Conference Realignment

[TechPhi97]

I’m not sure what point it is that you’re making. Are you claiming viewership will increase by a jump to the B1G? By how much?

I’m not claiming anything other than I think the Big 10 has a base of fans from many schools here, so we’re attractive as a market. I don’how much viewership would increase or decrease for us with a Big 10 schedule. Viewership is definitely biased by the time slots you get, and those time slots are based on what the networks think will get them the highest viewership. My guess is that the Big 10 has a larger alumni base than the ACC because it’s almost all public universities - no Wake or Duke, for instance. If that’s the case we would probably get a viewership bump simply by our competitors having more football fan alumni. But that’s an external variable, not something we control. For us, better viewership is probably achieved by:
1) Being a better football team to get teeter slots and be more interesting in matchups.
2) Some sort of scheduling change where we drop a lower tier team and replace with a high viewership team, and/or
3) Hire Deion Sanders.

 

[RonJohn]

Those two aren't mutually exclusive....

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

GET OFF MY LAWN!!!

 

[RamblinRed]

There are 2 basic differences between TX and FSU.
First, Texas is a much more valuable property - it was 2nd nationally in revenue last year with almost $240M. FSU is 15th with about $160M. A conference is going to be willing to be more forgiving to the program that is much larger.
Second, TX, like every other program that has moved power conference to power conference structured the departure around the time of expiring contracts (media and GOR). FSU is the first to attempt to force itself out with neither the conference it is in nor the conferences it wants to move to are close to the end of their media deals or GOR.

Without an unlikely win in court FSU has probably hurt itself more than helped itself by this process.
And frankly the court process is likely to drag out for years - court system does not move quickly.
If the ACC wins the GOR portion of the lawsuit in court than it holds all the cards over FSU. There is no mechanism in the GOR for a school to get its media rights back. Those are owned by the conference until the contract expires. There is no negotiation clause in the GOR.

The biggest thing that FSU hasn't really seemed to realize is that it is not the most important property in the ACC. Probably not even in the top 2.
There is a reason that neither FSU not Clemson were vetted by the B1G while other ACC schools were.
I think they have also misread the external environment. There is not really alot of money in the system right now to be paying more for properties. That has been clear based on what has happend over the last 18 months. Nobody is getting P2 money right now if they try to move. OR and WA only ended up in the B1G because of extreme mismangement by the PAC12 causing that conference to implode and allowing B1G to get them at fire sale prices.
The PAC schools that went to the B12 also went there only because of that implosion and they didn't get more than they were expecting in a new PAC media deal. Stanford and Cal took huge cuts to come to the ACC.

Finally, you have to take into account where the reports are coming from. A report from Greg Swaim or Josh Pate is not nearly as valuable as a report from Brett McMurphy. One is a legitimate news reporter, the others are not. McMurphy may not have named his sources but when he says his sources are University Presidents, that is a much more valuable source than a random AA employee.

B1G and SEC's strategies have been pretty straightforward for the last decade.
SEC wants to add large state schools in contiguous states. FSU and Clemson do not help them there. They would not add a dime to their SEC Channel profit due to increasing carriage rates. But UNC and UVA would.
B1G has been after strong academic schools in major media markets. They didn't bring in Rutgers and MD because they thought they were going to be strong FB programs - that wasn't a major consideration. But they brought the DC and NY media markets which were very valuable for their network. UCLA and USC were added mostly because they were in LA. UNC and UVA are valuable to them because they are the largest programs in 2 states they currently do not have a school in. 2 states that are among the Top 10 largest in the country and growing.

I believe that ultimately the B1G would like to add 2-4 teams to a SE pod (depends upon whether they see MD and Rutgers as part of that pod or not). UNC and UVA are their obvious top targets. If they go to 4 then I think GT and Miami would be next in line as best fits for them. I think they would also take Duke if it guaranteed them getting UNC.

