I've been giving this some thought. The ACC teams that want more money, AKA basically all of them, are stuck because ESPN owns the contract for all of their home games. The only games that ESPN doesn't own are their away games. Those away games are the only place that the conference can bring in additional revenue. ESPN also owns two virtually worthless games for each team. Typically 1 fcs team and another lower tier fbs team. If they could make these 2 games valuable, it would be worth far more money.
If the ACC and pac-12 jointly entered into a contract being contracted, say three of the four non-conference games between these two conferences, they could be played against each other.
One of those 3 games being in week 12 of the college football season, when the SEC and now Big 10 are playing a tune-up game.
Create a Pacific versus Atlantic challenge. Where the number one rated team in the ACC plays the number one rated team in the pac-12 (they’ll be listed as “wildcard vs Pac-12” on the schedule), the number two team from the ACC plays the number two team from the pac-12... And so on.
Two to three of these games would have huge college football implications. The games would bring huge ratings during a down week.
Additionally, it would open new markets to the ACC and the pac-12 for viewership (getting fans of each conference interested in what’s happening on the opposite coast, expanding and generating additional fan interest from another region).
This would also be very valuable to ESPN or another TV provider. It would give them the biggest game of the week for one of the 13 weeks of college football. It would also give them the number two game with college football implications late in the season and would likely be one of the top 30 to 40 games of the season.
It may give the ACC the leverage to amend the finances of their current contract, in light of the new value. It would also give the pac 12 more value. Because the crossover games would be of far higher value then the FCS and a lower tier FBS games being played by the SEC & Big 10 that particular week.
Even if ESPN didn't go for it on the ACC end, they could enter a contract with a pac-12 for the crossover games and play them all on the West Coast. Giving the ACC half of the money from those games. Negotiating them as an additional contract.
I wanted to see what everyone thought?!?
If the ACC and pac-12 jointly entered into a contract being contracted, say three of the four non-conference games between these two conferences, they could be played against each other.
One of those 3 games being in week 12 of the college football season, when the SEC and now Big 10 are playing a tune-up game.
Create a Pacific versus Atlantic challenge. Where the number one rated team in the ACC plays the number one rated team in the pac-12 (they’ll be listed as “wildcard vs Pac-12” on the schedule), the number two team from the ACC plays the number two team from the pac-12... And so on.
Two to three of these games would have huge college football implications. The games would bring huge ratings during a down week.
Additionally, it would open new markets to the ACC and the pac-12 for viewership (getting fans of each conference interested in what’s happening on the opposite coast, expanding and generating additional fan interest from another region).
This would also be very valuable to ESPN or another TV provider. It would give them the biggest game of the week for one of the 13 weeks of college football. It would also give them the number two game with college football implications late in the season and would likely be one of the top 30 to 40 games of the season.
It may give the ACC the leverage to amend the finances of their current contract, in light of the new value. It would also give the pac 12 more value. Because the crossover games would be of far higher value then the FCS and a lower tier FBS games being played by the SEC & Big 10 that particular week.
Even if ESPN didn't go for it on the ACC end, they could enter a contract with a pac-12 for the crossover games and play them all on the West Coast. Giving the ACC half of the money from those games. Negotiating them as an additional contract.
I wanted to see what everyone thought?!?
Last edited:
