ADVERTISEMENT

The demise of the ACC foretold...

krup said:
Two questions.

What is ION?

Is that where the PAC12 is going to end up getting their contract (that, or public access on cable)?
Click to expand...
There were rumors of that but I don’t think the PAC will end up there.

It’s a tv channel that used to be called PAX. I had it on FIOS but I have YouTube Tv now. I think it’s free too so it’s similar to the broadcast channels in that sense. It’s owned by Scripps. They own a bunch of network affiliates around the country.

Point being ESPN can’t hoard every property big or small. It will be selective. The NBA rights coming up is the next big thing and I’ve read NBC is looking to see if they can get in on it and we’ll see if ESPN can hang on or not or maybe it gets split.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigmatt718
krup said:
If you are watching the news on TV and they start talking about the financial sector, you must change the channel.

The era of ESPN giving out big money for anything but a handful of premium properties is over already. A decade from now they will have trouble retaining those premium properties, let alone paying big for the ACC.
Click to expand...
You overstate ESPN's financial problems.It is losing cable viewers -- but It is still generating over $3 billion in earnings. In addition, it is moving into streaming to make up for the loss of cable subscribers. https://www.forbes.com/companies/espn/?sh=fba40e743312

Second, if you are ESPN, you need programming that will attract eyeballs, and you're not going to do that with celebrity bowling or whatever. It is still going to want content, even if that content isn't as profitable as the best properties. It's like baseball where you need some pitchers who are innings-eaters; who aren't excellent but who at least let your best pitchers rest.

Sports is still prime programming because people will watch it live and so they will sit through ads. It's not like everything else where the viewer records it and then zaps the commercials while watching it later. It's not just ESPN that's going to bid for sports, and that will keep prices high.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhichReligionIsRight
rutgersguy1 said:
There were rumors of that but I don’t think the PAC will end up there.

It’s a tv channel that used to be called PAX. I had it on FIOS but I have YouTube Tv now. I think it’s free too so it’s similar to the broadcast channels in that sense. It’s owned by Scripps. They own a bunch of network affiliates around the country.

Point being ESPN can’t hoard every property big or small. It will be selective. The NBA rights coming up is the next big thing and I’ve read NBC is looking to see if they can get in on it and we’ll see if ESPN can hang on or not or maybe it gets split.
Click to expand...
Disney had a huge shakeup with Bob Iger coming back, and one of the first things he said regarding ESPN was that they need to be more selective with their rights fees.

I think they will still fight like hell to keep the NBA, but they certainly aren’t blowing up their sweetheart ACC deal, or throwing good money at a “leftovers” conference like some of our visitors here believe.

It’s a different world.. ESPN went from being profitable enough to carry all of Disney, to shrinking to a point where Disney is rumored to be considering selling it off for one big cash infusion instead of holding onto it as it withers away.
 
retired711 said:
You overstate ESPN's financial problems. It is still generating over $3 billion in earnings. In addition, it is moving into streaming.https://www.forbes.com/companies/espn/?sh=fba40e743312

Second, if you are ESPN, you need programming that will attract eyeballs, and you're not going to do that with celebrity bowling or whatever. It is still going to want content, even if that content isn't as profitable as your best properties. It's like baseball where you need some pitchers who are innings-eaters; who aren't excellent but who at least let your best pitchers rest.
Click to expand...
Streaming makes ESPN a fraction of what cable monthly carriage fees do, because only actual sports fans pay streaming. They still make money, but nothing like they did, which is why Disney is rumored to be shopping them.

I agree ESPN needs content, and that is why they will pay for premium properties like the NBA, NFL and SEC while bleeding every bit of cheap content they can get out of the current ACC deal. They do the same thing with their on air talent. Pay big money for Stephen A, Greenberg, SVP, don’t pay lesser names and let them walk.
 
krup said:
Disney had a huge shakeup with Bob Iger coming back, and one of the first things he said regarding ESPN was that they need to be more selective with their rights fees.

