SMU to ACC?

The Cable company isn't profiting from it. ESPN is profiting from it. If I'm the cable company, I'm telling ESPN to öööö off and take that bullshit channel elsewhere.
you think the cable company doesn’t get a piece of that pie?
 
You are stuck in the past. The model has evolved. Stop advocating adding ööööty brands 'BeCAusE MuH MArkEt!!!'
The ESPN bundle has not evolved. If you want ESPN Mr. Cable TV Provider / Satellite / Streamer, you are paying me $9/month for:
- ESPN
- ESPN2
- ESPN News
- SEC Network
- ACC Network

So you cannot ignore the revenue increase that comes from adding teams in California and Texas. I don't know how/why Tulane is included in this discussion. The ACC will not be adding Tulane or any other Southeastern footprint school. Louisiana ain't worth didly in ACC Network revenue.
 
The ESPN bundle has not evolved. If you want ESPN Mr. Cable TV Provider / Satellite / Streamer, you are paying me $9/month for:
- ESPN
- ESPN2
- ESPN News
- SEC Network
- ACC Network

So you cannot ignore the revenue increase that comes from adding teams in California and Texas. I don't know how/why Tulane is included in this discussion. The ACC will not be adding Tulane or any other Southeastern footprint school. Louisiana ain't worth didly in ACC Network revenue.

It will and we'll be stuck with a bunch of medicore schools 2,000 miles away from the rest of the conference. There is a reason that ESPN valued the PAC-12 contract at $30 million per year (per school). If the ACC is currently distributing $40 million per school, you don't increase the per school pay out by adding schools that are only worth $30 million per year. You might increase the total number of the payout by adding these schools, but then you have to payout more slices. It doesn't make sense to do this.

Adding schools with small fanbases just to collect markets is dumb af.
 
It will and we'll be stuck with a bunch of medicore schools 2,000 miles away from the rest of the conference. There is a reason that ESPN valued the PAC-12 contract at $30 million per year (per school). If the ACC is currently distributing $40 million per school, you don't increase the per school pay out by adding schools that are only worth $30 million per year. You might increase the total number of the payout by adding these schools, but then you have to payout more slices. It doesn't make sense to do this.

Adding schools with small fanbases just to collect markets is dumb af.
Agree, and I'll add that Adding schools that don't significantly increase our media right payments makes no sense at all, especially if they are outside of our geographic footprint. We are probably stuck with our current contracts / configuration.

However, there is a lot we don't know. Is it possible that adding Stanford, Cal and SMU could lead to:
- significant increase in ACC Network revenue by adding California and Texas
- adding ND as a Football member (Stanford being enough to persuade them)
- increasing ESPN payments in order to add Notre Dame home games, and keep Clemson and FSU (and others) from joining the B1G and its NBC/CBS/Fox controlled
 
be honest. Would you go to Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan or Nebraska in Nov to see GT play or would you rather stay close to home and see us play regionally here in the South? You think we travel bad already? Just wait until we’d have to travel to those locations. Again any move outside of the ACC/SEC severely hurts the traveling fans and any sports outside of FB.
From our perspective, it makes good sense geographically to rejoin the SECheat - especially since the cheating is now legal. It would help us in football recruiting, and maybe in baseball, but not sure about men’s basketball. Anyway, from our POV, yes. However, the big mutt in the SEC now is UGAg, and they are a full-stop NO. Maybe when UTA and OU get a vote that pendulum swings our way. Also, we’ve now played Miss and Miss St a bunch since 2008. Both home-home and a bowl. Maybe their newer fans would turn their no votes to yes. It’s not a certain no, but it’s close.
 
Any of you guys who think there's even a 1% chance the SEC adds GT are either homers living in a fantasy world at best, or at worst are absolutely bat-öööö insane.
@Combat Engineer I am also a former 12 Bravo
FB_IMG_1691583552905.jpg
 
Agree, and I'll add that Adding schools that don't significantly increase our media right payments makes no sense at all, especially if they are outside of our geographic footprint. We are probably stuck with our current contracts / configuration.

However, there is a lot we don't know. Is it possible that adding Stanford, Cal and SMU could lead to:
- significant increase in ACC Network revenue by adding California and Texas
- adding ND as a Football member (Stanford being enough to persuade them)
- increasing ESPN payments in order to add Notre Dame home games, and keep Clemson and FSU (and others) from joining the B1G and its NBC/CBS/Fox controlled
Get Navy too, snag the DC market and finally convince ND to join as a full member
 
Back
Top