Conference Realignment

[yeti92]

For YoutubeTV, which I have, it is included in the service. My understanding is that ESPN charges based on whether there is an ACC team in the market or not. It is much higher if there is a team in the market.

For Xfinity I found the following on Google:

That indicates that ACCN gets nothing if the subscriber is out of an ACC market and subscribes to the starter package. (which few people do I believe) If you are out of market, it is included in the packages that the great majority of people get.

My understanding from reports, although the TV distribution contracts are all non-public, is that the rates are negotiated as in-market and out-of-market rates. When the SEC Network first started the reports were that cable/sat companies were paying about 30-40 cents for the network out of market, but paying $1.30-1.40 in market. When the SEC added Texas A&M, the SECN revenue jumped by 5-10 million per month for the state of Texas. If the ACC were to add SMU, I expect that the ACCN revenue would have a similar bump, maybe not as high. Adding Stanford or Cal should have a bump for the Northern California area. That money wouldn't all go directly to the ACC because the network is a partnership and the costs would likely increase with the larger footprint to manage/cover.

That is the reason I have said that markets still matter monetarily at this point. The Big10 moving in the Southern California means that cable, sat, and streaming broadcast services like YoutubeTV will pay more for the Big10 Network per subscriber in an area with a very large TV base. That would happen in Atlanta or in Miami. Rutgers had that kind of bump for them in NY, but that bump was very large. I have seen reports that the Big10 Network revenue in the NY area was larger than the yearly Big10 media payouts. In other words, Rutgers brought more money into the Big10 than they were paid out of the Big10. That happened even though Rutgers hasn't been a very good team and hasn't been a highly viewed team. The financial aspects are a lot more complicated than simply highly rated games equals the most money for the conference.

Not that I think this will happen, but imo if we are to go to uneven revenue sharing in the conference, then it should be based on the tv markets your team brings since that has a bigger affect on how payouts are determined than game viewership which is affected by opponents and gametimes and where they are broadcasted which is all often out of a team's control. NC schools would be the big loser obviously since there are 4 of them sharing the same state.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Maybe it doesn’t. Maybe Stanford, Cal, and SMU get nothing and the $72 M just goes to the teams who win in the post-season. That’s how they’ll get FSU and Clemson on board.

They don’t need FSU and Clemson. They need one of UNC or NCST.

 

[LT 1967]

How long does that last? For how long will these desperados sign away the money they're bringing in just to get a seat at our table?
Unless they can drag ND with them, it's more a sign of a coming dissolution than a long-range solution.

If Dellenger is correct and 55 MIL is going to the new Success Program that leaves 17 MIL for the 3 new teams? Roughly 5.67 MIL Each. How long will that last? For 13 years??

I suppose their benefit is having a Power 4 schedule rather than being in the AAC or MW. The AAC media Distribution is about 7 MIL and the MW is 4 Million. So their options are
extremely limited.

Also, 17 teams will be a problem. Is there an 18th team to balance the schedules?

Maybe we will have some more info soon.

 

[bobongo]

If Dellenger is correct and 55 MIL is going to the new Success Program that leaves 17 MIL for the 3 new teams? Roughly 5.67 MIL Each. How long will that last? For 13 years??

I suppose their benefit is having a Power 4 schedule rather than being in the AAC or MW. The AAC media Distribution is about 7 MIL and the MW is 4 Million. So their options are
extremely limited.

Also, 17 teams will be a problem. Is there an 18th team to balance the schedules?

Maybe we will have some more info soon.

Number 18 had better be Notre Dame.

 

[UgaBlows]

If Dellenger is correct and 55 MIL is going to the new Success Program that leaves 17 MIL for the 3 new teams? Roughly 5.67 MIL Each. How long will that last? For 13 years??

I suppose their benefit is having a Power 4 schedule rather than being in the AAC or MW. The AAC media Distribution is about 7 MIL and the MW is 4 Million. So their options are
extremely limited.

Also, 17 teams will be a problem. Is there an 18th team to balance the schedules?

Maybe we will have some more info soon.

Maybe the powers that be at the ACC are smarter than we think and are working ND in as a full-time member as part of this? I could also see them giving ND some sweet carveouts to join with few of the restrictions that the other members have to abide by

 

[LongforDodd]

I’ve got a slightly different question. I know CA has some pretty strict laws on the books regarding states which it won’t pay for its public employees to travel to. I think I remember the NCAA having to pay for a team to travel to the final 4 a couple of years ago because of it. I’m pretty sure a bunch of the states in the ACC are on that list. As a private school Stanford will be fine, but how will that work for Cal?

while that travel may still be on the books, so to speak, it may not be a real thing here in 2023. It was/is primarily a show.

 

[orientalnc]

17 teams will be a problem. Is there an 18th team to balance the schedules?

I know some teams that are unlikely to be #18. All of them are not Notre Dame.

I think ND is beginning to get squeezed in this realignment round. We'll see. Them urging the ACC to take Stanford and Cal could simply be as they said, but if ND is forced to play 6 or 7 ACC games, then it's a small jump to 8 and full membership.

