David Hale took part in a community interview on Matt Brown's Extra Points, and I found his answers to two questions somewhat interesting:
Reader Tyler asks:
How do you see the Jim Phillips era at the ACC being different from the previous administration? Are fans likely to notice any changes?
Hale: One word is at the top of Phillips' to-do list, and it's a big one: Revenue.
How much can be done in the near term to at least keep the ACC's revenue gap (it was the lowest payout of any P5 league for 2018-19) from widening is a big question, and odds are, the answer is, not much. I wouldn't be shocked to see the league move away from divisions or even move to a nine-game conference schedule in the next couple years, if only to create a deeper inventory of money games for TV networks. Still, from the feedback I've heard, that's not likely to make a major dent in the overall numbers.
When I talk to football coaches and a lot of ADs though, the thing I keep hearing is that they want Phillips to make a harder push to rebrand the league as a football conference than John Swofford was ever willing to do. Swofford, for all his successes, always tried to straddle the fence, because there are a lot of power brokers who are still basketball-first thinkers. But the reality is the overwhelming percentage of money comes from football, and Phillips needs to have the whole league thinking that way. It's going to be a big challenge.
Reader Evan asks:
Do you think Notre Dame's one year stint in the ACC will just be a funny historical footnote, or a sign of potentially bigger things between the two parties?
Hale: As I've dug around on the ACC's revenue gap with the Big Ten and SEC, one thing I've been told again and again by ADs both in and outside the league is that there's really little chance of a significant shift in money unless something massive happens.
Notre Dame joining the ACC full time would fit that bill... ...But it's still Notre Dame we're talking about, and while the TV money might be better as part of a conference, the big-money donors aren't going to like the idea. Moreover, if money becomes the only driving force, Notre Dame could just as easily work to rid itself of its ACC tie-in and land in the Big Ten, which would return a good bit more money.
A number of ACC folks I've spoken with expressed frustration that Swofford didn't use his leverage in 2020 to force Notre Dame's hand. I'm not sure it would've mattered. The Irish still were holding more cards, big picture. In the end, I think the most likely path for Notre Dame to come on board full time would be a larger-scale shakeup in college football -- one that could see a playoff expansion that offered auto-bids to conference champs and/or significant realignment
I don't think there's anything groundbreaking or shocking here, but I do think it's quite unusual to hear members of the (mainstream) media criticize Swafford - I find it quite refreshing.
Comments
To be upfront I don't fully understand rights deals and obviously we don't read much of the fine print but I find them fascinating. With Amazon's push for NFL rights I wonder if they would ever consider college football? Convincing them to dip their toe in the water by picking up games that don't make ABC/ESPN/ACCN would be a nice (if most likely small) revenue bump. To me one of the biggest issues with really all sports is how hard it is to get access to games if your favorite team isn't a major media market (as a Tennessee Titans and Hokies Fan I have become quite proficient at finding illicit streams). I feel like streaming companies can capitalize on that and knowing your viewership is niche you could probably sell some pretty well targeted and I would imagine effective ads.
ESPN+ had a boat load of games for the small schools, and has practically made spring fcs exclusive to the streaming platform. And for ESPN+, you don't have to sell the ads.
Yet the ACC regularly has games blacked out for channels that no one seems to get, its infuriating
See below regarding Sinclair.
Let me summarize it for you. Basically, Fox, ESPN, ACCN, CBS, BTN, etc. all get together each week, and have a huge fantasy football draft for each week's games. However, unlike a typical draft where any team owner can draft any player, in this draft there are rules around who can draft which players (eg; televisible games).
These rules are dictated by our TV contracts. In these TV contracts, The ACC essential sells their inventory to a middleman (ESPN, Fox, CBS, ACCN, etc), and that middleman resells to Comcast, Verizon, etc (we'll circle back to this bullet later).
The first few rounds of the draft are an exciting cat and mouse game - Disney (ESPN/ABC) might get the first two picks, but they have to know that each channel is cannibalizing the other. CBS is (basically) guaranteed to air one of the top 2-3 SEC games at 3:30 - do you put a piece of good inventory their and try to compete with them, or do you just take the L at 3:30. What about noon - there's less viewers, but it might be able to capture the market. Anyways, I could go on and on here, but it's not really relevant to your question
So, in the latter rounds of the draft Fox, ESPN, and the big boys have filled up their roster. The remaining games are subject to '3rd (or 4th) tier rights'. 3rd tier rights vary a lot by conference. This is where it gets weird. In the B12 for example, each team owns their 3rd tier rights. Texas, for example, owns their own rights, and they broadcast on The Longhorn Network. Oklahoma has put 3rd tier rights up for PPV. The ACC, on the other hand, chose to package all of their their third tier rights together, and sell them as one bundle.
The ACC 3rd/4th tier rights have been sold to Sinclair Broadcasting. Who is Sinclair Broadcasting? They'll often called 'Regional Sports Networks,' 'RSNs', or 'Local Stations,' but in fact, they are one of the largest broadcasting groups in the country. Sinclair has decided not to allow their networks to be streamed online.
