Conference Realignment

[CEB]

Sounds like NBC would love for ND to be in The BIG....

And if it’s all coming down like this, I’d love for what’s left of college football to sue the networks, BIG and SEC for collusion.

The irony is that only schools in the BIG or SEC have the revenue to pursue that lawsuit!

 

[bobongo]

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[Richard7125]

MSN

www.msn.com

you could say the ACC gutted the Big East when we took Miami, VT, BC and Syracuse.

 

[bobongo]

you could say the ACC gutted the Big East when we took Miami, VT, BC and Syracuse.

That occurred to me as well. So, it's been done before.

 

[RamblinRed]

The NBC thing makes alot of sense. There has been talk of ND wanting a bigger deal from NBC and NBC being up for that if it could find other football games to put around it.
If they can grab a few B10 games each week where they have 1-2 games on Saturday around the ND game and then a B10 game in Sunday before the Sunday night NFL game that would be a heck of a weekend sports lineup for NBC.

If it comes to pass I think it would hurt the B12 as they are the only other conference that could potentially be put around the ND game. If that comes off the table it likely reduces the bargaining power of the B12.

Conference realignment: Big Ten interest in additional Pac-12 teams has cooled, Big 12 positioned well

Pac-12 negotiations are about to get interesting as the Big Ten nears an announcement

www.cbssports.com

The national exposure B10 would get from having big games on Saturday and Sunday nights on a broadcast network would be big for them.

ACC is certainly the best set up of the 3 other conferences. It has a network deal with ESPN and is the only conference ESPN controls 100% of the broadcast rights, so ESPN has a strong reason to keep the ACC around - especially if they get no piece of the B10 contract. ACC should start seeing money from the Comcast deal this year - rumors have been that could add $5-6MM/yr per school -I will be very interested to see what the actual numbers end up being.

ACC certainly isn't going to get close to B10 or SEC money, but it should easily set up as the best of the rest.

The legal talk around expanding beyond 16 teams is sort of interesting.
Not surprised it doesn't seem like B10 is interested in adding more P12 teams now. Either they were going to have to overpay for them or the schools were going to have to take a smaller share than the schools already there which leads to problems holding everyone together.

I still think the next big inflection point is whatever is agreed to for CFP. That will determine what B10 and SEC do next. Whether they try to expand more or just hold where they are.

 

[CEB]

That occurred to me as well. So, it's been done before.

Maybe it’s not, but it certainly feels different now. Teams moving in and out of conferences is one thing but when each move gets a wink and a nod from a network before it happens, that’s where the line gets blurry. I have to believe the networks are very cautious with their involvement but it sure feels like the conferences are getting some level of input / guidance on the networks’ perceived values of programs.

 

[RonJohn]

Maybe it’s not, but it certainly feels different now. Teams moving in and out of conferences is one thing but when each move gets a wink and a nod from a network before it happens, that’s where the line gets blurry. I have to believe the networks are very cautious with their involvement but it sure feels like the conferences are getting some level of input / guidance on the networks’ perceived values of programs.

Almost half of the ACC's members were members of the Big East. Five were poached directly from the Big East. One joined one year after leaving the Big East when Big East football had basically ended. (because of departures to the ACC and conflict with football/non-football conference members) ND was a member in sports except for football, and left for the ACC in a similar fashion.

I don't see how the current situation is any different. Departures for the ACC are what caused the Big East to collapse. In general, I don't like how things are progressing and how it appears that we are headed for two major conferences with many left on the outside. However, you can't blame USC and UCLA for wanting an opportunity to get more exposure and more money. The left over teams in the PAC12 will not have as much, but should we require UCLA to accept less money and less exposure to ensure that Oregon State doesn't lose money and exposure? Should a business partner leave for an opportunity to make 10 times the income in his current business, or should he stay to ensure that his partner doesn't lose income? I don't think it is evil and greedy to look out for yourself first, within reason. And I don't think the conference realignment would be "collusion" because the SEC & Big10 nor ESPN & Fox are working together. They are trying to compete with each other.

