EagleOutsider.com

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:does this mean 81 will come back

i think caddy still has him banned

Not a fan, I wanted a trial.

$19 million is a lot to leave on the table. I assume the ACC lawyers concluded there were some significant risks in convincing the judge the $50 million exit fee was not a simple penalty. People and entities settle cases for lots of reasons though, so who knows.

Wow, Maryland pooped diarrhea in the ACC's mouth.

DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:Wow, Maryland pooped diarrhea in the ACC's mouth.

meh. every recent exit fee negotiation has resulted in a lesser amount than contracted.

oh and gross.

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:

DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:Wow, Maryland pooped diarrhea in the ACC's mouth.

meh. every recent exit fee negotiation has resulted in a lesser amount than contracted.

oh and gross.

Why do you have to be such a prick? Why can't you ever just agree with me?!? This ain't the way I wanted it. I can handle things. I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb. I'm smart and I want respect!

Bryn Mawr Eagle {l Wrote}:$19 million is a lot to leave on the table. I assume the ACC lawyers concluded there were some significant risks in convincing the judge the $50 million exit fee was not a simple penalty.

I've read the pleadings and briefs, and it's clear the ACC the ACC wasn't well counseled in how to raise the exit fee. Rather than simply hike the 5 fold with a clear intent to keep FSU in-Line (which looks like an unenforceable penalty), they should have built a record on how an early exit substantially disrupts tickets sales, gate revenue, TV negotiations, branding, marketing campaigns, futures schedules, etc. had they done that as a prelude to raising the fee, it would have been an iron clad, enforceable liquidated damages provision. Live and learn. Regardless, MD had the burden of proof to invalidate the contract term, which is extremely difficult to do when sophisticated parties are at issue. I think ACC wax 80%+ likely to win.

However the cost to defend MD's antitrust counterclaim is huge. Assume $1 million a month in legal bills over a 2-3 year period. Plus the ACC would have been obligated to turnover all of it's strategy docs and have each of it's AD's deposed, and several presidents. That's probably we felt comfortable leaving money on the table.

Also, the primary reason to enforce the exit fee (I.e., keep FSU from bolting) is gone, now that everyone signed a 14 full GOR.

This was a good deal, and the ACC was wise to preemptively withold MD's $31mil share ... MD knew they couldn't recover it without a clean win on all counts (which necessarily would have forced the Big 10 AD's to submit to the same type of extensive document/deposition requests). I think everyone realized it was best to pocket MD's $31 mil, and call a truce. MD still suffers the most, having to pay the ACC $31MM, the Big 10 a full buy-in, and limited revenue share for the first year or two. That's basically 3 without any money flowing into the MD AD. Ouch!!!

Casey {l Wrote}:

Bryn Mawr Eagle {l Wrote}:$19 million is a lot to leave on the table. I assume the ACC lawyers concluded there were some significant risks in convincing the judge the $50 million exit fee was not a simple penalty.

I've read the pleadings and briefs, and it's clear the ACC the ACC wasn't well counseled in how to raise the exit fee. Rather than simply hike the 5 fold with a clear intent to keep FSU in-Line (which looks like an unenforceable penalty), they should have built a record on how an early exit substantially disrupts tickets sales, gate revenue, TV negotiations, branding, marketing campaigns, futures schedules, etc. had they done that as a prelude to raising the fee, it would have been an iron clad, enforceable liquidated damages provision. Live and learn. Regardless, MD had the burden of proof to invalidate the contract term, which is extremely difficult to do when sophisticated parties are at issue. I think ACC wax 80%+ likely to win.

However the cost to defend MD's antitrust counterclaim is huge. Assume $1 million a month in legal bills over a 2-3 year period. Plus the ACC would have been obligated to turnover all of it's strategy docs and have each of it's AD's deposed, and several presidents. That's probably we felt comfortable leaving money on the table.

Also, the primary reason to enforce the exit fee (I.e., keep FSU from bolting) is gone, now that everyone signed a 14 full GOR.

This was a good deal, and the ACC was wise to preemptively withold MD's $31mil share ... MD knew they couldn't recover it without a clean win on all counts (which necessarily would have forced the Big 10 AD's to submit to the same type of extensive document/deposition requests). I think everyone realized it was best to pocket MD's $31 mil, and call a truce. MD still suffers the most, having to pay the ACC $31MM, the Big 10 a full buy-in, and limited revenue share for the first year or two. That's basically 3 without any money flowing into the MD AD. Ouch!!!

When passing oneself off as knowledgeable and intelligent, one should write coherent and proper English.

RegalBCeagle {l Wrote}:

Casey {l Wrote}:

Bryn Mawr Eagle {l Wrote}:$19 million is a lot to leave on the table. I assume the ACC lawyers concluded there were some significant risks in convincing the judge the $50 million exit fee was not a simple penalty.

I've read the pleadings and briefs, and it's clear the ACC the ACC wasn't well counseled in how to raise the exit fee. Rather than simply hike the 5 fold with a clear intent to keep FSU in-Line (which looks like an unenforceable penalty), they should have built a record on how an early exit substantially disrupts tickets sales, gate revenue, TV negotiations, branding, marketing campaigns, futures schedules, etc. had they done that as a prelude to raising the fee, it would have been an iron clad, enforceable liquidated damages provision. Live and learn. Regardless, MD had the burden of proof to invalidate the contract term, which is extremely difficult to do when sophisticated parties are at issue. I think ACC wax 80%+ likely to win.

However the cost to defend MD's antitrust counterclaim is huge. Assume $1 million a month in legal bills over a 2-3 year period. Plus the ACC would have been obligated to turnover all of it's strategy docs and have each of it's AD's deposed, and several presidents. That's probably we felt comfortable leaving money on the table.

Also, the primary reason to enforce the exit fee (I.e., keep FSU from bolting) is gone, now that everyone signed a 14 full GOR.

This was a good deal, and the ACC was wise to preemptively withold MD's $31mil share ... MD knew they couldn't recover it without a clean win on all counts (which necessarily would have forced the Big 10 AD's to submit to the same type of extensive document/deposition requests). I think everyone realized it was best to pocket MD's $31 mil, and call a truce. MD still suffers the most, having to pay the ACC $31MM, the Big 10 a full buy-in, and limited revenue share for the first year or two. That's basically 3 without any money flowing into the MD AD. Ouch!!!

When passing oneself off as knowledgeable and intelligent, one should write coherent and proper English.

I know typos are annoying, but it's the best I care to do on a weekend, while finger typing on an iPad. I think we can all agree it's best to save our flagship diction and grammar for office, and not chat room banter. I think you got the gist, but if bothers you too much, I understand, so just skip it. But don't waste your time lobbying for elements of style on a banter board.

Thanks for your contribution, Casey. While I do not have a clue about what motivated the settlement, your explanation sounds plausible. As for your English, it looked fine. It beat a lot of what appears here, some of which has been embarrassing (though I admit I can't think of recent examples full of solecisms; TRE is usually solid).

Thanks (I think)

I thought ACC would go to the mat on principle but then I realized it's amateur athletics and there are no principles involved.

By everything logical and traditional MD belongs in the ACC. Hope they enjoy their road trips to Nebraska and Minnesota in the winter vs Miami, Fl St etc. They'll be battling Rutgers for football anchorman most years but nothing matters more that tV revs in american academia.

DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:

DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:Wow, Maryland pooped diarrhea in the ACC's mouth.

meh. every recent exit fee negotiation has resulted in a lesser amount than contracted.

oh and gross.

Why do you have to be such a prick? Why can't you ever just agree with me?!? This ain't the way I wanted it. I can handle things. I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb. I'm smart and I want respect!

are you done?

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story ... er-schools
Get ready for a new round of rumors about ACC schools leaving to follow the money.

HJS {l Wrote}:http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12974161/southeastern-conference-distribute-record-435m-revenue-member-schools
Get ready for a new round of rumors about ACC schools leaving to follow the money.

On the contrary, I think very soon you're going to be hearing about the ACC's "record" distribution this year. Most of it will be a quirk of the Playoff Payout Distribution format where the ACC gets it's bonus payment in the years where the Orange Bowl is left out of the SemiFinals and the fact that FSU went to the playoff and Clemson nabbed the Orange Bowl (and payout). The ACC had the 2nd highest Playoff Payout this year with $83.5m. Only the SEC had more ($87m) while the Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC all were stuck at $60m.

With the increased payout from the playoff and the annual structured increases to the TV contract, and considering the ACC distributed $291.7m in 2013-2014, I'd be expecting an announcement close to the $400m mark. That would still be behind the SEC and Big Ten, but that would be $28.5m each. Not too shabby.

Again, I think I read that next years playoff payout will be significantly lower (like $35m, barring two New Years Bowl teams), so I wouldn't expect another "record-breaking" announcement in 2016.

