Conference Realignment

billga99

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
850
I think their coming back in two years to deal with the playoff is speaking to alignment over the two years, may be speaking to other things also, I just think the Big 2 hold all the cards now and they are going to push on through and get this over with. How it is all done I have no idea but I just think they have a plan and it will get carried out without a lot of messing around. We'll see.
 

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,121
Location
Augusta, Georgia
Neither the SEC nor the B1G will add anyone unless they either, a) bring enough TV value to generate a net positive PER SCHOOL in revenue, or b) agree to take less money to join.

It's odd that FSU and Clemson are attempting to jump now instead of when the SEC and B1G will be renewing contracts. B1G renews in 2030 and the SEC in 2034. Not sure ESPN would be willing to pay the SEC to add FSU/Clemson since ESPN already controls FSU/Clemson's rights for less money currently. Whether the B1G could leverage that would be problematic since they just added several schools for less money than current members make.

Edited to change SEC renewal date to 2034 instead of 2024.
 
Last edited:

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,877
Well, yeah.

Anyone who was in a position to influence the outcome of that skirmish had to have been at least 30 years old in 1964. That makes them 90 or more today.

Not saying fans on either side weren't BORN yet, but old enough to remember?

It's like a gathering of the last D-Day veterans or the last folks to own a Ford Pinto. The list of invitees gets smaller every year.
TBH, the skirmish we’re talking about happened in 1978. It was all about who beat who and who never played who. Dodd had none other than Bear Bryant and Ray Graves pushing for us. However, he had owned Auburn and Shug Jordan wanted none of Tech back in, while the Mississippi schools held a grudge that we wouldn’t play them there (though few else did). Dooley over at the cesspool surely didn’t want to help Tech.

Now, do you think that today somehow Auburn and UGAg want Tech recruiting right between the two of them as an SEC program? The answer is no. We beat the brakes off MSU 3x in the last 15 years or so, and a very bad program lost badly 2x to Ole Miss in the last 5 years, plus a bowl loss. Why would either of them want Tech in the conference?

What we would have going for us is the addition of USCe, Mizzou, TAMU, Arky, OU, and UTA. Not sure how any of them would vote, but that’s 6 teams that might vote yes. Today it depends on what the delta is on media rights. GT being very far down these days does not help. The best chance is to hope Key can resurrect the program in the next year or two and give us better standing as a top-shelf program that a conference would want. That might get us another look from the B1G. IMPO, if the SEC looks our way it would mainly be to keep the B1G out of ATL.
 
Last edited:

MountainBuzzMan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,754
Location
South Forsyth
Neither the SEC nor the B1G will add anyone unless they either, a) bring enough TV value to generate a net positive PER SCHOOL in revenue, or b) agree to take less money to join.

It's odd that FSU and Clemson are attempting to jump now instead of when the SEC and B1G will be renewing contracts. B1G renews in 2030 and the SEC in 2024. Not sure ESPN would be willing to pay the SEC to add FSU/Clemson since ESPN already controls FSU/Clemson's rights for less money currently. Whether the B1G could leverage that would be problematic since they just added several schools for less money than current members make.
Whats interesting with this (I dont disagree) is one could argue that Tech brings more TV value or comparable to FSU and Clemson. Not so much from the fanbase but more so our location and the strong number BIG alumni that live in the ATL area
 

g0lftime

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,029
TBH, the skirmish we’re talking about happened in 1978. It was all about who beat who and who never played who. Dodd had none other than Bear Bryant and Ray Graves pushing for us. However, he had owned Auburn and Shug Jordan wanted none of Tech back in, while the Mississippi schools held a grudge that we wouldn’t play them there (though few else did). Dooley over at the cesspool surely didn’t want to help Tech.

Now, do you think that today somehow Auburn and UGAg want Tech recruiting right between the two of them as an SEC program? The answer is no. We beat the brakes off MSU 3x in the last 15 years or so, and a very bad program lost badly 2x to Ole Miss in the last 5 years, plus a bowl loss. Why would either of them want Tech in the conference?

What we would have going for us is the addition of USCe, Mizzou, TAMU, Arky, OU, and UTA. Not sure how any of them would vote, but that’s 6 teams that might vote yes. Today it depends on what the delta is on media rights. GT being very far down these days does not help. The best chance is to hope Key can resurrect the program in the next year or two and give us better standing as a top-shelf program that a conference would want. That might get us another look from the B1G. IMPO, if the SEC looks our way it would mainly be to keep the B1G out of ATL.
I have been reading several of the so called expert prognosticators about where ACC teams would likely end up due to the conference disbanding. GT is usually not even mentioned. It's all about FSU, Clemson and UNC. ND is the outlier no one has any clue what they will do. Will UNC file an exit lawsuit as well? They could really blow the lid off. If UNC were to leave and Duke and NCSU go into a different conference, their OOC schedule would almost certainly include them. That would be a brutal schedule.
Of course no one really has any real information but it is disturbing how we are not even seen as an asset by most of these writers. All of them don't think there is any chance at the SEC. It's either stay in what's left of the ACC, B12 or maybe. maybe, maybe B1G. Are we really that irrelevant now? We are like the cute popular girl that is all dressed up but no one asks to the dance.
 

