Conference Realignment

[bobongo]

MSN

www.msn.com

No mention of the ACC.

 

[Techster]

MSN

www.msn.com

No mention of the ACC.

Personally, I think there's a LOT of movement going on with the ACC behind the scenes. Lots of conversations going on between ACC schools and lawyers , especially ACC schools who are possible targets of the B1G and SEC. B1G and SEC are telling ACC targets "Work it out, then get back to us. Until then, we're just going to sit over here and continue on with our business."

GOR was smart of the ACC...at the time. But the existing media contract is becoming an anchor for some ACC schools.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Personally, I think there's a LOT of movement going on with the ACC behind the scenes. Lots of conversations going on between ACC schools and lawyers , especially ACC schools who are possible targets of the B1G and SEC. B1G and SEC are telling ACC targets "Work it out, then get back to us. Until then, we're just going to sit over here and continue on with our business."

GOR was smart of the ACC...at the time. But the existing media contract is becoming an anchor for some ACC schools.

I think GoR is less of an issue with B1G than it is with the SEC.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

That might be possible, but all of the dominos would have to be in place before any of it could happen. To get ND onboard, I think it would take having Stanford and Navy and a very large TV contract. Probably also a guarantee of no more than 8 conference games. To get Stanford, it would take having ND on board and a very large TV contract. To get a very large TV contract it would take having ND, Stanford, and probably Oregon and Washington on board. It is possible, but would take a lot of simultaneous coordination.

You don't have to get ND to join. If you add 3 of their rivals you can renegotiate their deal to play 8 ACC games instead of 5. Still adds value to the TV contract and lets ND keep the independence they value.

 

[DavidStandingBear]

Reading through all this speculation, and that's all any of this really is, it seems most of us here fail to grasp a key concept: while fanbases and their determined message board warriors are distraught and eager to see their respective team bolt for the greener pastures of the B1G/$EC, the schools themselves are very content to still be a part of the ACC. The reason the universities ceded the GoR years ago was to weather storms like this. The university presidents and ADs have no real reason to rush into another conference. They are very content to work together to find a palatable path forward. Also, Notre Dame is absolutely not going to the B1G any time soon. They were offered a similar deal by the B1G when the Big East imploded but they do not see themselves as a B1G school. They definitely do not see themselves as an $EC school. They will stay independent for the time being and be content. Their deal with the ACC gives us relevance and they are happy with that deal.

IMO, the ACC is far more likely to do one of the two following things. First, they will likely work with the Pac-?? to reschedule games against each other fairly soon to help each league with TV revenue.

Second, I have been told by one source that the ACC is talking with a couple of schools about joining the ACC in order to renegotiate the TV deal. At least two of the schools mentioned are ND rivals (Stanford and Navy) which would help cement that relationship. I have also been told that WVU is being considered as a possible alternative, but Stanford, Navy, and one or two other PAC schools was what I was told. Source said this was still just talk, so not much more than semi-verified rumor at this point, but the takeaway is that the ACC is not completely standing still, just not advertising their moves.

I don't think we will see the ACC dissolve just yet. While we will be poorer than our $EC and B1G rivals, we are going to be a P3 conference for the near future.

So you think that ACC + Stanford + navy + WVU turns the new power 2 into a power 3? It would be a good conference, but the odds of sending a team to the CFP? Btw WVU isn’t an ACC type school.

 

[Randy Carson]

WVU isn’t an ACC type school.

^This. And I wasn't happy with Louisville for the same reason. Maybe I'm missing something?

 

[Vespidae]

Well the statement about two friends has nothing to do with the raises question. I was replying to another post and decided not to; deleted it and it somehow got put on my post about the raises. The professor who made the statement taught there for 45 years and is a friend. No reason for him to lie. So you say you know Vespidae personally so you trust him. I know the ex professor and I trust him.

