Conference Realignment

[orientalnc]

The 2013 GOR that is publicly available says absolutely nothing about the distribution of revenue. It only says that the ACC owns the broadcast/media/copyright of all of each schools sports. Changing the revenue distribution wouldn't affect the GOR.

You are correct. I should have said membership agreement.

 

[Jerry the Jacket]

I guess basketball really does not move the needle. Too bad or the old ACC would be the revenue King!

 

[roadkill]

The exit fee was created after MD left.
I don't remember the exact calculation but it is something like a 3x ACC's operating expenses or something similar. So it goes up over time. It started at around $50M and is now estimated at $120M.
The exit fee was approved in a 10-2 vote back when MD left (I believe you need a 75% threshhold).

That is of course separate from the GoR, which no one has found a legal way around yet.

Conferences with an uneven revenue model have a poor history of holding together.

I think there are alot of anxious ACC schools right now but I don't really expect much movement for awhile because the timing doesn't work with the SEC and B10. I'm not expecting much movement until the B10's contracts are up at the end of the decade.

Neither the SEC or B10 is going to have interest in bringing in a school until legal issues are worked out and until they understand what value the school brings to the conference. If a school can't get out of the GoR then they are not going to be picked by any conference as it becomes a money losing proposition for them.

Well said. Also, I think the GOR, while distinct from the exit fee, was also created around the time of Maryland’s leaving, and for similar reasons. So they sort of reinforce each other. FSU was then the ACC’s premier football program and a frequent national title contender. I recall at the time, there was a great deal of concern over FSU leaving as Maryland did. Not sure what arms were twisted to get FSU to agree to the GOR but looks like they are regretting it now.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Well said. Also, I think the GOR, while distinct from the exit fee, was also created around the time of Maryland’s leaving, and for similar reasons. So they sort of reinforce each other. FSU was then the ACC’s premier football program and a frequent national title contender. I recall at the time, there was a great deal of concern over FSU leaving as Maryland did. Not sure what arms were twisted to get FSU to agree to the GOR but looks like they are regretting it now.

My memory too. Keeping FSU and Miami in the fold was job one at one time. Now the ACC has Clemson to worry about too.

 

[TooTall]

But what can these teams do aside yell at clouds? Are we going to take less? Is BC or Wake? The incentive for the unbalanced funding is not there. Would a year to year performance pay distribution be attractive? It would until F$U, dur U or clempson finish outside the top 5 or 6 teams and a team like Wake wins the conference....

 

[Techster]

But what can these teams do aside yell at clouds? Are we going to take less? Is BC or Wake? The incentive for the unbalanced funding is not there. Would a year to year performance pay distribution be attractive? It would until F$U, dur U or clempson finish outside the top 5 or 6 teams and a team like Wake wins the conference....

FSU literally had one good season for the first time in a LONG time, and all of sudden they want to throw their weight around again.

ACC, since there's a GOR, needs to say: "Or what?!"

Miami hasn't had a good season in quite a while and they're trying to ask for more money. I would just laugh every time someone from Miami opens their mouth.

GT needs to say "If all these guys want uneven distribution, GT needs to receive a cut from all media money attributable to the Atlanta market."

 

[CEB]

But what can these teams do aside yell at clouds? Are we going to take less? Is BC or Wake? The incentive for the unbalanced funding is not there. Would a year to year performance pay distribution be attractive? It would until F$U, dur U or clempson finish outside the top 5 or 6 teams and a team like Wake wins the conference....

This is where my head is too. Why would any team willingly give up revenue to programs whose stated goal is to leave them high and dry at the first opportunity? The GOR assures them that no one can leave so why give up revenue? An act of goodwill to hold together conference members that don’t want to be held together but are already tied against their will?
Similarly, If GOR has to go away, some teams with no prospect of a home elsewhere are going to have to vote against their own interest. In order for them to do that, they will need to be compensated and assured they remain undamaged.
Even if all of those hurdles are somehow cleared, I still haven’t seen a compelling reason for ESPN to go along. Moreover, I haven’t seen a compelling reason why ESPN wouldn’t pursue damages if ACC members unilaterally default.
I feel like this is all a lot of fact finding disguised as posturing and the results of it all won’t be clear for another 8-9 years when a realistic value can actually be determined by all parties.