 

[CEB]

Almost half of the ACC's members were members of the Big East. Five were poached directly from the Big East. One joined one year after leaving the Big East when Big East football had basically ended. (because of departures to the ACC and conflict with football/non-football conference members) ND was a member in sports except for football, and left for the ACC in a similar fashion.

I don't see how the current situation is any different. Departures for the ACC are what caused the Big East to collapse. In general, I don't like how things are progressing and how it appears that we are headed for two major conferences with many left on the outside. However, you can't blame USC and UCLA for wanting an opportunity to get more exposure and more money. The left over teams in the PAC12 will not have as much, but should we require UCLA to accept less money and less exposure to ensure that Oregon State doesn't lose money and exposure? Should a business partner leave for an opportunity to make 10 times the income in his current business, or should he stay to ensure that his partner doesn't lose income? I don't think it is evil and greedy to look out for yourself first, within reason. And I don't think the conference realignment would be "collusion" because the SEC & Big10 nor ESPN & Fox are working together. They are trying to compete with each other.

I get it... teams ought to be able to pursue their own interests. I also get that BIG is competing with SEC and ESPN is competing with FOX. That’s not the issue. The potential collusion is ESPN+SEC or Fox+BIG. The folks in the tin foil hats believe that ESPN can just pay off all of the remaining ACC teams and nullify GOR to facilitate programs’ departures. That’s collusion.
If Fox is telling BIG “hey, grab team A and will pay you X and grab team B and we’ll pay Y...” that’s collusion.
I’m sure the networks are being very careful with how actively involved they are in the process but the way it’s all going down certainly suggests that they’re driving it to an extent. That’s where it could get interesting because there are certainly going to be plenty of damaged parties

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Thanks for the info. To me it seems unlikely that TV would sign a contract to give $$$ for a long time with "access" as the sole performance requirement. Surely in the scope, contract, general conditions with certain legal statutes referenced , definitions of the terms there will have some sort of description (or implied) of the sports teams and schools effort to promote of the acc network. IMO, TV will find a reason for breaching when they time is right (new plan is in place). They will make a generous offer to the left behind teams - some $ and possibly some new network.

Separate subject
Your "reasonable access" attachment for filming made me remember something about ACC Network access at the GT CC and Hotel. Since 2014 we have stayed overnight for home games there as preferred way to go to gt football. Costs more but very GT and easy walk to food and game. When ACC network started - was on at the pizza place next door - but was not on in the room, I complained about it to the manger. Eventually, I talked to may GTAA contact, who said she would get a look into that - but she quit and went to a bigger school.

JUST CHECKED
As of today (just called ) ACC network is not available at the GT CC & Hotel but the SEC network has always been available.

Sure seems to me that the TV guys would expect the ACC network to be connected.

Looked "on line" it appears that GT CC and H is not run by GT hill or GTAA but by GT Research.

Wonder if gtaa gets a portion?

Not to get off topic but when I walk through Logan Airport I hear messages and see posters bragging that Boston is home to Harvard and MIT, and even see examples of this in some hotels I stay in. Always wished for something similar for Tech in Atlanta. Why do we still have trouble tooting our own horn in our own backyard?

 

[RonJohn]

I get it... teams ought to be able to pursue their own interests. I also get that BIG is competing with SEC and ESPN is competing with FOX. That’s not the issue. The potential collusion is ESPN+SEC or Fox+BIG. The folks in the tin foil hats believe that ESPN can just pay off all of the remaining ACC teams and nullify GOR to facilitate programs’ departures. That’s collusion.
If Fox is telling BIG “hey, grab team A and will pay you X and grab team B and we’ll pay Y...” that’s collusion.
I’m sure the networks are being very careful with how actively involved they are in the process but the way it’s all going down certainly suggests that they’re driving it to an extent. That’s where it could get interesting because there are certainly going to be plenty of damaged parties

That type of collusion isn't illegal. In fact those are normal types of actions in business. A company like Walmart might tell a cookie manufacturer that they will buy a certain amount of their cookies if they eliminate a certain ingredient that shoppers find troubling. The cookie company might decide to replace that ingredient with one that isn't publicly troubling in order to get the business with Walmart. The manufacturer of that ingredient is harmed, but they don't really have a good course of legal action in my opinion. If every time people enter into a business contract everybody else who is excluded from that business contract can sue them, we would have hundreds of millions of lawsuits per year because people feel excluded.

