Conference Realignment

[GTRX7]

I think as a fan you have to make a decision on what's most important to you.
Is it that you will only follow and support GT football if it is playing in the highest tier (which is likely to be the SEC and B10) or you will follow and support GT football regardless of what tier it is in.
That is a personal decision every fan may have to make down the road.

If GT isn't invited into the B10 or SEC, that doesn't mean GT is going to be playing FCS football for example.
I am expecting eventually the FBS is going to divide into 2 or 3 tiers for college football purposes. My expectation is that GT is likely to be in that 2nd tier, but maybe it ends up in Tier 1, but that is for the future to decide. I also expect each tier will have its own rules and regulations in terms of how many scholarships to give out, how much money to pay athletes, how large your athletic budget has to be, how many sports you have to fund, how large your stadium has to be. There are regulations around those now for all the P5 and G5 conferences.

I mentioned above about TV viewership, but the bigger long term issue for college football is probably butts in seats. Attendance has been decreasing for over a decade and actual attendance is considerably worse than announced attendance. The Wall Street Journal has a graphic with sold vs scanned tickets for 96 FBS schools. In general for P5 schools most of them the percentage of scanned tickets to announced attendance hovers between 70-75%. The percentages at most G5 schools are considerably worse. GT was at 72% in 2021. TN and WI were the 2 P5 schools with the highest % at 88 and 84% respectively. FSU was a pretty awful 57%.

How many college football fans are actually in the stands?

At many Football Bowl Subdivision schools, the number of tickets scanned at the stadium falls far short of a team\

graphics.wsj.com

This is largely my view. I would rather be competing for championships in a "leftover" ACC than playing zero historic or regional rivals and basically finishing 12th out of 18/20 teams every year.

The only thing that makes me hesitate is the hypothetical that, if we double (triple?) our athletic revenue through one of these major conference TV deals, could we get back to competing at the highest level with the "big boys?" Maybe.

Right now, we are desperate for money and I truly believe that has been one of our biggest obstacles to competing in the ACC. Even if we wanted to, we couldn't financially make a high level coaching move in either football or basketball, let alone both.

The other part of that equation is, of course, NIL. Even if we get the money as an institution from a much bigger TV deal, will we ever have the market to compete for the players? There is a reason that there are barely any successful college programs in big city markets and the vast majority of power schools (and big NIL deals) are in rural areas. Tech is a small fish in a huge media/sports market. I don't ever see us being able to compete at the top level in the new NIL market. We just don't have local businesses that will sustain those endorsement deals when those local companies can instead sign deals with Falcons, Braves, Hawks, Atlanta United, or even UGA players, etc.

So, I still lean towards sticking with the ACC and competing against whatever is left after 5 years, even if a few flagship "football" schools like ND, Clemson, and FSU are gone. I wouldn't hate competing against UNC, UVA, Duke, Pitt, UL, VT, Wake, BC, (W. Va?), (UCF/USF?), etc. That is a pretty good spot for Tech in the new sports landscape in my opinion.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

I think as a fan you have to make a decision on what's most important to you.
Is it that you will only follow and support GT football if it is playing in the highest tier (which is likely to be the SEC and B10) or you will follow and support GT football regardless of what tier it is in.
That is a personal decision every fan may have to make down the road.

If GT isn't invited into the B10 or SEC, that doesn't mean GT is going to be playing FCS football for example.
I am expecting eventually the FBS is going to divide into 2 or 3 tiers for college football purposes. My expectation is that GT is likely to be in that 2nd tier, but maybe it ends up in Tier 1, but that is for the future to decide. I also expect each tier will have its own rules and regulations in terms of how many scholarships to give out, how much money to pay athletes, how large your athletic budget has to be, how many sports you have to fund, how large your stadium has to be. There are regulations around those now for all the P5 and G5 conferences.

I mentioned above about TV viewership, but the bigger long term issue for college football is probably butts in seats. Attendance has been decreasing for over a decade and actual attendance is considerably worse than announced attendance. The Wall Street Journal has a graphic with sold vs scanned tickets for 96 FBS schools. In general for P5 schools most of them the percentage of scanned tickets to announced attendance hovers between 70-75%. The percentages at most G5 schools are considerably worse. GT was at 72% in 2021. TN and WI were the 2 P5 schools with the highest % at 88 and 84% respectively. FSU was a pretty awful 57%.

How many college football fans are actually in the stands?

