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. 

TV time "officially" set for Ireland game

We've all known about the kickoff and coverage of the BC-Georgia Tech Ireland game for months. Tuesday, ESPN made it official as they released their opening weekend coverage schedule. Basically it is wall-to-wall college football starting the Thursday before Labor Day. BC's game will be Saturday morning at 7:30 ET on ESPN2.

The ability to put live football on Saturday morning is really the biggest reason for the Ireland game. I am sure the Irish like the tourism boost and BC and Georgia Tech appreciate the marketing opportunity, but this is a TV event.

ACC Network not dead yet

With cord cutting and ESPN killing Disney's stock, the ACC Network has never felt further away. Yet Awful Announcing read through the ACC Meeting tea leaves and thinks the project may still be viable.

Although the specialty networks have been money drains for ESPN, my guess is they are still willing to do them just to ensure a long-term relationship with the ACC. Look at what is happening with the Big Ten. They have their own network independent of ESPN and are now looking for another blockbuster TV deal. I am sure that as ESPN and Disney decide how to budget their rights deals, they would rather have a true partnership (with equity) with the ACC than overpay to lose money on a Big Ten deal. 

Awful Announcing referenced the impatient ACC Athletic Directors. I am sure that is a factor, but the bigger factor is ESPN stopping the cord cutting. Once they have that figured out, then they can move onto creating the ACC Network.

BC-Clemson gets prime time treatment

The ACC announced the kickoff times for October 17 and slotted BC vs Clemson for prime time. The game will start at 7 pm and either be on ESPN2 or ESPNU.

While much of the TV appeal is based on Clemson's hot streak, BC is a big factor in the national prime time slot. Our game against FSU was one of ESPN's highest rated Friday night games.

The ESPN2-ESPNU aspect will be cleared up next week. I think the network is hoping we handle Wake and Clemson doesn't trip up against Georgia Tech.

ESPN confirms Ireland game

ESPN's college football reporters confirmed that BC will play Georgia Tech in Ireland on Saturday September 3, 2016. This game couldn't happen without ESPN, so I think the date and time are pretty solid. This gives ESPN a 7:30 AM kickoff in the Eastern Timezone and enables a day full of games for their opening weekend. It will be interesting to see if anyone discloses ESPN paying extra money for this game. My guess is they probably are throwing in a few extra bucks or this counts as one of the ACC's contractual non-Saturday games.

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.

ESPN still slighting BC in ACC Power Rankings

It is the offseason, but that doesn't slow down ESPN. They continue to fill up their ACC blog with power rankings. Any list or ranking is a good tool as it engages readers and helps improve search engine optimization. The latest poll ranks teams heading into 2015. Not so surprisingly, ESPN ranked BC 11 out of 14 ACC teams heading into next season.

In the power rankings, there is another team tied with BC, leaving only Wake and Cuse as lower than the Eagles. This also isn't surprising. Yet instead of explaining why BC is below so many (new QB, new OL), the recap focuses on Addazio's first two years. Adelson notes his success in beating expectations in Year 1 and Year 2. But she doesn't follow that logic and move him up in this ranking. With his track record, I would have put UVA (with London's hot seats) and Pitt (new staff) behind our Eagles. I also would have used the Power Rankings to question a traditional power. Why not put Virginia Tech low? They've been uneven the past two years. Or give Al Golden's critics fuel by moving BC ahead of the Canes. This is subjective, so ESPN should make it interesting.

In the whole scheme of things, it is good that expectations are so low this year. If BC can show just the littlest aptitude and get to a bowl, it will be viewed as a major accomplishment.

The best part of the ESPN Carwash was a podcast

Tuesday was Day 2 of the ACC's ESPN Carwarsh. Addazio was part of the group of coaches who made all the rounds at ESPN's Headquarters. The coach talked about replacing QBs and Andre Williams with ESPN Radio, various shows and ESPN writers. But of all the interviews, I think Addazio's session with Ivan Maisel was the best.

They cover the usual stuff and Addazio gets in his toughness cliches, but he also spends a good deal of time explaining how BC became a power running team. He explains why he hasn't visited Stanford and how it pays to be different. Addazio still comes off a passionate and a salesman (especially when compared to some of the other coaches on the podcast), but this was another example to show that he is more than the stereotype.