I think they will still fight like hell to keep the NBA, but they certainly aren’t blowing up their sweetheart ACC deal, or throwing good money at a “leftovers” conference like some of our visitors here believe.

It’s a different world.. ESPN went from being profitable enough to carry all of Disney, to shrinking to a point where Disney is rumored to be considering selling it off for one big cash infusion instead of holding onto it as it withers away.
Click to expand...
I'm aware. I own DIS stock and follow the company lol. Sports is still a pillar of DIS content but they can't spend like a drunken sailor anymore. The ACC provides long term cost certainty for them and that's important. I'm not sure where these ideas of ESPN will try to do them any favors come. It's long term, stable, cost certain content so why would the mess with it any time in the next decade or so.

They will still pay for "secondary content," in the future as they still need filler but they won't go overboard spending on it.
 
krup said:
Streaming makes ESPN a fraction of what cable monthly carriage fees do, because only actual sports fans pay streaming. They still make money, but nothing like they did, which is why Disney is rumored to be shopping them.

I agree ESPN needs content, and that is why they will pay for premium properties like the NBA, NFL and SEC while bleeding every bit of cheap content they can get out of the current ACC deal. They do the same thing with their on air talent. Pay big money for Stephen A, Greenberg, SVP, don’t pay lesser names and let them walk.
Click to expand...
Here's a good recent piece on ESPN's financial situation. If anything they are bidding for more content. For what it's worth (nothing), Iger denies they're for sale, saying that it is aproduct differentiator for Disney. https://www.thestreet.com/sports/disney-ceo-makes-a-crucial-decision-about-selling-espn

Anyway, I'm going to stop watching this thread because I don't see any point in speculating on what's going to happen with the ACC, particularly because its effect on Rutgers is indirect to say the last.
 
retired711 said:
Here's a good recent piece on ESPN's financial situation. If anything they are bidding for more content. For what it's worth (nothing), Iger denies they're for sale, saying that it is aproduct differentiator for Disney. https://www.thestreet.com/sports/disney-ceo-makes-a-crucial-decision-about-selling-espn

Anyway, I'm going to stop watching this thread because I don't see any point in speculating on what's going to happen with the ACC, particularly because its effect on Rutgers is indirect to say the last.
Click to expand...
Before you go, you can be the first person who can explain why ESPN would do anything to screw with the current ACC contract before it runs out, which might be the most financially advantageous one they have in terms of content, viewership and price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUTGERS95
retired711 said:
You overstate ESPN's financial problems.It is losing cable viewers -- but It is still generating over $3 billion in earnings. In addition, it is moving into streaming to make up for the loss of cable subscribers. https://www.forbes.com/companies/espn/?sh=fba40e743312

Second, if you are ESPN, you need programming that will attract eyeballs, and you're not going to do that with celebrity bowling or whatever. It is still going to want content, even if that content isn't as profitable as the best properties. It's like baseball where you need some pitchers who are innings-eaters; who aren't excellent but who at least let your best pitchers rest.

Sports is still prime programming because people will watch it live and so they will sit through ads. It's not like everything else where the viewer records it and then zaps the commercials while watching it later. It's not just ESPN that's going to bid for sports, and that will keep prices high.
Click to expand...
espn is the middle man here and they create nor own the content. you overestimate the ability of espn here
 
Panthergrowl13 said:
Several years before the GOR's expire a new contract with ESPN/ABC and the ACC will be announced.

The financial compensation to the ACC will be close to the SEC/B1G and no one will be leaving.

We can discuss this again and again for the next 10 years until it happens.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Click to expand...
but will it be comparable to what the B1G & SEC gets the next day.
Will the ACC be locked in for over ten years at same rate while even the Big 12 ( who signed, 2 days later, for a larger rights deal then the ACC received)
only allowed to be locked in for 5. 😇
 
retired711 said:
You overstate ESPN's financial problems.It is losing cable viewers -- but It is still generating over $3 billion in earnings. In addition, it is moving into streaming to make up for the loss of cable subscribers. https://www.forbes.com/companies/espn/?sh=fba40e743312

Second, if you are ESPN, you need programming that will attract eyeballs, and you're not going to do that with celebrity bowling or whatever. It is still going to want content, even if that content isn't as profitable as the best properties. It's like baseball where you need some pitchers who are innings-eaters; who aren't excellent but who at least let your best pitchers rest.