 

[Oakland]

GT needs to say "If all these guys want uneven distribution, GT needs to receive a cut from all media money attributable to the Atlanta market."

Good point.

 

[TooTall]

This is where my head is too. Why would any team willingly give up revenue to programs whose stated goal is to leave them high and dry at the first opportunity? The GOR assures them that no one can leave so why give up revenue? An act of goodwill to hold together conference members that don’t want to be held together but are already tied against their will?
Similarly, If GOR has to go away, some teams with no prospect of a home elsewhere are going to have to vote against their own interest. In order for them to do that, they will need to be compensated and assured they remain undamaged.
Even if all of those hurdles are somehow cleared, I still haven’t seen a compelling reason for ESPN to go along. Moreover, I haven’t seen a compelling reason why ESPN wouldn’t pursue damages if ACC members unilaterally default.
I feel like this is all a lot of fact finding disguised as posturing and the results of it all won’t be clear for another 8-9 years when a realistic value can actually be determined by all parties.

Agreed. I truly feel the only way to get more media $$ is to add ND full time and several other teams like the Big 12 has done. Reworking the media deal is only a band-aid though. When the GOR is up, so is the ACC's time.

 

[stinger 1957]

The GOR is death, no way the ACC is relevant when the GOR is finished and that is really what this is all about. I don't think the original four ever thought that the other schools were ever going for unequal revenue sharing. I believe the ACC will no longer be in 5 years or less.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

The biggest problem with unequal revenue distribution is it does next to nothing to help FSU, Clemson, or Miami even the playing field. It would give those schools an extra 4-6 million dollars per annum when they are already about 18-20 million behind schools from the B1G and SEC. All it will do is generate ill will amongst current membership for no solution of note.

 

[UgaBlows]

What would it take to institute uneven revenue sharing in the ACC? A majority vote from Conf members? That‘s never going to happen unless it would also in a roundabout initiate the end of the GOR.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

With the recent CDI drive last year, GTAA got matching donation funds from the GT Foundation. I'm pretty sure that's never happened before and only happened because of Cabrera.

I have to believe that Cabrera and JBatt have already made back channel communications to both the SEC and B1G before this week. That said I don't expect anything to happen for years.

To my point, GT should be funneling money from everywhere to prop the GTAA. Once we get athletics rolling the money will easily be replaced as we’ve seen at every school who wins. It ain’t that hard. Just change some rules so the Pres has the ability to move funds around. But we don’t and then our fans cry poverty when we are actually one of t(e richest s hooks in the southeast.

 

[Vespidae]

To my point, GT should be funneling money from everywhere to prop the GTAA. Once we get athletics rolling the money will easily be replaced as we’ve seen at every school who wins. It ain’t that hard. Just change some rules so the Pres has the ability to move funds around. But we don’t and then our fans cry poverty when we are actually one of t(e richest s hooks in the southeast.

Correct me if I‘m wrong, but aren’t those “rules“ in fact, state law?

 

[slugboy]

Correct me if I‘m wrong, but aren’t those “rules“ in fact, state law?

They are.

And even if that wasn’t the case, you can’t funnel a DoD research grant into sports.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Correct me if I‘m wrong, but aren’t those “rules“ in fact, state law?

Then give it to us. Show me the law that says GT can’t support their athletic association. You guys will do anything to keep your 60 years worth of excuses going. There are no more excuses. You either do what it takes to win or get relegated. GT hid behind “calculus” for decades and our fans bought in to that excuse and even wore it as a badge of honor as our program dwindled. Now we hide behind the “money” excuse. Give me a break. Bottom line is GT does not care enough about athletics to.do what it takes. And they wonder why our stadium is a 3rd full and red every other November.