Same with conferences. It is all speculation at this point that Fox has been telling the Big10 what to do. In fact, the Big10 is still marketing their TV rights so Fox might not even benefit from any of the changes. However, if we assume that this has happened, how would it have occurred? :

Big10 to networks: How much value do you see in our conference's TV package?
Network: We are thinking along the lines of XXX dollars.
Big10 to networks: What if we added USC, UCLA and the LA TV market?
Network: That would add XXX to the value.

There is nothing wrong with that type of interaction. I don't think conferences would just make changes to the conference makeup without getting information ahead of time about what that will do to their media rights contracts, among many other things that would be modified by the changes.

 

[CEB]

That type of collusion isn't illegal. In fact those are normal types of actions in business. A company like Walmart might tell a cookie manufacturer that they will buy a certain amount of their cookies if they eliminate a certain ingredient that shoppers find troubling. The cookie company might decide to replace that ingredient with one that isn't publicly troubling in order to get the business with Walmart. The manufacturer of that ingredient is harmed, but they don't really have a good course of legal action in my opinion. If every time people enter into a business contract everybody else who is excluded from that business contract can sue them, we would have hundreds of millions of lawsuits per year because people feel excluded.

Same with conferences. It is all speculation at this point that Fox has been telling the Big10 what to do. In fact, the Big10 is still marketing their TV rights so Fox might not even benefit from any of the changes. However, if we assume that this has happened, how would it have occurred? :

Big10 to networks: How much value do you see in our conference's TV package?
Network: We are thinking along the lines of XXX dollars.
Big10 to networks: What if we added USC, UCLA and the LA TV market?
Network: That would add XXX to the value.

There is nothing wrong with that type of interaction. I don't think conferences would just make changes to the conference makeup without getting information ahead of time about what that will do to their media rights contracts, among many other things that would be modified by the changes.

I hear you... I think the difference is conference A getting hypothetical feedback from the network vs the network telling conference A who to pluck from conference B to increase their revenue (and consequently damaging B). It’s hard to tell exactly how much of each is going on, but if any of the second scenario is happening, it’s a problem. It may have to go to a court to figure out if it is happening, but that’s pretty much the case with everything... the appearance of impropriety plus parties damaged by potential impropriety equals lawsuit, valid or otherwise.

 

[RonJohn]

I hear you... I think the difference is conference A getting hypothetical feedback from the network vs the network telling conference A who to pluck from conference B to increase their revenue (and consequently damaging B). It’s hard to tell exactly how much of each is going on, but if any of the second scenario is happening, it’s a problem. It may have to go to a court to figure out if it is happening, but that’s pretty much the case with everything... the appearance of impropriety plus parties damaged by potential impropriety equals lawsuit, valid or otherwise.

Where I disagree with you is that I don't think the is any impropriety in negotiating a contract. People are going to be hurt with almost any business deal. I don't even see an appearance of anything improper. I am sure there will be lawsuits or at least threats of lawsuits, but I don't think there is any real ground for one. I think it will just be an attempt by those left behind to extract some money in a settlement and that the Big10 would probably pay a settlement just to make them go away.

 

[MidtownJacket]

Not to get off topic but when I walk through Logan Airport I hear messages and see posters bragging that Boston is home to Harvard and MIT, and even see examples of this in some hotels I stay in. Always wished for something similar for Tech in Atlanta. Why do we still have trouble tooting our own horn in our own backyard?

