Conference Realignment

[forensicbuzz]

This isn't saying Phillips is involved or had any clue with what went on at NU with regards to the accusations, but he was at NU until 2021. The plaintiffs' timeline is from 2018-2022...that's 4 of the 5 years Phillips was still AD there.

At the end of the day, the AD is responsible for the entirety of the athletic department. Personally, to me at least, it seems Phillips is genuinely a good person, so I doubt he would have let that go on knowingly. However, since he was AD during most of that term, there will be bullseye on him from the plaintiff's lawyers...and NU, seeing how their leadership has been cowards so far in responding to all of this, could look to shift some blame on Phillips knowing that he's now removed from the program just to absolve and shift some of the heat from themselves. Which means, whether Phillips was involved or not, he's still going to get heat from the media, lawyers, fans, and former players.

I agree with everything you say here. If he were still the AD at NU, I don't know that he'd survive for the very reasons you say (same as Fitzgerald). The guys at the top are responsible for what happens under them. However, since he's no longer there, NU may try to deflect blame towards him (which I doubt) and the lawyers may try to drag him in (which I don't think they'll be successful doing), but I don't think he'll spend much time worried about himself. The media will pursue only as long as it is newsworthy and I doubt there will be heat on him from fans and former players. That will go no higher than Fitzgerald, if even to him.

Jim is a very faithful person; he's one of the most caring and empathetic people I know. What you see in interviews is not lip service or politispeak; it's how he truly is. I can only believe he is crushed by what allegedly happened at NU and is probably soul-searching to figure out what he could have done differently to prevent this from happening. I don't think he's concerned about any legal repercussions and I don't think it's going to distract him from doing his current job.

 

[OlaJacket]

90’s ESPN was more interviews, and replays of old games. There were sports round tables every week with a bunch of reporters and anchors. Someone figured out that it was boring talk and arguing, and that they could have 90% arguing with just two people for less money and better ratings

It’s probably the iPod that killed music on MTV—you got the new songs off the internet and didn’t need TV. What the iPod didn’t kill, YouTube did

So, you are saying that iPod killed the video star? It has come full circle.

 

[UgaBlows]

if espn is willing to do this for the likes of CU, why wouldn’t they do the same for other (and better programs historically) from the PAC to go to the ACC?

 

[RonJohn]

if espn is willing to do this for the likes of CU, why wouldn’t they do the same for other (and better programs historically) from the PAC to go to the ACC?

There is a difference between "willing to" and "locked in to". Reportedly ESPN hasn't been "willing to" offer more money for broadcasting rights this year.

I don't think anyone publicly knows what the details of the ESPN-ACC contract are. I have seen it reported that the contract can be renegotiated if the circumstances of the conference change significantly. I have no idea what the contract says about one team entering the conference. I think I have seen speculation that it would take multiple teams entering the conference to trigger a re-negotiation, but I don't know for sure. I think this is probably either a bad time or the right at the end of the good times to try to negotiate with ESPN. I seriously doubt that adding four teams from the Pac12 would significantly increase the media revenue per team for the ACC. I am certain that it would not get that revenue anywhere close to the Big10 nor SEC media revenue.

 

[CEB]

There is a difference between "willing to" and "locked in to". Reportedly ESPN hasn't been "willing to" offer more money for broadcasting rights this year.

I don't think anyone publicly knows what the details of the ESPN-ACC contract are. I have seen it reported that the contract can be renegotiated if the circumstances of the conference change significantly. I have no idea what the contract says about one team entering the conference. I think I have seen speculation that it would take multiple teams entering the conference to trigger a re-negotiation, but I don't know for sure. I think this is probably either a bad time or the right at the end of the good times to try to negotiate with ESPN. I seriously doubt that adding four teams from the Pac12 would significantly increase the media revenue per team for the ACC. I am certain that it would not get that revenue anywhere close to the Big10 nor SEC media revenue.

Speculation is all we fans have!

So a question... probably hypothetical... does ESPN have exclusive broadcast rights of ACC teams? Can they exercise their right to any event (or every event)?

Part of some crazy theories being tossed around is the notion that a team could leave the conference and play just enough games on ESPN to satisfy the agreement (their home games, let’s say) and still join another conference. Put aside the ridiculous notion that such a thing is going to generate any team more money...

Anyway, my thought is similar and far less drastic. If the ACC has any ability to market games outside of the ESPN package, why not engage the PAC teams in a scheduling agreement and market that to someone other than ESPN (since ESPN is sitting on their wallet these days)? PAC schools need to get something and ACC schools could supplement the ESPN deal. No need to amend the GOR and no vote on new members to be held hostage.