Things like the Carwash are important and the behind the scenes looks are fun. But I think BC fans should be most excited that we have a coach who has innovated at this level, but also can communicate his vision for the school and how it fits with the team he has.

Suggestion to the ACC: move the ACC Media Days to Bristol, CT

If you follow any of the national college football writers on social media, then you know the SEC kicked off its annual Media Days on Monday. There were streams, cut-ins to other ESPN shows, clips, and plenty of pundit talk. This comes as no surprise since ESPN partners with the SEC on their new network. Because they have the most rabid following and a bunch of colorful coaches, the SEC has turned a series of press conferences into an event. All the other conferences are just playing catch up. The ACC has tried various ploys to get more attention, but I think there is only one move left: move the Media Days to ESPN's Corporate Campus.

While Bristol is not ideal for non-ESPN employees and doesn't offer the boondoggle aspects of most of the traditional ACC Media Days locations, it does offer a bonanza of coverage. If ESPN hosted the event it would make their "car wash" sessions seem quaint. Coaches and players could be on all ESPN outlets all day for three days. The rest of the media might not like it, but who cares? As long as the recruits see the ACC schools as elite and as long as ESPN becomes that much more invested in talking and promoting the ACC. 

I don't know if this has ever been floated, but it should. The ACC has nothing to lose. They can always go back to Amelia or Pinehurst or wherever. But having Media Days at the center of the sports world makes too much sense not to try. It is what a smart, ambitious, forward thinking conference would do. It is what the SEC would do and that should be enough to beat them to Bristol.  

Don't get worked up over Bowl projections

There will be a ton of bowl projections this week. Don't read too much into any of them. BC is bowling but won't be going to a BCS game. That is the extent of what we know. Everything else is speculation at this point. Don't worry. Don't feel wronged if BC ends up in a bowl you've never heard of. None of that really matters. What matters is that we get one more game, the Seniors get a bowl trip and Addazio gets a chance to end the season on a winning note. Here is a little more about what we know.

It all depends on the Orange Bowl

The ACC is the Orange Bowl's partner. However, since Florida State seems headed for the Championship Game, the Orange Bowl can take two non-ACC teams. Speculation is mixed on if they will. Clemson's loss hurt, but there aren't that many better two-loss teams that will also travel to Miami. If the Orange Bowl passes on Clemson, that knocks down each ACC team one slot. But the offset of them picking a SEC or Pac 12 team is that it will open up another bowl slot elsewhere. BC is dealing at the lower end of bowl slots anyway, so does it really matter if we have the ninth ACC game or replace the ninth SEC team?

The Championship Games will mix everything up

All the bowl projections assume the favorites win this weekend. Do you ever want to count on that happening? BC is not in that mix, but each game has a ripple effect on us. Like the Orange Bowl scenario, the lower level bowls will backfill based on what happens with their member conferences' champions.

ESPN will take care of BC and the ACC

There is no scenario where BC is left out. ESPN owns and operates seven bowls. As of today three of them will have to replace a team. ESPN will always go with a bigger market team from the ACC over one from a midmajor. It makes sense for them to keep the ACC happy and it makes for better ratings.

Why does AggieVision have more flexibility than ESPN3?

BC's game against Army will be a 1 P.M. kickoff and broadcasted on ESPN3. While I appreciate that ESPN3 has provided more access to more games than ever before, I still have a gripe. ESPN-produced ESPN3 games rarely get picked up on a television-first sport network. (Think NESN or SNY or some of the regional Fox Networks.). So if you want to watch these games on a big screen you have to have some sort of streaming device or hook up your PC to a screen. I understand that it is a nit picky thing to whine about, but that doesn't mean it is not a hassle. ESPN3 wouldn't seem so limiting if BC fans didn't have a relevant comparison point on our schedule.

Our game against New Mexico State will be broadcast on "AggieVision." AggieVision is New Mexico State's streaming solution while they wait to rejoin a conference with its own TV deal. I doubt the production value is as good as ESPN3, but AggieVision -- while primarily a internet network -- syndicates their games on regional sports networks. Some of New Mexico State's home games will be on Fox Sports Arizona or Altitude. That means that most BC fans with a sports package will be able to see BC-New Mexico State on one of their TV channels.