So, to put this to bed, I asked Payroll. After they stopped laughing, here's the process:

- The Compensation Committee periodically reviews pay ranges by grade and classification against like universities. They typically submit recommendations prior to an August BoT meeting.
- The BoT votes and establishes the pay scale and target increase (e.g., 3%). If approved, changes to pay are made on Oct 1. (Note the approval and effective date are PRIOR to the end of the football season.)
- The Provost directs colleges to provide raises in a range (so, if it is 3%, they provide guidance of 2-4%). Those at the top end of a range are likely NOT to receive an increase or a very small one. Those who are below market, probably more.
- All merit increases are required to be substantiated by employee performance documentation, typically the completed annual performance review. (There are KPI's for every faculty level.) Any raise for a reason outside of acceptable guidelines must be approved by the VP, Academic Affairs AND the Provost. And yes, it's audited by the State of Alabama Ethics Commission.

I asked specifically if anyone gets a raise based on football performance. She said "if it is in their contract, yes" but added that is almost exclusively in the Athletic Department. She said she knows no faculty member that has ever been paid on football results. She added, the vast majority of faculty are not Auburn alumni, so that's a very dubious claim.

This is how she summed it up. "I would bet this professor received a merit increase because he wasn't eligible for a market increase and his department head jokingly referred to it as "Enjoy! Our football team won."

She added if he's a professor emeritus, it won't be hard to figure out.

I think it's total BS. But you know him so go with it. I don't have any more to add.

 

[bobongo]

So, to put this to bed, I asked Payroll. After they stopped laughing, here's the process:

- The Compensation Committee periodically reviews pay ranges by grade and classification against like universities. They typically submit recommendations prior to an August BoT meeting.
- The BoT votes and establishes the pay scale and target increase (e.g., 3%). If approved, changes to pay are made on Oct 1. (Note the approval and effective date are PRIOR to the end of the football season.)
- The Provost directs colleges to provide raises in a range (so, if it is 3%, they provide guidance of 2-4%). Those at the top end of a range are likely NOT to receive an increase or a very small one. Those who are below market, probably more.
- All merit increases are required to be substantiated by employee performance documentation, typically the completed annual performance review. (There are KPI's for every faculty level.) Any raise for a reason outside of acceptable guidelines must be approved by the VP, Academic Affairs AND the Provost. And yes, it's audited by the State of Alabama Ethics Commission.

I asked specifically if anyone gets a raise based on football performance. She said "if it is in their contract, yes" but added that is almost exclusively in the Athletic Department. She said she knows no faculty member that has ever been paid on football results. She added, the vast majority of faculty are not Auburn alumni, so that's a very dubious claim.

This is how she summed it up. "I would bet this professor received a merit increase because he wasn't eligible for a market increase and his department head jokingly referred to it as "Enjoy! Our football team won."

She added if he's a professor emeritus, it won't be hard to figure out.

I think it's total BS. But you know him so go with it. I don't have any more to add.

Oh, wow, you missed it. Go look under your desk, peel off the enveloped taped there, and see inside. Should be around a hundred Benjamins. That's your "bonus" - compliments of the team!

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

So you think that ACC + Stanford + navy + WVU turns the new power 2 into a power 3? It would be a good conference, but the odds of sending a team to the CFP? Btw WVU isn’t an ACC type school.

You should reread what I wrote.

 

[RamblinRed]

I think the ACC will exist in 2036, I do not think it will have the exact same 14 members it does now.

I do not think more than 4 current schools in the ACC will leave the conference and I'd take the under rather than the over.

Fans who think the ACC is going to fall apart because the SEC an B10 combined are going to pick off 8 teams are setting themselves up for disappointment. There likely aren't that many teams that the 2 conferences would want.

The next major inflection point will be the CFP and what happens there. if the Big 2 decide to break away and have their own championship they will first try to bring ND into the fold and will likely add maybe 2 more teams each. I doubt it goes more than that. There simply aren't enough programs that are additive to the conferences to keep adding teams. I don't see the Big 2 adding as many programs as some fans think. At some point diminishing returns will kick in for them and it appears we are already getting close to that point (ie, Oregon and Washington not being able to jump into the Big 2 even though there is no financial/legal penalty for the new conference to take them).

