will be as good as any traditional channel and seamless from a Big Ten Network or Pact 12 Network production. And unlike those other networks, ACC content would be still within the ESPN network so the conference will benefit from ESPN's cross promotion and massive audience.

ESPN can make ESPN3 the biggest Internet Channel available. It can be bigger than Hulu or MLBTV. And that is big for the ACC. While the other college networks can pushed to a sports tier, the ACC can be the center piece of ESPN's biggest innovation since ESPN2.

ESPN3 is not a money machine

Where the ACC suffers is in revenue allocation from ESPN3. The Big Ten Network collects approximately $1 per cable subscribers in Big Ten markets. ESPN3 collects an undisclosed amount per ISP subscriber for ESPN3. But regardless if ESPN3 collects $1 per subscriber, that money is not exclusively for the ACC. Why share all that revenue with the ACC when EPSN can claim that some of those subscribers are more interested in the other programming on ESPN3 like soccer or tennis or auto racing? If the ACC had its own network or had built one with the Pac 12, that revenue division would be less opaque.

Now ESPN has plenty of cash. They have their cable revenue and enormous ad sales that the Big Ten or Pac 12 networks cannot approach. With that track record and advantage, ESPN will probably turn ESPN3 into a cash cow too. But because it's not one now, the ACC suffers.

ESPN needs to save the conference

I am sure ESPN viewed their new deal with the ACC as fair. Since they were bidding against themselves, I imagine they didn't feel the need to break records. But that conservative approach clearly backfired. Florida State is unhappy and ready to join the Big 12. Some would say that ESPN doesn't care, because as a member of the Big 12, ESPN would still have rights to plenty of Florida State games. But if ESPN let's Florida State leave they will be losing a valuable asset. The ACC is exclusive to ESPN. That bond should have a premium.

We'll find out more about the ACC's future this summer. The likely outcome is a breakup. I hope everyone slows down, because the ACC's partnership could be fantastic. But no one seems to see the big picture.