General Sports Water Cooler

I read that this morning. I don't think it's a very good article at all, which is in keeping with Forbes' recent sports articles, which have been lame if not completely terrible.

Just a few observations...

But some of those comments also made it apparent that there is a fair amount of confusion regarding the details of the conference’s television rights, particularly third tier rights,

This article does not alleviate any of that confusion, in my opinion.

Look, the problem with all this $$$ comparison is that A) everyone has a different definition of what constitutes "third tier" rights, B) everyone has a different definition of "multimedia rights", and C) no league is going to tell you exactly how much money it's making. It might give you a number, but nobody knows if the figure is real. That includes the $20 million per year number for the Big XII he threw in the piece, which if I'm not mistaken is an assertion about a contract that not only hasn't been seen by the author, but one that hasn't even been signed yet.

To quickly cover the basics: there are three tiers of media rights.

Not necessarily. See: Big 10.

The first and second tiers are generally controlled by the conferences, which sell them – either separately or combined – to national networks like ABC/ESPN, CBS and Fox.

Also not necessarily true (well, he does say "generally", I guess), and here we have an effort to lump ESPN in with the networks. It's much more nuanced than that.

He's also forgetting about BTN.

the income from third tier live telecasts will be stunted without football or basketball games to help buoy the rights fees.

I'm not sure what he's trying to say here. I suppose an argument could be made that a potential FSU Network would need a football game as bait, but that assumes that A) an FSU Network is realistic, and B) that a football game against Savannah State would be bait-worthy. If he's not talking about a school network, then I guess he's saying that the Savannah State game would be needed as part of a package deal to sell a few home baseball games. I don't buy that, and since he said "rights fees" I don't think that's what he meant anyway..

George Pyne, President of IMG Sports and Entertainment, responded that, “The exposure the ACC gets via ESPN enhances the value of our rights. We are very happy with their agreement. The better the ACC does, the better we do.” IMG doesn’t foresee any negative impacts from the new deal, though the company would seem to have little to lose if one of its schools were to change conferences.

My question to the author is this: if you are so confident that IMG College would have "little to lose" if FSU/Clemson/etc. changed leagues, why didn't you confirm that with the company prez while you had him on the phone? Come on.

there hasn't been any hard-hitting, revealing journalism on the subject since this started. I also saw with my own two eyes last fall, on the ESPN bottom line "FSU and Clemson to join SEC". It's all hot garbage until it actually happens, then we all find out in rear view what was going on. Two weeks before the SEC expanded last fall, they said they were happy at 12.

At least the article exposes the potential nepotism. My grand scheme question is, why are some of you so incredulous that Clemson/FSU/Miami/GT/etc could , Oh My, POSSIBLY entertain the idea of leaving? We've discussed the travel ad nauseum. You don't have to be on the plane. ECU does travels similarly on a shoestring. The B12 finances aren't at all clear, nor is the playoff picture.

But it's like you're offended that FSU and Clemson could even entertain the idea of leaving. To an outsider looking in, it's like you're unhappy that two underperforming FB members, who are usually also-rans in basketball, might control how the dominoes fall for the rest of the league. If your cubicle mate gets an offer to move to management, do you insult him b/c the job is in the Midwest, and you'll be left with Earl, the 65 year old smelly guy?

None whatsoever. In fact, it's more likely ESPN gave the ACC more money because they knew they could get money back from Raycom. In addition to the money Raycom would pay ESPN, there's a reduction in ESPN's overhead by not having to set up additional production for an ESPN regional network for the ACC.

If ESPN bids it out to additional people as Raycom, the ACC doesn't get back more money. They only get more money if the ACC bids it out directly. Since the games are not Tier 3, but a part of Tier 2, ESPN would pay significantly less if they didn't get to control Tier 1 and Tier 2, whether they sub-lease out some games or not.

Also, Fox was also willing to work with Raycom as well, so the Raycom preference didn't prevent Fox from bidding on the contract. In the end, I do believe exposure came into play, because ESPN guarantees national coverage via ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPNU. Regional Fox Sports Nets are no guarantee of coverage when you have to compete with local college football games, MLB, NBA, and NHL on the various networks.

Note from the link above: Swofford was open with both ESPN and Fox about working with Raycom.

"Swofford let the strongest bidders, ESPN and Fox, know that he wanted to include Raycom, which went into the talks as a partner to both networks, rather than trying to bid against their deeper pockets."

So it's better to have Raycom go bankrupt, ESPN set up a "new" ESPN regional made up largely of the same people who have been laid off by Raycom, with largely the same regional coverage on the same stations? And pay less for the same package because Raycom would no longer be paying them??