Anyone know... Did we completely sell our souls for the ESPN deal?

 

[RonJohn]

Speculation is all we fans have!

So a question... probably hypothetical... does ESPN have exclusive broadcast rights of ACC teams? Can they exercise their right to any event (or every event)?

Part of some crazy theories being tossed around is the notion that a team could leave the conference and play just enough games on ESPN to satisfy the agreement (their home games, let’s say) and still join another conference. Put aside the ridiculous notion that such a thing is going to generate any team more money...

Anyway, my thought is similar and far less drastic. If the ACC has any ability to market games outside of the ESPN package, why not engage the PAC teams in a scheduling agreement and market that to someone other than ESPN (since ESPN is sitting on their wallet these days)? PAC schools need to get something and ACC schools could supplement the ESPN deal. No need to amend the GOR and no vote on new members to be held hostage.

Anyone know... Did we completely sell our souls for the ESPN deal?

The exact details of the ACC-ESPN agreement aren't public, at least I have never seen any actual evidence in the public. What is public is that ESPN purchased the broadcast rights to all of the ACC games, with the exception that Raycom had a prior contract and that is being honored. What is known is that no ACC school owns the rights to their own broadcasts. Every ACC school signed over ownership of their broadcast rights to the ACC conference. The ACC negotiated with ESPN, since the ACC is the owner of those rights.

There are all kinds of crazy theories, but almost none of them have any basis in reality. Take GT as an example. If GT were to leave the ACC and join the Big10, they would owe a large buyout to the ACC. Even after that buyout, the ACC would still own the broadcast rights to all of the GT games. Ohio State at GT would be a Big10 game, but would be broadcast under the ACC contract as part of the ACC-ESPN agreement. I'm sure it would be confusing to the viewer because it would be a Big10 game with Big10 written on the field, two Big10 teams playing, yet it would be an ACC on ESPN broadcast. The huge problem with that is that when GT joined the Big10, the Big10 TV revenue would not change, because the Big10 would not have any additional games to broadcast. (Might get more carriage money for the Big10 Network because there would be a Big10 team in Atlanta.) The Big10 would either pay GT nothing, or would have to reduce the payout to every other team in order to pay GT. I have seen people post all kinds of things, like just play only away games until 2036. That would eliminate ticket and game day revenue. It would get fans very upset, and many might not return even after 2036.

The ESPN deal gives ESPN exclusive rights to ACC managed games (with the exception of the Raycom contract). The ACC could schedule a series with the Pac12, but the ACC away games would be managed by the Pac12 TV contract. The ACC would get to broadcast home games with the Pac12, but wouldn't get any additional revenue from the away games with the Pac12. If you want the Pac12 to pay extra to have ACC teams come to play them, then the Pac12 would most likely want the ACC to pay their teams to come play the ACC. It would be a wash.

I posted earlier that there was an article this week that was more pessimistic about TV revenue for college football in the future. His assertion was that the long contract might hurt the ACC in the next few years, but could end up being beneficial to the ACC by the time the contract is finished. The ACC is in a contract with ESPN for the next 13 years. Is that good for the ACC or did the ACC "completely sell 'its' soul"? That is yet to be known.

 

[CEB]

The exact details of the ACC-ESPN agreement aren't public, at least I have never seen any actual evidence in the public. What is public is that ESPN purchased the broadcast rights to all of the ACC games, with the exception that Raycom had a prior contract and that is being honored. What is known is that no ACC school owns the rights to their own broadcasts. Every ACC school signed over ownership of their broadcast rights to the ACC conference. The ACC negotiated with ESPN, since the ACC is the owner of those rights.

There are all kinds of crazy theories, but almost none of them have any basis in reality. Take GT as an example. If GT were to leave the ACC and join the Big10, they would owe a large buyout to the ACC. Even after that buyout, the ACC would still own the broadcast rights to all of the GT games. Ohio State at GT would be a Big10 game, but would be broadcast under the ACC contract as part of the ACC-ESPN agreement. I'm sure it would be confusing to the viewer because it would be a Big10 game with Big10 written on the field, two Big10 teams playing, yet it would be an ACC on ESPN broadcast. The huge problem with that is that when GT joined the Big10, the Big10 TV revenue would not change, because the Big10 would not have any additional games to broadcast. (Might get more carriage money for the Big10 Network because there would be a Big10 team in Atlanta.) The Big10 would either pay GT nothing, or would have to reduce the payout to every other team in order to pay GT. I have seen people post all kinds of things, like just play only away games until 2036. That would eliminate ticket and game day revenue. It would get fans very upset, and many might not return even after 2036.

