Conference Realignment

[MountainBuzzMan]

Uneven sharing based on conference wins, bowl/CFP appearances, BBall wins, tournament game appearances, etc. could be workable. Anything that immediately creates tiers would result in a top 3-4 teams that get stronger and stronger, while the rest of the conference gets weaker and weaker. The result would be that in a few years, the top 3-4 teams would be hurt by the rest of the conference being so weak. That would inevitably lead to a breakup of the conference. I would say that FSU doesn't want that, but I think that is exactly what they want. They want to get stronger so that the rest of the world can see the large gap between them and the rest of the conference that they see with their garnet colored glasses.

Please Stop using well thought out logic with a clear picture of what the future would look like. This is a message board

 

[forensicbuzz]

SMU is receiving money from the ACC. They are not receiving media rights money, but they are receiving other monies. I don't know how the ACCN is set up, but I would think the revenue from the network is not "media rights" money. All ACC teams are required to have production and broadcast capabilities. SMU will be producing and broadcasting content to the ACCN. I think they will receive money for that.

Clemson hasn't been publicly broadcasting trash. FSU has been framing the entire discussion about unequal revenue sharing around viewership and overall athletic budgets. If the ACC were to have uneven revenue sharing based on that, then FSU would have more money and a large budget (in part because of uneven revenue sharing) and would continue to have higher viewership (based in large part on uneven budget and which time-slots and networks they are put on). It would be a circular system in which they get stronger because of uneven revenue sharing, and then they get more revenue because they are stronger ..........

Uneven sharing based on conference wins, bowl/CFP appearances, BBall wins, tournament game appearances, etc. could be workable. Anything that immediately creates tiers would result in a top 3-4 teams that get stronger and stronger, while the rest of the conference gets weaker and weaker. The result would be that in a few years, the top 3-4 teams would be hurt by the rest of the conference being so weak. That would inevitably lead to a breakup of the conference. I would say that FSU doesn't want that, but I think that is exactly what they want. They want to get stronger so that the rest of the world can see the large gap between them and the rest of the conference that they see with their garnet colored glasses.

The media rights revenue is not based on viewers or athletic budgets, so that position is not going to hold water. It's about carriage rights.

 

[Richard7125]

There was something similar in place already. However, it wasn't significant. Schools that made bowl games, tournaments, etc received more money. However, it was along the lines of travel fund money instead of anything significant. There has historically been a difference of a few million dollars between schools who were successful and those who were not. FSU is looking to get the same amount of money as UF. They said as much last year. They want the ACC to pay them along the lines of $50 million above what they are currently receiving.

yeah, i understand FSU wants what Florida is getting. That's not going to happen for a whole bunch of reasons. I was just thinking there might be something trivial that FSU could use to save face and spin with their fanbase. Keep in mind most of their fanbase is delusional so they will buy in to something stupid. I don't think the ACC should cave to any silly demands, but I also recognize the negative PR battle isn't helping the ACC.

 

[WreckinGT]

If you feel it is a good deal, please let me know what the advantage to the rest of the ACC is. FSU and Clemson get more money, while the rest of the ACC doesn't? FSU and Clemson have a guaranteed departure in 2030? The lawsuits could easily take that long for a departure, even if they win. What is the positive side for the rest of the conference?

I'm not saying it is a good deal. We don't really even know the specifics of the deal. This article was just a poorly written rant though. It makes no attempt to rationalize why the ACC might be considering the deal, which they apparently are.

For the deal itself, im still trying to figure out why the ACC is considering it. Outside of the obvious possibility that they don't feel as strongly about their case or don't want to be tied up in legal proceedings for years, it seems ESPN is more involved than is reported. There are rumors that they are willing to fit the bill (or some of the bill) on the extra "tv viewership" money that will be going to some schools. The original media deal signed was also contingent on the grant of rights. Is ESPN really ok with the ACC just shortening that if they feel like it? Im not sure the ACC can even do that without ESPNs blessing. Or is ESPN possibly involved in that discussion? Its hard to know just how much weight ESPN is throwing around here to get what they want.

