Root4GT
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,494
The people paying the money and the players
Conference Realignment
- Thread starter orientalnc
- Start date
Techwood Relict
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,110
- Messages
- 5,742
Article from CBSSports. Sounds like if Stanford ultimately does not get in to the ACC, then it is likely to try to form a new PAC8. Also, there was reporting last week that B12 reached out to Stanford to offer a spot and Stanford had no interest. It was ACC or nothing. Which gives some insight into the whole B12 vs ACC dynamic.
www.cbssports.com
for perhaps the first time in realignment, Power Five schools are assured of losing money by changing conferences.
The priority now is finding a conference to call home in 2024.
Stanford, and perhaps Cal, might have a bit more juice than the others, but it's doubtful rightsholders will pay much more for those four brands. The Bay Area schools came one vote shy of landing a spot in the ACC last week where a full media rights share approaches $40 million annually.
So, what is the priority these days? Branding. That's why the best rivalries in the game (arguably) reside in the 34 teams that comprise the Big Ten and SEC beginning in 2024.
That highlights suggestions within the industry that realignment has reached a sort of critical mass. Not that it's over forever; it's over for now.
Industry sources repeat that there is not much desire by either conference to add the likes Clemson, Florida State, etc. Not that the ACC's seemingly "ironclad" grant of rights agreement would allow such movement.
That says loads about the reality of the market compared to how those schools view themselves.
Down the food chain, survival -- not a big payday -- becomes key.
That makes it time to ask whether rightsholders are simply tapped out. A combination of reckless realignment and budget realities have forced networks to look at the bottom line.
If the ACC doesn't work out as a landing spot, Stanford has some reckoning to do.
There appears to remain some reciprocal interest between Stanford, Cal and the ACC. However, the Bay Area schools last week fell one vote short of being approved for inclusion in the league, sources told CBS Sports' Matt Norlander.
there are reasons Stanford wasn't carried forward to the ACC or Big Ten. The latter did not consider the Bay Area market as a relevant-enough media market. That led both schools to scramble, geographical absurdities be damned. With Clemson, FSU and Miami (among others) complaining about ACC revenue, Stanford and Cal simply didn't rate a full share. Plus, the longest road trip for both schools in the ACC would be 3,100 miles.
who owns the name "Pac-12?" And if the brand does endure as part of a reformed league, can it lose its autonomous status?
NCAA bylaws state it takes eight teams to compose a conference (there is a grace period of two years).
If the Pac-4 were able to convince four schools from another conference to join them, could it somehow retain its NCAA autonomous status? Its automatic berth in the NCAA Tournament? Its spot as a power conference in the College Football Playoff?
One source said to pay attention to the limited liability nature of the CFP. The Pac-12 still is a member of that LLC.
So much remains unresolved.
"[It was] never contemplated an FBS conference basically losing three quarters of their membership. It's all new," said a source working to preserve the Pac-12.
Options dwindling as California, Stanford, Oregon State, Washington State prepare to take financial hits
No matter how this round of realignment plays out, the remaining Pac-12 teams will be losing money
www.cbssports.com
for perhaps the first time in realignment, Power Five schools are assured of losing money by changing conferences.
The priority now is finding a conference to call home in 2024.
Stanford, and perhaps Cal, might have a bit more juice than the others, but it's doubtful rightsholders will pay much more for those four brands. The Bay Area schools came one vote shy of landing a spot in the ACC last week where a full media rights share approaches $40 million annually.
So, what is the priority these days? Branding. That's why the best rivalries in the game (arguably) reside in the 34 teams that comprise the Big Ten and SEC beginning in 2024.
That highlights suggestions within the industry that realignment has reached a sort of critical mass. Not that it's over forever; it's over for now.
Industry sources repeat that there is not much desire by either conference to add the likes Clemson, Florida State, etc. Not that the ACC's seemingly "ironclad" grant of rights agreement would allow such movement.
That says loads about the reality of the market compared to how those schools view themselves.
Down the food chain, survival -- not a big payday -- becomes key.
That makes it time to ask whether rightsholders are simply tapped out. A combination of reckless realignment and budget realities have forced networks to look at the bottom line.
If the ACC doesn't work out as a landing spot, Stanford has some reckoning to do.
There appears to remain some reciprocal interest between Stanford, Cal and the ACC. However, the Bay Area schools last week fell one vote short of being approved for inclusion in the league, sources told CBS Sports' Matt Norlander.
there are reasons Stanford wasn't carried forward to the ACC or Big Ten. The latter did not consider the Bay Area market as a relevant-enough media market. That led both schools to scramble, geographical absurdities be damned. With Clemson, FSU and Miami (among others) complaining about ACC revenue, Stanford and Cal simply didn't rate a full share. Plus, the longest road trip for both schools in the ACC would be 3,100 miles.
who owns the name "Pac-12?" And if the brand does endure as part of a reformed league, can it lose its autonomous status?
NCAA bylaws state it takes eight teams to compose a conference (there is a grace period of two years).
