Conference Realignment

[L41k18]

The Dude from WV will literally ejaculate all over himself the second the ACC dies because he's had a quarter century grudge for WVU getting rejected multiple times. I wouldn't believe one word he says. He's always posted "rumors" about conference expansion and never been right about anything in his life. He's a joke.

In the Big Realigment Rumor Debacle of the early 2010s, he admitted making up stuff to hopefully help kill off the ACC.
Ditto MHiver3.

Yet, a handful of unbelievably naive people still pay attention to what these 2 confirmed & admitted liars have to say. It's mind boggling to me.

[and yes, if you throw a thousand thumbtacks against the ceiling over a decade plus, one or two are bound to stick]

 

[CEB]

Since 2014, college football has become nothing more than programming content. The bowl games (a number of them are owned outright by ESPN), the CFP (a made for tv event), Game Day (number one sports show) are all about viewership.

Absolutely.
The schools and the media recognized their interests aligned when it came to $$$, and everthing else has taken a back seat.

 

[RonJohn]

Before anyone says, "Why would ESPN kill their most profitable collegiate deal"? It's even more profitable for ESPN to NOT pay the majority of ACC, and have the valuable teams in conferences they already have under contract.

Except, what he is saying is that ESPN will extend the ACC deal and continue to pay the ACC, but pay the SEC more for Clemson and FSU than they are paying now, except that some of that money will be paid to the ACC, so that the ACC won't lose money, the SEC will make more money, and ESPN won't have to pay out any more money. How that works mathematically I don't understand.

IF there is a total opt-out option in 2027, and ESPN wants to not pay the majority of the ACC, then they will just opt-out. This shuffling things around and making money magically appear doesn't make any sense, except to frothing-fan type people on Twitter.

I won't say that it is impossible for something to happen, but since the GOR requires the signature of every single member of the ACC to change it, FSU is not going to realistically get out of the GOR. The ACC could potentially still own FSU's rights and license them to the SEC to sell to ESPN. They might be able to do that without changing the GOR. But why would ESPN want that? Why would the SEC want that? Why would FSU want that if they are in the SEC, but only making similar, or maybe less money than in the ACC? The ACC paid out about $40 million per team last year. The SEC paid out about $50 million per team. The SEC is projected to have a significant jump next year because of the new deal. If the SEC revenue goes to $75 million next year, and the ACC gets FSU's current revenue for licensing the rights, then the SEC would only get around $30 million extra for having FSU. Is ESPN going to be happy about paying $30 million more for FSU to be in a different conference? Is the ACC going to be happy about licensing the content for less than market value? Is the SEC going to be happy about having a team that brings in much less revenue than any other team? Maybe it sounds good as an idea, but the puzzle pieces just don't line up.

 

[RonJohn]

There's a hand few of guys on Twitter that got their huge following due to getting the scoop on realignment movement before the legacy media did. A LOT of their stuff is wrong, but they were right enough times to build a big following. This is one example:




Twitter is a lot of trash...but sometimes there's a lot good info. Just have to know who's who.

Swaim will be correct about something at some point. Does that mean we should believe him the thousands of times he is wrong? Or should we just ignore him because he is throwing spaghetti at the wall and doesn't actually have a clue if it is true or not. I could post guesses for the single digit lottery games every time it is played. Eventually I would get it correct. Does that mean that people should bet on my numbers every time I post them? Definitely not. And in the single digit lottery, there is a 10% chance of getting it correct. That is very very much higher than these guys spouting off on Twitter.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

but if ESPN wants FSU and Clem that badly,

ESPN has FSU and Clemson already, and for less money than they'd have to pay to move them to the SEC, which is why none of this makes sense...

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

There's a hand few of guys on Twitter that got their huge following due to getting the scoop on realignment movement before the legacy media did. A LOT of their stuff is wrong, but they were right enough times to build a big following. This is one example:




Twitter is a lot of trash...but sometimes there's a lot good info. Just have to know who's who.

Broken clocks are right twice a day and all...

 

[CEB]

ESPN has FSU and Clemson already, and for less money than they'd have to pay to move them to the SEC, which is why none of this makes sense...

 

[g0lftime]

ESPN has FSU and Clemson already, and for less money than they'd have to pay to move them to the SEC, which is why none of this makes sense...

Clemson and FSU want SEC level money. Do they really care if it's SEC or B1G? They just think they need comparable income to compete at the national level and they don't think the ACC can provide it.

 

[WreckinGT]

ESPN has FSU and Clemson already, and for less money than they'd have to pay to move them to the SEC, which is why none of this makes sense...

