Conference Realignment

[RonJohn]

If Clemson has spent over 1 million already on this already, then the ACC has likely spent far more. Nobody wants to keep shoveling millions to billable hours indefinitely.

Then get Clemson and FSU to agree to no changes to revenue distribution and no changes to the GOR. that is the best possible outcome of the lawsuits to the rest of the ACC. A free pass in 2030 is among your best case outcomes of the lawsuit for Clemson and FSU. The supposed agreement that we are discussing is that, plus more revenue between now and 2030. That is best case scenario, plus more.

It might be possible that the ACC is negotiating for more media money from ESPN, and distributing the additional revenue based on metrics. That would but be as bad as simply giving more money to Clemson and FSU to not leave until 2030. They won't be able to get into another conference until 2030 anyway.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Interesting to note:

Maryland, Rutgers, Oregon, Washington, Nebraska all came into the B1G at reduced shares for a period of time. Only USC and UCLA came at full "vested" shares.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/3450372/2022/07/26/usc-ucla-big-ten/

It seems new members in the future most likely will come in at a reduced share (comparatively to the other B1G members), though not as reduced as Oregon and Washington were willing to take. USC and UCLA (most likely to incentivize them to leave the PAC 12) are the exceptions.

It depends on when they come in relative to the media contract negotiation. Washington and Oregon had reduced shares because not all the agreements had a P5 set-aside that allowed for a full bump if a P5 team came aboard. They got 100% of the contribution from some parts of the total package and 0% contribution from other parts of the package.

 

[RonJohn]

Interesting to note:

Maryland, Rutgers, Oregon, Washington, Nebraska all came into the B1G at reduced shares for a period of time. Only USC and UCLA came at full "vested" shares.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/3450372/2022/07/26/usc-ucla-big-ten/

It seems new members in the future most likely will come in at a reduced share (comparatively to the other B1G members), though not as reduced as Oregon and Washington were willing to take. USC and UCLA (most likely to incentivize them to leave the PAC 12) are the exceptions.

USC and UCLA joined to coincide with the media negotiations. Oregon and Washington joined after the media contracts were finalized, it at least finalized in principle. That is the reason I have been saying that by neither P2 conference is going to accept a new member at full price until the end of the media contracts.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Then get Clemson and FSU to agree to no changes to revenue distribution and no changes to the GOR. that is the best possible outcome of the lawsuits to the rest of the ACC. A free pass in 2030 is among your best case outcomes of the lawsuit for Clemson and FSU. The supposed agreement that we are discussing is that, plus more revenue between now and 2030. That is best case scenario, plus more.

It might be possible that the ACC is negotiating for more media money from ESPN, and distributing the additional revenue based on metrics. That would but be as bad as simply giving more money to Clemson and FSU to not leave until 2030. They won't be able to get into another conference until 2030 anyway.

The calculus is going to be how many years they're willing to be in the new conference without any media money. If that number is 6 years, then they'll leave in 2030. If that is 4 years, they'll leave in 2032. They WILL NOT have any media rights to provide their new conference until 2036. The same would go for GT leaving when the B1G or SEC media contract is renegotiated for the next round. Whoever buys the media contract will not be paying any money to the new conference of any team leaving the ACC until 2036. So, it's going to come down to who wants to SMU their way into a conference.

 

[RonJohn]

The calculus is going to be how many years they're willing to be in the new conference without any media money. If that number is 6 years, then they'll leave in 2030. If that is 4 years, they'll leave in 2032. They WILL NOT have any media rights to provide their new conference until 2036. The same would go for GT leaving when the B1G or SEC media contract is renegotiated for the next round. Whoever buys the media contract will not be paying any money to the new conference of any team leaving the ACC until 2036. So, it's going to come down to who wants to SMU their way into a conference.

The rumor is that the negotiation to the lawsuit is higher payouts to Clemson and FSU, and the end date of the GOR changing to 2030. That is why I said it doesn't make sense to the other members. That would be giving them what they want, and paying them more in the mean time.