 

[NoPlayCard]

Go West? The next wave of realignment is in Memphis' hands

The Pac-12’s resurgence — taking four Mountain West members — has left one school, it seems, with a decision that could completely reshape the Group of Five.

sports.yahoo.com

 

[g0lftime]

I'm not saying it is a good deal. We don't really even know the specifics of the deal. This article was just a poorly written rant though. It makes no attempt to rationalize why the ACC might be considering the deal, which they apparently are.

For the deal itself, im still trying to figure out why the ACC is considering it. Outside of the obvious possibility that they don't feel as strongly about their case or don't want to be tied up in legal proceedings for years, it seems ESPN is more involved than is reported. There are rumors that they are willing to fit the bill (or some of the bill) on the extra "tv viewership" money that will be going to some schools. The original media deal signed was also contingent on the grant of rights. Is ESPN really ok with the ACC just shortening that if they feel like it? Im not sure the ACC can even do that without ESPNs blessing. Or is ESPN possibly involved in that discussion? Its hard to know just how much weight ESPN is throwing around here to get what they want.

It may be that ESPN wants to keep the ACC together at least until the renewal is decided. They only care about revenue and they already have the SEC locked up. Rumor is they will fund a separate bucket to pay based on some proportionate formula.

 

[RonJohn]

I'm not saying it is a good deal. We don't really even know the specifics of the deal. This article was just a poorly written rant though. It makes no attempt to rationalize why the ACC might be considering the deal, which they apparently are.

For the deal itself, im still trying to figure out why the ACC is considering it. Outside of the obvious possibility that they don't feel as strongly about their case or don't want to be tied up in legal proceedings for years, it seems ESPN is more involved than is reported. There are rumors that they are willing to fit the bill (or some of the bill) on the extra "tv viewership" money that will be going to some schools. The original media deal signed was also contingent on the grant of rights. Is ESPN really ok with the ACC just shortening that if they feel like it? Im not sure the ACC can even do that without ESPNs blessing. Or is ESPN possibly involved in that discussion? Its hard to know just how much weight ESPN is throwing around here to get what they want.

According to an article two days ago on ESPN:

While the proposal has not been widely distributed or discussed among conference athletic directors, administrators from more than a half-dozen schools who spoke with ESPN said they would at least be open to some altered revenue split.

Sources: ACC, Clemson, FSU renew revenue talks

Talks between Clemson, Florida State and the ACC have ramped up in recent weeks, sources told ESPN, on a revenue distribution model based on brand valuation and television ratings in exchange for the schools dropping their lawsuits against the conference.

www.espn.com

The article says (or at least implies) that while they would be open to an unequal revenue split, they don't know the details of this proposal, and are not very open to the proposal as it is being reported:

While the basic talking points of the proposal had some support within member schools, there were significant questions about the details. As one athletic director who supported the general idea noted, properly evaluating something like TV ratings can be difficult with numerous outside factors influencing kickoff times, networks and ratings share that may not directly reflect a program's value.

I believe the story was first reported on the Clemson site on Rivals. My suspicion is that Clemson put the story out to get it in the public. The ESPN article says that most of the athletic directors have not even seen the details of this proposal. The idea that it is being negotiated is extremely premature if the ACC schools have not even read the details of the proposal yet. I don't think the ACC is currently "considering" the ida as you stated, I think it is simply a proposal from Clemson and FSU. The ACC might agree to something at some point, but this proposal -as it is being reported- is extremely bad for everyone except Clemson and FSU. I think getting the reported proposal through is a non-starter.

 

[orientalnc]

My UNC neighbor connection was turned up to full volume this morning.

His contact at the UNCAA said the ACC will not undo the GOR for FSU and Clemson. It's 2036 (or beyond). There is NO interest in shortening the GOR expiration date. He also said he cannot, in this cash strapped environment, see an ACC school offering to give up revenue to FSU and Clemson while the court cases are still in infancy. The conference is holding the winning hand in their view.