That is part of the challenge with Atlanta. People don't grow up and stay there at the same rate as other major cities like Boston. This is a QUICK example, but when I looked on the Census Website (https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?t=Native Born&g=0600000US1312190144&tid=ACSST5Y2020.S0601) 48% of respondents in the City of Atlanta footprint where born in Ga whereas 72% of Bostonians are born in Mass.

Sure, that accounts for in state not in city (but I was too lazy to dig down to that level and think it a reasonable assumption to make an inference on the same data). My point is the migratory nature of Atlanta makes it a tougher sell for this type pride in city. Think about the Boston Strong movement that came out of the bombing during the marathon - we didn't have near the same level of City Unity off the back of the bombing in Centennial Olympic Park.

The lack of roots attaching people to place shows up here in both scenarios (the pride of the city and the unification to watch out for each other after tragedy).

 

[CEB]

Where I disagree with you is that I don't think the is any impropriety in negotiating a contract. People are going to be hurt with almost any business deal. I don't even see an appearance of anything improper. I am sure there will be lawsuits or at least threats of lawsuits, but I don't think there is any real ground for one. I think it will just be an attempt by those left behind to extract some money in a settlement and that the Big10 would probably pay a settlement just to make them go away.

Of Course you are right, it will ultimately come down to someone stroking some checks, because no one will be able to stop it.
I’ve also heard that the process officially starts with the school applying to the conference, so the conferences would have deniability when it comes to the question of who initiated. And if teams are moving of their own free will, that automatically absolves the network from any wrongdoing.
However I am not convinced that the networks arent influencing moves for their own benefit. They’re smart enough and there’s enough money involved that we will never know for certain, but I believe it’s happening. I guess I am with the tinfoil hat society on the other side

 

[orientalnc]

Of Course you are right, it will ultimately come down to someone stroking some checks, because no one will be able to stop it.
I’ve also heard that the process officially starts with the school applying to the conference, so the conferences would have deniability when it comes to the question of who initiated. And if teams are moving of their own free will, that automatically absolves the network from any wrongdoing.
However I am not convinced that the networks arent influencing moves for their own benefit. They’re smart enough and there’s enough money involved that we will never know for certain, but I believe it’s happening. I guess I am with the tinfoil hat society on the other side

Does it really matter if the networks are involved? These are contacts between knowledgeable participants who are invested in their own private interests. IOW, business as usual.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

That is part of the challenge with Atlanta. People don't grow up and stay there at the same rate as other major cities like Boston. This is a QUICK example, but when I looked on the Census Website (https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?t=Native Born&g=0600000US1312190144&tid=ACSST5Y2020.S0601) 48% of respondents in the City of Atlanta footprint where born in Ga whereas 72% of Bostonians are born in Mass.

Sure, that accounts for in state not in city (but I was too lazy to dig down to that level and think it a reasonable assumption to make an inference on the same data). My point is the migratory nature of Atlanta makes it a tougher sell for this type pride in city. Think about the Boston Strong movement that came out of the bombing during the marathon - we didn't have near the same level of City Unity off the back of the bombing in Centennial Olympic Park.

The lack of roots attaching people to place shows up here in both scenarios (the pride of the city and the unification to watch out for each other after tragedy).

I think that makes sense.

On the other hand, my daughter is in academia in Boston and I am constantly struck by the fact that five of the most prestigious universities in the city have relatively few Massachusetts natives in the student body compared to the students who come from all over the country and the world. But these institutions do a good PR job and that includes promoting themselves to the local population who seem quite proud of their presence in the community.

 

[RonJohn]

However I am not convinced that the networks arent influencing moves for their own benefit. They’re smart enough and there’s enough money involved that we will never know for certain, but I believe it’s happening. I guess I am with the tinfoil hat society on the other side

I am sure the networks are influencing the process. There is nothing illegal or morally wrong with that. It happens all of the time in business. Companies try to align themselves with partners that make sense financially. They try to get partners to make modifications that help them out. They try to get third parties aligned with themselves and their partners. Nothing at all illegal with networks advising a conference that they would be more valuable with school X. Nothing at all illegal with networks talking to school X and letting them know what their value would be if they joined conference Y. At this point, with the PAC12, their contract is coming to an end. There is nothing illegal about UCLA, the Big10, and Fox discussing future contracts. There is no legal requirement that other parties to the PAC12 conference be involved or even informed that such talks are ongoing. There is nothing wrong with any of that.