At many Football Bowl Subdivision schools, the number of tickets scanned at the stadium falls far short of a team\

graphics.wsj.com

Yeah, we are already doing that as seen by the fans NOT attending games. I know I plan my Saturdays around the GT game because I’m a GT fan and we are currently P5. But I also make sure I’m in a position to watch the real games. So if GT plays NIU at noon I make sure I have a viable TV close by to watch the real game at 3:30 or 7 or 8 figuring in 3 hour travel time home if I decide to attend the GT game. If we aren’t in a top tier conference then no way I’ll attend the GT games at the same rate as now. I enjoy the sport of college football so I want to watch the entire soap opera from August to January play out. So if it’s a choice down the road to watch the Florida/FSU game or attend the GT/Villanova game its a no brainer. Basically, if your not in a power conference it’s a club sport.

 

[GoJacketsInRaleigh]

Utah, Arizona, Arizona St, and Colorado are meeting with the Big 12 today. I would be surprised if nothing came from that. The Pac 12 doesn't seem to have any interest in surviving.

Wonder what kind of bump the ACC could get if it could get Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal. Wonder if they would even consider it or just wait out Notre Dame and B1G.

 

[slugboy]

Wonder what kind of bump the ACC could get if it could get Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal. Wonder if they would even consider it or just wait out Notre Dame and B1G.

Would any of them sign away their media rights for about 14 years?

An ACC-P12 merger would stabilize things and make for interesting football, but we have a toxic contract now, and it’s linked to our ESPN deal in some ways

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Would any of them sign away their media rights for about 14 years?

An ACC-P12 merger would stabilize things and make for interesting football, but we have a toxic contract now, and it’s linked to our ESPN deal in some ways

IIUC, additions of several new teams is one of the triggers for ESPN to have to renegotiate the TV deal.

 

[Richard7125]

Would any of them sign away their media rights for about 14 years?

An ACC-P12 merger would stabilize things and make for interesting football, but we have a toxic contract now, and it’s linked to our ESPN deal in some ways

Hmmm. It’s interesting how you are looking at this. This toxic contract isn’t keeping Tech from leaving the ACC. It’s making it very difficult for our top two teams to leave for the SEC or Big10 (eg Texas/Okla and UCS/UCLA). If it wasn’t for this toxic contract, we could be in a similar boat as Utah, Colorado and Kansas. Let’s be real, Tech wouldn’t be one of the first schools poached. Moreover, it’s not in the SEC or Big10’s interest to add schools just to add schools. It only makes sense if it increases the payout (by a lot) to all of their current schools.

 

[RonJohn]

It only makes sense if it increases the payout (by a lot) to all of their current schools.

Which is actually a good reason for GT to leave at this point. Several posters have stated that TV market is becoming less of a factor in media deals. This is probably the last expansion and media rights negotiation that will be based largely on TV markets. GT is in the #7 or #10 media market depending on which list you look at. If GT does not leave the ACC now, it will likely not have anything attractive to offer for the next round of media rights negotiation. (That isn't to say that GT can actually leave the ACC, but only to say if GT does leave the ACC it needs to be soon)

 

[bobongo]

Which is actually a good reason for GT to leave at this point. Several posters have stated that TV market is becoming less of a factor in media deals. This is probably the last expansion and media rights negotiation that will be based largely on TV markets. GT is in the #7 or #10 media market depending on which list you look at. If GT does not leave the ACC now, it will likely not have anything attractive to offer for the next round of media rights negotiation. (That isn't to say that GT can actually leave the ACC, but only to say if GT does leave the ACC it needs to be soon)

But as you've pointed out, we can't leave the ACC because of the GOR (and neither can anyone else).
We should be thanking our lucky stars for the GOR. Without it, the biggest fish in the ACC would be poached and we'd be left wandering the desert.
Only Notre Dame can save us now.

 

[CuseJacket]

This looks REAL bad in hindsight re: the ACC/B1G/P12 alliance:



But the lesson here is that maybe we can just propose dissolving the GOR to Phillips and tell him we're fully committed with a handshake?

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Interesting analysis:

Big Ten Expansion / ACC Apocalypse Roundtable

With conference realignment rumors in full swing, two things to keep in mind for any rumors that are floated.

www.bcinterruption.com

Key takeaway:

"I do think ESPN is going to find a way to make the ACC whole with respect to TV money. ESPN has zero incentive to watch 2-4 of North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Duke and Florida State head off the Big Ten. Nor do they want to see Virginia Tech and N.C. State go to the SEC, Florida State, Clemson, Miami and Georgia Tech to the Big 12, etc. Unlike the other Big 5 conferences, ESPN is the ACC's lone TV partner. They have more incentive to keep the ACC together more than any of the other four AQ conferences.

