Conference Realignment

[CEB]

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?

….And the other two have been “power 4” for about 15 minutes.

 

[jgtengineer]

….And the other two have been “power 4” for about 15 minutes.

Its probably a UNC grad.

 

[TooTall]

Tier 2?

MSN

www.msn.com

If they say "Georgia Tech University" or think that Yellow Jackets is one word, I just ignore them. Stop giving stupid people attention and they will go and do something dumber.

 

[yeti92]

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.

You still haven't answered my question - what is the benefit of not declining if the ACC is not profitable for them? You say it makes no sense - how does it make no sense?

If I'm party to a deal that isn't working out for me with a set length of term that I don't want to extend, telling me I have more time to think about it does absolutely nothing for me, I still don't want to extend, and in fact will probably try to pay a fee to leave early (e.g. FSU and the ACC GOR, utility bills, rent, etc).

 

[WreckinGT]

You still haven't answered my question - what is the benefit of not declining if the ACC is not profitable for them? You say it makes no sense - how does it make no sense?

If I'm party to a deal that isn't working out for me with a set length of term that I don't want to extend, telling me I have more time to think about it does absolutely nothing for me, I still don't want to extend, and in fact will probably try to pay a fee to leave early (e.g. FSU and the ACC GOR, utility bills, rent, etc).

Declining early makes no sense because they will be the media partners for the ACC until 2027 either way. They gain literally nothing by declining before they have to. Currently they have to make a decision by February 2025. That is their new contractual decision date assuming the ACC doesn't just push it back for no reason again. What advantage can you think of for why they should do it next week instead? What could it possibly gain them? Just the PR alone is probably something they don't want to deal with until they have to.

 

[RonJohn]

Declining early makes no sense because they will be the media partners for the ACC until 2027 either way. They gain literally nothing by declining before they have to. Currently they have to make a decision by February 2025. That is their new contractual decision date assuming the ACC doesn't just push it back for no reason again. What advantage can you think of for why they should do it next week instead? What could it possibly gain them? Just the PR alone is probably something they don't want to deal with until they have to.

You are assuming that you know what option actually exists. Nobody has provided actual information that ESPN can opt out of the entire ACC contract. I haven't read the ESPN contract and cannot definitively state that the entire opt out option doesn't exist. However, I also cannot say that it does exist. The only indication is the FSU filling, which doesn't include actual language from the contract. It only includes the interpretation that was given to FSU's lawyers. We don't know who provided that interpretation. We don't know if the people who provided that interpretation have actually read the contact.

At this point, everybody believes it because everybody believes it. Nobody in the public actually knows.

 

[WreckinGT]

You are assuming that you know what option actually exists. Nobody has provided actual information that ESPN can opt out of the entire ACC contract. I haven't read the ESPN contract and cannot definitively state that the entire opt out option doesn't exist. However, I also cannot say that it does exist. The only indication is the FSU filling, which doesn't include actual language from the contract. It only includes the interpretation that was given to FSU's lawyers. We don't know who provided that interpretation. We don't know if the people who provided that interpretation have actually read the contact.

At this point, everybody believes it because everybody believes it. Nobody in the public actually knows.

Like I have said. I think its very unlikely that FSU's lawyers misinterpreted the contract and I think its very unlikely that they completely lied in a legal filing. Sure there is no way to know for sure without seeing the contract ourselves. The best we can do is take the word of someone who has.

 

[LT 1967]

Tier 2?

This guy (Will Helms) who wrote this article graduated from Methodist U. and South Carolina. He wrote articles for Gamecock Central for 247 Sports. Sounds like he is one of those who just wants to belittle Tech as much as possible since the gamecocks recruit in Georgia. In fact, I believe that is the major reason we receive as much destain from many other in the medias who try to present GT as a 2nd level operation. They basically believe they can help their coaches recruit Georgia players who may be interested in GT. His analysis is certainly an insult to GT, as he meant it to be.

 

[CEB]

Declining early makes no sense because they will be the media partners for the ACC until 2027 either way. They gain literally nothing by declining before they have to. Currently they have to make a decision by February 2025. That is their new contractual decision date assuming the ACC doesn't just push it back for no reason again. What advantage can you think of for why they should do it next week instead? What could it possibly gain them? Just the PR alone is probably something they don't want to deal with until they have to.

Gosh… I wonder if things like this were said in 2021? Nah, totally different scenario, I’m sure.

 

[yeti92]

Like I have said. I think its very unlikely that FSU's lawyers misinterpreted the contract and I think its very unlikely that they completely lied in a legal filing. Sure there is no way to know for sure without seeing the contract ourselves. The best we can do is take the word of someone who has.

Do we know for certain that FSU's lawyers have actually seen the contract and are not relying on someone else's interpretation of it?

Do you believe ESPN wants out of the ACC contract?

 

[gtbb]

Why?

Because the SEC is one of the two conferences that holds the cards in all this re-alignment talk, and they're not going to bust up one of their largest rivalries in order to be thrown in with teams from the B12 & ACC.

 

[orientalnc]

I do not think the FSU lawyers would intentionally lie, but they are representing the wishes of their client. Maybe the FSU strategy will work, but the haphazard legal filings are weird.

 

[MusicalBuzz]

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.

Yes but the teams you mentioned — while sure may not the top echelon of the conference — are still better draws that the same second tier of the ACC. Of the group you’ve listed, I’d consider only Vandy (per usual) is the real outlier for a lane game.