One big issue right now is that it is getting difficult for the conferences to add teams that are additive in value. The conferences are probably already too large, how much larger can they get without the value becoming dilutive. There may be only 3 schools out there that the P2 see as being additive to their bottom line at this point - ND, UNC and UVA.

But frankly I don't think anything happens until all the legal issues are resolved and that is likely years away.

 

[BCJacket]

If the ACC implodes. Which, personally, I think is very likely in the near-to-medium term, because the ACC made an ultimately fatal strategic mistake with the media deal. Clearly, based on the information available at the time, locking into a long term deal to get ESPN to stake the linear ACCN seemed like a good decision. All the schools signed off on it. But, the entire landscape of CFB has changed in unprecedented and largely unforeseen ways. The only way out of the contract is to fold the conference. (Unless ESPN is willing to renegotiate, and why would they?) On paper, the ACC has stronger programs than the Big 12. But the Big 12 has a huge advantage in having the flexibility to pursue new revenue streams.

Anyway, if the ACC implodes. There will be a 'gold rush' between the remaining Big 3 to absorb the valuable schools. Just like with the Pac12. If the ACC falls, we will truly be in the mega-conference pro-league era. Every pro league needs some 'ditch diggers' so the marquis teams have some 'gimme' wins on their schedule.

I believe all but maybe Wake and BC will find landing spots. (They're our Oregon St and Washington St.) Though other schools may have to take lower revenue to get in the door. I think Tech will have opportunities to join the B1G at a lower revenue slot- the Presidents like us. Or the Big 12. We have a better rep nationally than we do locally, especially in Academic circles. The Atlanta media market is highly desirable in media rights negotiations. (I hear you, Vespidae, about Nielson ratings being the most important. But markets/potential matter too.) I doubt the SEC wants us, but I could see a scenario where they want to 'circle the wagons' in the Southeast and want to snap up all the FL, GA, SC, NC schools, at an uneven revenue distribution.

 

[stinger78]

Pretty much.

OK. Just wanted to clarify. Carry on....

 

[CEB]

If the ACC implodes. Which, personally, I think is very likely in the near-to-medium term, because the ACC made an ultimately fatal strategic mistake with the media deal. Clearly, based on the information available at the time, locking into a long term deal to get ESPN to stake the linear ACCN seemed like a good decision. All the schools signed off on it. But, the entire landscape of CFB has changed in unprecedented and largely unforeseen ways. The only way out of the contract is to fold the conference. (Unless ESPN is willing to renegotiate, and why would they?) On paper, the ACC has stronger programs than the Big 12. But the Big 12 has a huge advantage in having the flexibility to pursue new revenue streams.

Anyway, if the ACC implodes. There will be a 'gold rush' between the remaining Big 3 to absorb the valuable schools. Just like with the Pac12. If the ACC falls, we will truly be in the mega-conference pro-league era. Every pro league needs some 'ditch diggers' so the marquis teams have some 'gimme' wins on their schedule.

I believe all but maybe Wake and BC will find landing spots. (They're our Oregon St and Washington St.) Though other schools may have to take lower revenue to get in the door. I think Tech will have opportunities to join the B1G at a lower revenue slot- the Presidents like us. Or the Big 12. We have a better rep nationally than we do locally, especially in Academic circles. The Atlanta media market is highly desirable in media rights negotiations. (I hear you, Vespidae, about Nielson ratings being the most important. But markets/potential matter too.) I doubt the SEC wants us, but I could see a scenario where they want to 'circle the wagons' in the Southeast and want to snap up all the FL, GA, SC, NC schools, at an uneven revenue distribution.

