Conference Realignment

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,401
First, I agree with your premise, but you are highlighting the rosy part to make your point. FSU playing Vandy, Miss St, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Kentucky, Arkansas, Missouri, etc doesn’t move the needle at all. Chances are FSU is going to play a mixture of the teams you mentioned and the teams I named.

Second, people seem to forget that ESPN is paying the ACC a lot of money for content too. How is it in ESPN’s best interest to have (4) really good SEC matchups each week for (3) TV time slots (12, 3:30 and 7:00) and have zero good ACC matchups for TV time slots?
This is one of my main issues with that line of thought that the ACC is a dead man walking. ESPN has the SECheat. FOX has the B1G. How does it help ESPN to kill off the ACC to add a couple more SEC games each week. Why would a company create a product that will mainly cannibalize, and potentially kill, an exiting product that is pretty lucrative itself? How do they come out ahead?
 

billga99

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
824
Heard on Sports Talk today that part of the setup would include different payouts per team based on viewership. If they allowed that allocation to be reviewed every couple of years, that might be feasible. Gives the most popular schools more money upfront but makes it feasible for the other schools to get more if their viewership goes up. Clearly not perfect but that approach might be sellable
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,674
This is one of my main issues with that line of thought that the ACC is a dead man walking. ESPN has the SECheat. FOX has the B1G. How does it help ESPN to kill off the ACC to add a couple more SEC games each week. Why would a company create a product that will mainly cannibalize, and potentially kill, an exiting product that is pretty lucrative itself? How do they come out ahead?
Any info to support " ESPN acc is "pretty lucrative"?
Seems more like pretty lucrative if fsu clem stay and à real stinker if they leave.

If very lucrative ESPN could give new deal to increase $

Seems like a blah no future deal for espn

Now?? are fsu and clem getting any illegal signs from ESPN?
Is ESPN slow rolling by doing weak defense of contract?
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,401
Heard on Sports Talk today that part of the setup would include different payouts per team based on viewership. If they allowed that allocation to be reviewed every couple of years, that might be feasible. Gives the most popular schools more money upfront but makes it feasible for the other schools to get more if their viewership goes up. Clearly not perfect but that approach might be sellable
And this is another part: differential payouts. Soon enough it won’t matter where you are, you will be paid for yoir viewership regardless.

We just all need to understand that GA Tech football is a moderately sought commodity these days and that our media rights income will reflect that. The bigger, more popular schools will continue to be flush with dough while we struggle.

My belief is there will have to be a break-off at some point to reestablish competitiveness for the hoi polloi. I don’t see how this is really avoidable.
 

CEB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,623
Any info to support " ESPN acc is "pretty lucrative"?
Seems more like pretty lucrative if fsu clem stay and à real stinker if they leave.

If very lucrative ESPN could give new deal to increase $

Seems like a blah no future deal for espn

Now?? are fsu and clem getting any illegal signs from ESPN?
Is ESPN slow rolling by doing weak defense of contract?
We will know soon. If it’s “pretty lucrative” with FSU and Clem, ESPN will stay in the deal thru ‘36. If ESPN is in the deal, GOR holds Clem and FSU in the deal too. Much ado about nothing.

On the other hand, if it isn’t lucrative, we’ll know when ESPN refuses the option. That will touch off a legal debate as to when and how GOR ends, and I would expect that to settle just in time for everyone to find homes and the remnants of the ACC to put together a media deal starting in ‘28.
***let me at this point concede / caveat that we don’t know for certain what this option really is… I have my opinion but it’s all conjecture***

With regard to ESPN “increasing the deal” and giving ACC more money, that’s already how it’s structured, is it not? There is an increase provision of some sort in the deal, which is why the payouts have been rising annually.

Bottom line, if the deal is lucrative, the deal will stay as~is because the deal has a LOT of term left. ESPN has no incentive to renegotiate to make less money… that would be even harder to explain than how they benefit from moving “assets” to the SEC.
 

WreckinGT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,159
Any info to support " ESPN acc is "pretty lucrative"?
Seems more like pretty lucrative if fsu clem stay and à real stinker if they leave.

If very lucrative ESPN could give new deal to increase $

Seems like a blah no future deal for espn

Now?? are fsu and clem getting any illegal signs from ESPN?
Is ESPN slow rolling by doing weak defense of contract?
If the deal were pretty lucrative then ESPN would have exercised their option in 2021 when they were supposed to. We let them extend it for some unknown reason and they still haven't exercised it. Some here act like it is a no brainer for ESPN yet they could do it today if they wanted to and they are choosing not to for the time being.
 

CEB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,623
If the deal were pretty lucrative then ESPN would have exercised their option in 2021 when they were supposed to. We let them extend it for some unknown reason and they still haven't exercised it. Some here act like it is a no brainer for ESPN yet they could do it today if they wanted to and they are choosing not to for the time being.
I keep hearing that argument, particularly from FSU fans….
My response is to ask, who in the hell was voluntarily making long term decisions (especially in the areas of sports / leisure / entertainment) in 2020-2021?
I don’t think that extension means as much as FSU fans WANT it to mean.
 

yeti92

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,056
If the deal were pretty lucrative then ESPN would have exercised their option in 2021 when they were supposed to. We let them extend it for some unknown reason and they still haven't exercised it. Some here act like it is a no brainer for ESPN yet they could do it today if they wanted to and they are choosing not to for the time being.
Why jump before you have to?