But FSU-Ole Miss? Even South Carolina? You can’t consider that in any way a bad matchup from a fan support perspective. Unless.. what, FSU-Pitt, or Syracuse, or BC is more compelling with viewers?

Nonetheless — and yes I think we’re more aligned than not — I will absolutely maintain that SEC acquiring every possible big program in the South is to their advantage. And while, sure, there’s always going to be some lames games .. you can safely bet they would work every angle to get the BEST matchups week in and week out .. and it’s more likely when they have a significant collection of the best programs. Which the ACC really does not.

 

[MusicalBuzz]

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?

Well they’ll still make money. But perhaps this is where the much rumored and discussed media deal walkout comes into play?

But any business .. if it sees a product that’s dying obviously will cut or phase it out. Even if it means short term losses. (sort of like offering early-retirement to cut employee head count). But it’s more likely ESPN is planning long term. And even so it’s just as likely they’d look at gains added by these teams offset losses elsewhere, while playing the long term advantage.

 

[cpf2001]

I don’t think it’s about profitability as much as relative profitability/ROI. Fake numbers for laziness, but let’s say ESPN gets 100M a year in ad money and carriage fees that it attributes to ACC content. They pay 80M of that to the schools.

If they think half of that values is coming from 1/3 of the schools, they’d could be better off bringing in 50M and pay out 27M to schools - 23M in profit instead of 20, and lower fixed costs.

Thats oversimplified and doesn’t account for “FSU would draw more eyeballs in the SEC” or “the SEC already brings in a ton of viewers anyway” or various other hypotheticals, but I’m just trying to explain why I think that in a time of financial uncertainty ESPN might be very interested in lowering its obligations and consolidating its offerings even if the ACC package as a whole is profitable today. They might need extra net income to cover other holes and probably don’t think a lot of the schools in the ACC will ever deliver it.

 

[WreckinGT]

Do we know for certain that FSU's lawyers have actually seen the contract and are not relying on someone else's interpretation of it?

Do you believe ESPN wants out of the ACC contract?

FSU's legal counsel said in the BOT meeting on Dec 22 that she has reviewed the multi media rights contract. The league doesn't prevent members from coming to the ACC offices and viewing it. It is however closely monitored and no pictures or note taking is allowed. As for whether ESPN wants out of the contract, eventually I do think they will want out of it. Im not sure of the timing. I think they have a bigger plan for reshaping college football in their best interests and trying to keep the ACC as it is for the next 12 years probably isn't part of their long term plan.

 

[yeti92]

I don’t think it’s about profitability as much as relative profitability/ROI. Fake numbers for laziness, but let’s say ESPN gets 100M a year in ad money and carriage fees that it attributes to ACC content. They pay 80M of that to the schools.

If they think half of that values is coming from 1/3 of the schools, they’d could be better off bringing in 50M and pay out 27M to schools - 23M in profit instead of 20, and lower fixed costs.

Thats oversimplified and doesn’t account for “FSU would draw more eyeballs in the SEC” or “the SEC already brings in a ton of viewers anyway” or various other hypotheticals, but I’m just trying to explain why I think that in a time of financial uncertainty ESPN might be very interested in lowering its obligations and consolidating its offerings even if the ACC package as a whole is profitable today. They might need extra net income to cover other holes and probably don’t think a lot of the schools in the ACC will ever deliver it.

In this case though, they'd be paying double to those schools if they consolidated them in the SEC, so instead of paying $27m for $50m, they are paying $54m for some unknown amount over $50m. Now the SEC draws the most eyeballs and ad dollars, but I'm guessing they command a larger percentage of the revenue than the ACC does too - it has long been said that the ACC deal is the more profitable for ESPN, so I don't think revenue there is double. Is it 150% (75m) of the ACC? More? Idk

 

[forensicbuzz]

Because the SEC is one of the two conferences that holds the cards in all this re-alignment talk, and they're not going to bust up one of their largest rivalries in order to be thrown in with teams from the B12 & ACC.

Why does the rivalry have to be "bust up?" With 10 team groupings, there will be plenty of games against teams not in their group. We still play uga every year.

 

[yeti92]

FSU's legal counsel said in the BOT meeting on Dec 22 that she has reviewed the multi media rights contract. The league doesn't prevent members from coming to the ACC offices and viewing it. It is however closely monitored and no pictures or note taking is allowed. As for whether ESPN wants out of the contract, eventually I do think they will want out of it. Im not sure of the timing. I think they have a bigger plan for reshaping college football in their best interests and trying to keep the ACC as it is for the next 12 years probably isn't part of their long term plan.

So if ESPN wants out of the contract, would it not be in their interest to have the ACC dissolve? And would publically declining the option not benefit that goal? FSU, Clemson, and few others leaving would cause the contract to have to be redone, so shouldn't ESPN be encouraging that, and not threatening to sue FSU for potentially revealing details of the contract?

 

[UgaBlows]

In this case though, they'd be paying double to those schools if they consolidated them in the SEC, so instead of paying $27m for $50m, they are paying $54m for some unknown amount over $50m. Now the SEC draws the most eyeballs and ad dollars, but I'm guessing they command a larger percentage of the revenue than the ACC does too - it has long been said that the ACC deal is the more profitable for ESPN, so I don't think revenue there is double. Is it 150% (75m) of the ACC? More? Idk

Yes Espn would pay FSU and Clem more in the SEC, but they also wouldn’t be wasting 40 million a year on a bunch of scuds like BC, Cuse, duke, WF etc anymore. They potentially will lose 4 ACC teams to the BIG, that’s another $160 mil a year off the books