I don’t know what you mean by near to medium, but I will say this…. Current media deals run through the following years;
B1G -2030
B12 - 2031
Sec - 2033
ACC - 2036
The soonest we see discussions by these conferences is 2028-2029, and that’s if there is a good reliable leak. Movement will be later than that, and honestly, I could see everything standing pat through about 2033-2034.
The B1G will know if they have agreements with any ACC teams before their next negotiation and will probably structure their next deal in such a way that they can absorb new members (probably specific ones) in 2035-2036.
The SEC will probably do the same and since there would be only 2 years left on an ESPN to ESPN deal, could easily structure such moves a little quicker, if it’s financially feasible. If that happens, the B1G could potentially use that “out” to bring teams a year sooner also.
The B12 is the X factor. I can’t see why anyone would proactively choose B12 over the other P3, but since they are coming to the negotiating table in 2030, there could be some wild overtures.
All of that said, I would be really surprised if the ACC looks very different before 2033-2034.

MY GUT FEELING on Clemson and FSU making a legal stink now is because they are in the somewhat unique position of not being very attractive to the SEC or B1G and also completely opposed to remaining in a potentially depleted ACC. I think UNC, UVA, GT, Miami and possibly Duke VT and NCST have better shots at B1G / SEC invites (all for various reasons).

A nightmare scenario for FSU / Clem would be the B1G taking UNC, Dook, GT, Miami and the SEC taking UVA, VT, NCSt. I don’t know who the fourth SEC take would be, but if you’re FSU / Clem, your future could be a coin flip.

That’s all wild speculation of course, but I feel like FSU and Clem are forcing the action because they can’t be flat footed in 7-8 years. They have no where to go now but they’re worried about where they can go later.

 

[WreckinGT]

There are 2 basic differences between TX and FSU.
First, Texas is a much more valuable property - it was 2nd nationally in revenue last year with almost $240M. FSU is 15th with about $160M. A conference is going to be willing to be more forgiving to the program that is much larger.
Second, TX, like every other program that has moved power conference to power conference structured the departure around the time of expiring contracts (media and GOR). FSU is the first to attempt to force itself out with neither the conference it is in nor the conferences it wants to move to are close to the end of their media deals or GOR.

Without an unlikely win in court FSU has probably hurt itself more than helped itself by this process.
And frankly the court process is likely to drag out for years - court system does not move quickly.
If the ACC wins the GOR portion of the lawsuit in court than it holds all the cards over FSU. There is no mechanism in the GOR for a school to get its media rights back. Those are owned by the conference until the contract expires. There is no negotiation clause in the GOR.

The biggest thing that FSU hasn't really seemed to realize is that it is not the most important property in the ACC. Probably not even in the top 2.
There is a reason that neither FSU not Clemson were vetted by the B1G while other ACC schools were.
I think they have also misread the external environment. There is not really alot of money in the system right now to be paying more for properties. That has been clear based on what has happend over the last 18 months. Nobody is getting P2 money right now if they try to move. OR and WA only ended up in the B1G because of extreme mismangement by the PAC12 causing that conference to implode and allowing B1G to get them at fire sale prices.
The PAC schools that went to the B12 also went there only because of that implosion and they didn't get more than they were expecting in a new PAC media deal. Stanford and Cal took huge cuts to come to the ACC.

Finally, you have to take into account where the reports are coming from. A report from Greg Swaim or Josh Pate is not nearly as valuable as a report from Brett McMurphy. One is a legitimate news reporter, the others are not. McMurphy may not have named his sources but when he says his sources are University Presidents, that is a much more valuable source than a random AA employee.

B1G and SEC's strategies have been pretty straightforward for the last decade.
SEC wants to add large state schools in contiguous states. FSU and Clemson do not help them there. They would not add a dime to their SEC Channel profit due to increasing carriage rates. But UNC and UVA would.
B1G has been after strong academic schools in major media markets. They didn't bring in Rutgers and MD because they thought they were going to be strong FB programs - that wasn't a major consideration. But they brought the DC and NY media markets which were very valuable for their network. UCLA and USC were added mostly because they were in LA. UNC and UVA are valuable to them because they are the largest programs in 2 states they currently do not have a school in. 2 states that are among the Top 10 largest in the country and growing.

