Conference Realignment

[Techster]

What's going to happen is in 2030 or whenever these SEC/B1G contracts expire, there will be a rollback of revenue and the ACC payout will be of comparable size for the final 6 years of the contract.

I highly doubt it. Given that the SEC and B1G will have 90%+ of the teams pulling in the collegiate sports viewers, those two leagues will have a bidding war to have their content locked down by the big media companies. I'm actually willing to make a long term wager that the SEC/B1G contracts will get bigger. Care to make take that wager? Loser donates the winnings to GTAA's fund in the winner's name.

Where the media companies have erred is that they plowed too much money across too many conferences of various sizes (see Conference USA, AAC, SoCon, etc.) and they've spread their resources too thin.

What the tea leaves are saying (see the PAC12), and what I suggested previously, is FOX/ESPN/CBS/Whatever new media company pops up will invest less money (and most likely not invest money at all) into these secondary and tertiary conferences once their contracts end, and use the savings to invest MORE money into the conferences that are making them money. This is why large conferences, especially ones in multiple times zones across the country, will be worth more than regional conferences with smaller programs. These large conferences with enough teams to fill out time slots for content to satisfy the many channels of these media companies, and they'll have relevant regional teams. Did anyone notice that the media companies didn't want to invest in the PAC12 as as whole conference, but was willing to invest in the pieces once in another conference?

The expansion phase of investing dollars into smaller leagues to fill out content is gone. It's like with any business, you expand to keep with the pace, after a while, you figure out what you can cut out so you can contract your costs. College sports is now in the contraction phase. More money into the bigger "winners", less money to the smaller "losers". The real losers will be Conference USA/Southern Conference/AAC/Etc. The teams in those conferences stand to lose the most as that money will probably be gone for them once their media contracts are up.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I never checked because i believed it was temporary, I do know that it’s worth probably 3x now than before the mortgage crisis.

as is the price of sugar and eggs

 

[forensicbuzz]

I highly doubt it. Given that the SEC and B1G will have 90%+ of the teams pulling in the collegiate sports viewers, those two leagues will have a bidding war to have their content locked down by the big media companies. I'm actually willing to make a long term wager that the SEC/B1G contracts will get bigger. Care to make take that wager? Loser donates the winnings to GTAA's fund in the winner's name.

Where the media companies have erred is that they plowed too much money across too many conferences of various sizes (see Conference USA, AAC, SoCon, etc.) and they've spread their resources too thin.

What the tea leaves are saying (see the PAC12), and what I suggested previously, is FOX/ESPN/CBS/Whatever new media company pops up will invest less money (and most likely not invest money at all) into these secondary and tertiary conferences once their contracts end, and use the savings to invest MORE money into the conferences that are making them money. This is why large conferences, especially ones in multiple times zones across the country, will be worth more than regional conferences with smaller programs. These large conferences with enough teams to fill out time slots for content to satisfy the many channels of these media companies, and they'll have relevant regional teams. Did anyone notice that the media companies didn't want to invest in the PAC12 as as whole conference, but was willing to invest in the pieces once in another conference?

The expansion phase of investing dollars into smaller leagues to fill out content is gone. It's like with any business, you expand to keep with the pace, after a while, you figure out what you can cut out so you can contract your costs. College sports is now in the contraction phase. More money into the bigger "winners", less money to the smaller "losers". The real losers will be Conference USA/Southern Conference/AAC/Etc. The teams in those conferences stand to lose the most as that money will probably be gone for them once their media contracts are up.

Nope. I was just spitballing for the sake of conversation (and I had been drinking). I don't even want to begin to speculate at a level where I am wagering anything, including reputation. I think it's way too chaotic and unpredictable.

 

[57jacket]

More eyeballs=more$. More games = more eyeballs. More game days = more games. Will evenually be games everyday. ACC should negotiate wit ESPN to play west coast games on Thursday and Friday. It's going to happen. Be the 1st.

 

[cpf2001]

I’d put in a bet that after 2036 the Big 10 and SEC will take a haircut on dwindling fan demographics alone. USC TV games aren’t gonna bring young new west coast kids into CFB fanhood. And media companies would have to find a way to get a 100-million strong cross-sports subscription package to replace old cable, which there has been zero coordinated work toward.

