Expansion Rumors…

[JJacket]

Interesting development in that NBC (Comcast) now seems to be throwing their hat into the ring vs ESPN and Fox.
Things were clearly moving towards two Super Conferences - The ESPN and Fox conferences. Now, NBC, probably in fear of losing their
sacred cow (ND) to Fox, has reportedly made initial moves towards supplanting Fox as the B1G network with ND in tow as the bait.
This is quite interesting if it plays out. If so, that means we will probably end up with 3 Super Conferences instead of 2.
And, if Fox does get booted, I think that then leads them back to their regional model by cherry picking teams from the Pac12, Big12 and ACC to create that third conference.

Still doesn't get any ACC team out of GOR

 

[MidnightJacket]

This is solely geared towards made for TV matchup’s, that’s why.

This is mostly true when it comes to bidding out 1st tier rights, and is certainly accurate for the SEC. The B1G has been operating under a slightly different business model as they have a (much) larger stake in their network than the SEC or ACC do in theirs.

 

[MidnightJacket]

Still doesn't get any ACC team out of GOR

No, but theoretically FOX bidding up B12 (which seems unlikely/unrealistic at this point) and dictating who to grab could put the ACC over the top in institutions needed to break the GOR, if the B1G, SEC, and B12 all came calling with significantly more money. Assuming you need a majority of schools needed to break it, doesn’t seem like anybody really knows at this point.

 

[MidnightJacket]

won’t happen.

Never would have thought WCW would lose to the WWF either, when the WCW had the better, more entertaining product. SEC is stacked with the better higher tier teams, but who knows 20-30 years from now how money ultimately changes the sport.

 

[GTFLETCH]

Big Ten TV deal to exclude ESPN

* It is reported that the BIG is finalizing its media deal with Fox, NBC, and CBS.
* If true, I think this might be a very good news for the ACC & Pac-12. The Pac-12 + ACC loose partnership has the ACC Network serves both conferences and replaces Pac-12 Networks ultimately increasing the payout from ESPN to the ACC.”
* ESPN, can then go after ND & the Pac-12 rights buoyed by the fact that they have $$$ in their pocket that they didn't pay to the BIG”

Big Ten on verge of $1 billion in TV deals that will exclude ESPN

The Big Ten is on the cusp of television deals that are expected to pay it in excess of $1 billion and create a college football triple-header featuring Fox, CBS and NBC, The Post has confirmed.

nypost.com

 

[Beeski]

Big Ten TV deal to exclude ESPN

* It is reported that the BIG is finalizing its media deal with Fox, NBC, and CBS.
* If true, I think this might be a very good news for the ACC & Pac-12. The Pac-12 + ACC loose partnership has the ACC Network serves both conferences and replaces Pac-12 Networks ultimately increasing the payout from ESPN to the ACC.”
* ESPN, can then go after ND & the Pac-12 rights buoyed by the fact that they have $$$ in their pocket that they didn't pay to the BIG”

Big Ten on verge of $1 billion in TV deals that will exclude ESPN

The Big Ten is on the cusp of television deals that are expected to pay it in excess of $1 billion and create a college football triple-header featuring Fox, CBS and NBC, The Post has confirmed.

nypost.com

Your logic works for me.

Looking at what States are left in the Pac 12 after USC/UCLA exit, you cover the entire West:
- Washington
- Oregon
- California
- Arizona
- Utah
- Colorado
The SEC covers Texas through South Carolina.
The ACC gives you the mid-Atlantic, NE, SE and Florida which is great for regional broadcasts at noon and 3:30pm (and 10:30pm).
I take it the ACC Network gets watered down and turns into the ACC-Pac10 network?

 

[txsting]

With Amazon and Apple both looking to get into CFB, I think the days are numbered for one network owning a conference. Hopefully the ACC will never again get into bed with one partner.

 

[rghoae]

The decision to reject the Big 10 offer was at least as bad as the decision to leave the SEC. We have had consistently bad leadership for the past sixty years.

If Tech actually did reject an offer, it was clearly worse than the SEC one. The SEC decision was made (a) out of principle, (b) after Tech had been back stabbed by several teams in the conference, and (c) decades before conferences became important. In the 90s-2000s, with the ACC adding VPI, UVA, Miami and FSU, it looked like the ACC would be a dominant football conference, so there's no way one could have predicted decades earlier that the SEC would be such an attractive football conference.

With the B1G decision, if true, that was well into expansion and re-alignment and the impact of TV revenues being absolutely clear and obvious.

 

[rghoae]

I don't understand this apparent rule where cable networks must pay extra money for all the subscribers in a state where the conference has a team.

Is this a law? Is this something cable providers have instituted as an agreed upon rule for themselves? Why can't it be broken?

Are you seriously telling me that cable providers in Georgia would be willing to pay the B1G more money for a current B1G + GT vs a current B1G + ND?

So who is the one enforcing this strange apparent requirement that if you have a team within the borders of your state you must get more money?

I'm genuinely curious where this is coming from.

 

[ramblinwise1]

Here's another perspective on the subject.

 

[GTLiebs]

I don't understand this apparent rule where cable networks must pay extra money for all the subscribers in a state where the conference has a team.

Is this a law? Is this something cable providers have instituted as an agreed upon rule for themselves? Why can't it be broken?

Are you seriously telling me that cable providers in Georgia would be willing to pay the B1G more money for a current B1G + GT vs a current B1G + ND?

