Clemson football: Could ESPN merge the ACC and PAC-12 Networks?

I was enjoying the last day of my vacation, sitting on the porch of my sister-in-law’s home in Charleston, SC wondering what’s next for Clemson football when I came across this article by John Canzano. Canzano is plugged in to the PAC-12. The article discusses the dynamics of the current negotiations with ESPN on a new television deal for the conference. He walks through a few scenarios that could make or break the conference’s future with a former president of Fox Sports Network, Bob Thompson.

When the subject of the ACC/PAC-12 ‘Alliance’ is brought up, Thompson dismisses the relevance, stating:

"“It seems to me the play is that somehow the ACC Network serves both conferences and replaces Pac-12 Networks ultimately increasing the payout from ESPN to the ACC.”"

This caught my attention. Thompson suggests it’s a non-starter, but am I crazy to think that merging the two networks would actually be a good idea, especially for ESPN?

I admit my first reaction to the ACC/PAC-12 Alliance was a chuckle. I wasn’t sure it was real. It sounded like something someone would make up. Cross scheduling from coast to coast? A championship game in Las Vegas? It didn’t sound serious so I really didn’t give it much attention. Those things are absurd and should be dismissed immediately.

One thing I do remember was that the supposed reason for it was to increase payout to the members of both conferences to find a way to remain competitive with the schools of the SEC and Big Ten, who are expected to draw significantly higher television revenue as they move into the latter half of this decade. That part made a ton of sense.

The reasoning Thompson suggested, however, brings a new logic to the rumored discussions between the ACC and the PAC-12. What if that is an angle here for ESPN? Could they be interested in a joint ACC/PAC-12 Network? Could ESPN have put a bug in Jim Phillips’ ear? Let’s consider it for a minute.

I enjoy when the editor of Rubbing The Rock, Marty Coleman, rips into the ACC Network. Marty points out that high schools in Texas have better production quality for their football broadcasts than the ACC Network. ESPN hasn’t been willing to invest the same kind of money into ACCN as SECN. In fairness, ACCN doesn’t get nearly the same amount of distribution nationwide as SECN. It doesn’t pull the same kind of revenue. Pulls less revenue = invest less into the network.

If you want an example of a network that has been even less successful than ACCN, just look to the Left Coast. The PAC-12 decided to launch a network without a big sports cable partner, the way the Big Ten (FOX) and SEC (ESPN) launched their networks. I get it: no partner, no sharing of revenue. They just underestimated the difficulty of getting enough distribution to make the venture successful, or more precisely, they overestimated the reach of the PAC-12 brand.

Now consider this from ESPN’s perspective. If we assume that a new deal with the PAC-12 would include taking over their network (and that might be a big assumption), does it make sense for ESPN to operate yet a third conference network? Especially when you already need inventory for ESPN, ESPN2 & ESPNU? They would likely take over the current distribution of the PAC-12 Network, and gain some ground because the ESPN brand is strong, but ultimately they would face the same struggle they had with ACCN: the brand doesn’t have wide appeal like the Big Ten and the SEC.

What happens if they merge the ACC & the PAC-12 together on one network? You immediately increase the distribution for the network from mostly southern and eastern markets that it has now, to include markets in the western states. Not just California but Arizona (Phoenix), Colorado (Denver), Utah (SLC), Washington (Seattle) and Oregon (Portland). You also likely bring in Las Vegas.

Given the time differences, you naturally can feature ACC programming early in the day, and then transition to PAC programming later in the day. The ACC/PAC-12 Network could have live sports programming most Saturdays from noon Eastern time to midnight Pacific time, something two individual networks couldn’t accomplish on their own.

Many questions remain unanswered, but one option ESPN may be considering is merging the ACC and PAC-12 Networks

This sounds good to me. It’s not like ACCN has endeared itself to me or any other Clemson fans out there. There may be haters that just want to dunk on the PAC-12, but there isn’t any logical reason why any fan of an ACC school would have a problem sharing airtime on the network if it made more money for their school. Most Clemson fans who only watch the Tigers are as indifferent to Syracuse and Louisville as they are to Utah and Stanford.

That’s the key: will it mean more money for all the schools of the ACC and PAC-12? Or will it just mean more money for the PAC-12 and ESPN? Will the ACC schools see a boost of any kind? Will Clemson see any kind of increase in television revenue? That’s hard to know, but I think it would. It wouldn’t be huge, but every bit helps, especially if Clemson is locked in to the ACC through the expiration of the grant of rights in 2036.

The ACC/PAC-12 Network makes a whole lot more sense if it is something that has ESPN’s interest. If the ‘Alliance’ is actually about the merging of the networks, and nothing more, it sounds reasonable.  It may have hatched as a scheme by the ACC schools to try to find more revenue, but if ESPN likes the idea, it probably has legs.