You expect the ACC, which went up 50 million to $291 million because it was allowed to renegotiate due to expansion, to go up another $110 million this year, double the increase of last year and more than 33% of the total revenue?

I think the ACC will come in around 22-23 million a school.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:You expect the ACC, which went up 50 million to $291 million because it was allowed to renegotiate due to expansion, to go up another $110 million this year, double the increase of last year and more than 33% of the total revenue?

I think the ACC will come in around 22-23 million a school.

Because you questioned the numbers I looked it up, and you were right: my estimate is off.

The difference between the 2014 payout and this 2015 payout will be primarily TV scheduled growth and the switch from the BCS to the playoffs. I initially saw that the ACC would bring in $83.7m from the playoff and lazily assumed this would be added to our 2014 total. However, the ACC (because we had two teams in the final year of the BCS) actually brought in $40.5m from the BCS in 2014 (base $27.8m + $6.3m(x2)). So, some simple math and $83.7m - $40.5m = $43.2m increase from Playoff. So:

$291m (2014 Payout) + $40.5mg (Playoff Bonus) = $330m = $23.5m/school

But then in addition to that, add the scheduled increase in TV contract (I've seen it estimated at a $1m/school/year, but no concrete numbers out there). Also add the increased NCAA tournament payouts (21 units this year vs. 14 units in expiring '09 year...plus the value of those units keep increasing from year to year),

$330m + $14m (TV contract growth) + 5m (NCAA payout growth) = $350m = $24.7m/school

Just a ballpark and there might still be room for a few surprises. But regardless, we're in the same ballpark as the baby rapists.

dtwalrus {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:You expect the ACC, which went up 50 million to $291 million because it was allowed to renegotiate due to expansion, to go up another $110 million this year, double the increase of last year and more than 33% of the total revenue?

I think the ACC will come in around 22-23 million a school.

Because you questioned the numbers I looked it up, and you were right: my estimate is off.

The difference between the 2014 payout and this 2015 payout will be primarily TV scheduled growth and the switch from the BCS to the playoffs. I initially saw that the ACC would bring in $83.7m from the playoff and lazily assumed this would be added to our 2014 total. However, the ACC (because we had two teams in the final year of the BCS) actually brought in $40.5m from the BCS in 2014 (base $27.8m + $6.3m(x2)). So, some simple math and $83.7m - $40.5m = $43.2m increase from Playoff. So:

$291m (2014 Payout) + $40.5mg (Playoff Bonus) = $330m = $23.5m/school

But then in addition to that, add the scheduled increase in TV contract (I've seen it estimated at a $1m/school/year, but no concrete numbers out there). Also add the increased NCAA tournament payouts (21 units this year vs. 14 units in expiring '09 year...plus the value of those units keep increasing from year to year),

$330m + $14m (TV contract growth) + 5m (NCAA payout growth) = $350m = $24.7m/school

Just a ballpark and there might still be room for a few surprises. But regardless, we're in the same ballpark as the baby rapists.

So through tax documents, it appears that the ACC beat its initial estimates for the 2014 revenue distribution. Instead of the $291 initially reported it was actually $303.3m. We'll see what that grows to in the 2015 distribution (which I'm assuming will be announced before the end of summer) when we add in some of the bonus 2015 factors discussed above.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.co ... 0-million/

Seems that the Great Cable Bubble has popped. Wonder how the conferences will adjust if the ESPN Cash Cow is no longer bidding against itself to triple Rights Fees?
http://www.businessinsider.com/espn-mis ... fs-2015-10

HJS {l Wrote}:Seems that the Great Cable Bubble has popped. Wonder how the conferences will adjust if the ESPN Cash Cow is no longer bidding against itself to triple Rights Fees?
http://www.businessinsider.com/espn-mis ... fs-2015-10

By receiving so much money from the NFL, ESPN is seriously compromised, and cannot be considered an independent news or sports outlet, but merely a mouthpiece for the NFL.

ESPN engages in underhanded behavior to the league's benefit, such as silencing voices who challenge Goodell's honesty in a domestic abuse scandal; publishing (and never correcting) false information leaked by the NFL regarding deflategate; caving to league pressure on concussions; downplaying negative stories about league owners; and running curiously timed attack pieces against Goodell's adversaries. How can such a blatant liar such as Chris Mortensen still be employed by ESPN?

I only watch ESPN when I absolutely have to. All of their commentary is garbage.