I believe that ultimately the B1G would like to add 2-4 teams to a SE pod (depends upon whether they see MD and Rutgers as part of that pod or not). UNC and UVA are their obvious top targets. If they go to 4 then I think GT and Miami would be next in line as best fits for them. I think they would also take Duke if it guaranteed them getting UNC.

One big issue right now is that it is getting difficult for the conferences to add teams that are additive in value. The conferences are probably already too large, how much larger can they get without the value becoming dilutive. There may be only 3 schools out there that the P2 see as being additive to their bottom line at this point - ND, UNC and UVA.

But frankly I don't think anything happens until all the legal issues are resolved and that is likely years away.

I don't doubt McMurphy's reporting at all. I just don't necessarily trust that what others are telling him is the absolute truth. We saw similar reporting from reputable sources that said the B1G wasn't interested in expanding any further after USC and UCLA announced. Then, they expanded anyways.

 

[Techster]

My opinion is that the argument that "Texas is worse than FSU yet they were accepted into the SEC" has an apples-to-oranges comparison element. So it's less important to determine which is worse, and more important to consider the current situation for FSU.

To me, and this is again just an opinion...if I put myself in the shoes of a school’s president tasked with decisions around expansion, FSU’s litigation-in-process, where they are essentially trying to renege on agreements they signed with their conference, and demanding the disclosure of confidential business contracts, is certainly hard to overlook, even if their addition otherwise makes business sense. So the “anonymous sources” quotes have a ring of truth and logic. Time will tell.

I think some are overplaying this to make FSU look like the hot girl with leprosy. Let's dig deeper than the superficial "FSU wants to tear up contracts and stiff their business partners" narrative.

ACC Media Partners: ESPN, The CW Network

B1G Media Partners: FOX, CBS, NBC

Big 12 Media Partners: FOX, ESPN

SEC Media Partners: ESPN/ABC

The reality for FSU is there is only one conference that makes sense for both them and their future conference: The B1G. Monetarily, the SEC and B1G are the only conferences whose payouts will meet FSU's expectations to keep them competitive with their "peers" (major national factory schools). However, you can eliminate the SEC because the SEC simply does not need FSU given UFlorida is already in their portfolio for the Florida market. Which leaves the B1G.

The B1G wants to desperately be in the Southeast markets, which is why they offered GT/UNC/UVA back in 2012 (which has been discussed ad nauseum on here). FSU was a nonstarter at the time because they simply were not up to the B1G's academic standards. What changed? FSU decided to invest massive sums into their academics, and they emphasized AAU designatioin.

Here's FSU's strategic plan (Flip to page 8):

https://strategicplan.fsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-2027-Strategic-Plan.pdf

That investment has seen a rise in FSU's academic standings (currently one of the top public schools in the country), and they are now on the radar of AAU, though they were not awarded AAU designation in the most recent group of schools that saw South Florida and Miami named. All of this is a bit esoteric academic information for the average college sports fan, but it's related to the B1G's interest in FSU (and because I'm a glutton for falling into the rabbit hole of information). About 3-5 years ago (if you go back in this thread you'll see I've mentioned it a few times throughout), there was a LOT of fire that the B1G was very interested in FSU, and it coincided with FSU's massive investment in academics and desire to receive AAU designation. Who ultimately decides on expansion targets? University Presidents. In the B1G, the university Presidents value academics, and FSU's rise in academics saw their profile rise with the B1G...and FSU's location is also a strategic growth market for the B1G. With FSU's rise in academics, and their massive viewership base across the country, the B1G can have their cake and eat it as well. Keep in mind the B1G's interest in FSU and FSU's investment in academics all preceded FSU's legal challenge to the GOR.