Sports is still prime programming because people will watch it live and so they will sit through ads. It's not like everything else where the viewer records it and then zaps the commercials while watching it later. It's not just ESPN that's going to bid for sports, and that will keep prices high.
Click to expand...
This is true. Something like 82 of the 100 most watched programs were either college or NFL games. That's where the eyeballs are.
 
krup said:
Before you go, you can be the first person who can explain why ESPN would do anything to screw with the current ACC contract before it runs out, which might be the most financially advantageous one they have in terms of content, viewership and price.
Click to expand...
I'll give you my answer.

Like it or not the ACC is the 3rd best Conference in the P-5.

ESPN/ABC can secure its continued security of content and marketability by providing a FAIR new contract for their own future success (Total access to the SEC and ACC/Gold Mine).
If ESPN/ABC wanted to they could negotiate a deal to semi combine the conferences without combining them.
Just have the SEC and ACC to agree to play more OOC games between all SEC/ACC teams and get good Nielsen ratings.
Pitt had a 2 game series (2021/2022) with Tennessee in which we split. The Nielsen Ratings were good.
In 2023, Pitt's OOC games include Notre Dame, West Virginia, Cincinnati and Woford.
I would love to play 2 or 3 SEC teams per year for our OOC in lieu of those other games. I believe Greg is trying to soften Rutgers future OOC games. Might get a few more W's with reduced Nielsen ratings to get to 6W and a Bowl.

OR

They can wait and let the ACC negotiate about going to FOX Sports in a better contract deal and lose ALL or SOME of the sports content.

As I said to you guys before, it makes no sense why ESPN/ABC would want to help Fox Sports and the the B1G by blowing up the ACC to get what Clemson/Florida State (SEC in Florida/South Carolina).

As the expression goes, don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

I wonder what the Nielsen Ratings would be for "Bowling for Dollars" on a nice Saturday in the fall.

ESPN/ABC did not become the leader in Sports distribution by being stupid.

We can have this discussion again next year and say the same things.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!
 
Last edited:
Panthergrowl13 said:
I'll give you my answer.

Like it or not the ACC is the 3rd best Conference in the P-5.

ESPN/ABC can secure its continued security of content and marketability by providing a FAIR new contract for their own future success (Total access to the SEC and ACC/Gold Mine).

OR

They can wait and let the ACC negotiate about going to FOX Sports in a better contract deal and lose ALL or SOME of the sports content.

As I said to you guys before, it makes no sense why ESPN/ABC would want to help Fox Sports and the the B1G by blowing up the ACC to get what Clemson/Florida State (SEC in Florida/South Carolina).

As the expression goes, cut off your nose to spite your face.

I wonder what the Nielsen Ratings would be for "Bowling for Dollars" on a nice Saturday in the fall.

ESPN/ABC did not become the leader in Sports distribution by being stupid.

We can have this discussion again next year and say the same things.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Click to expand...
Why does ESPN have to provide a FAIR (in other words way more expensive to them) contract for the ACC to “secure the continued security of content”?

They’ve already got that that with an ACC contract and GOR that runs through 2036. That’s plenty far enough in the future for a company in an industry whose 2026 reality, let alone 2036, is completely unpredictable.

ACC fans keep acting like the unhappiness of ACC schools is a compelling enough reason for ESPN to revisit the contract, when the most important thing about the ACC contract to ESPN is its large amount of cheap content.

They can live with the unhappiness, because the ACC isn’t that important to them. You aren’t their important college football property, the SEC and playoff are. The ACC is just cheap filler for time slots.

