PonyFans.com

EastStang wrote:I don't see a Dukie's plan going through. (1) UVA will have a huge problem leaving VT behind. Gov. Youngkin (who is a Rice grad and married to an SMU grad) would have difficulty selling something that benefitted those schools to the detriment of VT. It would be dangerous for him and probably the same in Carolina. (2) UVA and UNC are not good in football. You only mentioned 4 schools who would leave. Why would the others want to get away from Clemson and FSU? And why would Clemson want to leave a conference where they are pretty much guaranteed a spot in the Playoffs for the foreseeable future. So, I really don't see it happening.

orguy wrote:

Comet wrote:I'm here to also say I'm a fan of FF. Do stay and continue to contribute to the community.

Lots of support for a "cordial" toad. Always creepy when frogs come around to
troll. Did you all collectively get together for activities when TCwho crapped the
bed on national TV against Georgia? Glad none of you represent SMU in an official
capacity or we would be debating the merits of joining the Sunbelt conference.

Dukie wrote:

JasonB wrote:Let's take the worst case scenario, where some teams leave from the ACC to the Big10 and SEC. If the TV deal that the remaining ACC teams + PAC 12 teams could get (keep in mind, if that happened, odds are that OU and UW head to the Big 10 as well as part of an expansion) would exceed the $35M the ACC contract pays (after bowl payouts are included), then it becomes financially viable for teams to pull out of the ACC contract.

At that point, ESPN loses a contract, and they become a primary bidder to the joint ACC + PAC12 league, with a ton of different timezones. the ESPN + Amazon/Apple bid becomes significantly larger than what the ACC or PAC12 could get independently.

Under this worst case scenario, I'll take a stab that OU, UW, UNC, UVA head to the Big 10, and then FSU and Clemson go to the SEC.

So the new ACC-PAC12 becomes BC, Duke, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, NC State, Pitt, Syracuse, VT, Wake, WSU, OSU, Stanford, Cal, ASU, UA, UU, Colorado, SDSU, SMU, Rice, Tulane. Does that drum up enough investment to justify pulling that ACC apart?

Probably not right now. I think what we end up with is that the PAC 12 signs a 6 year deal in mid-march, adding SDSU and SMU, and then at the end of the six year deal this scenario above plays out.

I've been in the past a pretty strong proponent of the notion that GOR agreements can be overcome, but if Texas and OU can't break the Big 12 GOR to leave more than one year early, then I'm pretty sure no ACC school can break the ACC GOR at what would be 13 years early today. Or even 7 years early, six years from now. This would all have to happen at once, and the schools leaving for the B1G, the SEC, and this new ACC-PAC would all have to come out better off. FWIW I don't think that's all of the remaining ACC; there's no way BC or Syracuse or Wake make the cut, and there's a big group of iffy schools as well. Hell, I'm not even sure a majority of schools can break the GOR, or if a minority or even a single school can hold everyone else to it.

Rla1022 wrote:There’s been some short sited articles attempting to point out how Apple TV is bad. So here are my counter point for discussion.

1. Espn has numerous content carriers they partner with from spectrum to direct tv. Their content has often been cut off from others due to negotiations. ESPN is a streaming first service though. We have espns 1,2 u and the ocho. But how many SMU bball games have you watched not espn +
2. Thursday night football. Amazon has the rights to TNF. Some how you’re able to still watch TNF on real tv.
3. NFL Sunday ticket - Alphabet and Google owned Youtbe Tv have the exclusive rights to NFL Sunday ticket.

I’m sure there are many more examples. Point is anyone thinking that Apple is not working with content carriers to build the next gen version of abcs wide world of sports is crazy.

Nedward wrote:Fun fact. When TNF debuted with Amazon there was simply a dedicated channel to watch at the bars. No switching services or any mechanics. Just a channel that went active just for the game. I suspect something similar would happen with Apple.

MustangStealth wrote:If you sign with Apple you can kiss goodbye your games airing in sports bars. They aren't going to mess with switching devices and logging into a different service. Conventional broadcast media is still important if you want eyes on your product.

MustangStealth wrote:

Rla1022 wrote:There’s been some short sited articles attempting to point out how Apple TV is bad. So here are my counter point for discussion.

1. Espn has numerous content carriers they partner with from spectrum to direct tv. Their content has often been cut off from others due to negotiations. ESPN is a streaming first service though. We have espns 1,2 u and the ocho. But how many SMU bball games have you watched not espn +
2. Thursday night football. Amazon has the rights to TNF. Some how you’re able to still watch TNF on real tv.
3. NFL Sunday ticket - Alphabet and Google owned Youtbe Tv have the exclusive rights to NFL Sunday ticket.

I’m sure there are many more examples. Point is anyone thinking that Apple is not working with content carriers to build the next gen version of abcs wide world of sports is crazy.

If you sign with Apple you can kiss goodbye your games airing in sports bars. They aren't going to mess with switching devices and logging into a different service. MLS found this out and gave DirecTV permission to carry their games on their business package if they pay the equivalent of the AppleTV season pass. Conventional broadcast media is still important if you want eyes on your product.

JasonB wrote:Agreed about GOR, but the ACC has a special provision in their contract that allows a majority of schools to break it together.