Their strategies look like “monopolize the decline” to me, not ”stop the decline.”

 

[iceeater1969]

Nope. I was just spitballing for the sake of conversation (and I had been drinking). I don't even want to begin to speculate at a level where I am wagering anything, including reputation. I think it's way too chaotic and unpredictable.

So are u in the camp that the GOR is going to hold and the tv guys will pay us to have ACCnetwork crummy games ( BC verses Gt ) for 3 years?

If yes, i hope u are right.


Bankruptcy comes slowly and then suddenly.

With gt only making friday payday interest only payments for 10 plus years on 200,000,000$ stadium debt, currently no tv guy will bet we can be a good product compared to schools w low academics.

We need time to show a new direction before Suddenly.

 

[Techster]

Seven years ago when the updated ESPN contract and the updated GOR was signed, all of the talking heads believed that the ACC was the weakest P5 conference and that it was going to be the next one to fall. Currently the ACC is ahead of the Big12 in revenue and the Pac12 has dissolved. Gripe and complain all you want, but the GOR has done what it was supposed to do in keeping the ACC together. The long ESPN contract that everyone is complaining about might not look too bad in six more years when the other conferences renew their contracts. The ACC is the third conference in terms of revenue. The ACC is better at football than the revamped Big12, so it is the third best conference in football. All of the whining and moaning seems to be just emotion on the shoulder reactions instead of actually looking at things objectively.

Yes, let's look at things objectively:

1. You have members of a conference (the ACC) that have openly said their conference media contract is untenable to compete with their national "peers":



2. You have what is arguably the ACC's biggest brand openly saying they want out because they can't compete with the money the ACC can afford to pay out. They won't get out any time soon, but the tea leaves are telling everyone as soon as they find a way out they're gone. This is from FSU's school president, NOT some AD tossing media bombs. At this point it's saber rattling from FSU, but as the GOR end date gets closer, it's pretty much a promise...especially for the ACC schools that are targets for other conferences.




3. You have the two biggest conferences (SEC and B1G) in open expansion to secure their position as the kings of college sports. One conference (the B1G) has well known national aspirations. What's the only region they're not in at the moment? The Southeast. Which conference has multiple "like minded" schools in a region the B1G has made it known they want to be in? The ACC. Which conference has teams (UVE, UNC) that are well known to have been past targets of the SEC? The ACC. Which conference has members openly complaining about distributions because they can't compete with teams from the B1G and SEC? The ACC. Which conference has no chance to increase member distributions to compete with the two largest conferences? The ACC.


This isn't emotional "whining and moaning"...it's reading the tea leaves and understanding the reality on the horizon once the GOR ends for the ACC.

I would go further to say that anyone who doesn't see the end of the ACC coming is irrationally burying their head in the sand and ignoring all the signs that the ACC is not going survive in its current state once the GOR ends (or a member finds a legal way out). Will the ACC live on after the GOR ends? Yes, but in name only...certainly not as the ACC we know today.

 

[orientalnc]

I would go further to say that anyone who doesn't see the end of the ACC coming is irrationally burying their head in the sand and ignoring all the signs that the ACC is not going survive.

That's your best guess. Other people can rationally disagree. FSU was once an important football school. Right now I am not sure they're elite in anyone's mind except their own. Leaving the ACC is a means, not an end. As it stands today there's no place for them to go. Thirteen years is a long time.

 

[CEB]

Yes, let's look at things objectively:

1. You have members of a conference (the ACC) that have openly said their conference media contract is untenable to compete with their national "peers":



2. You have what is arguably the ACC's biggest brand openly saying they want out because they can't compete with the money the ACC can afford to pay out. They won't get out any time soon, but the tea leaves are telling everyone as soon as they find a way out they're gone. This is from FSU's school president, NOT some AD tossing media bombs. At this point it's saber rattling from FSU, but as the GOR end date gets closer, it's pretty much a promise...especially for the ACC schools that are targets for other conferences.




