Topper wrote:"Tortious." And that is my point. ESPN can manipulate Clemson and Fla St over to the SEC, continue the payout to the remaining ACC teams or re-negotiate based on ESPN's financial situation, and be rid of them in a few years. Maybe they do interfere with the league but there would be little in the way of monetary damages if they continue the payout.
I would disagree
1. What financial incentive is there for ESPN to pay more for Clemson and FSU vs. what they pay for them now. They own 100% of the rights to them what do they want to pay more for?
2. In addition to the above there are only so many premium spots to go around on ABC, ESPN, and ESPN II so trying to argue "better match ups" for a conference that already has more quality match ups than ESPN can currently handle is not really a great argument relative to the cost. This is even more true with Texas and OU joining.
3. There is the issue of the ACCn. I have argued other places that the purpose of the ACCn for ESPN was to remove the OBLIGATION for ESPN to show a particular number of ACC games on ABC, ESPN, and ESPN II and instead shift them over to the ACCn. Yes the ACC shares in the profits, but in reality they also now share in the COST of producing those games as well. It just so happens that as of now the money generated from the ACCn covers those cost, delivers some profit to ESPN and to the ACC. But as a just our report said for the first time ever FS1 has more subscribers than ESPN and cord cutting is still happening and is a reason for that chance in subscriber numbers for ESPN in particular. So at some point when the ACCn is only break even well ESPN is still money ahead because they are still covering the cost of producing ACCn content instead of paying that cost AND having to place that content on ABC, ESPN, or ESPN II instead of something that would be more preferable to show on those channels at any particular time.
ESPN had to start doing that because they are out of air time for showing football when anyone will watch. Which is the same issue the PAC 12 is facing. ESPN being out of places to put PAC 12 content and in addition the less desirable times that some PAC 12 content is shown.
4. With #3 in mind above there is the issue of "in market" and "out of market" rates for subscribers. I am not as big of a believer as some are that ESPN with the ACCn or even the SECn can just add a team to a conference and BAM! cable companies now have to start paying in market rates for 100% of the subscribers in that state. But many ACC fans argue this is in fact the case. So with Clemson in particular taking them from the ACC now means that cable companies, if it is true, can now start paying out of market rates for all the ACCn subs in SC. That hurts the ACC. In addition I think there would be a push from cable companies to reduce rates in Florida if FSU was gone. Even if there was not immediately then the next time that cable/content negotiations happen between ESPN and the cable and sat companies, which will surely be before the end of the ACC TV contract, there will be a push to reduce ACCn subscriber rates in Florida and probably across the entire spectrum of cable companies and subscribers because of the loss of two top teams. And that hurts the ACC.
5. I do not think it is a stretch for ACC members to go back several years or even a decade or more and look at ticket sales and ticket prices for individual home games that have FSU or Clemson as the visiting program for that game vs. those that do not and to be able to show that Clemson and FSU as conference members makes them money on ticket sales and concessions. In fact I think that would be quite easy to show or at least to convince a court.
6. There is still the issue that FSU and Clemson are also breaking the contract, GOR, with the ACC and they are definitely going to be doing so to enrich themselves. That will be pretty much impossible to argue against and thus that is something that would most likely be able to be collected on by the ACC and the members.
In addition I think it would be hard to argue that ESPN is not enticing FSU and Clemson to go to the SEC and to make more money and be paid more money by ESPN because ESPN is not going to profit from that. What other reason would ESPN have to spend that money when they already control 100% of the content of FSU and Clemson and the ACC. I think one can go right back to #4. Will ESPN be getting some additional "in market" revenue for the SECn? If so that is going to be a major issue.
7. I think there are a number of other "stability", "brand damage", and on and on claims that may or may not be really true in a real dollars ans cents way, but that the ACC will be able to trot out dozens of "experts" to testify about. and sure ESPN will have their that will say that is not true or laughably probably try and argue that somehow the ACC is being helped or enhanced, but again that will drag on forever and ever. What reason does ESPN have to drag themselves into that mess when the end result is paying more for content they already own 100% of for the next 9 years. Along with that if things go really sideways for ESPN or the SEC or both in court who knows what other conference or what other entities might head to court to start dragging ESPN through the coals. Worse yet "congress". It is not like ESPN is running around with clean hands or that they have not been exerting a lot of influence on college sports. sports in general, and cable TV rates and subscriber fees. And when there is talk again about ESPN possibly being spun off from Disney or there being some equity partnerships and with cable subs still dropping like a rock I don't think ESPN is in the mood for a long court fight that will be a drag on Disney stock, make any partners weary, and invite some "oversight". Especially simply to pay a lot more to move Clemson and FSU from the ACC to the SEC for really no good reason.