It's a completely different product in the SEC. FSU played three 5+ million viewer games this year in the regular season. Two of those three were against the SEC. The other was against Clemson. Give FSU a schedule with UGA, Bama, Texas, LSU, etc and those games are going to put up monster numbers. There are just far more big games in the SEC than the ACC. Plus if FSU and Clemson were moved to the SEC, UNC and UVA are probably gone to the B1G. Others may bolt for the B12. What is the remaining ACC worth at that point? Certainly not $40+ million a year per team. If ESPN negotiates a new deal for say, $20-25 million a year then they are actually paying out less overall while getting more premium content with FSU and Clemson in the SEC and still filling out their needed lower tier content.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Clemson and FSU want SEC level money. Do they really care if it's SEC or B1G? They just think they need comparable income to compete at the national level and they don't think the ACC can provide it.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Clemson and FSU can want the moon, but explain to me why ESPN, who already owns their media rights, would pay more money to not only those two, but the ACC, and the SEC in order to get them to move to another conference.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

It's a completely different product in the SEC. FSU played three 5+ million viewer games this year in the regular season. Two of those three were against the SEC. The other was against Clemson. Give FSU a schedule with UGA, Bama, Texas, LSU, etc and those games are going to put up monster numbers. There are just far more big games in the SEC than the ACC. Plus if FSU and Clemson were moved to the SEC, UNC and UVA are probably gone to the B1G. Others may bolt for the B12. What is the remaining ACC worth at that point? Certainly not $40+ million a year per team. If ESPN negotiates a new deal for say, $20-25 million a year then they are actually paying out less overall while getting more premium content with FSU and Clemson in the SEC and still filling out their needed lower tier content.

That's not what was said in the original post. Also, why would ESPN pay the big money required to get the ACC to settle then pay even more money to the SEC?

 

[Techster]

Except, what he is saying is that ESPN will extend the ACC deal and continue to pay the ACC, but pay the SEC more for Clemson and FSU than they are paying now, except that some of that money will be paid to the ACC, so that the ACC won't lose money, the SEC will make more money, and ESPN won't have to pay out any more money. How that works mathematically I don't understand.

IF there is a total opt-out option in 2027, and ESPN wants to not pay the majority of the ACC, then they will just opt-out. This shuffling things around and making money magically appear doesn't make any sense, except to frothing-fan type people on Twitter.

I won't say that it is impossible for something to happen, but since the GOR requires the signature of every single member of the ACC to change it, FSU is not going to realistically get out of the GOR. The ACC could potentially still own FSU's rights and license them to the SEC to sell to ESPN. They might be able to do that without changing the GOR. But why would ESPN want that? Why would the SEC want that? Why would FSU want that if they are in the SEC, but only making similar, or maybe less money than in the ACC? The ACC paid out about $40 million per team last year. The SEC paid out about $50 million per team. The SEC is projected to have a significant jump next year because of the new deal. If the SEC revenue goes to $75 million next year, and the ACC gets FSU's current revenue for licensing the rights, then the SEC would only get around $30 million extra for having FSU. Is ESPN going to be happy about paying $30 million more for FSU to be in a different conference? Is the ACC going to be happy about licensing the content for less than market value? Is the SEC going to be happy about having a team that brings in much less revenue than any other team? Maybe it sounds good as an idea, but the puzzle pieces just don't line up.

After doing some more research, as I've said I have no clue who this person is, he could 100% be making this stuff up...but his details are intriguing because a lot of the details are similar to what this board has discussed. However, in the frame of hypotheticals, I'll be more than happy to entertain it...because it's all entertainment in the end.

He's clearly saying the ACC will accept a lower value deal due to losing FSU and Clemson, offset with keeping the home rights to FSU and Clemson, so basically the ACC schools will take an overall step back payout terms to keep the ESPN deal alive. The alternative is ACC schools refuse and the deal ends in 2027 and the less attractive schools will have to fend for themselves ala PAC 12 schools:



It's always a game of shuffling money. If you don't think so, then you haven't been paying attention. PAC 12 refused to play that game with ESPN and take lower value after USC/UCLA/Washington/Oregon bolted for the B1G and ESPN effectively killed that conference. I know @CEB doesn't see it that way, but if you look through the prism that ESPN was willing to "shuffle" money towards the Big 12 and pay the remaining PAC 12 schools (minus Oregon State and Washington State) MORE net money per year to move, then that pretty much refutes your point of "shuffling money doesn't make any sense". From your past and recent posts, you are an Engineer with a business background. Business is mostly about shuffling resources to maximize net output, while getting rid of extraneous costs. It doesn't take a genius to understand that certain schools (see: Wake Forest, Boston College, Louisville, NC State, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, possibly Duke and GT due to ESPN having schools in the same territory, etc) are extraneous costs to ESPN, and recent history has shown ESPN (and other networks) are shuffling operations to consolidate resources and cut expenses.