ESPN could easily release these type of games. They don't because most of these other channels are competition. But in the long run they could be making their service that much more relevant and beneficial to partners like the ACC if they followed AggieVision's lead.

Does the Grant of Rights finally secure the ACC?

The ACC agreed to a shared Grant of Rights until to 2027. Many are saying this keeps the conference secure for years to come. I still have my doubts. Let me explain:

The Good
The grant means all of the ACC's content is now pooled. BC's local radio deal, online rights for Wake Forest Field Hockey, or a Duke-North Carolina game all have the same owner and manager -- the conference. No more local, or team only deals. It also protects new media/internet rights. Obviously not all team's rights are equal. Florida State's radio network is worth much more than say the rights to BC softball. So it is a good sign that every team was willing to sacrifice control and that potential revenue in order for it to be shared by the group. (Perhaps there is some allocation method so a valuable property -- like a BC hockey or Syracuse Lacrosse -- might get a reward for performance. We will know more in the coming days.) The deal also creates another trigger with ESPN, so I predict we will hear about the new financial terms of the ACC-ESPN agreement shortly. It also puts us in the same financial and content standing as the Big 12, which neutralizes one conference as a predator.

Finally, it moves the ACC one step closer to an ACC Network.

The Bad
Financially this doesn't level the playing field with the Big Ten, Pac 12 or SEC. The ACC remains in a catch up position. It also doesn't include Notre Dame. Without the Irish and in a secondary money position, any of the big 3, but most likely the SEC of Big Ten could poach an ACC team.

While a new conference partner wouldn't get the new (former ACC) school's home games or radio content, the Big Ten or SEC would still get to market to those cable homes in the new markets and would still get all of their conference away games.

One only needs to look towards Maryland to realize what the big conferences are willing to do and pay for. Maryland's content is not worth the $50 million the Big Ten is paying upfront. But the long-term potential is when you factor in Maryland cable homes. And think of how much more valuable other programs are when compared to Maryland.

What's next?
I think this will cool things off for a few months. The next domino is the SEC's new network and if the ACC is finally willing to get our network on cable. I am glad BC is secure, but I know enough about this process to know it won't end soon.

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.

Louisville doesn't matter, ACC cable network does

The ACC voted to invite Louisville to join the conference. Ostensibly it was about replacing Maryland. The reality was the move was also about protecting the conference from future poaching. Louisville was also a rumored target for the Big XII. The rationale is that if the ACC gets to 16 first, they will protect themselves if or when things truly become four 16-team Super Conferences. The Big XII is only at 10 teams and really only has two heavyweights in Texas and Oklahoma. ACC leadership is betting that it will be easier for the good Big XII teams to find new homes as opposed to the Big XII enticing six ACC teams to join them.

But lost in the Louisville news is a report that the ACC and ESPN are exploring a cable network. I've been calling for this for months and I am glad people in Bristol finally woke up. Having its own cable network is the only way the ACC will ever get to revenue parity with the other conferences and is the only way Florida State and Clemson start to feel more comfortable with the ACC's future. The move makes sense for ESPN too as it provides stability to its exclusive partner (the ACC) and controls all the content on various platforms.

As for Louisville, I am indifferent on actually playing them. They don't fit the ACC's academic profile, but the last few weeks have proven that none of this is about academics.

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. 

ESPN saved the ACC, but can kill it again via a Notre Dame TV deal

The ACC is basically saved and we can mostly thank ESPN. The network didn't break the bank on the Big XII TV deal nor pay a premium for a Big XII Championship game, making Clemson and FSU less desirable.   ESPN also signaled to the ACC that adding Notre Dame would generate additional TV money (bringing us closer to revenue parity with the other major conferences). Now we have football stability, added prestige and a significant exit fee preventing future defections. Everything seems great. But there is still a looming crisis with Notre Dame at the center.