UgaBlows

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,993
Another point about the SEC, if you talk to the fans of the original members- in person or online they will say almost to a man that they did not want, and still don’t want A&M, Mizz, TX, or OK. Well guess what- the powers that be do not care at all what the fans think about or want in expansion, they are just going to ram things thru no matter what we fans want.
 

forensicbuzz

21st Century Throwback Dad
Messages
9,020
Location
North Shore, Chicago
I hear what you're saying, but we will never be invited back to the SEC. uga, Ole miss, and Miss St. will see to that.
Not so sure that's still the case with the Mississippi schools. Back in the 70s when Tech tried to get back in, the Mississippi thing was fresh and an issue. It's not the same way 50 years later.
 

orientalnc

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
10,026
Location
Oriental, NC
Two thoughts based on a convo with my insider connected UNC neighbor.

First, he said the ACC is not going to negotiate with either FSU or Clemson to lower the exit fee or allow them to buy back their media rights. Both will have win outright in court. The conference sees this as an existential threat. He said UNC is willing to sit back and watch. Besides, they cannot leave the ACC without NC State coming along for the ride. And they have to have the Board of Governors approval.

UNC isn't going anywhere without NCSU. That's what the BOG has ruled.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,041
Two thoughts based on a convo with my insider connected UNC neighbor.

First, he said the ACC is not going to negotiate with either FSU or Clemson to lower the exit fee or allow them to buy back their media rights. Both will have win outright in court. The conference sees this as an existential threat. He said UNC is willing to sit back and watch. Besides, they cannot leave the ACC without NC State coming along for the ride. And they have to have the Board of Governors approval.

UNC isn't going anywhere without NCSU. That's what the BOG has ruled.
Which makes sense seeing as they have quotes from both Clemson and FSU praising the GOR for ensuring exactly what they are complaining about when they signed it. It is very hard to back out of a contract, just because you don't like it any more.

The exit fee from the conference could be compared to a divorce. However, the GOR isn't comparable to a divorce nor a mortgage. The GOR is more like a sell. If you sell your house to someone, you can't go back 8 years later and DEMAND that they sell the house back to you. Even if they agree in principle to sell you the house back, they are not limited in what they can ask to be paid for it. The GOR isn't a business deal contract, it is a property assignment contract. The ACC owns that property just like a house, until the end of the term.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,749
Wow the NC board of Gov did something for NCSt that restrained UNC.

Thats awesome.

We got the shaft from our our board of regents / st legislature has made gt solely a research institute ( super high academics = $$$ from lots of out of state students who go home after graduation).

Also gt cannot offer any degrees offered by uga.

But uga can offer engineering degree - sadly the top lb on uga football team graduated w engr degree.

I guess we shouldn't expect any help like ncst.
 

roadkill

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,919
Two thoughts based on a convo with my insider connected UNC neighbor.

First, he said the ACC is not going to negotiate with either FSU or Clemson to lower the exit fee or allow them to buy back their media rights. Both will have win outright in court. The conference sees this as an existential threat. He said UNC is willing to sit back and watch. Besides, they cannot leave the ACC without NC State coming along for the ride. And they have to have the Board of Governors approval.

UNC isn't going anywhere without NCSU. That's what the BOG has ruled.
I suspect that a primary reason that Clemson and FSU want to have their lawsuits decided by a friendly local venue is that the exit fee issue hinges on determining if it is a penalty, versus liquidated damages. The text says exit fee, but Clemson's suit quotes Jim Phillips saying it is a penalty. The fact that its calculation is tied to the ACC's operating budget, rather than something like the conference's media revenue, may give Clemson a reasonable argument that it is strictly a punitive measure and thus not enforceable.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
18,375
The Big 10 appears to be building a conference that covers the country coast-to-coast while the SEC is doubling down on the Southeast with its rapidly growing population.

Interesting (and frustrating) times.

The B1G actually wants in on the South more than they wanted the West Coast. It's why they went hard after GT/UNC/UVA in 2013, and it's why they've already had discussions with several schools for the next realignment shift. B1G overtures are why FSU is desperately pushing to leave the ACC. UNC has had a standing invitation for decades. Clemson pushing the issue with the ACC GOR is interesting because on the face of it, where would they go? SEC doesn't want to overlap states (which is why GT will not return to the SEC), and they already have South Carolina covered. Clemson checks the B1G fanbase box, but they are not a top academic institution, and they are not in a very populated metro area that gives them a high upside.