If the Pac-4 were able to convince four schools from another conference to join them, could it somehow retain its NCAA autonomous status? Its automatic berth in the NCAA Tournament? Its spot as a power conference in the College Football Playoff?
One source said to pay attention to the limited liability nature of the CFP. The Pac-12 still is a member of that LLC.
So much remains unresolved.
"[It was] never contemplated an FBS conference basically losing three quarters of their membership. It's all new," said a source working to preserve the Pac-12.
- Messages
- 9,515
- Location
- Oriental, NC
The prize for the ACC is for ND to become a full member. Inviting Stanford and Cal edges the conference closer to that goal. I understand the short term costs, but, university presidents ought to be long-term focused.
forensicbuzz
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 8,146
- Location
- North Shore, Chicago
Who owns the NFL Network?
Techster
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 17,876
The NFL dictates the NFL's schedule. Pretty apparent by now...the networks stand in line to see who gets the best package of games and what time slots.
Techster
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 17,876
Article from CBSSports. Sounds like if Stanford ultimately does not get in to the ACC, then it is likely to try to form a new PAC8. Also, there was reporting last week that B12 reached out to Stanford to offer a spot and Stanford had no interest. It was ACC or nothing. Which gives some insight into the whole B12 vs ACC dynamic.
Options dwindling as California, Stanford, Oregon State, Washington State prepare to take financial hits
No matter how this round of realignment plays out, the remaining Pac-12 teams will be losing money
for perhaps the first time in realignment, Power Five schools are assured of losing money by changing conferences.
The priority now is finding a conference to call home in 2024.
Stanford, and perhaps Cal, might have a bit more juice than the others, but it's doubtful rightsholders will pay much more for those four brands. The Bay Area schools came one vote shy of landing a spot in the ACC last week where a full media rights share approaches $40 million annually.
So, what is the priority these days? Branding. That's why the best rivalries in the game (arguably) reside in the 34 teams that comprise the Big Ten and SEC beginning in 2024.
That highlights suggestions within the industry that realignment has reached a sort of critical mass. Not that it's over forever; it's over for now.
Industry sources repeat that there is not much desire by either conference to add the likes Clemson, Florida State, etc. Not that the ACC's seemingly "ironclad" grant of rights agreement would allow such movement.
That says loads about the reality of the market compared to how those schools view themselves.
Down the food chain, survival -- not a big payday -- becomes key.
That makes it time to ask whether rightsholders are simply tapped out. A combination of reckless realignment and budget realities have forced networks to look at the bottom line.
If the ACC doesn't work out as a landing spot, Stanford has some reckoning to do.
There appears to remain some reciprocal interest between Stanford, Cal and the ACC. However, the Bay Area schools last week fell one vote short of being approved for inclusion in the league, sources told CBS Sports' Matt Norlander.
there are reasons Stanford wasn't carried forward to the ACC or Big Ten. The latter did not consider the Bay Area market as a relevant-enough media market. That led both schools to scramble, geographical absurdities be damned. With Clemson, FSU and Miami (among others) complaining about ACC revenue, Stanford and Cal simply didn't rate a full share. Plus, the longest road trip for both schools in the ACC would be 3,100 miles.
who owns the name "Pac-12?" And if the brand does endure as part of a reformed league, can it lose its autonomous status?
NCAA bylaws state it takes eight teams to compose a conference (there is a grace period of two years).
If the Pac-4 were able to convince four schools from another conference to join them, could it somehow retain its NCAA autonomous status? Its automatic berth in the NCAA Tournament? Its spot as a power conference in the College Football Playoff?
One source said to pay attention to the limited liability nature of the CFP. The Pac-12 still is a member of that LLC.
So much remains unresolved.
"[It was] never contemplated an FBS conference basically losing three quarters of their membership. It's all new," said a source working to preserve the Pac-12.
After having followed conference realignment for years now, these write-ups are pure "best guesses". Never believe what conference commissioners and representatives say.
Months ago all the writers said Washington and Oregon were SOL when it came to expansion. B1G representatives said they were done with expansion after adding USC and UCLA. Low and behold, last week FOX and B1G scrambled to come up with a package to keep Washington and Oregon in their national conference plans. Funny how things change, huh?
The whole "not much desire" to add Clemson and FSU is a result of the immense legal hurdles required for ACC teams to get out of the GOR. The desire is there to invite the schools, the desire is NOT there to fight a legal battle...Clemson and FSU (or any other ACC school) will have to figure it out on their own. If you're following realignment, and you know one of the big conferences (B1G) as national aspirations, you ask yourself: Well, which area of the country has national brands and big markets that will help our conference grow the next 50+ years? The only answer left is the Southeast region...and ACC territory. Not only is the Southeast the fastest growing region in the US, with huge economic potential, but it's the only region left with schools available to invite. Luckily for the ACC, the GOR makes it financial suicide for a program to get out of. However, let's see how the tune changes if ACC schools can either "crack" the GOR before 2036, or the GOR expires. I'm confident the entire "not much desire" tune changes once that happens.