Sure, they’d be happy if it was better filler, but they aren’t going to break a great contract and spend a lot of money they don’t have to in order to incrementally improve it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhichReligionIsRight and rutgersguy1
Panthergrowl13 said:
I'll give you my answer.

Like it or not the ACC is the 3rd best Conference in the P-5.

ESPN/ABC can secure its continued security of content and marketability by providing a FAIR new contract for their own future success (Total access to the SEC and ACC/Gold Mine).

OR

They can wait and let the ACC negotiate about going to FOX Sports in a better contract deal and lose ALL or SOME of the sports content.

As I said to you guys before, it makes no sense why ESPN/ABC would want to help Fox Sports and the the B1G by blowing up the ACC to get what Clemson/Florida State (SEC in Florida/South Carolina).

As the expression goes, cut off your nose to spite your face.

I wonder what the Nielsen Ratings would be for "Bowling for Dollars" on a nice Saturday in the fall.

ESPN/ABC did not become the leader in Sports distribution by being stupid.

We can have this discussion again next year and say the same things.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Click to expand...
The make up of the ACC isn't changing any time soon and it provides long term, stable, cost certain content for ESPN. There is no reason for ESPN to do anything with the contract. There's a reason they kept extending the deal every time the ACC/Swofford came with requests for additional revenue and the conference tv network. They want long term cost certainty and they got it. There's no reason to give that up.

They don't have to do anything to be the exclusive provider of the ACC, it's already all there in black and white through the mid 2030s. As you get closer to that time, yea negotiations could happen but I wouldn't assume they will be the exclusive provider of the ACC. I've said long ago sports programming will become more fragmented and that's what's happened. Everyone is finding more ways to breakup and package their content in pieces to different media providers.

The ACC (and the SEC for that matter when the time comes) might not want all of their content on one network. ESPN also has to live with the reality that they can't have everything all to themselves and they know it. So what mixture of CFB content they feel is appropriate at that time is unknown. Don't assume that the B10 will never be back in the ESPN fold as well. We have no idea what mixture of CFB content will be available and deemed appropriate by ESPN and all the media providers at that time. ESPN could lose part of the SEC, who knows. Maybe they think parts of the B10, SEC is good enough with filler of ACC/B12/AAC/PAC12 content around it.

It's not about letting Fox or anyone do anything. It's the reality of the tv landscape. It's very difficult and expensive for anyone to hold all the cards. Premium sports tv packages are likely to be split all over the place. It's a credit to ESPN to hold on to the SEC as long as they have but don't assume that in the future. ACC is not as premium but I'd say the same for that too. When the time comes, if the ACC gets raided to some degree, it shouldn't make much difference to ESPN. They can bid for parts of the B10/SEC and still have access to those programs and many other premium ones and then bid less for a wounded ACC.

It's so hard to predict anything that far out but it's not hard to predict that ESPN doesn't have to do anything with the ACC contract any time soon. There's no motivation for it.
 
I should also add about early negotiations happening with ESPN and the ACC in the mid 2030s. Remember what happened just recently with the B12. The B12 tried to get into early negotiations with Fox/ESPN and they were rebuffed. That's what precipitated the Texas/OU move. Did it bother ESPN or Fox for that matter? ESPN still has access to Texas/OU so it worked for them and Fox lost it but carries on and even agreed to let it go a year early for compensation.

So any programs lost by the ACC, it doesn't matter. Any network could still have access to them and if they don't, well that's life and they move on and deal with it.
 


A Buddy sent this to me. I’m not on Twitter so I don’t know how credible the author is.

I heard similar information last weekend at the spring game. The madness continues
 
rutgersguy1 said:
The make up of the ACC isn't changing any time soon and it provides long term, stable, cost certain content for ESPN. There is no reason for ESPN to do anything with the contract. There's a reason they kept extending the deal every time the ACC/Swofford came with requests for additional revenue and the conference tv network. They want long term cost certainty and they got it. There's no reason to give that up.