ESPN/FSU/Clemson doesn't need the ACC to vote on changing the GOR if the theory that GOR dies with the ESPN media deal is true...which seems to be how the ACC GOR document and amendment reads. Well, if the GOR dies when ESPN opts out in 2027, then the ACC schools have even less leverage. ACC schools either plays ball or take their chances in the wild. Outside of FSU/Clemson/UNC/Miami/maybe GT due to the most lucrative market left in the expansion map, which other ACC schools will be desirable in the open market? The Big 12 might take a few schools leftover, but they will be in a position to be picky.

If you subscribe to the notion that matchups and fanbases will rule the new college football world, then it makes a lot of sense that ESPN/FSU/Clemson/SEC will want to this to happen. You're talking about a league already known for prime time matchups adding two marquee schools that will enhance the matchup matrix even more. FSU and Clemson are already two of the most watched schools, now add that to the potential matchups in the SEC? It doesn't take a genius to figure out why ESPN would loot a profitable ACC to make their golden child SEC even more attractive (with the added bonus of not having to pay "extraneous" schools).

 

[Techster]

Swaim will be correct about something at some point. Does that mean we should believe him the thousands of times he is wrong? Or should we just ignore him because he is throwing spaghetti at the wall and doesn't actually have a clue if it is true or not. I could post guesses for the single digit lottery games every time it is played. Eventually I would get it correct. Does that mean that people should bet on my numbers every time I post them? Definitely not. And in the single digit lottery, there is a 10% chance of getting it correct. That is very very much higher than these guys spouting off on Twitter.

I think it's easy for someone to sit in their kitchen or office or basement and throw out insults to someone who actually puts their neck out their to post something unique. As the saying goes, "It's easier to destroy than create something". Twitter is full of a bunch of sh!t, but I do think some of these guys have some good sources so I don't wholly dismiss everything. Maybe their sources are more bad than good...which seems to be the case on Twitter.

I come from the Private Equity world. I see a bunch of crap all day, and have to sift through it to discern what's useful and what isn't. That's not why I enjoy these discussions. I enjoy these discussions because I enjoy looking at the strategy of "why" and how it fits into the big picture. If you go back and look at my posts on realignment going back years, I tend to try to see how certain news fits the overall picture. I was one of the first ones to say that the SEC and B1G were up to something most of us haven't even thought of yet, and college sports model was changing in the next decade. I also said that the B1G and SEC have aspirations beyond their regional standing at that moment. Here we are.

While it's natural, and even prudent, to question anything and everything, my perspective is "How does this fit in the context of what someone/an organization/etc. is trying to do, and what the ultimate goal is." As we are seeing, so many are getting lost in the weeds of one statement or detail, and throwing out information because one thing is wrong, or it doesn't fit their view of what they believe the status quo should be. For a lot of people, one bad statement disqualifies an entire chapter...and we know from history that to believe that is closed minded. For me, it's much more fun and entertaining to go down a rabbit hole of fleshing out ideas...whether good or bad.

As I've said many times, these realignment discussions are pure entertainment. Way too many are taking this too seriously. Maybe it's because it's a reflection of insecurities of GT's standing or membership in the ACC and it's murky future. Maybe it's because it's "easier" to destroy than actually think outside of the box. It's fun to see who actually puts thoughts behind their postings, and who just has a triggered response. You and I don't agree on a lot with regard to realignment developments, but I do respect that you at least put thought in your responses as opposed to others who just regurgitate unoriginal statements. These discussions are fun, and thought provoking...and it's why I enjoy posting here regardless of who might disagree with me.

 

[HurricaneJacket]

Haven't read the whole thread, but thoughts on this?

NFL works with college presidents to form "Super League"

Anger, denial, bargain, and depression are over.

www.nbcsports.com

 

[Techster]

Don’t disagree… my point is that the only leverage the ACC has is the media value of its biggest brands.
I think if I were the ACC and if ESPN really valued FSU and Clem that much, I would call their bluff. If ESPN kills it in ‘27, it’s likely ESPN loses those assets to Fox via the BiG.
I just don’t see the ACC agreeing to let them go AND take less in the process.
This is all so weird that networks are driving this… I guess in a roundabout way, it’s true.

I think you assume that ESPN: 1. Hasn't worked out an agreement with other schools they want in their collegiate portfolio. 2. ESPN even cares that the B1G might poach certain schools.

The ACC doesn't have to agree, because ESPN holds all the leverage in the scenario the twitter poster is discussing. It's actually true that ESPN does hold the overwhelmingly better hand versus the ACC. If the ACC doesn't agree to the proposal? OK, ESPN takes their money and cancels in 2027 and get the schools they want anyways while saving hundreds of millions per year NOT paying for schools they don't want, and the unattractive schools can go the way of the PAC 12. If ACC does agree, they will at least be viable until 2036.