Why did the ACC give their bottom tier rights to Sinclair? Probably because Sinclair had the best offer (at the time that the ACC was renegotiating their deal).
Unfortunately, while I'd love to watch the Hokies on Amazon (especially given our NoVA Amazon campus), I don't see a way we can renegotiate right now; ACC football just hasn't been a great product lately, so I don't see any way the ACC can gain leverage.
Basketball. Jordan brand.
Not sure if sarcasm or serious .GIF
Sinclair is a (community guidelines) which is why I hope they sell off their regional sports rights to Amazon or ESPN+.
Amazon plz.
Can't do much about complacency setting when leadership blindly avoids taking advantage of opportunities.
Clemson has been dominant in football for a decade, and we get rewarded with spurtle commercials.
ACCN rollout has been poor. There's the regional broadcast agreement that sticks games in mud while ACCN is running Packer & Durham reruns.
He's not wrong about the basketball conference. Hell, just about all the Olympic sports are dominant.
Meanwhile, Weaver rejected the SEC over complacency. The next big shakeup will happen eventually. But it will be ND to the Big Ten because as Hale noted above, if it's about money, the ACC isn't it.
ND won't join anywhere until at least 2036 unless they want to pay all their conference revenue to the ACC.
I know infomercials suck, but I cant believe any executive in his shoes wouldn't be taking the highest bidder. Therefore, I am left to assume Spurtles are making the ACC more money than traditional ads.
Really need to go after that Happy Fun Ball money
that's exactly how we wound on raycom, right?
Bell and Howell is a Durham based company so it might just be drinking buddies with swofford and not highest bidder. So who knows.
I cant allow myself to believe that incompetence of that level is just being ignored or allowed.
You'll find it hard to believe there could be a good ol boys club running an athletic organization? A group of people that put their own personal benefits above the actual organization?
If you can't believe in the corruption of an athletic organization the I don't know what to say.
A few years ago, ESPN included a Q&A with Swofford as part of their 2018 ACC preview. One of the questions they asked was:
The first line of Swofford's reply tells you all you need to know:
Fuck him
You'd have to talk a long time to convince me the ACC didn't miss the window to cash in on football. The only thing I see evening the payouts is something that lowers them for other conferences like a drop in value for cfb due to loss in popularity.
Getting ND to join in full no longer seems realistic either. The window there was making CFP a conference champs only event and that never materialized so.... thanks Swofford! Hope you enjoy the shuffle-board and jello.
I think that at most, the ACC missed out on 3-5 years of money like we're making right now. I don't think the ACC missed out on ACC or B10 money. The typical ACC game just isn't nearly as good as the typical SEC or B10 (or arguably even B12) game.
Agree ... when was the last time the ACC championship was a must see game? Has it ever been?
Probably this year, with ND vs Clemson. Before then... 2007 VT vs BC? 2010 VT vs. FSU? 2014 GT vs. FSU?
I really don't see any of those years a must see. This year with a team only in the ACC for a year has no standing on bowl games or anything. Though probably the most must see game.
We haven't had a 1 OSU vs 2 Mich. We haven't had a battle for the playoff, or a historical rivalry (looking at you FSU and Miami). The ACC has largely been a 1 team conference through out the years. It makes it tough to sell the game.
Yeah I think everybody that thinks Swafford mishandled even breathing seems to think that the ACC marketability is the same as B10 or SEC. Unfortunately, we just don't have the same following. We couldn't even generate enough demand for Comcast to pay to show the ACC network.
We couldn't even generate enough demand for Comcast to pay to show the ACC network.
Yeah, they offered to pay but not at a level acceptable to The Mouse. The next opportunity for revenue increase will be their next contract (if there is one) in early 2022 (?)
Simply too many schools in the ACC who do not care enough and/or the fanbases don't care enough about football for us to ever be as desirable a product as the SEC or B1G. Too many schools without the real deal boosters, small stadiums that they don't even fill, and not enough history or commitment to talent acquisition.
This is the hold up. It's not that VT carried the league in the 2000s, or that FSU for a time, and Clemson dominated the last decade. It's that over half the league doesn't care until basketball season starts. The ACCCG is always, who's the sacrificial lamb to Clemson? Which gets to the point of our lack of dominance in a mediocre Coastal over the past decade, but that's for another thread.
Syracuse and Pitt were basketball additions. Losing Maryland to the B10 was a big blow, b/c they somewhat cared about football, and so many alumni bases make Metro DC home, including ours. Whether it was Clemson, VT, NC State, FL State, the stadium would be packed.
Until Wake, Duke, BC, Pitt, Syracuse, lolUVA, care about football, ACC football doesn't matter all that much.
B-b-but Loluva breaks pavers!
Even if they started caring about football it takes decades to build the kind of donor base, consistent large stadium attendance, and general fan culture that even mid and lower level SEC schools have. It will realistically never happen for any of those schools.
UMD was a big blow because they were a founding member, but from a purely athletic point of view, I think we upgraded with Louisville.