If their is an expanded CFP that guarantees a slot for each of the P5 conferences and a way for ND to qualify I think there will be potentially even fewer teams going to the Big 2 than if they stage their own. In that case there is basically no reason for the big 2 to expand their conference size (and share their wealth) and the best schools in the other conferences have a way to get to the CFP (even if they are making less money).

Some school at some point will probably take on the GoR, but that is likely years down the road and it will be a calculated gamble. Keep in mind every school has a copy of the GoR for their conference so every school that has ever thought about challenging one has been able to have lawyers look at it. No one has decided to take them on yet. If a school challenges a GoR it will be after they determine when the best time to do so is, from a highest reward vs lowest risk calculation.

Keep in mind all these media contracts increase over time, so the bigger differences in contract values will be at the end of the contracts not the beginning. So the B10 contract may pay out $100MM eventually, but it likely won't do so in 2025, more likely in 2035.

There is never going to be a Big 3. There is going to be a Big 2. It doesn't matter what the ACC/B12/PAC do, they are never going to have media deals at the same level as the B10 and SEC because they don't have as valuable properties. The SEC and B10 have mostly large schools (and in the B10 case in major markets) with large fanbases. The other 3 conferences have schools that are somewhat smaller in size with lower viewership. Without a more professional league style regulation this means one of 2 outcomes. Either the P5 continue to play together but the Big 2 have a significant financial advantage over the other 3, or you have 2 separate tiers with the Big 2 basically playing within themselves and the other P3 playing within themselves.

 

[tsrich]

So, to put this to bed, I asked Payroll. After they stopped laughing, here's the process:

- The Compensation Committee periodically reviews pay ranges by grade and classification against like universities. They typically submit recommendations prior to an August BoT meeting.
- The BoT votes and establishes the pay scale and target increase (e.g., 3%). If approved, changes to pay are made on Oct 1. (Note the approval and effective date are PRIOR to the end of the football season.)
- The Provost directs colleges to provide raises in a range (so, if it is 3%, they provide guidance of 2-4%). Those at the top end of a range are likely NOT to receive an increase or a very small one. Those who are below market, probably more.
- All merit increases are required to be substantiated by employee performance documentation, typically the completed annual performance review. (There are KPI's for every faculty level.) Any raise for a reason outside of acceptable guidelines must be approved by the VP, Academic Affairs AND the Provost. And yes, it's audited by the State of Alabama Ethics Commission.

I asked specifically if anyone gets a raise based on football performance. She said "if it is in their contract, yes" but added that is almost exclusively in the Athletic Department. She said she knows no faculty member that has ever been paid on football results. She added, the vast majority of faculty are not Auburn alumni, so that's a very dubious claim.

This is how she summed it up. "I would bet this professor received a merit increase because he wasn't eligible for a market increase and his department head jokingly referred to it as "Enjoy! Our football team won."

She added if he's a professor emeritus, it won't be hard to figure out.

I think it's total BS. But you know him so go with it. I don't have any more to add.

On this board, we prefer 'I know a guy' sources rather than detailed primary sources like this. So, do you know a guy?

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

I think the ACC will exist in 2036, I do not think it will have the exact same 14 members it does now.

I do not think more than 4 current schools in the ACC will leave the conference and I'd take the under rather than the over.

Fans who think the ACC is going to fall apart because the SEC an B10 combined are going to pick off 8 teams are setting themselves up for disappointment. There likely aren't that many teams that the 2 conferences would want.

The next major inflection point will be the CFP and what happens there. if the Big 2 decide to break away and have their own championship they will first try to bring ND into the fold and will likely add maybe 2 more teams each. I doubt it goes more than that. There simply aren't enough programs that are additive to the conferences to keep adding teams. I don't see the Big 2 adding as many programs as some fans think. At some point diminishing returns will kick in for them and it appears we are already getting close to that point (ie, Oregon and Washington not being able to jump into the Big 2 even though there is no financial/legal penalty for the new conference to take them).

