Conference Realignment

[RonJohn]

Is your prediction that FSU and Clemson end up in a conference outside of the P4?

I don't know what will happen. If I were to make a prediction, it would be more of a super league instead of existing conference realignment.

The biggest thing is that all of the conferences are set in their contracts until 2030 (Big10), 2031 (Big12), 2034 (SEC), and 2036 (ACC). Getting a full share for FSU and/or Clemson before then will be difficult for the conferences to negotiate with the media companies. If I understand correctly, the Big12 used all of their guaranteed expansion teams when they added the Pac12 teams. The Big10 and SEC just renegotiated their contracts. It has been reported that ESPN has refused to offer the SEC more money for things like extra SEC conference games. I seriously doubt that ESPN will offer them a full share for new teams. The Big10 has added teams at reduced rates because they couldn't get a full share. Oregon is arguably a larger brand than FSU and they couldn't get a full share. If FSU's goal is to get more money, there isn't currently a place with money available to provide for them.

I don't think anyone knows what will happen with laws/lawsuits/regulations. The P4 are planning to provide NIL money to athletes directly instead of through outside organizations. The teams dictate schedule to the athletes. They dictate where the athletes must workout, where they practice, and where they play. Even before direct payments, the NLRB has ruled that college athletes are employees. Once the teams are providing direct payments, I don't know how the schools can legally argue that they are not employees. There will be lawsuits from players to be declared employees. There will be lawsuits from players to be allowed to unionize. Congress might get involved to "fix" things, but there are almost always unintended consequences of legislation and things might get even worse if they try. IF we get to a point where players are unionized, I think it would make more business sense for all of the major conferences to combine into a single entity that negotiates with the union, and tries to maximize revenue as a whole. If the media companies see opportunity for more revenue with new contracts instead of continuing the old contracts, they might negotiate new deals with a new college football entity. (This isn't what I want for college athletics, but I see it as a real possibility.)

The media contracts don't expire until 2030 at the earliest. I am not predicting that players will officially be employees and unionize by 2025, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened by then. That is why I think a super league is more likely than some conference shuffling in the near future.

 

[RamblinRed]

Doesn't the ACC have any recourse such as excommunicating Clemson and FSU?

Doesn't the military court martial people for conduct unbecoming an officer?

Forcing them to remain in the conference only reinforces the perception that the ACC is weak and needs their money.

Throw the bums out.

I suspect the ACC would be happy for them to leave as long as they live up to the contracts they signed.

That means they pay the ACC the exit fee and the ACC retains the rights to the media until 2036.

 

[WreckinGT]

I suspect the ACC would be happy for them to leave as long as they live up to the contracts they signed.

That means they pay the ACC the exit fee and the ACC retains the rights to the media until 2036.

They wouldn't be able to join another conference without their media rights nor create any kind of independent schedule. So effectively, their athletic department would have to shut down for a few years. In the mean time the ACC would obviously be less valuable without their two biggest programs, and the ESPN option is looming. I fail to see why the ACC would be happy for this situation.

 

[RamblinRed]

I have no idea what is going to happen over the next 5-10 years with college athletics, though moving to more of a 'super league' at the top level of college football does not seem out of reach.

The House settlement basically screws over college basketball and non-P4 conferences. Since the NCAA is paying $1.1B primarily from reserves and reductions in payouts of units, that by itself would hurt the smaller conferences. But then to use the units earned over the last few years to derermine how the conferences are going to come up with the rest of the money is ludicrous. Not using some sort of calculation that includes the TV contracts seems wrong. Only the P5 conferences were party to the lawsuit, yet the non-P5 conferences are going to be on the hook for 60% of the reamining $1.7B settlement. If I was the judge i'd take a good, hard look at that settlement and think about disallowing it, as why should the small schools and conferences who were not even part of the lawsuit, or in any of the discussions, have to pay so much of the settlement.

As far as moving conferences, who knows how that will work out.
Ignoring all the internet and podcast chatter and just focusing on what actions have actually occurred this is what I know.

The PAC12, B12, and ACC all have/had GOR's. It is believed they are all very similar. No school until FSU has attempted to go to court over the GOR's. Every P5 school that has jumped did so when the GOR's had expired or were within a year of expiring.

TX and OK (2 schools with deep pockets) ended up making a deal with the B12 so they could depart 1 year early, but they never challenged the validity of the B12 GOR.

No school since the TX/OK/USC/UCLA departures has been able to get more than roughly $30M yr in order to move.
B12 had in their new TV contract with Fox (but not ESPN) that they could bring in up to 4 P5 schools at a full share. They have done that with CO, Utah, AZ, AZ ST.
Stan/Cal, SMU and all the G5 schools that went to the B12 are taking significantly reduced shares to move. As are OR/WA for the B10.
OR/WA were not given any travel allowances as part of their move to the B10.
None of the newcomers to the B12 will receive any of the TX/OK payout money.