It makes more sense for Raycom to bid on that. It makes ESPN have to lay out less money, which allowed ESPN to bid more money to the ACC.

Just like Raycom was bidding knowing ESPN would pay them for games in the old contracts, ESPN bid knowing Raycom would pay them.

And what is the downside to the ACC? Fox and ESPN could bid more for the contract knowing they could get money from Raycom and not have to increase production costs for a regional network. The regional coverage that was in place was maintained, and actually expanded from the previous regional network.

And the Raycom package only broadcasts a handful of Tier 3 games. It's mostly Tier 2 games as the season progresses with extra exposure at no expense to the school for an early season Tier 3 game or two. 2 FCS games made it to Raycom in 2011. In 2012, it appears there are 3 in the first 3 weeks which is likely all there will be for the season.

For the bottom third of the conference in football, there is no downside. For the 3 programs that are responsible for the lions' share of the new TV deal (which is 80% football per below), giving up third tier rights and playing a 9th ACC game are devastating. I don't know how it affects the middle, but suffice it to say the cash cows got milked and kicked in the ass.

"Tigernet: Clemson Athletic Director Terry Don Phillips told me last week that perhaps as much of 80 percent of the new television deal involves football. Is that correct?

JS: I think that's probably accurate. That's what the television executives would tell us. That's what our consultants would tell us. In today's world of television, it would be higher than (twenty years ago). It's 75 percent or 80 percent"

How much do you think Clemson playing Furman is worth? It's not much. You're unlikely to recoup the costs of producing it yourself and a program in the 24th-largest state isn't going to get an LHN contract. And you get more exposure via ESPN3 or Raycom or ESPNU than you would on SportsSouth or a PPV contract. If Clemson baseball is worth anything, you could sell those games under the current ACC contract.

The vast majority of those Raycom games aren't going back to the schools in any conference; they are Tier 2 games that ESPN sublicenses. Texas has to bribe Fox to get more than an FCS game on LHN. The fact you think Raycom is taking money out of Clemson's pocket shows your lack of understanding of the majority of the games Raycom is sublicensing and your delusions about what an FCS game is worth.

I think you do if Cubicle Cletus' definition of "management" is a new position at a company in the Midwest that almost filed for bankruptcy last year, lost 2 key longstanding employees and is dominated by an overbearing asshole of a boss and his shady underling.

Oh, and Cubicle Cletus will be moving to this company with his boy, a fellow chronic underachiever at their old job, and they'll be working with seven morons with no prospects to move up and a mildly successful guy from Appalachia who everyone hates because he constantly brags about accomplishments that actually aren't that impressive.

One could argue that's specifically a reason to put it on TV. No one wants to drive 4 hours to see Furman, you're only going for the tailgate. But if it's on TV, I can't think of a single Clemson fan/alum who wouldn't consume it.

I won't say my blood's boiling but Dook's horns are growing a little shorter while North Cacalacky's are getting much longer. WTF, Swofford, at least try to hide the Carolina bias...

Jim Young at the ACC Sports Journal has a good column on why the Raycom "scandal" doesn't amount to much.

Spetman announces that FSU received more than it had expected from the ACC in conference distribution money. The Seminoles received $1.6 million more than the conference had originally told them. Were expecting about $14.1 million given in payouts on Dec. 1 (of last year) and June 1 (of this year). On June 1, the school received the additional money, totaling just short of $16 million for the year.

This means, that previously reported $500,000 budget shortfall the athletic department had from this past school year’s budget cycle, has now been cleared. FSU is in the black for that budget. Spetman said there also should not be a budget shortfall, as previously reported, for the next budgetary cycle. The athletics budget is in the black.

10:10 a.m. — Spetman asked about the reports about FSU’s supposed $2.4 million shortfall entering the 2012-13 budgetary cycle. He didn’t say the reports were false, just that they reported what was essentially incomplete information. Because the ACC was conservative on its payout, the athletics board hadn’t included the $1.6 million in its budget. So, a shortfall was reported based on the numbers that had been provided.

10:22 a.m. — The board learns that Seminole Boosters have received approximately $20 million in funds for the Indoor Football Practice Facility. That’s not to say, however, that all of those funds are in the coffers right now. Those funds are all timed to come in at different times, according to one trustee member. But, the pledges have been made. They could go into a special investment fund that would have to be paid off at a particular time. Essentially, it sounds like the IPF is on solid schedule footing, for now.

I feel bad that your 11,000 students who attend the Georgia game are having to pay $65 each for their tickets.....in addition to all the player families, athletic department guests, recruits.......

Oh wait, you mean that 83,000 full-price ticket number isn't accurate??? But I trusted your numbers!!!