Now getting back to media partners or "business partners". Do you notice anything different about the P4 conference and their media partners? Notice which media company is involved with 3 of the P4, but not one of the P2? If you connect the dots, you can see why FSU has zero issues trying to torch the ACC and the ACC's contract with ESPN. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that FSU is going down the path of destruction because it doesn't affect the B1G and their media partners. It's the one conference that benefits BOTH the B1G and their media partners if FSU leaves the ACC.

The other fascinating thing that many posters on here are leaving out. Did anyone actually read the Brett McMurphy article or are they just regurgitating the headlines to further their narrative about FSU being "a bad partner" that no conference wants them?

https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/big-ten-sec-unlikely-to-add-florida-state-acc-survives

“There is no appetite among the presidents unless there is some catastrophic development with the ACC and it forces [the Big Ten] into a decision,” the source said.

“If the ACC blows up, who picks first [between the Big Ten and SEC]? Who picks second? If there is a need and desire to expand, you take inventory so your competitors don’t get it. ( ) But the presidents and chancellors are looking for stability. Despite what the social media geniuses are suggesting, no one — the leagues, the networks — is driving expansion.”

Pay attention to how McMurphy jumps from one anonymous source to another...it's very subtle in that article that if you don't pay attention, you'll miss it. It changes the complexion of what's getting attention in the headlines. It also changes how you view what was actually said by "anonymous sources". There's ALWAYS a "but..." in these articles. Brett McMurphy is a smart guy, he knows certain quotes sell, and saying FSU's chaos isn't attractive right now sells....but notice how no one is talking about the "but..." part. It's because it doesn't sell at the moment. Everyone knows once the ACC GOR is figured out or it expires, it's open season on ACC schools in the next round of expansion. Remember the last round of expansion and how all the big conferences denied they wanted to expand...until expansion happened. Then it happened shortly after that. Whether you like FSU or not, they are a top expansion target.

Before Kevin Warren left the B1G to work for the Bears, he let the cat out of the bag in terms of the B1G's plans. The B1G's aspirations are national, and the blueprint is pro franchises. The B1G wants to have schools where there are pro franchises, namely NFL franchises. There's this narrative that conferences are going to cap the amount of members (I've seen 20, I've seen 24). That's just a guess, and I'll say it's a bad guess. The number is what makes sense to each conference and their media partners. The more major markets you have, the bigger the pie gets. As long as each new member is additive and increases the size of each slice of the pie for existing conference members, expansion makes sense. If not, then the school won't make sense as an expansion target.

What I care about is what this means for GT. What does all this mean for GT? I think we're sitting pretty...and the end of the GOR can't come soon enough.

 

[Vespidae]

I’m not claiming anything other than I think the Big 10 has a base of fans from many schools here, so we’re attractive as a market. I don’how much viewership would increase or decrease for us with a Big 10 schedule. Viewership is definitely biased by the time slots you get, and those time slots are based on what the networks think will get them the highest viewership. My guess is that the Big 10 has a larger alumni base than the ACC because it’s almost all public universities - no Wake or Duke, for instance. If that’s the case we would probably get a viewership bump simply by our competitors having more football fan alumni. But that’s an external variable, not something we control. For us, better viewership is probably achieved by:
1) Being a better football team to get teeter slots and be more interesting in matchups.
2) Some sort of scheduling change where we drop a lower tier team and replace with a high viewership team, and/or
3) Hire Deion Sanders.

FYI, the BTN is the 118th most watched network in the country, out of 122. Even in markets that are B1G, unless you are playing tOSU, the numbers are low. I scanned them earlier and many are in the 0.5 range … which is not very good. In fact, it’s 1/3 of what Tech itself got. Your theory would hold only under the scenario that Tech plays tOSU or Michigan in prime time on Fox. That just feels unlikely to me.

It seems much more likely to me that B1G will try to increase its presence on the West Coast, not Atlanta. Large markets with no competition.

Not worth a debate, but I don’t see it.

 

[Vespidae]

I feel like FSU and Clem are forcing the action because they can’t be flat footed in 7-8 years.