Money spent now is money saved down the road. If ESPN sits idle and watches as the Big Ten, SEC and Big 12 expand at the ACC's expense, the WWL would be losing share to FOX (Big Ten and Big 12) and CBS (SEC). I doubt ESPN has any interest in propping up two of their main competitors at the expense of their own television inventory.

Put another way, fewer power conferences is bad for ESPN's business. Further conference consolidation of college football's content providers gives those conferences significant more leverage and bargaining power in negotiations with ESPN, driving the price of these media rights contracts even higher."

 

[gameface]

That thing was written in 2013????

 

[Billygoat91]

Interesting analysis:

Big Ten Expansion / ACC Apocalypse Roundtable

With conference realignment rumors in full swing, two things to keep in mind for any rumors that are floated.

www.bcinterruption.com

Key takeaway:

"I do think ESPN is going to find a way to make the ACC whole with respect to TV money. ESPN has zero incentive to watch 2-4 of North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Duke and Florida State head off the Big Ten. Nor do they want to see Virginia Tech and N.C. State go to the SEC, Florida State, Clemson, Miami and Georgia Tech to the Big 12, etc. Unlike the other Big 5 conferences, ESPN is the ACC's lone TV partner. They have more incentive to keep the ACC together more than any of the other four AQ conferences.

Money spent now is money saved down the road. If ESPN sits idle and watches as the Big Ten, SEC and Big 12 expand at the ACC's expense, the WWL would be losing share to FOX (Big Ten and Big 12) and CBS (SEC). I doubt ESPN has any interest in propping up two of their main competitors at the expense of their own television inventory.

Put another way, fewer power conferences is bad for ESPN's business. Further conference consolidation of college football's content providers gives those conferences significant more leverage and bargaining power in negotiations with ESPN, driving the price of these media rights contracts even higher."

Thanks for posting. That is a viewpoint that has not really been floated yet. Perhaps ESPN does pony up additional TV money to keep the Big 10 (Fox) from having even more power.

 

[slugboy]

IIUC, additions of several new teams is one of the triggers for ESPN to have to renegotiate the TV deal.

Correct. There are two parts though

1. Contract 1: Teams join the ACC and assign their media rights through 2036
2. Contract 2: ESPN and the ACC renegotiate the TV rights and associated payouts

(2) would be a positive for added schools and current ACC members. But the new members would have to accept (1) in an age where flexibility has value.

Why wouldn’t Oregon prefer the looser obligations of the B12?

Why the ACC would want Washington and Oregon is easy. Why Oregon would want the ACC over the P12 or something else is another story.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

That thing was written in 2013????

Good catch. I set my search filter to bring up articles from the last 4 days. Not sure how this one slipped through the crack. Underlying premise makes sense, but the article is indeed old as dirt.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Correct. There are two parts though

1. Contract 1: Teams join the ACC and assign their media rights through 2036
2. Contract 2: ESPN and the ACC renegotiate the TV rights and associated payouts

(2) would be a positive for added schools and current ACC members. But the new members would have to accept (1) in an age where flexibility has value.

Why wouldn’t Oregon prefer the looser obligations of the B12?

Oregon might prefer volatility. Others may not. At some point the music is gonna stop and a lot of schools are going to be left without a chair. If the GoR holds, then the ACC is an appealing landing spot for a lot of teams without surefire prospects in the $EC or B1G. A team like Stanford might prefer the safety net of a sure thing, especially if ND agrees to the deal as well.

This really all depends on how tight the binding of the GoR actually is.

 

[GoJacketsInRaleigh]

That thing was written in 2013????

It might be 9 years old but really ESPN is the only thing that can save the ACC at this point. Either pay to keep these schools are they are going to follow the money.

 

[GoJacketsInRaleigh]

I know it's unlikely to happen but what would have to happen for a school to be kicked out of the ACC? Wouldn't a smaller conference of Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson, NC State, UNC, UVA, and VT and maybe even joining forces with Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal create a lot more revenue per team?

How much does Syracuse, Pittsburgh, and BC really make for the conference? Duke football is a total drain. And Wake Forest brings nothing.

Hell, why does the SEC keep Vanderbilt around?

 

[RamblinRed]

And here we go…

Of course, once again this is being looked at from the Schools point of view (which is typically what fans most orient towards), this is probably only the 3rd most important point of view in this process.

The Networks and the conference point of views are much more important as they are the ones that will make the call, not the school (except for ND).