They don't have to do anything to be the exclusive provider of the ACC, it's already all there in black and white through the mid 2030s. As you get closer to that time, yea negotiations could happen but I wouldn't assume they will be the exclusive provider of the ACC. I've said long ago sports programming will become more fragmented and that's what's happened. Everyone is finding more ways to breakup and package their content in pieces to different media providers.

The ACC (and the SEC for that matter when the time comes) might not want all of their content on one network. ESPN also has to live with the reality that they can't have everything all to themselves and they know it. So what mixture of CFB content they feel is appropriate at that time is unknown. Don't assume that the B10 will never be back in the ESPN fold as well. We have no idea what mixture of CFB content will be available and deemed appropriate by ESPN and all the media providers at that time. ESPN could lose part of the SEC, who knows. Maybe they think parts of the B10, SEC is good enough with filler of ACC/B12/AAC/PAC12 content around it.

It's not about letting Fox or anyone do anything. It's the reality of the tv landscape. It's very difficult and expensive for anyone to hold all the cards. Premium sports tv packages are likely to be split all over the place. It's a credit to ESPN to hold on to the SEC as long as they have but don't assume that in the future. ACC is not as premium but I'd say the same for that too. When the time comes, if the ACC gets raided to some degree, it shouldn't make much difference to ESPN. They can bid for parts of the B10/SEC and still have access to those programs and many other premium ones and then bid less for a wounded ACC.

It's so hard to predict anything that far out but it's not hard to predict that ESPN doesn't have to do anything with the ACC contract any time soon. There's no motivation for it.
Click to expand...



Therefore we can agree to disagree and have the same discussion next year.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: MADHAT1
LotusAggressor said:
This is true. Something like 82 of the 100 most watched programs were either college or NFL games. That's where the eyeballs are.
Click to expand...
What you say is right -- but it's more than that. A Seinfield fan could record the show, watch it later and fast-forward through the ads. But sports fans want to see a game live., and so they will sit through advertising. That makes sports programs incredibly attractive to ad-buyers, and so tremendously profitable for the networks.
 
krup said:
Why does ESPN have to provide a FAIR (in other words way more expensive to them) contract for the ACC to “secure the continued security of content”?

They’ve already got that that with an ACC contract and GOR that runs through 2036. That’s plenty far enough in the future for a company in an industry whose 2026 reality, let alone 2036, is completely unpredictable.

ACC fans keep acting like the unhappiness of ACC schools is a compelling enough reason for ESPN to revisit the contract, when the most important thing about the ACC contract to ESPN is its large amount of cheap content.

They can live with the unhappiness, because the ACC isn’t that important to them. You aren’t their important college football property, the SEC and playoff are. The ACC is just cheap filler for time slots.

Sure, they’d be happy if it was better filler, but they aren’t going to break a great contract and spend a lot of money they don’t have to in order to incrementally improve it.
Click to expand...
on top of that, ESPN isn't going to have enough money left over after paying through the nose for nba, tennis, golf, etc etc and then SEC.
 
RUTGERS95 said:
on top of that, ESPN isn't going to have enough money left over after paying through the nose for nba, tennis, golf, etc etc and then SEC.
Click to expand...
Which is likely to be more profitable for ESPN: to broadcast "tennis, golf, etc" or to broadcast the ACC? Being an economically rational company, it will do whichever is more profitable. I suspect (but of course do not know) that broadcasting the ACC is more profitable. Keep in mind also that pro basketball, tennis and golf are not fall sports, and ESPN of course wants to have a full complement of attractive programming throughout the year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panthergrowl13
retired711 said:
Which is likely to be more profitable for ESPN: to broadcast "tennis, golf, etc" or to broadcast the ACC? Being an economically rational company, it will do whichever is more profitable. I suspect (but of course do not know) that broadcasting the ACC is more profitable. Keep in mind also that pro basketball, tennis and golf are not fall sports, and ESPN of course wants to have a full complement of attractive programming throughout the year.
Click to expand...
point is, there is only so much money and the bidding on any impacts it's other future wants/needs