Edit: Great choice awarding Caitlyn Jenner the Arthur Ash award.

half of the b1g CONTENT is getting gobbled up by fox, not all that surprising given the b1g network / fox connection

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Dail ... g-Ten.aspx

found it interesting that it was only a 6 year deal

claver2010 {l Wrote}:half of the b1g CONTENT is getting gobbled up by fox, not all that surprising given the b1g network / fox connection

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Dail ... g-Ten.aspx

found it interesting that it was only a 6 year deal

That BC @ Purdue game in 2018 has Fox Sports 2 written all over it.

claver2010 {l Wrote}:half of the b1g CONTENT is getting gobbled up by fox, not all that surprising given the b1g network / fox connection

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Dail ... g-Ten.aspx

found it interesting that it was only a 6 year deal

That seems like a pretty decent deal for the Big Ten. However, it is looking like it will fall short of the huge game changers many were predicting with the addition of NY and DC markets. Specifically, it seems that the $250mm number is the high watermark if FOX is getting first pick on the games. I assume, that goes down proportionally to the amount of first choice games the other B10 package gets. Still... if you just double the deal in projecting the second deal, you get slightly north of $35mm per team per year. The BTN has been paying out $1mm per team per year. That number was projected to drastically increase with MD and RU, but (given the cord-cutting reality) will likely contract. While an all-in total of $35mm is fantastic, it would not represent a material uptick from what the B10 currently pays their schools (in 2015 they paid close to $33mm). If their second deal isn't as robust (or significantly drops the high-watermark of FOX's $250), you are looking at a potential drop in TV payouts... which would be unheard of.

HJS {l Wrote}:

claver2010 {l Wrote}:half of the b1g CONTENT is getting gobbled up by fox, not all that surprising given the b1g network / fox connection

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Dail ... g-Ten.aspx

found it interesting that it was only a 6 year deal

That seems like a pretty decent deal for the Big Ten. However, it is looking like it will fall short of the huge game changers many were predicting with the addition of NY and DC markets. Specifically, it seems that the $250mm number is the high watermark if FOX is getting first pick on the games. I assume, that goes down proportionally to the amount of first choice games the other B10 package gets. Still... if you just double the deal in projecting the second deal, you get slightly north of $35mm per team per year. The BTN has been paying out $1mm per team per year. That number was projected to drastically increase with MD and RU, but (given the cord-cutting reality) will likely contract. While an all-in total of $35mm is fantastic, it would not represent a material uptick from what the B10 currently pays their schools (in 2015 they paid close to $33mm). If their second deal isn't as robust (or significantly drops the high-watermark of FOX's $250), you are looking at a potential drop in TV payouts... which would be unheard of.

The message boards and twitter-verse are aglow with predictions of $50-60m based on this "giant" number for "half" the content. There's a lot of assumptions out there that the BIG will be able to just double this number for the total tier 1 and 2 package ($500m), then add BTN best-case projections, and add a purely speculative amount from the sale of the online content (which admittedly is wisely retained by the BIG in this deal), and then finally bowls and other revenue to get to something like $700 million and $50 million each.

But that's ridiculous and you've pretty much nailed why. This is "up to $250m" for some as yet to be determined split of tier 1 and 2. To get that full $250, the BIG will probably have to give a bit more than 50%. You better believe whoever pays for the leftover "half" won't be paying a full $250. And cord-cutting is going to effect the BTN soon enough. Just ask YES how easy it is to get premium fees in today's marketplace.

BIG payouts won't go down, but will be in the same ballpark as the SEC.

In fairness, I was wrong about BTN. They returned a profit of $1mm per, but that is after they pay the conference $100mm a year. The BTN the most vulnerable piece, but my best case scenario above simply doesn't appropriately account for the BTN piece. So $40mm per year per school is more than achievable if they can top $500mm for both packages.

No one in NYC cares about Rutgers the same way no one in DC cares about Maryland

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:No one in NYC cares about Rutgers the same way no one in DC cares about Maryland

the same way no one in boston cares about bc

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:No one in NYC cares about Rutgers the same way no one in DC cares about Maryland

the same way no one in boston cares about bc

Billy Joel throws like a girl.

angrychicken {l Wrote}:

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:No one in NYC cares about Rutgers the same way no one in DC cares about Maryland

the same way no one in boston cares about bc

Billy Joel throws like a girl.

that's why i thought it perfect in this instance

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:

angrychicken {l Wrote}:

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:No one in NYC cares about Rutgers the same way no one in DC cares about Maryland

the same way no one in boston cares about bc

Billy Joel throws like a girl.

that's why i thought it perfect in this instance

Ahh...hepstein.