 

[New Old Guy]

Then give it to us. Show me the law that says GT can’t support their athletic association. You guys will do anything to keep your 60 years worth of excuses going. There are no more excuses. You either do what it takes to win or get relegated. GT hid behind “calculus” for decades and our fans bought in to that excuse and even wore it as a badge of honor as our program dwindled. Now we hide behind the “money” excuse. Give me a break. Bottom line is GT does not care enough about athletics to.do what it takes. And they wonder why our stadium is a 3rd full and red every other November.

Back on “ignore”. I tried.

 

[iceeater1969]

V is right there are laws.

You are right in that .
our new president can follow law while doing way more to help for gtaa.

Being around tenured engineering professors is not the best environment for creative thinking.

IN THE NEW PREZ WE HOPE.

 

[Lil G]

Back on “ignore”. I tried.

You have to admit it’s slightly funny.
But yeah pls nobody even entertain it

 

[bobongo]

Then give it to us. Show me the law that says GT can’t support their athletic association. You guys will do anything to keep your 60 years worth of excuses going. There are no more excuses. You either do what it takes to win or get relegated. GT hid behind “calculus” for decades and our fans bought in to that excuse and even wore it as a badge of honor as our program dwindled. Now we hide behind the “money” excuse. Give me a break. Bottom line is GT does not care enough about athletics to.do what it takes. And they wonder why our stadium is a 3rd full and red every other November.

It's complicated. The legislature has empowered the BOR to set policy. Here is their policy, which does seem to allow for some very limited support, as far as I can glean:​

From the Board of Regents Policy Manual:​

Board of Regents Policy Manual | Overview | University System of Georgia

www.usg.edu

​

4.5.8 Funding of Intercollegiate Athletic Programs​

For the purpose of this policy, the USG has adopted the definitions of revenues and expenses provided by the NCAA for the Financial Reporting System as outlined below and to be further defined in the USG Business Procedures Manual. The NCAA Financial Reporting System aims to capture all revenues and expenses on behalf of an institution’s intercollegiate athletics program, including those by outside entities (e.g. foundations, booster clubs) and institutions similarly shall include all intercollegiate athletics revenue and expense to include entities operating on behalf of the institution’s athletics program.

As used in this Policy, “Athletics Operating Revenue” is the total revenue generated by the institution’s intercollegiate athletics program. “Direct Institutional Support” is the direct financial support provided by the institution to the athletics programs (e.g., tuition funds) used to support intercollegiate athletic activities. “Subsidy” is the sum of direct institutional support and student fees and does not include the value of out-of-state tuition waivers. “Subsidy Percentage” is the subsidy divided by athletics operating revenue as defined in the USG Business Procedures Manual. “Athletics Operating Expense” is the total expense spent by the institution’s intercollegiate athletics program. Athletics Operating Revenue, Direct Institutional Support, Subsidy, Subsidy Percentage, and Athletic Operating Expense shall be further defined in the USG Business Procedures Manual.

Institutions may expend Education & General fund resources on behalf of the institution’s intercollegiate athletics program except as noted: Institutions must not expend Fund 10000 state appropriations on athletics and must not expend Education & General fund resources in support of athletic scholarships.

A. A form will be provided to ensure a standardized reporting format for each institution to annually report its intercollegiate athletics revenues and expenses in accordance with Section 4.5.6.1.

B. The subsidy percentage shall not exceed:

• 10% for NCAA DI-A institutions affiliated with the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 or SEC; often referred to as the Power 5;
• 65%: NCAA DI-A institutions affiliated with other conferences;
• 75% for NCAA Division I-AA institutions;
• 80% for NCAA Division II institutions;
• 85% for NAIA and NJCAA institutions.

C. Except for the Power 5 institutions, total athletic operating expenses may not increase by more than 5% annually unless approved in advance by the Chancellor.

D. Effective July 1, 2016, each institution exceeding the allowable subsidy percentage in the prior fiscal year shall submit to the Chancellor a plan for approval that reduces the subsidy over a fiscal year period, not to exceed four years, until the subsidy percentage complies with the requirements of subsection B. Failure to be in compliance in four years shall, at the discretion of the Chancellor, result in athletics programming mandates from the Chancellor including but not limited to reduction or change in sport offerings, change in conference affiliation, and change in governing body or division membership. Any institutions below these caps will have one year to get back in compliance.