That’s foregoing what, $320 million? I think if they could get out now, they would.

I don‘t see the rational to pick up lots of smaller market teams. The rules and money right now heavily tilt towards B1G and SEC. Eventually, they will cut off the air supply to the rest of them. Same thing happened in the NFL.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I think some are overplaying this to make FSU look like the hot girl with leprosy. Let's dig deeper than the superficial "FSU wants to tear up contracts and stiff their business partners" narrative.

ACC Media Partners: ESPN, The CW Network

B1G Media Partners: FOX, CBS, NBC

Big 12 Media Partners: FOX, ESPN

SEC Media Partners: ESPN/ABC

The reality for FSU is there is only one conference that makes sense for both them and their future conference: The B1G. Monetarily, the SEC and B1G are the only conferences whose payouts will meet FSU's expectations to keep them competitive with their "peers" (major national factory schools). However, you can eliminate the SEC because the SEC simply does not need FSU given UFlorida is already in their portfolio for the Florida market. Which leaves the B1G.

The B1G wants to desperately be in the Southeast markets, which is why they offered GT/UNC/UVA back in 2012 (which has been discussed ad nauseum on here). FSU was a nonstarter at the time because they simply were not up to the B1G's academic standards. What changed? FSU decided to invest massive sums into their academics, and they emphasized AAU designatioin.

Here's FSU's strategic plan (Flip to page 8):

https://strategicplan.fsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-2027-Strategic-Plan.pdf

That investment has seen a rise in FSU's academic standings (currently one of the top public schools in the country), and they are now on the radar of AAU, though they were not awarded AAU designation in the most recent group of schools that saw South Florida and Miami named. All of this is a bit esoteric academic information for the average college sports fan, but it's related to the B1G's interest in FSU (and because I'm a glutton for falling into the rabbit hole of information). About 3-5 years ago (if you go back in this thread you'll see I've mentioned it a few times throughout), there was a LOT of fire that the B1G was very interested in FSU, and it coincided with FSU's massive investment in academics and desire to receive AAU designation. Who ultimately decides on expansion targets? University Presidents. In the B1G, the university Presidents value academics, and FSU's rise in academics saw their profile rise with the B1G...and FSU's location is also a strategic growth market for the B1G. With FSU's rise in academics, and their massive viewership base across the country, the B1G can have their cake and eat it as well. Keep in mind the B1G's interest in FSU and FSU's investment in academics all preceded FSU's legal challenge to the GOR.

Now getting back to media partners or "business partners". Do you notice anything different about the P4 conference and their media partners? Notice which media company is involved with 3 of the P4, but not one of the P2? If you connect the dots, you can see why FSU has zero issues trying to torch the ACC and the ACC's contract with ESPN. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that FSU is going down the path of destruction because it doesn't affect the B1G and their media partners. It's the one conference that benefits BOTH the B1G and their media partners if FSU leaves the ACC.

The other fascinating thing that many posters on here are leaving out. Did anyone actually read the Brett McMurphy article or are they just regurgitating the headlines to further their narrative about FSU being "a bad partner" that no conference wants them?

https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/big-ten-sec-unlikely-to-add-florida-state-acc-survives

“There is no appetite among the presidents unless there is some catastrophic development with the ACC and it forces [the Big Ten] into a decision,” the source said.

“If the ACC blows up, who picks first [between the Big Ten and SEC]? Who picks second? If there is a need and desire to expand, you take inventory so your competitors don’t get it. ( ) But the presidents and chancellors are looking for stability. Despite what the social media geniuses are suggesting, no one — the leagues, the networks — is driving expansion.”