3. You have the two biggest conferences (SEC and B1G) in open expansion to secure their position as the kings of college sports. One conference (the B1G) has well known national aspirations. What's the only region they're not in at the moment? The Southeast. Which conference has multiple "like minded" schools in a region the B1G has made it known they want to be in? The ACC. Which conference has teams (UVE, UNC) that are well known to have been past targets of the SEC? The ACC. Which conference has members openly complaining about distributions because they can't compete with teams from the B1G and SEC? The ACC. Which conference has no chance to increase member distributions to compete with the two largest conferences? The ACC.


This isn't emotional "whining and moaning"...it's reading the tea leaves and understanding the reality on the horizon once the GOR ends for the ACC.

I would go further to say that anyone who doesn't see the end of the ACC coming is irrationally burying their head in the sand and ignoring all the signs that the ACC is not going survive in its current state once the GOR ends. Will the ACC live on after the GOR ends? Yes, but in name only...certainly not as the ACC we know today.

All of this is right but I think your conclusion is arguing a point no one is making. I don’t think anyone believe the ACC as we know it will be around in 10 years, much less 12-13 years. Well, I certainly don’t believe it but maybe I shouldn’t speak for others.
The people who are talking about the ACC enduring are doing so in response to the hysterical rumors of GOR defeat, ESPN bankruptcy, an exodus of major schools and impending doom in the next 2-3 years.
The truth is what had been said many times here; it’s going to get very interesting in ACC Land in 7-8 years as moves play out for 2032-2036

 

[RamblinRed]

Why are we trying to take Cal and Stanford now? If we were going to add members wouldnt it have made sense to be aggressive early and try to get more west coast schools? ACC leadership is complete trash.

ACC didn't add members earlier because it didn't make sense financially to add them earlier.
ACC looked at adding as many as 5-7 PAC schools a year ago but ultimately passed because the financials didn't make sense. It wouldn't add money to the shares schools receive from the media contract.

We are now in a different time and different environment.
None of the PAC schools would have considered taking less than a full share until a week ago. That is now likely on the table.
At the end of the day, any expansion would only occur if ESPN is willing to pony up the money to add them and not negatively impact the current shares ACC schools receive.

IMO PAC largely got caught in a supply vs demand issue.

Conferences provide the supply -content (games) for the programmers (who have the demand).
As conferences get larger they have more content (and the number of programs in P5 conferences has been steadily increasing over the last decade - increasing the supply).
But the linear programmers have a relatively fixed amount of demand (time slots) to fill.
The supply has been growing at a faster rate than demand.

B12 chose to open its media contract early and got a deal done before the PAC did. This proved crucial.
Are the B12 programs more valuable than the PAC programs - not really.
But the B12 soaked up the demand so when PAC tried to get a contract they found out there was not demand for their supply - that demand was largely satisfied with the new B1G and B12 contracts going along with the current SEC and ACC contracts. All the PAC was left with was non-linear programmers trying to get into the game.

 

[cpf2001]

Do most programs across the country have less fan interest than 20 years ago, or more?

I’d wager it’s the former, and the SEC and Big 10 (and in that timeframe, ACC even!) have accelerated the overall decline by poaching a small percent of schools from conferences and leaning many of the rest to flounder.

It’s not just poaching that did it - the TV coverage and money bubbles had huge effects on reducing competitiveness too, it was a vicious cycle, but in a phase of CFB contraction, how does infighting improve the long term top line revenue? Fewer CFB fans = less money tens years out.

 

[Techster]

That's your best guess. Other people can rationally disagree. FSU was once an important football school. Right now I am not sure they're elite in anyone's mind except their own. Leaving the ACC is a means, not an end. As it stands today there's no place for them to go. Thirteen years is a long time.

B1G does not care the FSU isn't the dominant "FSU" of the 90's. What they care about is FSU's ability to pull in eyeballs...and FSU has been one of the best teams at pulling in eyeballs for the last 3 decades. FSU is also in a state that's strategic to B1G's growth. Here's a deep dive into a historical viewership:

How Many Viewers Did Your NCAA Team Attract?

We take a look at EVERY FBS team and also compare league by league! Who's the top ten in viewership? How do the ACC schools rank relative to each other? How big a boost does Alabama give the SEC West? It's all inside.

sicem365.com

The ACC has three main brands pacing them with FSU, Clemson, and Miami generally in that order. It’s not shocking as FSU is probably the closest to being a blue blood and had nationally relevant success from 2013-2015. Clemson obviously has had an incredible amount of success and has been elite all decade. Miami hasn’t been dominant but their brand is immense.