If their is an expanded CFP that guarantees a slot for each of the P5 conferences and a way for ND to qualify I think there will be potentially even fewer teams going to the Big 2 than if they stage their own. In that case there is basically no reason for the big 2 to expand their conference size (and share their wealth) and the best schools in the other conferences have a way to get to the CFP (even if they are making less money).

Some school at some point will probably take on the GoR, but that is likely years down the road and it will be a calculated gamble. Keep in mind every school has a copy of the GoR for their conference so every school that has ever thought about challenging one has been able to have lawyers look at it. No one has decided to take them on yet. If a school challenges a GoR it will be after they determine when the best time to do so is, from a highest reward vs lowest risk calculation.

Keep in mind all these media contracts increase over time, so the bigger differences in contract values will be at the end of the contracts not the beginning. So the B10 contract may pay out $100MM eventually, but it likely won't do so in 2025, more likely in 2035.

There is never going to be a Big 3. There is going to be a Big 2. It doesn't matter what the ACC/B12/PAC do, they are never going to have media deals at the same level as the B10 and SEC because they don't have as valuable properties. The SEC and B10 have mostly large schools (and in the B10 case in major markets) with large fanbases. The other 3 conferences have schools that are somewhat smaller in size with lower viewership. Without a more professional league style regulation this means one of 2 outcomes. Either the P5 continue to play together but the Big 2 have a significant financial advantage over the other 3, or you have 2 separate tiers with the Big 2 basically playing within themselves and the other P3 playing within themselves.

What you said makes perfect sense in a normal world. College football is not the normal world. It’s been about 2 weeks since the USC/UCLA announcement was made public. So to say that no ACC team has challenged the GOR yet is some proof that they won’t is a little premature.

I understand a lot of what you posted but quite honestly I just disagree and believe we will see big changes over the next 5 years to the ACC and the playoff format. The SEC and BIG are run by business people looking at dollars only. Traditions, locations, and all that other stuff folks bring up mean nothing these days and aren’t even a factor (including other sports). Schools like Clemson, FSU, ND and others aren’t going to allow themselves to be left out especially if the big 2 form their own playoff. The money is just too great for these schools to pull a Dodd and sit on the sidelines for a decade and a half while every 5 and 4 star sign with the big 2.

And I don’t think you’ll ever see a school take on the GOR. I think you’ll see a block of schools negotiate with the ACC to be released from it with a settlement. That’s how real business gets done 99% of the time. Not every crime gets an episode of Law & Order and not every contract negotiation goes to court. I do believe the ACC will still exist in some form in 2036 but I don’t believe the ACC wants a hostage situation with 6-8 of its teams. That is a PR nightmare and would do more damage than just letting those schools go with a settlement.

But it will be fun to watch the soap opera play out. That’s why this sport has always been interesting to watch. Most of us remember the days of keeping track of who works at which newspaper because they were the ones who voted for the Natty. It’s all been a game. I remember as a kid living in Mobile, AL when a new big wig came on board the Press Register and everyone wanted to know if he was an Auburn guy or Bama guy because his vote was that important. Would the Auburn guy vote ND or OU over Bama. It was so stupid. Then we get the BCS computer formula and all the angst over teams running up scores to work the algorithm. Now, we are a 4 team hand picked by a committee of highly connected, wined and dined folks. Whose week is it to get the luxury box in Columbus, Athens, or Tuscaloosa? Thankfully, the money will finally get us all what we deserve which is a real playoff system where teams have to win more than 3 games a year to prove they are the best. And the big 2 will finally get us real games from week to week and we won’t have to spend weekends in October watching OU blast Pine Bluff, or Ohio State throttling Akron or Bama whipping MTSU.

 

[Squints]

Well the statement about two friends has nothing to do with the raises question. I was replying to another post and decided not to; deleted it and it somehow got put on my post about the raises. The professor who made the statement taught there for 45 years and is a friend. No reason for him to lie. So you say you know Vespidae personally so you trust him. I know the ex professor and I trust him.