As a counterpoint, ESPN could also have declined the option by now if the ACC wasn't making them enough money, and they haven't done that either.
 

WreckinGT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,159
Why jump before you have to?

As a counterpoint, ESPN could also have declined the option by now if the ACC wasn't making them enough money, and they haven't done that either.
Declining the option doesn't make any sense if the ACC will just keep pushing back the option date while getting nothing in return.
 

WreckinGT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,159
I keep hearing that argument, particularly from FSU fans….
My response is to ask, who in the hell was voluntarily making long term decisions (especially in the areas of sports / leisure / entertainment) in 2020-2021?
I don’t think that extension means as much as FSU fans WANT it to mean.
ESPN contractually had to make a decision in 2021 about whether to extend the ACC media rights deal to 2036. They obviously didn't do so and asked the ACC for an extension. Why do you think they didn't do so and why do you think the ACC granted the extension while getting nothing in return?
 

CEB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,623
ESPN contractually had to make a decision in 2021 about whether to extend the ACC media rights deal to 2036. They obviously didn't do so and asked the ACC for an extension. Why do you think they didn't do so and why do you think the ACC granted the extension while getting nothing in return?
For exactly the reason I stated above?
IMG_9082.gif
 

yeti92

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,056
Declining the option doesn't make any sense if the ACC will just keep pushing back the option date while getting nothing in return.
What's the benefit to ESPN in continuing to not decline if they are not making good money? Does the ACC extending the deadline make ESPN more money? No.
 

WreckinGT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,159
What's the benefit to ESPN in continuing to not decline if they are not making good money? Does the ACC extending the deadline make ESPN more money? No.
ESPN is on the hook for the ACC deal until 2027 whether they decline the option or not. Declining makes no sense if the ACC doesn't actually force them to make a decision.
 

WreckinGT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,159
Heard on Sports Talk today that part of the setup would include different payouts per team based on viewership. If they allowed that allocation to be reviewed every couple of years, that might be feasible. Gives the most popular schools more money upfront but makes it feasible for the other schools to get more if their viewership goes up. Clearly not perfect but that approach might be sellable
It would be interesting to see how they would define viewership. If UGA plays Vandy and it gets 5 million viewers, then Vandy gets a higher payout? You may have a situation where programs with less viewers on average start paying teams like UGA, Bama, and Ohio St for games.
 

CEB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,623
Your response was "who in the hell was voluntarily making long term decisions". This wasn't a voluntary decision. It was a contractually obligated decision that the ACC allowed them to weasel their way out of with no benefit to our conference at all. So why did we grant this extension?
Ah.. so yes, “voluntary” may not be the most apropos adjective considering there was a contractual deadline.
However, “mutually agreed” likely is.
The only thing we know for certain is that the deadline moved.
As FSU fans would have us believe, maybe it moved because ESPN said, “we hate this f’ing deal, we hate this f’ing conference and we are f’ing gone!” And the ACC peed their collective pants and begged them to reconsider and gave them four more years to do so.
Maybe it happened because ESPN asked for it… maybe the ACC asked for it. Maybe the parties came to the table and said, “hey, never thought we’d see the day, but the world went off a cliff, the NCAA tournament was cancelled and most of college football played an abbreviated season in empty stadiums… wattaya say we watch to see how this shakes out?”

With all of the legal posturing being tossed around, I didn’t see record of any of the 15 member institutions objecting at the time to this “unilateral” decision by the ACC. FSU doesn’t like it in hindsight but that’s pretty irrelevant. Again, I don’t think the extension issue is nearly as big as some want to make it. What would or would not have happened three years ago has little bearing on what decision will be made next year.
 

UgaBlows

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,840
ESPN supposedly has financial issues, what do corporations do when they have problems? They downsize, they consolidate profitable assets, spin off parts of the business into other corporations, and they liquidate liabilities. If they decide to do those things- FSU, Clem are the parts of the ACC that have large tv viewership numbers, they (along with maybe 2 more if the SEC wants to expand to 20) can be integrated into the SEC and are prob desperate enough to do so for a partial share until the next contract. The middle performers of the ACC will prob lose 4 to the BIG, the rest can be spun off into the big12 for less money, and the dregs can go back to the big East or whatever. Of course all of this is wild speculation and in the end only espn’s beancounters could know whether all that equals a plus or minus for them.
 

billga99

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
824
Good Lord… I’m sorry my click got counted on that!
Wake makes the cut and we didn’t? Must’ve been a uGA fan
So 3 teams from Power 4 (and ND) get relegated to Tier 2 and we are one of the three? And Boise State gets moved to Tier 1?
 
Top