Fans of any ACC school - how does this expansion help?

[FayuGes]

I really LOVE that On3 lets us read the sites of other teams - and seeing some of the discussions going on within ACC sites, I see a giant misunderstanding that adding Cal, Stanford and SMU does not address.

The big money is the TV money - and TV money comes from eyeballs. Ratings. Number of viewers.

The old logic was markets and carriage fees, but that crumbles as cable TV is replaced by streaming.

The business side of TV sports is identical to the business side of all other TV programming - the more people watch, the more money gets made.

Nobody watches Cal, Stanford, or SMU.

Even though FSU hasn't won a championship since 2013, they are still by far the most-watched team in the ACC (and are the reason that the current ACC contract, which was signed in 2014, has as much money as it does).

A great comparison I read was Will & Grace vs. Seinfeld. Will & Grace won a bunch of emmys but didn't draw enough viewers and was cancelled. Seinfeld didn't win awards like that but attracted a huge audience and they offered Jerry Seinfeld $100 million to do one more season.

VIEWERS = MONEY.

Cal, Stanford, and SMU do not bring viewers - so was this a good move purely because it brings in California and Texas carriage fees for ESPN for a few years?

Maybe. I would love to hear what fans of other ACC schools (or any fans of any school) think the strategy was here.

 

[Cmjala77]

Not an ACC fan, but I saw this snippet that stuck out. $72 million to ACC with $14 million for expenses. IF, that is part of the ACC “operating budget” then that number jumps from around $40 million per year to $54 million per year. The exit fee is three times the operating budget, so that is a jump from $120 million to $162 million.

If true, that is enough by itself to generate no votes from anybody who is thinking about leaving.

 

[dp rtr]

I think it’s defense also. If they have teams bolt to the SEC, they’re not sitting there with a super small amount of teams. Additionally, they’re getting SMU for basically free for 9 years.

 

[FIFO]

SMU trying the financial side of a self imposed death penalty.

 

[dp rtr]

SMU trying the financial side of a self imposed death penalty.

As long as there is oil in Texas, they’ll be fine

 

[limbeehoney]

I really LOVE that On3 lets us read the sites of other teams - and seeing some of the discussions going on within ACC sites, I see a giant misunderstanding that adding Cal, Stanford and SMU does not address.

The big money is the TV money - and TV money comes from eyeballs. Ratings. Number of viewers.

The old logic was markets and carriage fees, but that crumbles as cable TV is replaced by streaming.

The business side of TV sports is identical to the business side of all other TV programming - the more people watch, the more money gets made.

Nobody watches Cal, Stanford, or SMU.

Even though FSU hasn't won a championship since 2013, they are still by far the most-watched team in the ACC (and are the reason that the current ACC contract, which was signed in 2014, has as much money as it does).

A great comparison I read was Will & Grace vs. Seinfeld. Will & Grace won a bunch of emmys but didn't draw enough viewers and was cancelled. Seinfeld didn't win awards like that but attracted a huge audience and they offered Jerry Seinfeld $100 million to do one more season.

VIEWERS = MONEY.

Cal, Stanford, and SMU do not bring viewers - so was this a good move purely because it brings in California and Texas carriage fees for ESPN for a few years?

Maybe. I would love to hear what fans of other ACC schools (or any fans of any school) think the strategy was here.

according to the finnebaum 3 tickets in = 3 tickets out. fsu unc clemson. allegedly.

 

[NolesRok]

It's to keep the ACC from crumbling like the PAC when FSU and Clemson exit