Pay attention to how McMurphy jumps from one anonymous source to another...it's very subtle in that article that if you don't pay attention, you'll miss it. It changes the complexion of what's getting attention in the headlines. It also changes how you view what was actually said by "anonymous sources". There's ALWAYS a "but..." in these articles. Brett McMurphy is a smart guy, he knows certain quotes sell, and saying FSU's chaos isn't attractive right now sells....but notice how no one is talking about the "but..." part. It's because it doesn't sell at the moment. Everyone knows once the ACC GOR is figured out or it expires, it's open season on ACC schools in the next round of expansion. Remember the last round of expansion and how all the big conferences denied they wanted to expand...until expansion happened. Then it happened shortly after that. Whether you like FSU or not, they are a top expansion target.

Before Kevin Warren left the B1G to work for the Bears, he let the cat out of the bag in terms of the B1G's plans. The B1G's aspirations are national, and the blueprint is pro franchises. The B1G wants to have schools where there are pro franchises, namely NFL franchises. There's this narrative that conferences are going to cap the amount of members (I've seen 20, I've seen 24). That's just a guess, and I'll say it's a bad guess. The number is what makes sense to each conference and their media partners. The more major markets you have, the bigger the pie gets. As long as each new member is additive and increases the size of each slice of the pie for existing conference members, expansion makes sense. If not, then the school won't make sense as an expansion target.

What I care about is what this means for GT. What does all this mean for GT? I think we're sitting pretty...and the end of the GOR can't come soon enough.

You've been watching the Zapruder film again, haven't you?

 

[Techster]

You've been watching the Zapruder film again, haven't you?

With a frozen mango margarita and my pinky out...

 

[UgaBlows]

What gets me is when people describe such diatribes on Twitter or Youtube as "the latest news on expansion". Either I am simply a curmudgeon, or the public understanding of the difference between "news" and -- "gossip", "rumor", "bluster", etc has been completely lost.

Why not both?

 

[CEB]

That’s foregoing what, $320 million? I think if they could get out now, they would.

I don‘t see the rational to pick up lots of smaller market teams. The rules and money right now heavily tilt towards B1G and SEC. Eventually, they will cut off the air supply to the rest of them. Same thing happened in the NFL.

Well we don’t know for sure because folks are disingenuous with (or simply ignorant of) the figures. P2 five-year projections get compared to ACC revenues of 2 years ago. They may be foregoing something, but I suspect that figure is exaggerated.

MAYBE they would get out if they could… it would cost far more than they would forego and that’s assuming they have somewhere lucrative to go (I’m not convinced they do… certainly not right now).

As for smaller market teams (assume you mean ACC), i wholeheartedly agree. We don’t know for certain what the parameters of the deal with ESPN are and I can only imagine its preservation play for 7-8 years down the road. If we dig deeper into G5 programs I hope it’s because GT is one of the programs moving on.

 

[Vespidae]

As for smaller market teams (assume you mean ACC), i wholeheartedly agree

It doesn’t have to be just the ACC. Buffalo, Charlotte, Wake … all are small in the world of CFB.

The SEC, to name a conference, does not want more SEC games. They don’t want to beat themselves, so they need OOC opponents. It would be far cheaper to align with a group of teams and simply pay them rather than give them a conference share. It’s the same as manufacturing… why do it in-house if you don’t have to?

This will take a decade to play out, but I think distributions would be preferable so as not to dilute conference shares.

 

[cpf2001]

A "permanent exhibition team" league roster is an usual structure for a US league. Right now most teams don't exclusively schedule cupcakes. Runs the risk of just being treated as meaningless "preseason" games which do not get nearly the $$ or eyeballs in other leagues. If the SEC wants OOC games that people care about they need to either be against peer-level league teams (in which case they might lose) or they run the risk of further irrelevance of those games.

I kinda think it goes the opposite way: with expanded playoffs a single OOC loss isn't the problem it used to be, so the big leagues simply start moving away from those exhibitions.

 

[RamblinRed]

FWIW, I think if they can get out, and that is a big 'if', then FSU and Clemson could probably get a WA/OR type of offer.
IMO they are much closer to WA/OR in attractiveness than TX/OK.