 

[forensicbuzz]

The rumor is that the negotiation to the lawsuit is higher payouts to Clemson and FSU, and the end date of the GOR changing to 2030. That is why I said it doesn't make sense to the other members. That would be giving them what they want, and paying them more in the mean time.

Neither of those things is going to happen. There may be some type of work-around distribution based on performance or some other metric, but it won't be specifically to Clemson or FSU. No way they shorten the GOR. That would be idiotic on the ACC's part.

 

[RonJohn]

Neither of those things is going to happen. There may be some type of work-around distribution based on performance or some other metric, but it won't be specifically to Clemson or FSU. No way they shorten the GOR. That would be idiotic on the ACC's part.

And that is what I have been saying. It makes no sense to pay more to those two schools and shorten the GOR at the same time. That would be like me telling my boss that I want a 25% salary increase, and reduction in hours from 40 to 30. Both things are in my favor and it isn't a negotiation amount parties. (In reality I wish I only worked 40 hours a week.)

 

[GTrob21]

yeah, this doesn't make sense, unless the ACC is going to lose the lawsuits and have been advised to make the best of it. Everything I have read seems to be to the contrary. And from my reading of the lawsuits, the ACC seems to have a great position to dictate the outcome.

Why give both FSU and Clemson more money, and let them leave 6 years early? Makes no sense. I also haven't seen a projection where Clemson would make money for either SEC or B1G. I have for FSU, it makes sense for both the SEC and the B1G to take FSU, but I think the B1G will go after Miami to get in-market rates for Miami and higher rates for the state of Florida. For the SEC, their ability to increase payouts is based on Tier 1 viewership and ESPN selling that segment of their inventory. For the B1G it's based on subs and new markets. On both accounts, Clemson is good, but not a great fit. I don't know the numbers, but my gut tells me that they would decrease the average payouts for both.

There are very few schools that add to the pie of the SEC or B1G. Realistically for the SEC they have to get big brands that would make the people in New York or California care about their games. In my opinion that leaves them with Notre Dame or FSU. Notre Dame ain't joining the SEC, so it comes to FSU, and I'm just not convinced that the SEC is licking their chops to get them.

For the B1G, they have more options, they have big states like Texas and Florida that don't have a presence, they also are probably looking at high growth states, which project to be very influential in the next 20 years. That would be Georgia and North Carolina. Georgia in particular because of the affinity for football and the number of high-level recruits. The B1G also has a high premium on AAU schools. That is why I think that the B1G will take Miami and possibly Texas A/M. Both AAU schools which have good brands, and both would increase the B1G network. To a lesser extent that would also make Georgia Tech a good addition as it would give them the city of Atlanta for full carriage rates, and probably a good bump for the rest of GA. For the state of North Carolina, I have no idea. Those wine and cheese people probably have no clue of what is actually going on.

That is why I don't really believe this article. I think there is more to this than what we are hearing.

My guess is that Clemson and FSU will push for higher revenue sharing, and pretty soon put out statements saying that they got want they wanted to save face with their fan bases and that they are now happy with the new "ACC". In reality, there is already higher revenue sharing and if an ACC school does well, gets into the playoffs, and even gets to say the championship, that school will make close the B1G payouts, and probably less than 10 million from the SEC. Then around 2029, the ACC will add schools to make an ACC Central or ACC West. They should go after UTAH, Arizona, Oklahoma State, and Kansas, making 3 divisions of 7 with a part-time Notre Dame.

This would add the states of Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Kansas, giving you a mix of good football schools and great basketball brands at the same time opening up new markets for the ACC Network.

If they really wanted to try and solidify themselves as Tier 1b to the SEC and B1G, they would go to 24, and add West Virginia, Colorado and Iowa State.

I expect us to enter into a time of relative stability in the college world by the mid-2030's and then it will all go to hell again when NIL breaks college football.

But I will be dead by then.

 

[g0lftime]

I heard it explained that ESPN may or will be the source of additional money to fund the viewer apportionment and will include basketball.