 

[RonJohn]

My UNC neighbor connection was turned up to full volume this morning.

His contact at the UNCAA said the ACC will not undo the GOR for FSU and Clemson. It's 2036 (or beyond). There is NO interest in shortening the GOR expiration date. He also said he cannot, in this cash strapped environment, see an ACC school offering to give up revenue to FSU and Clemson while the court cases are still in infancy. The conference is holding the winning hand in their view.

From where it was reported first, it appears that the leak about this "proposal" came from Clemson. For both schools, if they can get something, then they can drop the lawsuits without too much blowback from their fans. IF ESPN raises the media payouts to the ACC, and some of that raise is used for an uneven media split, then those schools could claim a victory. Even if the uneven money isn't anywhere close to covering the difference between the ACC and P2, the ACC doesn't have to publish the actual details. (I don't think) FSU and Clemson can wordsmith the agreement to their fans and make them believe they got most of what they wanted from the lawsuit.

I think it is possible that this is just the beginning of an attempt by Clemson, and maybe FSU too to wiggle out of the lawsuit and leave the impression on their fans that they won.

 

[gte447f]

Texas is part of the South! Do you mean Southeast?

It's a little bit of an inside joke. If you've ever lived in Texas you will know they (at least not the natives, this may be changing with recent population shifts) don't consider themselves to be part of the south or the southwest. They are Texas, a region unto their own. The south is east of the Mississippi and also northern Louisiana/southern Arkansas, and the southwest is Arizona, New Mexico, and southern Colorado.

This ^^^^

It is a bit of an inside joke. I realize that geographically Texas is in the south. However, culturally it is very different from the southern states in the southeast. At least that was my experience while living in Fort Worth for a year and a half as a native of GA with roots throughout AL, TN, NC, and SC.

 

[iceeater1969]

There was something similar in place already. However, it wasn't significant. Schools that made bowl games, tournaments, etc received more money. However, it was along the lines of travel fund money instead of anything significant. There has historically been a difference of a few million dollars between schools who were successful and those who were not. FSU is looking to get the same amount of money as UF. They said as much last year. They want the ACC to pay them along the lines of $50 million above what they are currently receiving.

How much does UF get and how much does FSU get ""per the Knight data base for ncaa athletics""?

Iiirc, The finances shown there don't show paid by "acc" do show media payments under the revenue tab. When i checked , i was looking at gt verses other acc teams and the media revenue was the same.

Is the sec verses acc really 50mm per team ( uf-fsu).

 

[WreckinGT]

According to an article two days ago on ESPN:

Sources: ACC, Clemson, FSU renew revenue talks

Talks between Clemson, Florida State and the ACC have ramped up in recent weeks, sources told ESPN, on a revenue distribution model based on brand valuation and television ratings in exchange for the schools dropping their lawsuits against the conference.

www.espn.com

The article says (or at least implies) that while they would be open to an unequal revenue split, they don't know the details of this proposal, and are not very open to the proposal as it is being reported:



I believe the story was first reported on the Clemson site on Rivals. My suspicion is that Clemson put the story out to get it in the public. The ESPN article says that most of the athletic directors have not even seen the details of this proposal. The idea that it is being negotiated is extremely premature if the ACC schools have not even read the details of the proposal yet. I don't think the ACC is currently "considering" the ida as you stated, I think it is simply a proposal from Clemson and FSU. The ACC might agree to something at some point, but this proposal -as it is being reported- is extremely bad for everyone except Clemson and FSU. I think getting the reported proposal through is a non-starter.

We have no way to know which school presidents support what at this point or what the real details are. We do know that they recently met multiple times, including one call for 6 hours to discuss the proposal. I don't think you need 6 hours to declare we have a bulletproof case, no reason to negotiate, and FSU and Clemson can go pound sand. There seems to be some desire to resolve this. Whether that is because ESPN is ordering them to resolve it, or if they have their own reasons, it's hard to tell right now.

 

[RonJohn]

How much does UF get and how much does FSU get ""per the Knight data base for ncaa athletics""?