ACC is fked
 
RUTGERS95 said:
point is, there is only so much money and the bidding on any impacts it's other future wants/needs

ACC is fked
Click to expand...
The point is that ESPN is going to spend in the way it gives it the highest expected return just the way any business does. If it thinks that investing in ACC sports will give it a higher return than investing in golf and tennis, that's what it will do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panthergrowl13
retired711 said:
The point is that ESPN is going to spend in the way it gives it the highest expected return just the way any business does. If it thinks that investing in ACC sports will give it a higher return than investing in golf and tennis, that's what it will do.
Click to expand...
respectfully, you really have no idea what your' talking about. ESPN isn't going to rely on a sport that plays 4months out of the year and with a product that is not even tier 1. ESPN needs their money for the SEC and other content fillers. ACC is way down on the list
 
RUTGERS95 said:
respectfully, you really have no idea what your' talking about. ESPN isn't going to rely on a sport that plays 4months out of the year and with a product that is not even tier 1. ESPN needs their money for the SEC and other content fillers. ACC is way down on the list
Click to expand...
I think @retired711 is factoring in the MBB (along WBB to some extent) part of the ACC and some of the other sports (MLAX and baseball) that more are watching now.
 
krup said:
Streaming makes ESPN a fraction of what cable monthly carriage fees do, because only actual sports fans pay streaming. They still make money, but nothing like they did, which is why Disney is rumored to be shopping them.

I agree ESPN needs content, and that is why they will pay for premium properties like the NBA, NFL and SEC while bleeding every bit of cheap content they can get out of the current ACC deal. They do the same thing with their on air talent. Pay big money for Stephen A, Greenberg, SVP, don’t pay lesser names and let them walk.
Click to expand...

ESPN’s digital channel is cludgy - needs a substantial upgrade IMO. If they can figure things out, $10 per month per digital user for ESPN Everything would be better than the $7 carriage fee.
 
retired711 said:
The point is that ESPN is going to spend in the way it gives it the highest expected return just the way any business does. If it thinks that investing in ACC sports will give it a higher return than investing in golf and tennis, that's what it will do.
Click to expand...

Why would ESPN be motivated to give the ACC more $$ than already specified on their current contract?
 
RUTGERS95 said:
respectfully, you really have no idea what your' talking about. ESPN isn't going to rely on a sport that plays 4months out of the year and with a product that is not even tier 1. ESPN needs their money for the SEC and other content fillers. ACC is way down on the list
Click to expand...
Equally respectfully, it's not a question of what ESP will "rely on." It's a question of what makes ESPN the most money. If carrying SEC football is the most profitable investment for ESPN, ESPN will invest in it. ESPN will invest the rest of its money in whatever are the next profitable opportunities. It will invest inwhat is the second most profitable, then the third most profitable, etc. It wil do this until its programming schedule is full. If EPN has to borrow money to make the most profitable investments, it will. That's basic capitalism, right? I find it hard to believe that golf and tennis are more profitable investments than ACC football. But we'll see. My only point (if I have one) is that what's important is what's profitable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panthergrowl13
JayDogSmooth said:
Lot of smoke out there and hard to decipher fact from fiction

Like you, I’ll believe it when I see it - just surprised he put an actual timeline on when the alledged new info is coming out
Click to expand...
I'm not surprised. One of the sad realities of the internet is that posters care more about attracting eyeballs than anything else, and will say almost anything to do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MADHAT1
WhichReligionIsRight said:
ESPN’s digital channel is cludgy - needs a substantial upgrade IMO. If they can figure things out, $10 per month per digital user for ESPN Everything would be better than the $7 carriage fee.
Click to expand...
The problem, that would still be only $10 per month per sport fan motivated enough to pay for ESPN+, which is a fraction of the revenue compared to getting $7 -8 a month for everyone who had cable, even if they never watched a second of sports.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhichReligionIsRight
krup said:
The problem, that would still be only $10 per month per sport fan motivated enough to pay for ESPN+, which is a fraction of the revenue compared to getting $7 -8 a month for everyone who had cable, even if they never watched a second of sports.
Click to expand...
As more events become available by streaming only, that $10 fee is going to increase. Note also that Comcast Infinity is carrying Netflix. Perhaps we will see a fusion of cable and streaming services in the years to come. (OTOH, my understanding is that Comcast will no longer be offering Peacock.)
 