I don't think the B1G had any plans for further expansion after USC/UCLA, but when the PAC imploded that allowed them to pick up a couple more assets at a huge discount. They passed on WA/OR multiple times until they were able to get them at a much lower cost after the PAC had trouble securing a new media deal.

IMO it will take something similar (ie. the ACC imploding since the B12 doesn't really have any schools the P2 are interested in) for more invites to go out.
This is also something to think about. The ACC imploding doesn't mean the ACC schools (with probably a couple exceptions) are likely to get a better deal in the P2. More likely is they will get a similar deal to what they have now in the ACC because they are likely looking for any lifeline so the P2 will not have to offer them full shares to get them.

Everyone, especially fans, are assuming their "school" is going to get a full share offer from the P2. The last 18 months suggest that is unlikely.
The ACC has expanded to enough schools that it is unlikely to 'implode' the same way the PAC did. There are now 18 schools in the conference. Even if 6-8 schools got out to other conferences that still leaves 10-12 schools. It would take 14 ACC schools having landing spots and wanting to leave in order to dissolve the conference. That is very unlikely to happen. Even if a program wants to leave the conference is likely to survive, meaning you are going to have to pay out some significant sum of money to depart.

It should also be noted that while the ACC contract is not something to crow about - it is only a "bad" contract in relation to the P2. It increases in value every year through to 2036. The ACC has a profitable network (which the B12 does not). The charts I saw earlier this year showed the ACC revenues continuing to outpace the B12's by increasing margins through the rest of the decade. Of course the P2 outpace the ACC and B12 by even larger percentages.

I would be surprised if the ACC looks in 2036 like it does today. I'd also be suprised if it didn't exist at all. I don't think there is a singular game plan being run here. It's much more choatic than that. There will be more movement over time, but since it has not occurred in any organic, well thought out way for the most part, I would expect it to continue to happen in unexpected ways.

Biggest thing is we may have years of litigation ahead of us before any of this is resolved. FSU has 2 different legal points it is arguing. The first is that the GOR is not binding. Hard to see the judicial system agreeing with that. The second is that the Exit fee is too high and should be reduced. Since every member of the ACC, including FSU, agreed to the exit fee and the fact that the exit fee is actually based on a real metric - not just some made up number, that is also going to be a big legal pull. And whichever side eventually wins the lawsuits the other side is going to appeal.

 

[Vespidae]

A "permanent exhibition team" league roster is an usual structure for a US league. Right now most teams don't exclusively schedule cupcakes. Runs the risk of just being treated as meaningless "preseason" games which do not get nearly the $$ or eyeballs in other leagues. If the SEC wants OOC games that people care about they need to either be against peer-level league teams (in which case they might lose) or they run the risk of further irrelevance of those games.

I kinda think it goes the opposite way: with expanded playoffs a single OOC loss isn't the problem it used to be, so the big leagues simply start moving away from those exhibitions.

Aren’t they doing that now by guaranteeing a spot and specific money to be allocated to the ACC? Better to keep them “in the game” for scheduling than absorbing and giving a conference share.

 

[CEB]

It doesn’t have to be just the ACC. Buffalo, Charlotte, Wake … all are small in the world of CFB.

The SEC, to name a conference, does not want more SEC games. They don’t want to beat themselves, so they need OOC opponents. It would be far cheaper to align with a group of teams and simply pay them rather than give them a conference share. It’s the same as manufacturing… why do it in-house if you don’t have to?

This will take a decade to play out, but I think distributions would be preferable so as not to dilute conference shares.

Oh I agree completely… I thought your original reference was to the ACC grabbing G5. B12 did it too and it does seem silly. Why split the pie in more slices?

 

[TechPhi97]

Plus it would hurt FSU in recruiting. Who would want to go play for FSU if they are the only FBS team to have no home games on TV? Kind of the opposite of the 80s when kids wanted to play for ND because they were on TV every week.

We would still televise their games - they just wouldn’t get any money for it.