Iiirc, The finances shown there don't show paid by "acc" do show media payments under the revenue tab. When i checked , i was looking at gt verses other acc teams and the media revenue was the same.

Is the sec verses acc really 50mm per team ( uf-fsu).

Not yet. not looking numbers up at the moment, but I think the SEC was something like $8-10 million more last fiscal year. However, the projections show it rising. The SEC media payouts are getting a large bump in this fiscal year. Assuming the ACC increases at the same percentage rate that is in the contract, the difference by 2030 will be around $50-60 million per team between the ACC and the P2. FSU didn't start making noise about the GOR or the ACC media money until the details of the new SEC media contract were made public. FSU fans seem to have a little brother complex related to UF.

 

[RonJohn]

We have no way to know which school presidents support what at this point or what the real details are. We do know that they recently met multiple times, including one call for 6 hours to discuss the proposal. I don't think you need 6 hours to declare we have a bulletproof case, no reason to negotiate, and FSU and Clemson can go pound sand. There seems to be some desire to resolve this. Whether that is because ESPN is ordering them to resolve it, or if they have their own reasons, it's hard to tell right now.

How do we know that THIS PROPOSAL has been discussed in multiple meetings, or even for an entire call that lasted 6 hours. From the ESPN article:

While the proposal has not been widely distributed or discussed among conference athletic directors, administrators from more than a half-dozen schools who spoke with ESPN said they would at least be open to some altered revenue split.

"Not widely distributed or discussed"?

The proposal, which was formulated by Clemson and Florida State and discussed by the league's presidents during Tuesday's regularly scheduled meeting,

Discussed during the "regularly scheduled meeting".

There might have been a six hour meeting in which it was discussed. It might have only been mentioned as something that Clemson and/or FSU want to discuss. This was leaked to a Clemson fan website. I don't see anything that indicates the ACC is in a hurry to resolve the lawsuits. Of course they would like for the lawsuits to disappear, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that they are in a panic to get it over with immediately. I think it more likely that Clemson leaked this so that they can push some agreement through, and then even if they only get an extra $1 million per year can proclaim it as a victory to their fans.

 

[stinger78]

Who gives two hoots? This whole money thing is ruining CFB.

 

[RonJohn]

Who gives two hoots? This whole money thing is ruining ruined CFB.

Past tense. It has already happened. As has been mentioned multiple times by @Vespidae , the playoffs are not related to football or sports at all, it is all about revenue. There is no desire to have a champion, only a desire to make more money. CFP has been on this path since at least the 90s, but too many of us have had nostalgic blinders on and have been unable to notice it.

 

[iceeater1969]

Who gives two hoots? This whole money thing is ruining CFB.

Add in the legal settlement that says colleges will/ can pay players and it just got way worse.
Before the giant sec verses others tv advertiser monry sent to coaches, buildings, ice cream machines. That only does so much.

Now that delta can go to helping thier alrwady strong sec NIL.

Maybe this is why fsu is wanting more money.


Some states and schooks could combine get very creative and generous to the player.

 

[Richard7125]

Not yet. not looking numbers up at the moment, but I think the SEC was something like $8-10 million more last fiscal year. However, the projections show it rising. The SEC media payouts are getting a large bump in this fiscal year. Assuming the ACC increases at the same percentage rate that is in the contract, the difference by 2030 will be around $50-60 million per team between the ACC and the P2. FSU didn't start making noise about the GOR or the ACC media money until the details of the new SEC media contract were made public. FSU fans seem to have a little brother complex related to UF.

I must have missed it, but I haven't seen anything supporting a $50-$60m difference between the ACC and SEC in 2030.

 

[yeti92]

I must have missed it, but I haven't seen anything supporting a $50-$60m difference between the ACC and SEC in 2030.

The numbers I've seen are closer to $25-30m difference.

 

[stinger78]

Imagine what an extra $20-30M per year might do for our debt portfolio. That is, if it isn’t spent on NIL, coaches salaries, and locker rooms.