B12 kooks are losing their mind over the fact that ACC schools made more in 2023 than their schools did.
ACC had the largest increase in revenue of any conference in 2023 - this is due partially to ACC getting a full year of ACCN on Comcast for the first time.
B10 will obviously see the largest increase in revenue the next few years due to their new TV contracts.
ACC should continue to see more profit from the ACCN in the next couple of years as ESPN will be able to charge in-network instead of out-of-network rates for customers in Texas and CA. I wouldn't expect that to be a ton of money, but every penny helps.

FSU has tried to conflate the exit fee and the GOR together in its legal filings. Those are 2 separate items in 2 different legal documents.
The ACC GOR has no mechanism in it for a school to negotiate its way out, ie. get its media rights back. It simply states that the school agrees to give its media rights to the conference until the end date of the agreement.

I've heard internet kooks say the ACC's demise has been imminent for over a decade now. Hasn't happened yet. Maybe it will happen in a year, maybe in 5 years, maybe not in my lifetime.

Given the uncertainty in college athletics right now - i'm glad I am not a college athletics administrator.

 

[RamblinRed]

They wouldn't be able to join another conference without their media rights nor create any kind of independent schedule. So effectively, their athletic department would have to shut down for a few years. In the mean time the ACC would obviously be less valuable without their two biggest programs, and the ESPN option is looming. I fail to see why the ACC would be happy for this situation.

Actually the ACC would not be any less valuable from a contractual standpoint. ACC's contract with ESPN only allows ESPN to renegotiate if membership in the ACC drops below 14. That was part of the reason for expansion.

 

[WreckinGT]

Actually the ACC would not be any less valuable from a contractual standpoint. ACC's contract with ESPN only allows ESPN to renegotiate if membership in the ACC drops below 14. That was part of the reason for expansion.

According to FSU and Ross Dellenger, ESPN also has an option for the 2027 season to drop the ACC contract altogether. Even the ACC commissioner acknowledged this but chose to call it a "look in".

 

[yeti92]

According to FSU and Ross Dellenger, ESPN also has an option for the 2027 season to drop the ACC contract altogether. Even the ACC commissioner acknowledged this but chose to call it a "look in".

Jim Phillips did not acknowledge that ESPN has the option to drop the ACC contract altogether, that is completely false. If anything he stated the opposite.

"The partnership’s not going away or being affected in a negative way at all,” Phillips said, according to ESPN’s David Hale. “It’s a look in and we’re handling some of what that states."

 

[RonJohn]

According to FSU and Ross Dellenger, ESPN also has an option for the 2027 season to drop the ACC contract altogether. Even the ACC commissioner acknowledged this but chose to call it a "look in".

What did Ross Dellenger base his reporting on? I assume he based it on what FSU put in the lawsuit. That is the ONLY indication that such a total drop option exists. I don't know that it doesn't exist, but I also don't know that it does exist. There are many ways that FSU's lawyers could have described it that way, when it is really something else. Unless such an option does in fact exist, and ESPN drops the ACC in January, the public will never actually know if it exists or not.

 

[WreckinGT]

Jim Phillips did not acknowledge that ESPN has the option to drop the ACC contract altogether, that is completely false. If anything he stated the opposite.

"The partnership’s not going away or being affected in a negative way at all,” Phillips said, according to ESPN’s David Hale. “It’s a look in and we’re handling some of what that states."

What do you think a look in is in this case? You think ESPN is going to voluntarily increase how much they have to pay?

 

[RonJohn]

The House settlement basically screws over college basketball and non-P4 conferences. Since the NCAA is paying $1.1B primarily from reserves and reductions in payouts of units, that by itself would hurt the smaller conferences. But then to use the units earned over the last few years to derermine how the conferences are going to come up with the rest of the money is ludicrous. Not using some sort of calculation that includes the TV contracts seems wrong. Only the P5 conferences were party to the lawsuit, yet the non-P5 conferences are going to be on the hook for 60% of the reamining $1.7B settlement. If I was the judge i'd take a good, hard look at that settlement and think about disallowing it, as why should the small schools and conferences who were not even part of the lawsuit, or in any of the discussions, have to pay so much of the settlement.

The numbers can be skewed to look however someone wants them to look. Another way to say it is that less than 20% of schools are going to pay 40% of the settlement. The other conferences were not named individually, but all members of the NCAA were in the lawsuit as part of the organization. I think too often, people look at the NCAA as an organization that controls college athletics. It is in fact just a collection of schools with supposedly common goals. Schools and conferences can withdraw from the NCAA if they so choose.

I do think that revenue should be taken into account, and that P4(5) conferences should pay more than they are paying. However, I think it is disingenuous to frame things as the P4(5) are only paying 40% of the cost, when in reality they only account for less than 20% of the population of D1 schools. That is a way to make the numbers appear to be something they are not.

 

[RonJohn]

What do you think a look in is in this case? You think ESPN is going to voluntarily increase how much they have to pay?

I think we are spending far too much energy arguing about the details of something that none of us actually know the details about.

 

[stinger78]

What do you think a look in is in this case? You think ESPN is going to voluntarily increase how much they have to pay?