 

[roadkill]

And that is what I have been saying. It makes no sense to pay more to those two schools and shorten the GOR at the same time. That would be like me telling my boss that I want a 25% salary increase, and reduction in hours from 40 to 30. Both things are in my favor and it isn't a negotiation amount parties. (In reality I wish I only worked 40 hours a week.)

Another analogy - like having a valuable employee who threatened to quit unless they got a bump in salary. You then give them a potential bump based on a new performance bonus structure ("success initiative") that they agree to, but then they turn around and threaten to quit again if they don't get more.

FSU has shown through their actions and their claim of Sovereign Immunity that they don’t respect agreements or contracts. How many times do you continue to appease them?

 

[yoshiki2]

BS

FSU was excluded because they struggle in the championship game. Let’s say with Travis they are rated at 95, without Travis at. OST I’d give them 70 points.

 

[yoshiki2]

From the article:

Though the standard belief is that the contract extends through 2036, that’s not actually true. The deal ends in 2027. ESPN must elect by next February to opt in for another nine years. The ACC and ESPN have been in active negotiations over the extension, conversations that Phillips has described as “positive and productive.”

Given that would fall under the media deal (or trade secrets) I wonder what the source of that is since the contents of the media deal is under lock and key and all parties are under NDA. If that is indeed true, ESPN really holds the fate of the ACC.

In other news, I brought up GT not making a big enough deal that the Atlanta market is the single biggest media market under the ACC portfolio. IF FSU and Clemson want to play the unequal revenue game, GT needs to make a big deal about how our membership brings in the Atlanta market carriage fees. Maybe GT should get a bigger share of the media revenues because of that. The game can be played in multiple ways...

SMU got the biggest market, about 8 million people in the Metro Area.

 

[Jacket4Life]

I heard it explained that ESPN may or will be the source of additional money to fund the viewer apportionment and will include basketball.

Just read the same thing.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

The calculus is going to be how many years they're willing to be in the new conference without any media money. If that number is 6 years, then they'll leave in 2030. If that is 4 years, they'll leave in 2032. They WILL NOT have any media rights to provide their new conference until 2036. The same would go for GT leaving when the B1G or SEC media contract is renegotiated for the next round. Whoever buys the media contract will not be paying any money to the new conference of any team leaving the ACC until 2036. So, it's going to come down to who wants to SMU their way into a conference.

This is my take is well, with the only difference being SMU is making the ACC money, just not getting a share of it for now. Any team that leaves would have to convince a conference to give them a reduced share or let them join with no share while bringing no income to the conference.

 

[WreckinGT]

yeah, this doesn't make sense, unless the ACC is going to lose the lawsuits and have been advised to make the best of it. Everything I have read seems to be to the contrary. And from my reading of the lawsuits, the ACC seems to have a great position to dictate the outcome.

There are a couple of reasonable explanations in my opinion. Neither are particularly great for the ACC.

1. The ACC does not feel as strongly about their case as many here do. They realize there is great risk in continuing down the current path.
2. ESPN is signaling that they will not renew the contract next year while FSU and Clemson are complete unknowns in the future of the league.

 

[iceeater1969]

Espn is going to find some $$ the college prez are going to find some school money, the term of contract will be reduced, the minimum tv payout will be near but below what we have now, the performance based tv $ will have several factors.

The Pac 12 ultimatum follows.

They know and all acc knows that in 5 years there will be order. All real football colleges will ban together and bid thier product to 3 media partnerships.

By then i will new 8K tv with game camera presentdtion customized for MY Prefered viewing enjoyment

 

[forensicbuzz]

Espn is going to find some $$ the college prez are going to find some school money, the term of contract will be reduced, the minimum tv payout will be near but below what we have now, the performance based tv $ will have several factors.

The Pac 12 ultimatum follows.

They know and all acc knows that in 5 years there will be order. All real football colleges will ban together and bid thier product to 3 media partnerships.

By then i will new 8K tv with game camera presentdtion customized for MY Prefered viewing enjoyment

This is the only thing that will break the ACC GOR

 

[Richard7125]

There are a couple of reasonable explanations in my opinion. Neither are particularly great for the ACC.