From a Network standpoint alot of the talk on the message boards the last week make little sense.
Is it in ESPN's interest to have Clemson and FSU in the SEC? Absolutely not. They would basically be paying a much higher rate for the same content.
It certainly isn't in ESPN's interest for any ACC schools to end up in the B10, and there are probably a limited number of ACC schools that would make sense for FOX and the Big 10.
It certainly is not in ESPN's interest for ND to join the B10.

The differences in the conference networks may also play into this long term.
ESPN owns the SEC (contract through 2034) and ACC (2036) networks. The Conferences do not own these networks, they simply get payouts from ESPN.
B10 Network is different as it is 49% owned by the B10 (and 51% by FoxSports), so B10 has more of a direct stake in the success of the network. This may be why a poster on another board has said that the SEC has expanded based largely on Stadium size and the B10 has expanded largely on Market size. The B10 has more financial stake at being in larger markets where it can charge a higher fee for B10 broadcast rights if it has a local team. (This is the one thing athletically that GT potentially brings to the table for the B10 that it doesn't bring to the ACC). Is it enough for them to make any move right now given the potential legal and financial ramifications they would have to deal with, probably not.

Fans are also misunderstanding the additional revenue. From an intra-conference standpoint every school is getting the same TV payout. So being in a different conference does not help you in terms of competing with your conference brethren (which is probably 75% of your games), it only helps in competing with your OOC opponents. If GT gets $100M for being in the B10, so does every other school. That does nothing to make up the difference that the larger schools with larger brands have the advantage in raising additional revenue. OSU's AD mentioned a couple of years ago that it brings in over $100MM in revenue from its home football games (outside of the TV money). GT's whole budget isn't $100MM. It is very possible to move up in terms of TV payout and find yourself in a worse competitive position than if you do not move up.

I understand where SOWEGA comes from and his viewpoint is 100% legitimate. For me, I am a GT fan first, and a college football fan 2nd (well actually i'm a bigger college basketball fan than college FB fan, but that is a separate discussion.). So I will always prioritize a GT conference game over watching other college FB games. Now we can argue over OOC games against G5 and FCS type opponents, but against any other P5 opponent the GT game will be #1 on my viewing list whether in person or on TV. That will continue regardless of where GT football is in 5-10 years. I also think it is somerthing of a strawman to throw out teams like Tulane or Villanova. That is not who GT is going to be playing if it ultimately is not invited to join the B10 or SEC. It will likely be mostly the same teams GT plays today.

I'll also add that I do think the ACC GoR will be an effective short term measure in keeping the conference together as I believe there is basically 0% chance that the NC4 + UVA would leave the ACC. They are charter members and basically built the conference. I don't see any of them jumping to another conference unless everyone else left first and frankly there are not enough valuable properties at the valuations we are talking about to leave without those 5 schools choosing to leave first.

Fibally, i'll add that this is all very FB specific and I do not think there will be significant changes in any other collegiate sport. The B10 and SEC could break away for FB purposes and still decide to play NCAA basketball under the current umbrella. IMO it would actually be in their interest to. The NCAA Tourney is really built around that opening weekend and all the smaller schools vs larger school matchups and upsets. If the Big 2 decided to completely break away in all sports I think it would actually hurt their BB for the postseason as I believe the majority of college basketball viewers would rather watch a Tournament that had more teams and smaller conference teams than one with just teams from the Big 2.

 

[WreckinGT]

I don't see how it is in ESPNs best interest to keep the ACC in its current state for 14 more years. The conference will quickly become irrelevant in the face of the other conferences (including the Big 12). That will affect money, recruiting, coaching, etc. Either the ACC needs to expand to compete or it needs to dissolve. Staying put for 14 more years is bad for everyone. Im not really sure that ESPN doesn't want the ACC to die. With dwinding subscriber numbers they may be looking to cut content, including the ACC network.

 

[UgaBlows]

I know it's unlikely to happen but what would have to happen for a school to be kicked out of the ACC? Wouldn't a smaller conference of Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson, NC State, UNC, UVA, and VT and maybe even joining forces with Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal create a lot more revenue per team?

How much does Syracuse, Pittsburgh, and BC really make for the conference? Duke football is a total drain. And Wake Forest brings nothing.

Hell, why does the SEC keep Vanderbilt around?

This is just delusional, No major programs like Stanford, Oregon etc are ever joining the ACC, it’s a death sentence at this point. The ACC is a dead conf walking and you can bet that the teams that are in play for SEC or BIG expansion like Clem, FSU, UM etc are going to figure out a way to break the GOR and kill it with the quickness.