Vespidae
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 5,013
- Location
- Auburn, AL
If you want ND, wait for NBC to renew. Then, match it with a proportional share.
GoJacketsInRaleigh
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 972
Should have been in on Texas before the SEC was. Should have been in on USC, UCLA, and Stanford together. I know I suggested an ACC/PAC merger at least a year ago. The screwups go all the way back to 1990ish when they should have gotten Penn State before the Big Ten did.
Techster
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 17,876
ND will never join the ACC as a full member. They have the best of both worlds with the ACC: Independence, ability to give their other sports a home, and they have NBC backing them. Oh, and it also looks like ND gets a vote on any ACC decisions.
I think the ACC and ND need to present to ESPN a package that will hopefully increase value for everyone. Have the ACC go to a 9 game conference schedule (increases inventory) and have ND increase their ACC football commitment to 7 games per year. If ND truly wants what's best for the ACC and themselves, you better put your money where your mouth is.
Doesn't mean the ESPN will go for it (rumor is ESPN told SEC that they wouldn't pay anymore for an extra conference game), but if they do, hopefully the added ACC inventory + extra ND games adds more money to the ACC pot.
NBC is backing ND, but last I heard, ND is pushing for 75million. NBC won't back them at that price. What would you pay to televise only 6 games a year?
stech81
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 8,726
- Location
- Woodstock Georgia
FSU: Big 10 can we come to your conference?
Big 10: NO
FSU: 2 nd call to SEC can we come to your conference?
SEC: nope
FSU President TO FSU AD:
Big 10: NO
FSU: 2 nd call to SEC can we come to your conference?
SEC: nope
FSU President TO FSU AD:
Oldgoldandwhite
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 5,637
Depends on the new contract in a year or three. While I agree with you, money trumps principles.
CEB
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,163
I had no idea you were going to send me down a 7 hour rabbit hole!!
Also really well done so far....
- Messages
- 9,967
- Location
- Williamsburg Virginia
Why should NC State vote against Stanford and Cal?
I understand Clempy and FSU being brats and UNC inflated ego from bygone years. But not NC State.
I understand Clempy and FSU being brats and UNC inflated ego from bygone years. But not NC State.
tomknight
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 561
I couldn't tell you what two teams were in the Super Bowl last year. Just don't care. If CFB becomes pro like the NFL, I won't care about that either.
Techster
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 17,876
My guess is NC State and UNC are voting as one...or probably NC State is voting however UNC tells them to. I've read that UNC may have to drag NC State wherever they end up if UNC leaves the ACC. North Carolina politics similar to what UVA had to do with VT.
eetech
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 191
The existing fans might not be lesser fans, although based on what a lot of people here say, I’m not even sure that’s true (I think there is a non trivial number of GT fans who would stop watching games if we didn’t play UGAg every year, for example).
The real problem is new fans. It’s hard to see why new fans would be interested in Tech if we don’t play regional rivals. Let’s say you’re a kid with 5 friends. 2 are fans of UGAg, 1 Auburn, 1 Alabama, and 1 Tennessee. Those guys are constantly watching games their teams play against each other and talking about games that their teams don’t even play but affec their teams’s conference standings, whereas your team is playing against teams none of them care about nor affect their teams’ fortunes at all. I bet the odds are that at best you adopt a secondary team and at worst you give up on Tech altogether.
Now, if the B1G’s goals actually work out, where they become a national conference supported by the biggest media players and a broad group of interesting teams spanning the entire country, then maybe if Tech was in the B1G those kids might still be interested in your games. Heck, they may even overvalue Tech games because they have an influence on the preeminent national conference.
However, if Trch never makes it to the B1G or if the B1G’s minor league national ambitions don’t pan out, then it will greatly damage Tech’s future fan base.
eetech
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 191
Yeah, why would anyone care about a league with an order of magnitude greater skill where there have been as many distinct Super Bowl participants (2 teams in a league of 32 teams) as CFB playoff participants (4 teams in a league of 120+ teams) since the CFB playoffs existed.
Who wants to watch football played at the highest level and yet have enough drama that it’s hard to predict the winner the day of the Super Bowl, never mind the beginning of the playoffs or beginning of the season, when we can instead watch to see whether OSU, Clemson, or Alabama will best UGA this year while pretending any other team has a chance. And who the hell would want to miss the thrill of the same two teams playing each other in 2 championship games in the same season! I mean, talk about excitement!
eetech
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 191
The 24 team CFB playoffs are gonna be a joke.
Nearly every player with NFL aspirations is gonna sit them out.
I won’t be surprised to see a game where #1 Alabama loses to #12 Cincinnati by forfeit because Alabama doesn’t have enough “healthy” players to field a team.
Nearly every player with NFL aspirations is gonna sit them out.
I won’t be surprised to see a game where #1 Alabama loses to #12 Cincinnati by forfeit because Alabama doesn’t have enough “healthy” players to field a team.