So who is the one enforcing this strange apparent requirement that if you have a team within the borders of your state you must get more money?

I'm genuinely curious where this is coming from.

I'd imagine it is somewhere in the contracts between conference/networks/cable providers.

 

[donsue]

If Tech actually did reject an offer, it was clearly worse than the SEC one. The SEC decision was made (a) out of principle, (b) after Tech had been back stabbed by several teams in the conference, and (c) decades before conferences became important. In the 90s-2000s, with the ACC adding VPI, UVA, Miami and FSU, it looked like the ACC would be a dominant football conference, so there's no way one could have predicted decades earlier that the SEC would be such an attractive football conference.

With the B1G decision, if true, that was well into expansion and re-alignment and the impact of TV revenues being absolutely clear and obvious.

Spot on. People forget that most SEC teams didn’t even play more than 6 league games back in the 50s and 60s. Being the league “champion” didn’t carry any more weight than anything else. For many years forward after 1963 Tech played it’s chief rivals every year;
UGA, Auburn and Tennessee.
Continuing to beat the “oh man, we would be doing so great in the SEC now” drum is like the guy saying if only he would have bought 100,000 shares of Apple at $1.00

 

[WracerX]

I'd imagine it is somewhere in the contracts between conference/networks/cable providers.

I think this is the case. And while Comcast might not want to pay the extra for GT in GA, they run the risk of losing the B1G everywhere else if they don’t play ball. They key is making sure that the cable networks get some reasonable payback in the new area. Does the GA market have enough B1G viewers so that it isn’t a complete waste in the new market? GT + B1G alumni in Atlanta is probably pretty marketable. The same might not be the case with Miami in FL. FSU would probably be an easier sale with their larger alumni base.

 

[Beeski]

I don't understand this apparent rule where cable networks must pay extra money for all the subscribers in a state where the conference has a team.

Is this a law? Is this something cable providers have instituted as an agreed upon rule for themselves? Why can't it be broken?

Are you seriously telling me that cable providers in Georgia would be willing to pay the B1G more money for a current B1G + GT vs a current B1G + ND?

So who is the one enforcing this strange apparent requirement that if you have a team within the borders of your state you must get more money?

I'm genuinely curious where this is coming from.

I didn't believe it when I first heard about it....but it makes sense. People in a home state will pay....people in other states won't give a öööö. Here is a breakdown of the revenue differences for the ACC Network by State:

http://allsportsdiscussion.com/2016/08/02/speculating-on-how-much-the-acc-network-could-earn/

 

[midatlantech]

I don't understand this apparent rule where cable networks must pay extra money for all the subscribers in a state where the conference has a team.

Is this a law? Is this something cable providers have instituted as an agreed upon rule for themselves? Why can't it be broken?

Are you seriously telling me that cable providers in Georgia would be willing to pay the B1G more money for a current B1G + GT vs a current B1G + ND?

So who is the one enforcing this strange apparent requirement that if you have a team within the borders of your state you must get more money?

I'm genuinely curious where this is coming from.

Everything is negotiated but by the way, if you live in Georgia you are likely paying for the ACC network. It’s in the ESPN package.

 

[aeromech]

If Tech actually did reject an offer, it was clearly worse than the SEC one. The SEC decision was made (a) out of principle, (b) after Tech had been back stabbed by several teams in the conference, and (c) decades before conferences became important. In the 90s-2000s, with the ACC adding VPI, UVA, Miami and FSU, it looked like the ACC would be a dominant football conference, so there's no way one could have predicted decades earlier that the SEC would be such an attractive football conference.

With the B1G decision, if true, that was well into expansion and re-alignment and the impact of TV revenues being absolutely clear and obvious.

Conferences were important long before the 1990's, which is why conferences formed in the first place. That is why this entire take is dumb. The only people who can't see how dumb leaving the SEC to go independent was, are the Dodd defenders. Rejecting an offer from the B1G was just simply dumb.

 

[aeromech]

Spot on. People forget that most SEC teams didn’t even play more than 6 league games back in the 50s and 60s. Being the league “champion” didn’t carry any more weight than anything else. For many years forward after 1963 Tech played it’s chief rivals every year;
UGA, Auburn and Tennessee.
Continuing to beat the “oh man, we would be doing so great in the SEC now” drum is like the guy saying if only he would have bought 100,000 shares of Apple at $1.00

If you can't see, even in hindsight, that leaving the SEC and going independent was a bad decision at the time; then I can't help you. You are too blinded by your love of Dodd to ever accept the truth.

 

[donsue]

If you can't see, even in hindsight, that leaving the SEC and going independent was a bad decision at the time; then I can't help you. You are too blinded by your love of Dodd to ever accept the truth.

Seriously, brother you need to do research of how things happened at Tech in the 50s and 60s. The world of football didn’t begin with ESPN.
I have stated numerous times on here that leaving the SEC may not have been the right move. But not only is it hindsight, but it happened 60 years ago. If Tech had the impetus from it’s admin and fanbase that you think it had, then they had a long time to right your perceived wrong. If you think that single decision caused all of the football woes, then I can’t help you either.

 

[whiskey clear]

Possible expansion on the horizon is another epic fail in keeping CGC around after his second season. Definitely after his 3rd wreck of a season. GT won't have any chips on the table to even ante up.

 

[JJacket]

Possible expansion on the horizon is another epic fail in keeping CGC around after his second season. Definitely after his 3rd wreck of a season. GT won't have any chips on the table to even ante up.

Get the öööö over yourself already.