Conference Realignment

[cpf2001]

Southern Section reaches six-year media deal with NFHS Network

The Southern Section and NFHS Network reach a six-year agreement to have games televised by Bally Sports SoCal.

www.latimes.com

Los Angeles, but this struck me as tangentially interesting for a couple reasons:

* there’s a SoCal HSFB package on Bally but ALSO a streaming package for high school with more games for $12/mo or $80/year - much higher than I would’ve guessed for high school. Wonder what the price point would be for college. $200?

* “The NFHS Network has been helping schools install Pixellot unmanned cameras in gymnasiums and on fields to support game broadcasts.” - this is a fun technology tidbit, does GT or other colleges do anything like that for non-revenue sports?

 

[stinger 1957]

Have Fsu and Clemson even been vetted by the BIG?

https://www.si.com/college/ohiostate/news/ohio-state-buckeyes-big-ten-expansion-acc-pac-12-programs-dissovlement

According to something I recently read they have not been vetted. From what I see the BIG wanting in their conference there is very little about FSU and Clemson that would indicate that the BIG would approve them, I see some saying that is changing but I question that, at least at this time. Frankly I question whether FSU or Clemson have anything that interest either the SEC or BIG. Both conferences appear to be looking for new money which would be new territory IMO and it may be why they're both threatening to leave. Going fwd it appears to me you better bring $ to the table and I agree with some on here that say GT needs to get it's FB going on a winning, competitive basis so that they have eyes following them, then the ATL/GT becomes attractive to the BIG. All IMO of course.

 

[RonJohn]

Southern Section reaches six-year media deal with NFHS Network

The Southern Section and NFHS Network reach a six-year agreement to have games televised by Bally Sports SoCal.

www.latimes.com

Los Angeles, but this struck me as tangentially interesting for a couple reasons:

* there’s a SoCal HSFB package on Bally but ALSO a streaming package for high school with more games for $12/mo or $80/year - much higher than I would’ve guessed for high school. Wonder what the price point would be for college. $200?

* “The NFHS Network has been helping schools install Pixellot unmanned cameras in gymnasiums and on fields to support game broadcasts.” - this is a fun technology tidbit, does GT or other colleges do anything like that for non-revenue sports?

I have subscribed to that to watch some games from my local high school before. Some very big differences between this and what would be available for college games:

• NFHS Network has games from all around the country included in the $12 per month, not just one conference/state/region.
• The games are broadcast with equipment and broadband supplied by the schools. Some have just the video feed. Some have a game clock. Some have full production quality graphics: time/score/down-distance/etc. It all depends on what the school's media group can/will provide.
• The $12 per month subscription rate probably doesn't allow for much to be paid out to each individual school. It is likely more or a convenience to the fans of the school when people can't attend or to watch away games that are far away than a money making tool.

When I have watched, I signed up for one month for certain games that I couldn't attend for one reason or another. I did not continue the subscription more than one month at a time. I would assume that many people do that, so it isn't a huge profit building network.

The money involved for college athletics would likely be set up not as a convenience for fans, but as a profit center for a broadcast company (NFHS is the national association of high school sports, not a for-profit broadcaster) and for the schools. High schools are more likely to simply appease parents who have issues attending and entice players by having their games broadcast. Colleges teams aren't as likely to do things for little return.

College games would need full broadcast production quality cameras, production equipment, and transmission equipment. I believe that all of the ACC schools were required to install a broadcast media center and have broadcast quality equipment as part of the ACCN deal. If I remember correctly, GT spend something around $10 million to build the center and acquire the equipment. As such, I believe things like baseball/softball/volleyball games are being broadcast by GT with GT owned equipment. So, in effect GT is currently already doing something similar, but it is with the ACCN linear channel and the ACCNX streams on ESPN.

 

[ThatGuy]

For those who didn't click through, the article is worth a read.

In particular, 2 things:

1 - the pro rata clause with ESPN only covers ESPN - not the ACC Network.

Each additional expansion share is believed to be about $20 million to $25 million — roughly 70% of the full share that current members receive.

2 - It posits that Stanford could potentially afford, like SMU, to forego revenue distributions for some time period. Cal couldn't, which would mean it would need to be cut in for at least a partial share. So it proposes the conference might see $60MM in new revenue.

So what happens then? That's the sticking point. The idea is that some will be distributed to conference members to offset travel costs. But for the rest? You guessed it. Clemson and FSU are demanding they get higher shares than the rest of the conference.

It also paints the picture that we're dealing with days, not weeks, here. Worth a read.

Political football: ACC expansion candidates using powerful allies to try to get in the door - Yahoo Sports

Will the lobbying efforts of powerful political figures change minds and alter the votes of dissenting ACC members?

sports.yahoo.com

 

[rfjeff9]

According to something I recently read they have not been vetted. From what I see the BIG wanting in their conference there is very little about FSU and Clemson that would indicate that the BIG would approve them, I see some saying that is changing but I question that, at least at this time. Frankly I question whether FSU or Clemson have anything that interest either the SEC or BIG. Both conferences appear to be looking for new money which would be new territory IMO and it may be why they're both threatening to leave. Going fwd it appears to me you better bring $ to the table and I agree with some on here that say GT needs to get it's FB going on a winning, competitive basis so that they have eyes following them, then the ATL/GT becomes attractive to the BIG. All IMO of course.

I have argued this for some time on another board, mainly with a UGAg fan. His take is neither SEC or B1G is going to add any team that doesn’t add to the collective take for all conference teams. Which went out the window just now with the PAC team additions to B1G. In addition, he maintains that due to streaming, markets do not mean as much now than 10 years ago. He is right to a degree, but he is looking at from a SEC $$$ perspective and assumes the B1G is thinking the same way, but he doesn’t understand what B1G is looking to do.