Networks just want content, and inventory across the four time zones. If ESPN dismantles the ACC, they'll still have content and inventory spread across all 4 time zones between the SEC and Big 12 media deals.

 

[forensicbuzz]

What that guy on twitter said is if the ACC didn't agree to it, ESPN would just opt out in 2027 and essentially the ACC teams could leave anyways and the ACC would be in the same position the PAC12 was in.

This goes with the theory that the GOR runs concurrently with the ESPN media deal that was amended to extend until 2036. Basically, the ACC GOR dies when the ESPN deal dies. The overall point is ESPN will play hardball with the ACC to move the valuable pieces where they want.

Before anyone says, "Why would ESPN kill their most profitable collegiate deal"? It's even more profitable for ESPN to NOT pay the majority of ACC, and have the valuable teams in conferences they already have under contract.

Again I don't know who this guy is, and I also believe this guy is probably 80% speculating, but there are a lot of details of that twitter thread that do match up with what's going on.

This guy knows nothing. The extension in 2027 is not an up/down on the ESPN/ACC deal. It doesn't end until 2036. What could end is the ACCN.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I think you assume that ESPN: 1. Hasn't worked out an agreement with other schools they want in their collegiate portfolio. 2. ESPN even cares that the B1G might poach certain schools.

The ACC doesn't have to agree, because ESPN holds all the leverage in the scenario the twitter poster is discussing. It's actually true that ESPN does hold the overwhelmingly better hand versus the ACC. If the ACC doesn't agree to the proposal? OK, ESPN takes their money and cancels in 2027 and get the schools they want anyways while saving hundreds of millions per year NOT paying for schools they don't want, and the unattractive schools can go the way of the PAC 12. If ACC does agree, they will at least be viable until 2036.

Networks just want content, and inventory across the four time zones. If ESPN dismantles the ACC, they'll still have content and inventory spread across all 4 time zones between the SEC and Big 12 media deals.

Based on what I've been told, look to 2036, not 2027.

 

[RonJohn]

I think it's easy for someone to sit in their kitchen or office or basement and throw out insults to someone who actually puts their neck out their to post something unique. As the saying goes, "It's easier to destroy than create something". Twitter is full of a bunch of sh!t, but I do think some of these guys have some good sources so I don't wholly dismiss everything. Maybe their sources are more bad than good...which seems to be the case on Twitter.

Thow out insults? Have I insulted him? What I have done is said that I don't trust his credibility. Why do you trust his credibility? In my opinion, credibility is something that should be earned, not freely given. When someone has a history of reporting things correctly, they earn credibility. Even then it doesn't mean that they will get everything right, just that the information that they report has a higher chance of being correct. I am skeptical of everything I see reported.

I would say that he hasn't put his neck out at all. It is very easy for someone in their kitchen, office, or basement to post wild ideas on twitter. There isn't any neck on the line about it. Swaim has been reporting that FSU is going to officially announce their departure from the ACC for about a year now. When his deadline passes, he just ignores it and soon after announces a new deadline. People still believe him, even though he has a history of being wrong. IF he is every correct in his prediction, people are going to froth over how he "knew the truth". They will ignore that he was wrong many times before finally being right.

This guy doesn't seem any different to me. He has put together some scenario that has some credibility, if you ignore math, and believe facts that haven't been proven, etc. (I guess you consider that to be an insult of him?) Why do you believe this random Big12 and WVU fan on Twitter has a source willing to share information with him that he isn't willing to share with respected journalists? Would such a source believe that this guy is less likely to take the information public than a respected journalist? In my opinion, such a source would go to a respected journalist that they have worked with before and trust if they want the information out. If they don't want the information out, they wouldn't talk to anyone, especially someone whose primary journalistic endeavor is to make splashy announcements on Twitter. As I said in the first paragraph, just because somebody says something doesn't mean that I should put credibility in them and believe it. (However, I guess I am just sitting in my office insulting him?) If it is an insult for me to bot fully believe everything that someone says, then I guess I insult many, many, many people all of the time.

 

[JPW]

Exactly. No need for 12 or 24 teams from 4 conferences. Just put the conference champs in and let them play. Easy peasy… but the money left on the table!!! Oh, the humanity!!’

 

[UgaBlows]

I believe that FSU and Clemson want out so badly that they would agree to a reduced payout to get in the SEC.

Longterm ESPN would make more from the increased ratings that FSU and Clem will bring in the SEC, combined with dumping part of the ACC, losing prob 4 schools to the BIG, and folding the rest into the Big12 at less money. The Big12 will probably become massive with 4 regional divisions. Espn will have all the content they need.