Scott Dochterman, Nicole Auerbach and Stewart Mandel released an article in the Athletic which I assume is behind a firewall. Quick high notes:
1). Last week was the final pitch by FOX, ABS-ESPN, CBS, NBC and Amazon Prime. Announcement of a deal is predicted to be mid-July. FOX, which now owns 61% of the equity of the BTN, is running the show. CBS is looking for an afternoon broadcast as it is losing the SEC Game of the Week. NBC is looking for a prime time slot to partner with its ND Home games. They are having difficulty evaluating a streaming option like Amazon Prime, but no clear decision one way or the other yet.
2). ABC-ESPN is still very much in the mix, but there was discussion of reducing their inventory. There is a fear that if ESPN is blocked out, it will reduce discussion of B10 games on all the ESPN news sport casts (which is exactly what happened when the NHL dropped ESPN for NBC. NHL is now back on ESPN). So ABC-ESPN is still in the mix, but nothing is certain. The article stated that ESPN is ALL IN with both the SEC and the ACC. (Well, contractually, that is true.). Not sure why that comment was made
3). The Alliance plan of creating great OOC games among the B10, ACC and PAC 12 has lost its steam. The B10 ratings of its conference games is a great strength and they are not going to drop a conference game for an OOC game that has less viewers. Furthermore, all their best rivalries are contained in their current divisions and there is a fear that going to a pod system will cause them to lose some rivalries....and related ratings.
4). The article disclosed a very interesting ratings number. Having 3.5M viewers to watch a game is a critical benchmark and it drives a lot of discussion. Last year in the Power 5 conferences, for conference only league games (no OOC games in this statistic), there were 18 B10 games that met this threshold, 17 from the SEC, 4 from the B12, 2 from the PAC 12 and 0 from the ACC. Hmmm. If you include OOC games, there were 72 games that included at least one member from a P5 school that achieved 3.5M viewers, and 32 were from the B10 and 31 were from the SEC. In that statistic the article didn't name the other conferences, but the Big Two Conferences had 63 out of 72. Bottom line...the B10 sees no value in adding any games from the smaller 3 conferences if it means dropping a conference game.
5). The announced revenue deal is predicted to be a big number.
There were more data points in the article but I think I captured the tone and tenor where things are going. The ACC has no data to support why it should be anywhere near what the BigTwo Conferences are making. The ACC is not lacking negotiation skills. It lacks facts to help whoever is doing the negotiating.
In a different article in the Athletic, Stewart Mandel does not predict that Texas and OU will get to the SEC before 2025. That's not the point I want to make. He based part of that prediction on the realities of the GOR and exit fees, but he also stated that ESPN is really under no obligation to pay more for the SEC adding Texas and OU. Technically, I believe he is correct...we have seen this before. Just surprised it was so boldly stated.
1). Last week was the final pitch by FOX, ABS-ESPN, CBS, NBC and Amazon Prime. Announcement of a deal is predicted to be mid-July. FOX, which now owns 61% of the equity of the BTN, is running the show. CBS is looking for an afternoon broadcast as it is losing the SEC Game of the Week. NBC is looking for a prime time slot to partner with its ND Home games. They are having difficulty evaluating a streaming option like Amazon Prime, but no clear decision one way or the other yet.
2). ABC-ESPN is still very much in the mix, but there was discussion of reducing their inventory. There is a fear that if ESPN is blocked out, it will reduce discussion of B10 games on all the ESPN news sport casts (which is exactly what happened when the NHL dropped ESPN for NBC. NHL is now back on ESPN). So ABC-ESPN is still in the mix, but nothing is certain. The article stated that ESPN is ALL IN with both the SEC and the ACC. (Well, contractually, that is true.). Not sure why that comment was made
3). The Alliance plan of creating great OOC games among the B10, ACC and PAC 12 has lost its steam. The B10 ratings of its conference games is a great strength and they are not going to drop a conference game for an OOC game that has less viewers. Furthermore, all their best rivalries are contained in their current divisions and there is a fear that going to a pod system will cause them to lose some rivalries....and related ratings.
4). The article disclosed a very interesting ratings number. Having 3.5M viewers to watch a game is a critical benchmark and it drives a lot of discussion. Last year in the Power 5 conferences, for conference only league games (no OOC games in this statistic), there were 18 B10 games that met this threshold, 17 from the SEC, 4 from the B12, 2 from the PAC 12 and 0 from the ACC. Hmmm. If you include OOC games, there were 72 games that included at least one member from a P5 school that achieved 3.5M viewers, and 32 were from the B10 and 31 were from the SEC. In that statistic the article didn't name the other conferences, but the Big Two Conferences had 63 out of 72. Bottom line...the B10 sees no value in adding any games from the smaller 3 conferences if it means dropping a conference game.
5). The announced revenue deal is predicted to be a big number.
There were more data points in the article but I think I captured the tone and tenor where things are going. The ACC has no data to support why it should be anywhere near what the BigTwo Conferences are making. The ACC is not lacking negotiation skills. It lacks facts to help whoever is doing the negotiating.
In a different article in the Athletic, Stewart Mandel does not predict that Texas and OU will get to the SEC before 2025. That's not the point I want to make. He based part of that prediction on the realities of the GOR and exit fees, but he also stated that ESPN is really under no obligation to pay more for the SEC adding Texas and OU. Technically, I believe he is correct...we have seen this before. Just surprised it was so boldly stated.