The ESPN deal gives ESPN exclusive rights to ACC managed games (with the exception of the Raycom contract). The ACC could schedule a series with the Pac12, but the ACC away games would be managed by the Pac12 TV contract. The ACC would get to broadcast home games with the Pac12, but wouldn't get any additional revenue from the away games with the Pac12. If you want the Pac12 to pay extra to have ACC teams come to play them, then the Pac12 would most likely want the ACC to pay their teams to come play the ACC. It would be a wash.

I posted earlier that there was an article this week that was more pessimistic about TV revenue for college football in the future. His assertion was that the long contract might hurt the ACC in the next few years, but could end up being beneficial to the ACC by the time the contract is finished. The ACC is in a contract with ESPN for the next 13 years. Is that good for the ACC or did the ACC "completely sell 'its' soul"? That is yet to be known.

Thanks for the complete reply.
I didn’t know for certain if the ACC had sold 100% of it’s rights or not. Couldn’t imagine whatever scraps were left to be worth anything. If we’re beholden to ESPN and ESPN gots no more money, then here we sit. Count our blessings to have $40m / year! PAC schools would be happy with that right now.

FWIW, I agree with the notion that the TV deals are coming back to earth and I also suspect that the huge projections for the “Power 2” never quite live up to the hype.

No more blood from this turnip...

 

[stinger 1957]

The Big10 didn't want Oregon or Washington last week. Why do you think Colorado going to the Big12 all of a sudden makes them attractive?

Thanks for answering my question, don't think I said Big 10 wanted OR and/or WA, think I asked the question. Somewhere thought I saw where Big 10 had said OR and WA had passed the qualifications or something to that nature - - I don't know if they want them though. Just watching what Big 10 seems to be interested in makes me from the get go question them wanting OR, don't see OR being a great media mkt, looks to me like Seattle Tacoma much better media mkt.

 

[Richard7125]

Thanks for answering my question, don't think I said Big 10 wanted OR and/or WA, think I asked the question. Somewhere thought I saw where Big 10 had said OR and WA had passed the qualifications or something to that nature - - I don't know if they want them though. Just watching what Big 10 seems to be interested in makes me from the get go question them wanting OR, don't see OR being a great media mkt, looks to me like Seattle Tacoma much better media mkt.

Yeah, I just picked your post to comment on. My overall point was that Colorado going to the Big12 is a big nothing burger to everyone except the Pac12. It’s not going to get the Big10 or SEC to make any moves and I certainly hope it doesn’t get the ACC to make a move.

 

[Techster]

IF IF IF there was a way out of the GOR, FSU/Miami/UNC/UVA/Clemson/and probably GT would be in another conference by now. When Maryland bolted for the B1G (and GT turned down the B1G), I think the ACC learned a valuable lesson. If members want to leave now, it's going to cost them blood and some limbs. Maryland saw the projected payout of the B1G and made a business decision that leaving the ACC was worth the 30+ million they ended up paying to leave. Keep in mind that was 10 years ago when $30 Million meant a LOT more than it does now...not that $30 million is anything to scoff at.

Since then, ACC teams signed away their "media rights" to the conference until 2036. They've basically kneecapped anyone's ability to move since that means other conferences can't capitalize on any ACC teams. A buyout is now so astronomical is would set a program back a decade, if not more.

So now all the teams in the ACC are chained to the same boat...whether good or bad, every member shares the same fate of the ACC.

 

[Roswellgoldmember]

I've frequently seen it mentioned here and elsewhere that Clemson and FSU to the SEC if they can get past the GOR either legally or when it expires. I don't see how FSU or Clemson incrementally brings in enough TV revenue to justify them being added. Both of them already have flagship SEC schools from their state, and in the case of Clemson they are a relatively small school in a small market. I know that they have some national brand appeal right now but that can be fleeting, it usually is.

If you are looking for attractive match ups and regional interest then sure, but if this is a money grab then I don't see it. Am I missing something ?

 

[cpf2001]

I think the ESPN agreement might turn out to be less bad than feared but I don’t see it ever being an advantage over other conferences.

In any world where ESPN survives throughout the deal without bankruptcy and can afford to pay the ACC contract rates I gotta think they - or someone else - would be able to afford to pay future Big 10 or SEC contracts of at least the same size.

 

[stinger 1957]

Yeah, I just picked your post to comment on. My overall point was that Colorado going to the Big12 is a big nothing burger to everyone except the Pac12. It’s not going to get the Big10 or SEC to make any moves and I certainly hope it doesn’t get the ACC to make a move.