Sometimes our best friends are the most full of ****.

 

[CEB]

What you said makes perfect sense in a normal world. College football is not the normal world. It’s been about 2 weeks since the USC/UCLA announcement was made public. So to say that no ACC team has challenged the GOR yet is some proof that they won’t is a little premature.

I understand a lot of what you posted but quite honestly I just disagree and believe we will see big changes over the next 5 years to the ACC and the playoff format. The SEC and BIG are run by business people looking at dollars only. Traditions, locations, and all that other stuff folks bring up mean nothing these days and aren’t even a factor (including other sports). Schools like Clemson, FSU, ND and others aren’t going to allow themselves to be left out especially if the big 2 form their own playoff. The money is just too great for these schools to pull a Dodd and sit on the sidelines for a decade and a half while every 5 and 4 star sign with the big 2.

And I don’t think you’ll ever see a school take on the GOR. I think you’ll see a block of schools negotiate with the ACC to be released from it with a settlement. That’s how real business gets done 99% of the time. Not every crime gets an episode of Law & Order and not every contract negotiation goes to court. I do believe the ACC will still exist in some form in 2036 but I don’t believe the ACC wants a hostage situation with 6-8 of its teams. That is a PR nightmare and would do more damage than just letting those schools go with a settlement.

But it will be fun to watch the soap opera play out. That’s why this sport has always been interesting to watch. Most of us remember the days of keeping track of who works at which newspaper because they were the ones who voted for the Natty. It’s all been a game. I remember as a kid living in Mobile, AL when a new big wig came on board the Press Register and everyone wanted to know if he was an Auburn guy or Bama guy because his vote was that important. Would the Auburn guy vote ND or OU over Bama. It was so stupid. Then we get the BCS computer formula and all the angst over teams running up scores to work the algorithm. Now, we are a 4 team hand picked by a committee of highly connected, wined and dined folks. Whose week is it to get the luxury box in Columbus, Athens, or Tuscaloosa? Thankfully, the money will finally get us all what we deserve which is a real playoff system where teams have to win more than 3 games a year to prove they are the best. And the big 2 will finally get us real games from week to week and we won’t have to spend weekends in October watching OU blast Pine Bluff, or Ohio State throttling Akron or Bama whipping MTSU.

To be fair, with regard to the bold GOR comments, there was no stipulation of ACC and he didn’t say it wouldn’t happen. He actually said it likely WILL happen at some point but the fact that no team (not just ACC, but no team period) has challenged this type of agreement yet is a pretty good indicator of how confident teams are in getting around it. It’s an uphill battle for sure.

I agree with pretty much everything else you said. If GOR falls, and even if a single school initiates, there will be more parties to it.

 

[Techster]

Years ago there was talk that B1G (about the time GT was invited) wanted Texas and TX A&M.

TX A&M would eventually go to the SEC, and Texas being Texas, would rather be the big fish in a small Big 12 pond as opposed to joining the SEC or B1G. I don't think the B1G was ever a serious consideration for A&M or Texas considering how regional college sports was back then. Texas finally saw where the college sports landscape was headed, and took their opportunity to join the SEC and even the field with their arch rivals A&M before A&M got too far out in front of them. Afterall, being the big fish in a small pond hasn't necessarily worked out the way they thought it would.

Fast forward to today. When USC and UCLA became an option, the B1G jumped on it. B1G has had "national" plans for a while (see GT's invite). What we're seeing is the SEC and B1G making their big chess moves. I think they will start filling the board with smaller strategic moves (specifically the ACC and other strategic markets/schools) over the next decade or so. This is a marathon, not a race. One thing that will be interesting to pay attention to is the new media contracts. If there's language addressing revaluation after additional schools are added, that will be the big signal to everyone.