NBC and Notre Dame
As part of the ACC deal, Notre Dame gets to keep its football revenue. The Irish home games are currently broadcast on NBC and the average fan assumes that relationship will carry on in perpetuity. That's not the case. NBC is not happy with Notre Dame right now. NBC/Comcast planned on bidding for the Big East TV deal for its NBC Sports Network. Notre Dame's move just devalued and destabilized that potential property. The deal also strengthened NBC Sports' biggest rival in ESPN. While Notre Dame is still an important draw for NBC, will they pay a premium for the TV rights when their current deal expires? I don't think that is a given anymore. CBS, Fox and ESPN will also be eager to cut a deal with Notre Dame. If it becomes a bidding war, I don't know if NBC will still want to partner with Notre Dame. And if they do, will they still allow Notre Dame to dictate so many terms. NBC wants to build its cable network. The Irish so far are hesitant to play their games there. Also, Notre Dame wants the majority of their home days during the day. NBC would rather have them at night.

ESPN and the ACC
Although ESPN is the ACC's exclusive partner, they are not precluded from bidding on Notre Dame's football rights. Think about that conflict for a second. When the NBC deal comes up, ESPN could conceivably give Notre Dame $50 million a year. They could enrich one member of the conference far above all the others. They could give one member of the conference all their preferred time slots and create special programming. While the Irish are independent, they will be playing five ACC teams a year and taking a portion of our non-football money. How fair will this partnership feel if this situation plays out? Notre Dame would be dumb not to take the money and favoritism. It has always worked towards their advantage.

My advice to ESPN
Playing favorites with Texas nearly unraveled all of college football. No matter how enticing it might be to finally bring Notre Dame into the fold, do not do it at the expense of the ACC. Any ND football deal should have the same payout the Irish would get as if they were a member of the ACC. Who knows, that is more than NBC is paying now and may be enough to close the deal. Branding is important to Notre Dame and so is association. They might prefer to be with ESPN at the expense of more money from NBC/Comcast.

The ACC teams are currently powerless, so if ESPN gave Notre Dame a huge TV deal, there isn't much we could do initially. But the bad blood would undermine the league, ESPN's relationship with the ACC, and conference stability for years to come. These sorts of dominoes combined with the new playoff and NCAA frustration could lead to a football mega-conference split. If ESPN does value college sports and values its ACC deal, hopefully it will think big picture when it comes to dealing with Notre Dame.

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.

ESPN is the only thing that can save the ACC as we know it

Florida State is frustrated and ready to move. As a matter of self-preservation another ACC school will jump to the Big XII with them (Miami, Clemson, Georgia Tech) and then all the ACC teams will scramble in another game of musical chairs. (Maryland and Virginia to the Big Ten? NC State and Virginia Tech to the SEC?) If this happens, it will be ESPN's fault. And ESPN's will pay dearly for it. They will pay in increased rights fees and loss of control. The worldwide leader in sports has the chance to hit the brakes and preserve their investment and control in the ACC, but based on the actions out of Bristol, no one there seems to see the big picture.

Here are the factors in play, what ESPN can do and why they should act.

Money and ACC parity
Issue: Every time the ACC signs an ESPN TV deal, it is outdated and below market before the ink is dry. This naturally causes resentment among the members and puts them behind their competitors in other conferences. ESPN probably feels blameless in this area. They are not forcing the ACC to sign these deals. They can't help the timing. It's not ESPN's fault that the ACC leaders are playing checkers while the other conferences play chess. But ESPN needs to preserve the ACC deal. They have a partner that is 100% in bed with them. ACC games are going to fill ESPN3 and ESPNU. The conference is willing to play in timeslots where ESPN needs programming and provide reliable ratings.
Resolution: ESPN needs to get Florida State, Clemson and whoever else has wandering eyes in a room together with the rest of the ACC. They need to revise the ACC deal again only this time with some sort of parity clause. Allow that the ACC TV payout will always be within X% of the top conference deal and always X% above the average of the major conferences. This may seem like a huge pill to swallow for ESPN. But instead of getting a discount on ACC games, they should be paying a premium. This is their only exclusive partnership in major college sports. That has value. Whatever money they give up in the deal they will make back in other areas.