Somewhere I did see that the Big 10 did not want to be the next conference to pick off another Pac 12 school and it left the impression that they were waiting on another conference to take the next Pac 12 school. If in fact that is the case then the Big 12 taking Colorado opens the door for the Big 10 to now move on another Pac 12 school if they so desire. Not saying they will do so, obviously just need to wait and see. IMO another school or two leaving the Pac 12 and it is done as a power 5 type conference. Appears they cannot come up with a TV deal for themselves so they're hurting badly going fwd unless that changes. Everybody in the Pac 12 conference has been waiting for the conference to come up with a TV deal and it is always just around the corner but never shows up.
It makes sense to me that the Big 10 gets some west coast schools to go with USC and UCLA, at least 2 or 3 so would not surprise me if they go after some more schools. This is why Colorado leaving could be an important trigger for more movement, actually I'm expecting it, just don't know who or when but if I'm OR, WA I would hope it was me and soon. Probably could say that last line about all the Pac 12 schools.

 

[iceeater1969]

The acc leadership

Somewhere I did see that the Big 10 did not want to be the next conference to pick off another Pac 12 school and it left the impression that they were waiting on another conference to take the next Pac 12 school. If in fact that is the case then the Big 12 taking Colorado opens the door for the Big 10 to now move on another Pac 12 school if they so desire. Not saying they will do so, obviously just need to wait and see. IMO another school or two leaving the Pac 12 and it is done as a power 5 type conference. Appears they cannot come up with a TV deal for themselves so they're hurting badly going fwd unless that changes. Everybody in the Pac 12 conference has been waiting for the conference to come up with a TV deal and it is always just around the corner but never shows up.
It makes sense to me that the Big 10 gets some west coast schools to go with USC and UCLA, at least 2 or 3 so would not surprise me if they go after some more schools. This is why Colorado leaving could be an important trigger for more movement, actually I'm expecting it, just don't know who or when but if I'm OR, WA I would hope it was me and soon. Probably could say that last line about all the Pac 12 schools.

We would be a big shot in the Combination of left over Pacific and Atlantic Conferences. Risk averse college professors are leading to ......?
After both conferences collapse the 2 commissioners can declare victory and give themselves big pay raise.

 

[airspace]

Somewhere I did see that the Big 10 did not want to be the next conference to pick off another Pac 12 school and it left the impression that they were waiting on another conference to take the next Pac 12 school. If in fact that is the case then the Big 12 taking Colorado opens the door for the Big 10 to now move on another Pac 12 school if they so desire. Not saying they will do so, obviously just need to wait and see. IMO another school or two leaving the Pac 12 and it is done as a power 5 type conference. Appears they cannot come up with a TV deal for themselves so they're hurting badly going fwd unless that changes. Everybody in the Pac 12 conference has been waiting for the conference to come up with a TV deal and it is always just around the corner but never shows up.
It makes sense to me that the Big 10 gets some west coast schools to go with USC and UCLA, at least 2 or 3 so would not surprise me if they go after some more schools. This is why Colorado leaving could be an important trigger for more movement, actually I'm expecting it, just don't know who or when but if I'm OR, WA I would hope it was me and soon. Probably could say that last line about all the Pac 12 schools.

Stinger, being an OSU alum and having followed the Big 10 for over 50 years. Here is what I see.

Delaney, Warren and even the current Commissioner have said that the Big 10 ALWAYS is looking at expansion and expansion possibilities. At the introduction of the new commissioner, the President of Illinois said that expansion was not off the table BUT a pause to integrate USC and UCLA into the Big 10. They have said many times that they do not want to leave USC and UCLA on an island. But want to work out the logistics of a west coast pod/group (USC/UCLA are part of that experiment).

It has been reported many times what schools the Big 10 has vetted (believe GT is in this camp and has been favorable). Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford have all been vetted. Just a matter of the pecking order and what each school brings (and how do you fund it without the rest of the Big 10 having reduced payouts).

Currently, from various sources, the various networks are tapped out on funds. How much more can they get and what windows may be available. It has been reported, that Fox wants to add Washington and Oregon to the Big 10, but again an issue of funds is brought up (supposedly there is an escalation clause in the new contract if there is expansion). Can they squeeze out more money from CBS & NBC? The Big 10 Presidents (reported) are split on expansion. And the Big 10 is big on consensus.

And as reported, any new members might come in at a discount. In the past it was less than what current Big 10 members were earning BUT more than what they were receiving in their old conference, until the next contract.