 

[UgaBlows]

There is no way in hell that the fb factory type ACC schools that have a shot at getting in the BIG or SEC are going to stand pat until 2036, making $20 mil/year while they watch those conferences payout $100 million/year, thats a slow death for any power program. I don’t know what it’s going to take to break that GOR but they are going to do it somehow And they are scrambling to do it right now.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

There is no way in hell that the fb factory type ACC schools that have a shot at getting in the BIG or SEC are going to stand pat until 2036, making $20 mil/year while they watch those conferences payout $100 million/year, thats a slow death for any power program. I don’t know what it’s going to take to break that GOR but they are going to do it somehow And they are scrambling to do it right now.

For one, we got $36 million in payouts last year. We are behind the top two, but were ahead of the PAC and Big XII. Secondly, I would frankly be shocked if anyone found a way out of the GOR, and I'm not entirely certain any of the ACC schools want out. Just because a fan base is heated about something doesn't mean the administration is. Clemson, FSU, and Miami were just as valuable in 2012 as they are today (some would argue more valuable in the case of FSU/Miami) yet they willingly signed the GoR. I'm betting we won't see much if any movement of current teams away from the ACC for at least 10 years. What's going on now is a bunch of rabid fans projecting opinion into a process that's a lot more cut and dry than many would like to believe.

For instance, why would the B1G not take Oregon and Washington? Why would the $EC not grab a California school? For one, they've accomplished what they needed to do. They added new schools that bring value to the new set of TV negotiations. If they loaded up now, there wouldn't be any teams to add later to renegotiate with. Why use all your leverage at once? Nope. IMO the P2 will wait, rake in cash, and let the ACC schools and the PAC/BII schools grovel for admittance down the road. This makes by far the most financial sense, and if the B1G and $EC have proven anything so far, it's that they are chasing money to enhance their programs.

 

[CEB]

There is no way in hell that the fb factory type ACC schools that have a shot at getting in the BIG or SEC are going to stand pat until 2036, making $20 mil/year while they watch those conferences payout $100 million/year, thats a slow death for any power program. I don’t know what it’s going to take to break that GOR but they are going to do it somehow And they are scrambling to do it right now.

You may be right IF:
ACC programs were making $20m / year
and
SEC / BIG Programs were making $100m / year.

You’re off by nearly a factor of two in both cases.
There is no doubt a disparity but it’s nowhere near the disparity you’re spinning.

 

[g0lftime]

The B1G TV 2023 contract was expected to be signed by now. Unless something happens really quickly to add more schools, it would seem there is no real advantage to increase the contract value unless it was ND. ND doesn't seem ready to make any commitment or change its current status. It supposedly has a contract obligation to join the ACC if it joins a conference. They would need to act pretty soon if they want to get into the TV contract with the B1G. If the ACC were to sue ND if they did agree to join the B1G, then it could really complicate the TV contract currently in negotiation and which must be fairly far along by now.
ND just doesn't fit the SEC profile and frankly they see themselves above the majority of schools in that conference.
So if ND does nothing now, it seems to bode well to remain stable within the current ACC agreement. What happens when their NBC contract is up will be interesting and may dictate what they decide to do next. So their options are
1) stay independent
2) join the ACC in FB
3) test their ACC contract and join the B1G at some point based on the NBC deal and test their ACC contract.

I have seen some speculation that the B1G might try to get a split TV network deal to have early games on one network and later games on another (Fox/NBC). That might be attractive to ND.
If the ACC stays together then ND may just do nothing and work a new NBC deal. If the ACC comes apart, then they would no longer have the ACC agreement to deal with. I only see that happening if several teams bolt to the SEC and test the GOR in court. We might be watching Clemson playing Ole Miss on the ACC network and both are in the SEC or Clemson playing FSU and both are in the SEC.

 

[bobongo]

I have a question about Notre Dame and the B1G. I've seen it said many times that Notre Dame doesn't feel it's a good fit with the B1G. I'm not doubting they feel that way, but does anyone know exactly why? The B1G is a good academic conference and ND is a good school. ND is in their footprint. So why do they think they're not a good fit with the B1G?