If you want to know why Miami is also a target, there's your answer.

FSU has long been rumored to be a B1G target. I doubt they're saber rattling without having discussions with other conferences.

 

[CEB]

I have a feeling if this passes (which this is in California. It will almost certainly pass), then the AA's may find other ways around the huge pay cut. Possibly stop offering scholarships, room & board, etc as freebies for athletes. If the AA starts paying the athletes, then they'll make the athlete start paying what the AA pays to the school for the athlete's expenses.

It’s an interesting notion. I agree that schools take away scholarships and such if that becomes the model... unless they can include tuition in the calculation somehow.
At any rate, I don’t think it does much to level the field, honestly. Its a really slippery slope for government to mandate an actual amount (or percentage) that an entity must compensate it’s employees. Govt can push equal pay statutes and min wage statutes and the like but actually mandating a profit sharing model is a big step. It may go through Cali, but may not withstand additional challenges. If Govt mandates, does it apply to private schools? I would think if they want to be competitive for recruits they would have to match the money.
In all of this, even if it does pass, I don’t think it helps the “little guy” at all. From a recruiting perspective why in the heck would you choose a school where your profit share is 50% of $20m if you can choose a school where it’s 50% of $100m?
I’m not sure this is the solution to what’s ailing college athletics.

 

[Techster]

All of this is right but I think your conclusion is arguing a point no one is making. I don’t think anyone believe the ACC as we know it will be around in 10 years, much less 12-13 years. Well, I certainly don’t believe it but maybe I shouldn’t speak for others.
The people who are talking about the ACC enduring are doing so in response to the hysterical rumors of GOR defeat, ESPN bankruptcy, an exodus of major schools and impending doom in the next 2-3 years.
The truth is what had been said many times here; it’s going to get very interesting in ACC Land in 7-8 years as moves play out for 2032-2036

I don't disagree with that. I don't disagree that the GOR is the only thing keeping the ACC together. I'm just seeing too much sentiment that's basically saying "It worked out for the ACC in the past, GOR ending is long time so there's nothing to worry about". That's watching the exterior walls burn while you're in the bathroom hoping the flames won't get to you.

I honestly do not care about the ACC...I care about GT. Unfortunately, GT chose our fate so we'll see how it plays out for us over the next decade.

 

[tmhunter52]

I have read no ACC or GOR documents, but it is not unusual for parties to execute contingent contracts that become effective and binding at a later date upon satisfaction of various contingencies. I am wondering why GT (or any ACC member, for that matter) could not agree with another conference that GT would become a member of that conference, along with the terms of membership, upon the first to occur of contingencies like dissolution of the ACC, the breaking of the GOR, whatever. That would tell everyone where GT would end up when the conference realignment music stops. If everyone did that, it probably would hasten the process all around.

 

[RamblinRed]

I would expect media contracts to increase over time, but there are a number of downward pressures on college football that are unlikely to allow their contracts to increase at the rates they have been over the last decade. I also expect any future media contracts to include a significant non-linear piece if they expect to increase their overall contract value.

First, advertising on linear TV (networks and cable) has been declining for years and will drop to under 50% of all advertising this year, with continued declines expected at increasing rates. This simply means linear programmers are going to have less money to pay to content providers (Conferences).

Second, advertisers covet the 18-49 demo, and the younger end of that demo - Millenials and Gen Z - largely the 35 and under crowd - do not consume much linear programming. They actually spend more time on Connected TV (CTV) - basically on their phones. So advertisers are rapidly adjusting their spending budgets to reflect that.

Third, while sports still provide the largest eyeballs among Linear TV, they provide less than they used to and sports other than college football are growing their viewership much faster - especially some women sports.
Here is a complete list of all the non-playoff and bowl games that had at least 10M viewers last year.
Mich vs Ohio St 17.1M
TN vs GA 13.1M
AL vs TN 11.6M
AL vs TX 10.6M
ND vs Ohio St 10.5M

The SEC 10.9M and B1G 10.7M Championship Games were the only ones that had 10M viewers.
Among post-season games. The 3 CFP games were the 3 most watched college football games of the year with the Peach Bowl (Ohio St-UGA) being the most watched 22.5M and the CFP Championship game being the least watched 17.2M. The Rose Bowl (Penn St-Utah) was the only bowl game with over 10M viewers - 10.2M.