Look ins are quite common in dynamic situations to make sure the contact remains in alignment with the current situation. Look ins can help either party, or both. They are not bad things.

 

[RonJohn]

What do you think a look in is in this case? You think ESPN is going to voluntarily increase how much they have to pay?

And look at what I found on the Osecola.

ACC Network contract 'look-ins' provide comfort to FSU's Thrasher

As the ACC enters a 20-year deal with ESPN, FSU's president takes comfort that there will be windows for renegotiation.

floridastate.rivals.com

So, FSU stated in 2016 that there is a "look-in" in 2021 that could be beneficial for FSU and the ACC. It seems odd that 8 years later, the same organization is calling that a unilateral opt-out for ESPN.

 

[WreckinGT]

And look at what I found on the Osecola.

ACC Network contract 'look-ins' provide comfort to FSU's Thrasher

As the ACC enters a 20-year deal with ESPN, FSU's president takes comfort that there will be windows for renegotiation.

floridastate.rivals.com

So, FSU stated in 2016 that there is a "look-in" in 2021 that could be beneficial for FSU and the ACC. It seems odd that 8 years later, the same organization is calling that a unilateral opt-out for ESPN.

That doesn't make any sense. The option was tied to the launching of the ACC Network which eventually happened in 2019 and was triggered as part of the contract according to FSU in their legal filing. They wouldnt even know when that was going to happen in 2016. Im starting to wonder if the option and the look in are two different things but Phillips decided to answer a question about the option with a response related to the upcoming look in.

 

[RonJohn]

That doesn't make any sense. The option was tied to the launching of the ACC Network which eventually happened in 2019 and was triggered as part of the contract according to FSU in their legal filing. They wouldnt even know when that was going to happen in 2016. Im starting to wonder if the option and the look in are two different things but Phillips decided to answer a question about the option with a response related to the upcoming look in.

The article itself says that the ACC Network will launch in 2019. From the article:

The first of those previously unreported “look-ins” will occur in 2021, just two years after the new ACC Network is scheduled to launch on cable and satellite television.

Didn't FSU claim that the ACC commissioner extended the "unilateral option" from 2021 to 2025? Haven't there been plenty of people speculating that the extension was so that the ACC Network would be more established?

It makes perfect sense to me. FSU used slanted language about a lot of things in their legal filing. If they simply changed the phrasing of "look-in" to "unilateral option" it matches how most of their original filing was written.

 

[WreckinGT]

The article itself says that the ACC Network will launch in 2019. From the article:

Didn't FSU claim that the ACC commissioner extended the "unilateral option" from 2021 to 2025? Haven't there been plenty of people speculating that the extension was so that the ACC Network would be more established?

It makes perfect sense to me. FSU used slanted language about a lot of things in their legal filing. If they simply changed the phrasing of "look-in" to "unilateral option" it matches how most of their original filing was written.

The ACC Network was originally supposed to launch in 2017. The official launch of the network was always up in the air. I know your go to argument is always that FSU must have lied in their legal filings but i'm not sure there is much to support that here.

 

[RonJohn]

The ACC Network was originally supposed to launch in 2017. The official launch of the network was always up in the air. I know your go to argument is always that FSU must have lied in their legal filings but i'm not sure there is much to support that here.

In 2016, the FSU president said that the ACC Network was scheduled to launch in 2019.

I haven't said that FSU "lied". I have said that they heavily slant their arguments, even to the point of making it sound completely different from what it actually is. I think that is extremely obvious just from reading the document.

 

[dmurdock]

The article itself says that the ACC Network will launch in 2019. From the article:

Didn't FSU claim that the ACC commissioner extended the "unilateral option" from 2021 to 2025? Haven't there been plenty of people speculating that the extension was so that the ACC Network would be more established?

It makes perfect sense to me. FSU used slanted language about a lot of things in their legal filing. If they simply changed the phrasing of "look-in" to "unilateral option" it matches how most of their original filing was written.

I think delaying the look-in was actually a good thing for the ACC since Comcast didn't agree to carry the ACC Network until 11/30/2021. The look-in will now have several years of Comcast carrier fees included for each party to review.

ESPN’s ACC Network to Launch in Comcast’s Xfinity Markets in Coming Weeks; ACC Network Achieves Full Distribution

Announced earlier today, Comcast will distribute ACC Network (ACCN) to its Xfinity customers, allowing fans and followers of the Atlantic Coast Conference to access the multiplatform network in the coming weeks. The availability of ACCN is part of Comcast and The Walt Disney Company’s content...

espnpressroom.com

 

[yeti92]

What do you think a look in is in this case? You think ESPN is going to voluntarily increase how much they have to pay?

Why does it have to be voluntary? I'd imagine there are are at least some terms tied to the look in that define what changes in payouts would be based on.

 

[Techster]

I want FSU and ESPN to go to court ASAP...for no other reason than answering the 2027 "can they, or can they not" question of ESPN's unilateral option.

If everything we've read that the ACC is ESPN's most profitable collegiate asset, than ESPN would be financially unwise to terminate.

However, if there are other things at play, you just never know.