Look at the NFL for the B1G model. People keep screaming the Linear TV is dying, but the reality is streaming is also losing subscribers in droves:


The NFL has flat out said their growth model leans heavily into Linear TV model, and that they will not move away from it at the expense of gaining streamers. That doesn't mean they're staying away from streaming as licensing 3rd tier games to streamers like Amazon has been very lucrative for them. I was as big of a proponent on the impact of streaming in college sports, but after watching how the streaming services are handling this, I don't see how it's sustainable to make viewers pay for "a la cart" viewing when streaming gets more expensive every year for the consumer, and it takes several streaming services to watch all the sports leagues and conferences. Viewers are literally walking away from watching sports.

Which brings me to this. Fun fact: the Atlanta Metro area is now the 6th most populated metro area in the United States. Atlanta Metro has moved up one spot from 7th.


I've felt for a while that GT has been strongly in the B1G mix. Our fanbase size is a negative (we need to be real with that), but our location provides B1G the biggest growth opportunity in terms of size and future growth, as well as media market. Linear TV is never going away, as the NFL said, Linear TV provides the more viewership growth opportunity than streaming can. That makes Atlanta/GT a very important asset to have in any college sports portfolio. Also, Atlanta has become one of the biggest business centers in the US...and has been a magnet for the midwesterners for well over 2 decades now. Football has been the biggest driver for realignment, and nowhere is football bigger than the heart of the South.
 

CEB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,766
The ACC decided to play hard ball.

Finally sat at a large enough screen to even attempt to read this. Interesting verbiage in the snip below...
Using the phrase "duration of the ESPN agreement" in a legal document is another interesting wrinkle in the "Term" of the GOR. Maybe it is irrelevant because the "option" in 2027 isn't what FSU represented (or hinted) it was, but if the option does allow ESPN out, this is another acknowledgement that the "Term" of GOR may be modified by the presence (or lack thereof) of an ESPN agreement.
Sloppy or irrelevant? I have NO idea, but I found it interesting...
1711041811802.png
 

cpf2001

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,377
Linear vs streaming is an incomplete picture which masks some of the problems facing everybody selling TV (not just sports).

You also have TikTok, Snap, Instagram, Twitch, YouTube, etc. None of those were around ~20 years ago either. But they all make people less likely to pay $100+,$200+ a month for TV. And then with streaming you have, what, 5-10x as many shows coming out as options to watch even if you ignore the free stuff? The streamers followed a classic business playbook “get them hooked cheap by selling below cost, then raise the price” but they’re finding they mostly don’t have compelling enough individual libraries to keep people in the fold as the price goes up.

It may be hard to keep people on a “pay year-long for seasonal content” linear TV model for sports. The newest moves in the sports streaming space to consolidate all the leagues in one package could help. But more likely you’ll want to sign up for one season and cancel for another.

The trick is that the more you lose the casual cable-bundle-buyer whose money went to ESPN even though they only watched 3 games a year - and it will probably be IMPOSSIBLE to keep those folks around at the previous cost - then the more you have to get out of each “real fan” to make up for it. But the more you raise the price, the higher the bar of fanaticism has to be to justify paying.

Once that happens it’s hard for me to see it as anything but a 20 year vicious cycle of belt tightening. I don’t know if we’re at the revenue peak just yet, but I think it will be soon. And then a lot of people will find themselves with less money than they’re used to.

Edit: IMO the SEC is better prepared for this than the Big 10 because if your social circle is heavily regional and all into CFB, then you’re gonna keep paying what they ask. If you’re nationally dispersed and your social circle has more non-SEC/non-Big10 people than otherwise, and they stop caring as much because their schools got relegated, then you have less motivation to keep caring enough to pay.
 
Last edited:

CEB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,766
Finally sat at a large enough screen to even attempt to read this. Interesting verbiage in the snip below...
Using the phrase "duration of the ESPN agreement" in a legal document is another interesting wrinkle in the "Term" of the GOR. Maybe it is irrelevant because the "option" in 2027 isn't what FSU represented (or hinted) it was, but if the option does allow ESPN out, this is another acknowledgement that the "Term" of GOR may be modified by the presence (or lack thereof) of an ESPN agreement.
Sloppy or irrelevant? I have NO idea, but I found it interesting...
View attachment 15923
tried to edit but I ran out of time...

For those of you who have been saying that we haven't seen the 2016 GOR - YOU'RE WRONG! (I was too) ;)
Turns out that the 2013 GOR we've been reading is the actual GOR in effect and it was only amended in 2016 (the amendment is exhibit 7 in the filing). As we suspected, the only changes are to note that "ESPN Agreement" shall refer to all ESPN agreements and that the Term of the agreement shall continue to June 30, 2036.
 

SOWEGA Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,098
The ACC playing hardball? That had me spitting out my coffee. The ACC rolls over in every single negotiation. This will be no different. It may take longer but no way the GOR lasts into the 2030’s. Hostage situations don’t generally last a long time.
 
Top