1. The ACC does not feel as strongly about their case as many here do. They realize there is great risk in continuing down the current path.
2. ESPN is signaling that they will not renew the contract next year while FSU and Clemson are complete unknowns in the future of the league.

3. The school presidents recognize the ACC is a better conference with Clemson and FSU.

I'm not advocating giving FSU/Clemson dumb type of concessions, but there might be something that could be enticing to those schools that wouldn't set a bad precedent for all of the other schools. I have no idea what that would be, but most on this board aren't even willing to discuss possibilities.

I think it was only recently the ACC decided to offer performance based bonuses. There might be other things that are reasonable that we aren't privy to.

 

[Richard7125]

yeah, this doesn't make sense, unless the ACC is going to lose the lawsuits and have been advised to make the best of it. Everything I have read seems to be to the contrary. And from my reading of the lawsuits, the ACC seems to have a great position to dictate the outcome.

Why give both FSU and Clemson more money, and let them leave 6 years early? Makes no sense. I also haven't seen a projection where Clemson would make money for either SEC or B1G. I have for FSU, it makes sense for both the SEC and the B1G to take FSU, but I think the B1G will go after Miami to get in-market rates for Miami and higher rates for the state of Florida. For the SEC, their ability to increase payouts is based on Tier 1 viewership and ESPN selling that segment of their inventory. For the B1G it's based on subs and new markets. On both accounts, Clemson is good, but not a great fit. I don't know the numbers, but my gut tells me that they would decrease the average payouts for both.

There are very few schools that add to the pie of the SEC or B1G. Realistically for the SEC they have to get big brands that would make the people in New York or California care about their games. In my opinion that leaves them with Notre Dame or FSU. Notre Dame ain't joining the SEC, so it comes to FSU, and I'm just not convinced that the SEC is licking their chops to get them.

For the B1G, they have more options, they have big states like Texas and Florida that don't have a presence, they also are probably looking at high growth states, which project to be very influential in the next 20 years. That would be Georgia and North Carolina. Georgia in particular because of the affinity for football and the number of high-level recruits. The B1G also has a high premium on AAU schools. That is why I think that the B1G will take Miami and possibly Texas A/M. Both AAU schools which have good brands, and both would increase the B1G network. To a lesser extent that would also make Georgia Tech a good addition as it would give them the city of Atlanta for full carriage rates, and probably a good bump for the rest of GA. For the state of North Carolina, I have no idea. Those wine and cheese people probably have no clue of what is actually going on.

That is why I don't really believe this article. I think there is more to this than what we are hearing.

My guess is that Clemson and FSU will push for higher revenue sharing, and pretty soon put out statements saying that they got want they wanted to save face with their fan bases and that they are now happy with the new "ACC". In reality, there is already higher revenue sharing and if an ACC school does well, gets into the playoffs, and even gets to say the championship, that school will make close the B1G payouts, and probably less than 10 million from the SEC. Then around 2029, the ACC will add schools to make an ACC Central or ACC West. They should go after UTAH, Arizona, Oklahoma State, and Kansas, making 3 divisions of 7 with a part-time Notre Dame.

This would add the states of Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Kansas, giving you a mix of good football schools and great basketball brands at the same time opening up new markets for the ACC Network.

If they really wanted to try and solidify themselves as Tier 1b to the SEC and B1G, they would go to 24, and add West Virginia, Colorado and Iowa State.

I expect us to enter into a time of relative stability in the college world by the mid-2030's and then it will all go to hell again when NIL breaks college football.

But I will be dead by then.

When i see someone suggesting adding more crappy schools to the ACC is better, it reminds me of Spinal Tap where the guy says, "but our amp goes to 11." The ACC is good because we have 24.

 

[Techster]

SMU got the biggest market, about 8 million people in the Metro Area.

You are correct. SMU's Dallas/Fort Worth (#5 overall) is now the biggest single market in ACC's portfolio.