retired711 said:
As more events become available by streaming only, that $10 fee is going to increase. Note also that Comcast Infinity is carrying Netflix. Perhaps we will see a fusion of cable and streaming services in the years to come. (OTOH, my understanding is that Comcast will no longer be offering Peacock.)
Click to expand...
And that creates different problems, because price increases drive more people to manage their subscriptions around the timeliness of the content.

For 5-10 bucks people would just keep ESPN+ to have the option. For 15-25, more will make the effort to drop the subscription in the months the sports they care about most aren’t relevant.
 
retired711 said:
As more events become available by streaming only, that $10 fee is going to increase. Note also that Comcast Infinity is carrying Netflix. Perhaps we will see a fusion of cable and streaming services in the years to come. (OTOH, my understanding is that Comcast will no longer be offering Peacock.)
Click to expand...
Comcast is not “carrying” Netflix. They are merely making it easier to access (stream) Netflix. You still have to have a Netflix account and pay for the services.
 
retired711 said:
Equally respectfully, it's not a question of what ESP will "rely on." It's a question of what makes ESPN the most money. If carrying SEC football is the most profitable investment for ESPN, ESPN will invest in it. ESPN will invest the rest of its money in whatever are the next profitable opportunities. It will invest inwhat is the second most profitable, then the third most profitable, etc. It wil do this until its programming schedule is full. If EPN has to borrow money to make the most profitable investments, it will. That's basic capitalism, right? I find it hard to believe that golf and tennis are more profitable investments than ACC football. But we'll see. My only point (if I have one) is that what's important is what's profitable.
Click to expand...
Saying ESPN, or any biz for that matter, will do what’s in its best interest to make money is pretty obvious.

The problem is assuming giving more money to the ACC any time long before the GOR ends coincides with that. Assuming even re-upping with the ACC in the 2030s is also not a given.

You think the B10 didn’t make money for ESPN? I’m sure it did but the cost of it was too much so they had to let it go. How about the B12? They owned all of it at one time and then they had to split it with Fox. How about the PAC12 currently? It’s great late night programming for them yet they are willing to let it go if the price isn’t right. It’s not even that the price is high relative to other conferences, it’s just more than they’re willing to pay. The same can be said for the ACC in the future. I wouldn’t assume that ESPN is going to bend over backwards and pay any exorbitant price to keep it a fully owned property.

It won’t be getting the same money or near the same as SEC/B10 and so it will be vulnerable to be raided. ESPN could own all, some or none of it at that time. Who knows. ESPN had the NHL then didn’t and now it does again. There’s no way to predict the future that far out.

What is predictable is that the ACC won’t make the same money as the power 2 and so will be vulnerable to being poached. Some think ESPN would want to prevent that. Did the networks prevent the BE, B12, PAC12 from falling apart? Nope. They deal with the world as it is. Sometimes they will still have access to those same schools that leave regardless and other times they will lose access but move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T

OT: Anyone familiar with these professors?

Replies
96
Views
2K
Rutgers Football
T2Kplus20
T2Kplus20
DJ Spanky

OT: Volt Typhoon cyber attack

Replies
30
Views
841
Rutgers Football
ashokan
ashokan
rucoe89

NIL impact from Saban

Replies
84
Views
1K
Rutgers Football
Knight Shift
Knight Shift
G

Steve Belichick interviews for B1G Assistant Coaching position

Replies
22
Views
1K
The Round Table
RUTGERS95
R
DJ Spanky

OT: This summer is set to be Cicada Mania!

Replies
25
Views
577
Rutgers Football
Southern Gentleman
S
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back