Only 5 other regular season games topped 7M, along with 2 other bowl games and 1 championship game.


Fourth, college football's audience demo will start to impact it by the mid 2030's if not sooner. According to one Nielson study, college football has an older viewership (44% of viewers over 55) than some other major US sports and also lacks diversity (82% white, only NASCAR and PGA had higher percentages). In a country that is likely to be majority-minority in the next 15 years that is not great. A second Nielson study showed that while on 34% of 35-45 yr olds did not consider themselves college football fans, 43% of 18-34 yr olds do not consider themselves college football fans.

If I had to place a bet I would expect media contract rates to increase, but looking at the environment and what we are seeing in terms of what schools are being paid to move conferences, I would not expect that increase to be at anywhere near the rate it has been for the last decade. I also would not expect an increase unless a conference is willing to put some of its content on streaming services. As Millenials and Gen Z become the dominant consumers (they passed the Baby Boomers in overall size the last couple of years) advertisers will react to them and what they want.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

That's your best guess. Other people can rationally disagree. FSU was once an important football school. Right now I am not sure they're elite in anyone's mind except their own. Leaving the ACC is a means, not an end. As it stands today there's no place for them to go. Thirteen years is a long time.

And 5 years ago we were all making fun of choke job Kirby. Believing FSU isn’t a power because they’ve had a tough time replacing a legend coach (which happens every where) is no different than looking at GT and believing that we are worthless because of Collins. FSU is just fine and we easily get back into the mix just like GT will recover from the post Johnson experiment.

 

[RamblinRed]

I have read no ACC or GOR documents, but it is not unusual for parties to execute contingent contracts that become effective and binding at a later date upon satisfaction of various contingencies. I am wondering why GT (or any ACC member, for that matter) could not agree with another conference that GT would become a member of that conference, along with the terms of membership, upon the first to occur of contingencies like dissolution of the ACC, the breaking of the GOR, whatever. That would tell everyone where GT would end up when the conference realignment music stops. If everyone did that, it probably would hasten the process all around.

They could, but the dates are too far out right now and the Big 2 conferences are unlikely to make any moves like that until they understand the financial implications - which they will not know until their next contract renegotiations.

Also, after the last week I no longer assume a school would get a full share if they changed conferences. Now that that ceiling has been broken I expect that to become part of the future of any movement - when your contract is up maybe another conference wants you - but not for the price of a full share.

 

[cpf2001]

Fourth, college football's audience demo will start to impact it by the mid 2030's if not sooner. According to one Nielson study, college football has an older viewership (44% of viewers over 55) than some other major US sports and also lacks diversity (82% white, only NASCAR and PGA had higher percentages). In a country that is likely to be majority-minority in the next 15 years that is not great. A second Nielson study showed that while on 34% of 35-45 yr olds did not consider themselves college football fans, 43% of 18-34 yr olds do not consider themselves college football fans.

I think the Big 12 has a decent sleeper chance of being a big surprise in the twenty year time frame since they have growing up and comer schools that aren’t completely focused on trying to be the absolute best academically and appealing to helicopter parents and students who don’t have football as much on their radar.

But I think they’re fighting the SEC’s and Big 10’s work of trying to kill conferences and shrink the pool so it will be an uphill climb to build a national audience.

 

[Vespidae]

I don't disagree with that. I don't disagree that the GOR is the only thing keeping the ACC together. I'm just seeing too much sentiment that's basically saying "It worked out for the ACC in the past, GOR ending is long time so there's nothing to worry about". That's watching the exterior walls burn while you're in the bathroom hoping the flames won't get to you.

I honestly do not care about the ACC...I care about GT. Unfortunately, GT chose our fate so we'll see how it plays out for us over the next decade.

The ACC will be around. Conferences are still useful.

What we are seeing play out is the separation of the elite sports schools from the rest. Eventually (and that could be 3-4 years), there will be a College Football Association with revenue shared by tier, not by conference. The goal for conferences is get as many teams as you can into the top tiers.

This will ultimately work out. But the NCAA should have organized this 20-25 years ago.