 

[CEB]

Does it really matter if the networks are involved? These are contacts between knowledgeable participants who are invested in their own private interests. IOW, business as usual.

I am sure the networks are influencing the process. There is nothing illegal or morally wrong with that. It happens all of the time in business. Companies try to align themselves with partners that make sense financially. They try to get partners to make modifications that help them out. They try to get third parties aligned with themselves and their partners. Nothing at all illegal with networks advising a conference that they would be more valuable with school X. Nothing at all illegal with networks talking to school X and letting them know what their value would be if they joined conference Y. At this point, with the PAC12, their contract is coming to an end. There is nothing illegal about UCLA, the Big10, and Fox discussing future contracts. There is no legal requirement that other parties to the PAC12 conference be involved or even informed that such talks are ongoing. There is nothing wrong with any of that.

Involved in the sense that the conference is asking relative value to see if it makes financial sense is one thing.
If the networks were found to be cherry picking teams from conference A to put in conference B when they were in contract with both entities, I do think it’s a problem.
If the network has contracts with two conferences and when the time comes to renegotiate, the network facilitates (pushes, influences, colludes, whatever) the move of the most valuable valuable pieces to one conference thereby devaluing the other for purposes of negotiation (and in an extreme scenario, maybe not even negotiating for a less desirable product), that’s a problem. Is it happening here? I don’t know. It’s hard as heck to prove but it’s not hard to see.
Fox is in bed with both BIG and PAC. ESPN is in bed with SEC and ACC. Facilitating the movement of teams between conferences they’ve partnered with is a bad look, and very possibly a legal issue for them depending on how it goes down.
Now when GT ditches ESPN for Fox / BIG, that’s cool because that’s competition. Clemson, UNC and FSU to the SEC with ESPN facilitation, that’s a problem.

 

[CEB]

Put it this way... since we’re all engineer / manager / business types...
I have two projects. Each project has a group of investors. I get my fee and profit share at the end of each deal. However, I get a larger share of profit from project B than I do A. If I start piling all of my cost into project A to inflate the profit of project B (where I get a larger share) do you think the investors in project A are going to be cool with that? Project A was a lesser project anyway and may be obsolete in a couple of years and I would much rather maximize investment in project B. That’s all cool right?

 

[RonJohn]

Put it this way... since we’re all engineer / manager / business types...
I have two projects. Each project has a group of investors. I get my fee and profit share at the end of each deal. However, I get a larger share of profit from project B than I do A. If I start piling all of my cost into project A to inflate the profit of project B (where I get a larger share) do you think the investors in project A are going to be cool with that? Project A was a lesser project anyway and may be obsolete in a couple of years and I would much rather maximize investment in project B. That’s all cool right?

That analogy is far different than conference alignments. What you are describing there is fraud against one group of investors.

The contract for the Pac12 is expiring mid-year 2024. UCLA and USC are NOT breaking a contract. They have announced ahead of time that they will not renew a contract with the Pac12. There is no legal agreement among the Pac12 teams after August 1, 2024. There is no legal agreement between Fox and the Pac12 after August 1, 2024. Fox can negotiate whatever agreements they desire with whoever they desire to negotiate with. They can negotiate a sweet deal with USC, UCLA, and the current Big10 and negotiate a cut-throat deal with the remaining Pac12. They have no legal commitment to the Pac12 after August 1, 2024. The Pac12 can negotiate a contract with ESPN, NBC, or Apple and cut ties with Fox.

The Big10 contract is expiring. The Pac12 contract is expiring. Their TV contracts are expiring. All parties involved are attempting to arrange the best new contract for themselves that they can. There will be winners, and there will be losers. That is extremely normal. It is not defrauding one party for another as in your analogy.