sosheezy said:The media deal is about $30-31M from what I could see (or was in 2022). My basic math was dividing $444M in TV revenue by 14.5 (giving ND a partial share). Apparently should be an uptick in 2023 due to full year of the Comcast carriage deal for ACCNetwork hitting. https://richmond.com/sports/college/teel-acc-reports-record-revenue-and-distributions-for-2021-22/article_779a5232-f66a-11ed-93b3-0f141c04f72d.htmlColoradoBear said:Oski87 said:My understanding of the revenue increase is the ACC contract with ESPN gives a full share to each new member. And so with SMU - this is about 120 million for the three of them - 40 million each. Cal and Furd take 60 - 70% and move up over time so somewhere around 25 - 30 million.ColoradoBear said:Oski87 said:
If the ESPN reported increased distribution is true - which would mean that the ACC network would be able to take elevated carriage fees in Texas and California, which at this point still helps ESPN quite a bit - I would expect that the total revenue is 120 million, and if Cal and Furd take 25 million, for example, then there is 70 million to go to the other 14 members. That is 5 million each - not nothing. More than pays for travel, etc.
Cal and Furd will split air time for Olympic sports. Maybe we buy a jet together. Blue on one side, Red on the other. Football travel will be separate charters. The bigger issue is sending the gear truck all over the country. Probably have to have an east coast headquarters for that, shared by the two teams. Anyway, hopefully there is a path.
If Cal and Stanford could trigger a $120 Millon revenue increase, the two teams wouldn't be agreeing to a reduced share and would have $$$ invites from other conferences too.
My guess would be a $40-60 million revenue increase. I'm not sure what the current ACC deals pays per schools because there are typically yearly inflation escalators. The original contract was for $20 million per school, but that was before the ACCN. There are also conflicting reports on whether the extra ACCN revenue goes to ESPN with no oigation to pass it on to the ACC. Renegotiating all this could be another sticking point in the deal. And SMU is not a p5 school, so they might not trigger the same pro rated TV share, but would gain ACCN sub fees in Dallas.
ESPN is absolutely not paying the ACC $40 million per school. That's the total revenue distribution for the conference which includes NCAA tournament money, playoff money, and bowl money.
That's a little better than I expected - in FY2019 (year before the ACCN started), they received $288 million for media (~$20 million/school).
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/29441623/pac-12-revenue-7-acc-slightly-2018-19-fiscal-year
If that 20 million increased at 5% per year, that would have been $24.3 million in 2022, so can the excess attributed to the ACCN sub fees?
$31 Millon for 2021-22 with a 5% yearly escalator until 2036 would be a better deal than the Big 12 will be getting. That's because the big 12 deal averages $30.7 million, but the starting year will be below that. They would get $26.5 million in 2024 if there's a 5% annual raise. And the ACC w/o the potential expansion would be 35.9 million if that 31 million for 2021-22 grows 5% for 3 years. And could be more for certain teams if there is a performance based cut.
If a 70% cut for Cal and Furd is possible, plus 10 million Calimony, Cal could be competitive, though non rev travel could eat up a lot if some solution to that isn't found (sport cuts + regional competitions).