With the current situation in the PAC (death of), it might open up expansion. The Big 10 does not want to be responsible for the death of the PAC but may want to come in and pickup some pieces . The next several weeks should be interesting how this plays out.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[forensicbuzz]

So, you are saying that iPod killed the video star? It has come full circle.

How many on here do you think actually saw The Buggles in the very first MTV video. I’d say 50-65 year olds probably are the only age demographic that would have been paying attention.

Back then, most did not have cable TV. Rabbit ears and UHF. In Bremen we picked up TBS on UHF, but had to have cable when we moved to Connecticut.

My first iPod was an iPod 2. Napster was my good friend.

 

[1979jacket]

I agree with everything you say here. If he were still the AD at NU, I don't know that he'd survive for the very reasons you say (same as Fitzgerald). The guys at the top are responsible for what happens under them. However, since he's no longer there, NU may try to deflect blame towards him (which I doubt) and the lawyers may try to drag him in (which I don't think they'll be successful doing), but I don't think he'll spend much time worried about himself. The media will pursue only as long as it is newsworthy and I doubt there will be heat on him from fans and former players. That will go no higher than Fitzgerald, if even to him.

Jim is a very faithful person; he's one of the most caring and empathetic people I know. What you see in interviews is not lip service or politispeak; it's how he truly is. I can only believe he is crushed by what allegedly happened at NU and is probably soul-searching to figure out what he could have done differently to prevent this from happening. I don't think he's concerned about any legal repercussions and I don't think it's going to distract him from doing his current job.

Bad things can certainly happen outside of your view but within your perview. So I trust your judgment on him.

However, I am concerned about two things 1) He obviously supported Fitzgerald and the players say Fitzgerald knew about it. If that is true, he didn't do a great job reading the personality of his coach. 2) Can he still be an effective negotiator with other conference heads given the NU accusations? Right now is not a good time to have a comprised leader. The ACC cannot just stand still and let the Big12 get a substantially bigger TV contract then them by adding PAC10 teams. Maybe that doesn't happen, but it better not or we need a new leader.

 

[Buzzter]

How many on here do you think actually saw The Buggles in the very first MTV video. I’d say 50-65 year olds probably are the only age demographic that would have been paying attention.

Back then, most did not have cable TV. Rabbit ears and UHF. In Bremen we picked up TBS on UHF, but had to have cable when we moved to Connecticut.

My first iPod was an iPod 2. Napster was my good friend.

I actually watched it. My then girlfriend/future wife/future ex-wife and I planned our evening around it.

How many on here do you think actually saw The Buggles in the very first MTV video. I’d say 50-65 year olds probably are the only age demographic that would have been paying attention.

Back then, most did not have cable TV. Rabbit ears and UHF. In Bremen we picked up TBS on UHF, but had to have cable when we moved to Connecticut.

My first iPod was an iPod 2. Napster was my good friend.

I actually watched it live. My then girlfriend, now ex-wife, and I planned our evening around it. Invited the neighbors, some invited themselves. Had a blast. The Buggles were followed by Pat Benetar with "You Better Run", which was first recorded by the Young Rascals in the mid-60's. Then there was something by Rod Stewart and The Who. The Pretenders were in there somewhere as well. Memories.

 

[Root4GT]

The ACC should snag up Washington, Oregon, Cal and Stanford

High on the list of really bad ideas for the ACC

 

[iceeater1969]

Bad things can certainly happen outside of your view but within your perview. So I trust your judgment on him.

However, I am concerned about two things 1) He obviously supported Fitzgerald and the players say Fitzgerald knew about it. If that is true, he didn't do a great job reading the personality of his coach. 2) Can he still be an effective negotiator with other conference heads given the NU accusations? Right now is not a good time to have a comprised leader. The ACC cannot just stand still and let the Big12 get a substantially bigger TV contract then them by adding PAC10 teams. Maybe that doesn't happen, but it better not or we need a new leader.

When our former prez was prez of the board of NCAA govonors (COLLEGE PREZ) , """he did nothing""" about paying the players as employees He left it to the lawyers.
He did not adjust the number of scholarships by university be final season standing.
Now college sports is wholly dependent on tv money and schools ljke Colorado are scrambling.

The COLLEGE EXPIERENCED acc commissioner thinks that the tv BUSINESS people who are pressed for money ( read disney, espn, etc) will jonor our GOR 12 more years.

For 5 years we better double down on donations, game environment for tv presentation, and KEY better make us us look good on field or we are headed to G5.
The acc is not going to help gt