The thing that frustrates me about the ACC is that the potential is there - Pitt, Syracuse, and BC all used to be very competitive football schools. GT, UNC, and Miami are all rife with potential, VT and NC State both have rabid fanbases. Louisville is 3 years removed from a Heisman QB and almost reaching #1 in the country. FSU and Clemson are bonafide national powers. But for some reason, it's impossible for more than 2-3 teams to be nationally relevant (aka undisputed top 20ish teams) at any given time.
08-12 was peak ACC, Clemson, VT, FSU, BC and Miami were all good. Except we didn't get an ACCN until last year. 10 whole years later.
But something I didn't think about til today, was streaming and how it's devalued tv rights deals. This makes the decision not to have ACCN until now even worse, b/c tv value is down. Now I'm even more upset.
It is going to hit all of the teams as soon as the mega deals expire. With streaming, I am not sure the next SEC deal will be worth the current amount. Not to mention a lot of kids today don't care about sports as much as the older generations.
This is where I disagree. Must see TV is must see TV. The SEC typically has 1-2 games each week that are nationally relevant. Even if the SEC were to go OTT/DTC, they'd still be fine, because they're selling a premium product. The ACC is not going to be bringing in the dough unless they can get into a bundle.
I know I am slightly bullish on the ACC compared to some, but there are some things to like moving forward: UNC appears to want to be good (step 1 for them), Miami took a step forward, GT and BC look like they will upswing soon. Biggest thing the league needs is a gangbusters FSU again. If you have 2010-2016 FSU, elite Clemson, and good to very good VT, UNC, and Miami thats a really strong base to negotiate with. All have larger fan bases, with national cache that could command a good deal at the next renegotiation. Will be interesting to track over the next few years
Biggest problem for a few years imo is that the league was really deep. Everyone was quick to say #goACC but there really weren't any terrible teams other than UVA. SEC, B1G, and Big 12 all have a terrible bottom few schools, which is a few easy wins for the top teams. Makes for higher win totals and more top ranked teams which means more TV time and more casual fans.
But most concerning of all, the ACC just doesn't seem have a winning record against OOC P5 competition. Every year, you see GT (a team that should be top half, if not top third of the league) shoot themselves in the foot and lose to a garbage Tennessee team, or UNC lose to SCar (they've lost 3 of the last 4), etc. Until the conference can win the majority of these games, I don't see us having much to negotiate with.
To be fair re UNC: they are investing in football much more than they have recently. I think both coordinators are over a million now plus indoor facility and some other big donations. So maybe they make a bigger splash hire, not sure. Butch Davis and Fedora weren't cheap hires by any means though. Won't argue with you on any of the others.
As to the OOC, ACC schools, due to the geographic overlap, schedule dumba** games. GT already plays UGA every year, why are they playing UCF? Why is Syracuse going to LSU? Schedule winnable games and rack up 8+ wins and make it in the top 25 and benefit from donations, media coverage etc etc.
Bingo - this is the biggest failure of Swafford's career, and IMO it's the reason he was a mediocre commissioner, versus a good one. Like I said, I don't think the ACC would be getting SEC money (because the product isn't as good), but I think the conference could've brought in an extra $5m/school in 2014-15 (ACC brought in $22.5M/school in 2014-15), and climbed to an extra $10M+/school through 2020. That's one Fuente buyout for anyone keeping track.
TLDR: Swafford saved Fuente's job.
There was a chance, back when the ACC expanded, to more creatively/strategically realign resources, commitments, and expectations for football. But the ACC thought they could just line up Miami and FSU every year for the championship and that would be enough to keep pace with the other leagues. Now they are so far behind the idea of parity seems like a cruel joke. Hard for me to believe that disparity won't start impacting the prized basketball hens.
Curious - what could have been done? Are we talking 2005 or 2011 realignment?
FSU/Miami was 2005, that was the intent to put them in different divisions. They'd play each other for the title. Miami didn't play in a title game until well after 2005.
Yea - I know this. I was really curious about what creative things the league could've done in 2005 that they didn't.
Not take Syracuse and Pitt for basketball in 2011. That was the conference saying, fuck it, we don't care about football.
Now, Rutgers of all schools was on the table. And they would have been a viable option with Schiano there, and women's basketball killing it. Plus NYC/NJ tv market.
I always felt that Navy was a good football only option, along with Army.
But football wise, there weren't really options geographically, and Maryland bolted when they ran the numbers. Even after shutting down several sports.
I disagree. The conference was saying "We need to go on the offensive, otherwise, other conference will poach our members, and we don't want to invite UL or WVU because of academics, so we're going to take the next best option."
As an Annapolis Native, I would love to see Navy in the ACC, but given the university enforced height/weight maximums, I'm not sure it would be save for them to play 10 P5 games/year. Then there's the question of if they would fit in with the rest of the ACC.
Finally, Syracuse over Rutgers was the right move. Syracuse is the better basketball school, and the difference in their football programs in negligible.
Shooting from the hip here but assuming ND was still a take for partial membership here are some of the things I think they could've done to help maximize football revs:
In short, there was no vision and no coordinated conference-level effort to make improvements that would generate value for football beyond just "add ND" and hope Miami and FSU stay good. And there was no effort to foster a culture that supports football.
**Made a couple edits to clarify a few points