Access to the playoff
Issue: The ACC cannot be left out of the playoff. Because the other conferences are aggressive and forward looking, they are dictating the size and shape of the new four-team playoff. ESPN has stated that they want to run and broadcast any playoff. ACC teams are scared less about the bowls and more about never having access to the playoff.
Resolution: If ESPN does want to run that show, they need to provide assurances that ACC will have the same level of access and ability to qualify as the Big Ten, Big XII, Pac 12 and SEC.

Third Tier Rights/ACC Network
Issue: Three conferences have their own network and the SEC is about to form one. The ACC is the only "major" conference without one. I don't think ACC fans care about a conference network. I think this issue, like many is about perception and money.
Resolution: If ESPN had to placate Texas by forming the Longhorn Network, they may have to do the same with the ACC.

Since the ACC does a terrible job championing their own case, let me sum up all the facts and hope that ESPN steps back and sees what is at stake.
Facts
1. In similar timeslots on ESPN Networks, ACC Football delivers bigger ratings than Big XII or Pac 12 games.
2. If Florida State and any other schools leave the ACC, ESPN will have to pay more for their TV rights AND have less content (as some of those games will move to FOX or other cable channels).
3. The PAC 12 has taken back first tier rights. An expanded Big XII will try to do the same. CBS has first tier rights to the SEC. The Big Ten's deal is up in 2016. They will attempt to take back first tier rights too. The only conference where ESPN controls first tier rights is with the ACC. As ESPN sees the best games moved off of their channels to others, a strong ACC led by Florida State is a great insurance policy. If ESPN doesn't act, all the good Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Duke and North Carolina games will be on other networks.

The ACC created this mess, but ESPN gladly signed them up for deals that they knew were undermarket. No one ever wants to fork over more money when they don't have to. I don't expect ESPN to save the day this time around...and that probably means the end of the ACC as we know it. Hopefully someone in Bristol will see what needs to be done and protect their investment in the ACC.

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.

What the ACC's new TV deal means

The ACC and ESPN announced a revised TV deal today. It extends and enriches the current deal until 2027. This was overdue since the market has shifted in the two years since the ACC and ESPN last signed. In 2010, the ACC's deal was second only to the SEC. Since then the Big Ten and Pac 12 received monster deals and the Big 12 is also expected to sign a huge deal. One of the big reasons the Conference added Syracuse and Pitt was to trigger a clause that allowed for renegotiation. Under the new deal each team will receive $17 million annually. Here are the big (and somewhat expected) changes:

Friday Night Lights I've been saying for a long time that this was coming. Not only will the ACC be playing on Friday nights, but BC will be at the center piece of this. Why? Because it makes too much sense not to play in those games. The WAC and Big East have been playing on Fridays for at least five years now and getting big ratings. With the NFL invading Thursdays and with the Pac 12 and SEC willing to play on Thursdays, Friday is now one of the lone spots where the ACC can get true national attention. The argument against playing Fridays is that the coaches lose a chance to watch high school games and that it is tough to fill your stadiums. I think the branding tradeoff is worth it for BC. Maybe we can even turn Friday nights into events and extend tailgating hours.

Under the deal, BC will host a game annually on a Friday. Syracuse will also host a annual Friday game too. Plus the conference committed an annual game on the Friday after Thanksgiving. So in some years BC could be playing in as many as three Friday games (at home, at Syracuse and at another ACC team on Thanksgiving weekend).

18-game basketball schedule The ACC already announced this plan, but now ESPN is officially paying a premium for the extra two conference games. The extra games help our wallet and RPI ratings but hurt scheduling flexibility. We will see fewer non-conference games.

A place at the table This is not in the contract but implied in the deal. Right now the ACC is the only major conference that has all of its media rights tied to ESPN. ESPN will be a driving factor in the evolving bowl and playoff scenarios. There is no way they are going to devalue all this ACC inventory by have the ACC shunned from the championships. If automatic qualifiers are part of the playoff, the ACC will be included.

I would prefer that the ACC had its own outlet like the other conferences. Being so aligned with ESPN limits some cool opportunities, but it is a great insurance policy. This deal offers short-term cash and stability and will probably be adjusted within the next five years.