 

[TooTall]

I’ve got a slightly different question. I know CA has some pretty strict laws on the books regarding states which it won’t pay for its public employees to travel to. I think I remember the NCAA having to pay for a team to travel to the final 4 a couple of years ago because of it. I’m pretty sure a bunch of the states in the ACC are on that list. As a private school Stanford will be fine, but how will that work for Cal?

Without searching, I want to say it was removed last year because of extra expenses. But this is California so I could be 100% wrong.

 

[roadkill]

Without searching, I want to say it was removed last year because of extra expenses. But this is California so I could be 100% wrong.

I was incredulous that there was such a law, so, doing my best Kelly Quinlan here, “I was just curious” and did some googling. The law was passed in 2016. They are still adding states to the travel prohibition list. Georgia was just added last August, implying that the law is still actively enforced. I could be wrong, but why else would they be actively adding new states to the list?

As long as athletes are not considered employees, they are not subject to the travel ban. However, I assume that the coaching staff of State Universities are all affected.

 

[stech81]

Maybe the powers that be at the ACC are smarter than we think and are working ND in as a full-time member as part of this?

I would take that bet. If they were smart we wouldn’t wait till the conferences got their picks first

 

[slugboy]

They don’t need FSU and Clemson. They need one of UNC or NCST.

I can’t confirm, but earlier in the thread someone posted that the North Carolina regents were dictating the votes for both UNC and NCST. So, you might need both.

 

[orientalnc]

I can’t confirm, but earlier in the thread someone posted that the North Carolina regents were dictating the votes for both UNC and NCST. So, you might need both.

As of a couple of days ago the UNC AA was opposed to adding the three teams. The most prominent voices were non-revenue sports coaches. But, I have not heard anything yet about the regents dictating a vote. They insist the two schools compete in the same conference. I thought there was a legal requirement, but that may not be correct.

 

[RamblinRed]

I'll believe all of this after a vote is taken and at least 12 vote yes, but it seems like the general idea is this.

Three new members, each garnering a full share from ESPN due to the pro rata clause in the contract.
All three have agreed to taking about a 30% share for some number of years (I don't think that has been publicly announced in any way) and some money for increased travel costs.
The rest of the money goes into a pool for the current members to be distributed based on some performance metrics.

FWIW, all the chatter of ACC panicking because it is taking in new members at a reduced cost and it being a bad thing seems to ignore that is exactly what B1G just did with WA and OR.

And while I really dislike the current conferences in general (They are all way to large and not really conferences), this would play into the size matters philosophy. Basically if you have more members it is easier to sustain yourself if anyone departs. Adding these schools likely keeps the ACC viable if some current members bolt.

 

[Root4GT]

I’ve got a slightly different question. I know CA has some pretty strict laws on the books regarding states which it won’t pay for its public employees to travel to. I think I remember the NCAA having to pay for a team to travel to the final 4 a couple of years ago because of it. I’m pretty sure a bunch of the states in the ACC are on that list. As a private school Stanford will be fine, but how will that work for Cal?

FYI - Utah and Arizona are on California's "banned" list for State employees. Cal has played numerous games in many sports in both States as there were 3 former Pac 12 teams located in AZ an Utah. This is a non issue.

 

[MidtownJacket]

I’ve read they’re considering just adding them for football and men’s/women’s basketball.

If so that solves ALOT of the logistical headaches for cross country travel in the non revenue sports (obviously ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )

 

[LawTalkin Jacket]

reporting now is that it is a done deal

MSN

www.msn.com

In what is now reportedly a done deal, the ACC will add three new teams in the latest seismic conference realignment.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle‘s Michael Silver, the Cal Bears, Stanford Cardinal and SMU Mustangs are finalizing deals to join the ACC in football and men’s and women’s basketball.

 

[slugboy]

reporting now is that it is a done deal

MSN

www.msn.com

In what is now reportedly a done deal, the ACC will add three new teams in the latest seismic conference realignment.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle‘s Michael Silver, the Cal Bears, Stanford Cardinal and SMU Mustangs are finalizing deals to join the ACC in football and men’s and women’s basketball.

My guess is that the “minor” sports exclusion got the NC votes

 

[LT 1967]

reporting now is that it is a done deal

MSN

www.msn.com

In what is now reportedly a done deal, the ACC will add three new teams in the latest seismic conference realignment.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle‘s Michael Silver, the Cal Bears, Stanford Cardinal and SMU Mustangs are finalizing deals to join the ACC in football and men’s and women’s basketball.

I believe I read a previous article that the Mountain West would take the Stanford and Cal Olympic Sports. Not sure about SMU.

 

[roadkill]

FYI - Utah and Arizona are on California's "banned" list for State employees. Cal has played numerous games in many sports in both States as there were 3 former Pac 12 teams located in AZ an Utah. This is a non issue.

Thanks for pointing this out. Seems fairly obvious now that if it were an issue we would have seen reports about it.

 

[orientalnc]

reporting now is that it is a done deal

MSN

www.msn.com

In what is now reportedly a done deal, the ACC will add three new teams in the latest seismic conference realignment.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle‘s Michael Silver, the Cal Bears, Stanford Cardinal and SMU Mustangs are finalizing deals to join the ACC in football and men’s and women’s basketball.

From my UNC neighbor:

"Your GT source may be correct, but my guy in the AA has not heard this as of this morning."