I think it is still significant when regular B1G fans living in Atlanta start attending games and watching on TV. Atlanta is too big and growing rapidly for the market to be a non factor. I argue that markets specifically Atlanta coupled with recruiting areas are still relevant In the long run as well. So B1G adding GT and Miami are not just possible, but also likely in the future. Coupled with world class academics and AAU along with Hartfield Intl Airport right there next to us, I think it is just a matter of time before we make the move ((decade).

I am ambivalent on it. I have no interest in playing Rutgers or Wisconsin, but I would love to see us shove foot in a** against the Terps. And follow up the next few weeks against UVA UNC, Miami. But we still need Ohio State and Penn a state to visit. That will draw some eyes.

it all hinges on Brent Key and what attraction football wise he can garner in the next decade. We need everyone to be talking about how adding GT would be good for B1G football, nit FSU or Clemson.

 

[rfjeff9]

Who else here hopes, this year more than any other, that FSU has a losing season?

 

[Vespidae]

For those who didn't click through, the article is worth a read.

In particular, 2 things:

1 - the pro rata clause with ESPN only covers ESPN - not the ACC Network.



2 - It posits that Stanford could potentially afford, like SMU, to forego revenue distributions for some time period. Cal couldn't, which would mean it would need to be cut in for at least a partial share. So it proposes the conference might see $60MM in new revenue.

So what happens then? That's the sticking point. The idea is that some will be distributed to conference members to offset travel costs. But for the rest? You guessed it. Clemson and FSU are demanding they get higher shares than the rest of the conference.

It also paints the picture that we're dealing with days, not weeks, here. Worth a read.

Political football: ACC expansion candidates using powerful allies to try to get in the door - Yahoo Sports

Will the lobbying efforts of powerful political figures change minds and alter the votes of dissenting ACC members?

sports.yahoo.com

Clemson and FSU remind me of Animal Farm: All animals are equal only some animals are more equal than others.

If they are so adamant that they be paid based on on-field performance, Tech should insist that GT be paid on academic progress.

 

[RonJohn]

Clemson and FSU remind me of Animal Farm: All animals are equal only some animals are more equal than others.

If they are so adamant that they be paid based on on-field performance, Tech should insist that GT be paid on academic progress.

From what I have seen, they are not arguing to be paid based on on-field performance. They are demanding to be paid based on "value" by a formula that they dictate. I haven't seen any actual formula, but they have talked about TV viewership and total athletic spending. When I have seen people try to use such arbitrarily drawn up "measurements" before, they usually try to set up the formula to ensure they are on top. Then if other people start passing them on that formula, they make arguments that it isn't an accurate measurement of "value" and should be modified. (always in such a way as to make them on top again.) If the formula was as simple as on-field performance, then the FSU fans would go nuts when they have another 5-7 season and get the bottom half of the distributions. What they are shooting for is for FSU to get the largest distribution of ACC money, no matter how that is calculated. They don't really care what the calculation is, nor what it takes into consideration, as long as they get the largest piece.

 

[Vespidae]

From what I have seen, they are not arguing to be paid based on on-field performance. They are demanding to be paid based on "value" by a formula that they dictate. I haven't seen any actual formula, but they have talked about TV viewership and total athletic spending. When I have seen people try to use such arbitrarily drawn up "measurements" before, they usually try to set up the formula to ensure they are on top. Then if other people start passing them on that formula, they make arguments that it isn't an accurate measurement of "value" and should be modified. (always in such a way as to make them on top again.) If the formula was as simple as on-field performance, then the FSU fans would go nuts when they have another 5-7 season and get the bottom half of the distributions. What they are shooting for is for FSU to get the largest distribution of ACC money, no matter how that is calculated. They don't really care what the calculation is, nor what it takes into consideration, as long as they get the largest piece.

I agree. What’s interesting about FSU is that “viewership” is dependent upon “distribution“ and it is conference that owns the distribution equally.

 

[Techster]

Clemson and FSU remind me of Animal Farm: All animals are equal only some animals are more equal than others.

If they are so adamant that they be paid based on on-field performance, Tech should insist that GT be paid on academic progress.

I've argued that GT should demand to be paid in proportion to the carriage fees the Atlanta market gets the ACC. I'm pretty sure GT will win that argument.

 

[nod]

Who else here hopes, this year more than any other, that FSU has a losing season?

I’m opposite, ACC needs to establish some other big time football programs at level of Clemson.
FSU, Miami, Va Tech, UNC, Georgia Tech, NC St, Pitt, etc all having solid year would be awesome got Tech and ACC. If those teams can go out and compete for top 10 , top 25 ACC is laughing as the other conference teams are traveling the world

 

[gtjackets930]

For those who didn't click through, the article is worth a read.

In particular, 2 things:

1 - the pro rata clause with ESPN only covers ESPN - not the ACC Network.



2 - It posits that Stanford could potentially afford, like SMU, to forego revenue distributions for some time period. Cal couldn't, which would mean it would need to be cut in for at least a partial share. So it proposes the conference might see $60MM in new revenue.

So what happens then? That's the sticking point. The idea is that some will be distributed to conference members to offset travel costs. But for the rest? You guessed it. Clemson and FSU are demanding they get higher shares than the rest of the conference.

It also paints the picture that we're dealing with days, not weeks, here. Worth a read.

Political football: ACC expansion candidates using powerful allies to try to get in the door - Yahoo Sports

Will the lobbying efforts of powerful political figures change minds and alter the votes of dissenting ACC members?

sports.yahoo.com

This will never happen, but you could theoretically threaten to add a bunch of low value schools to force the ACC's hand into a higher percentage school payout.

In a real-world scenario, I do think the ACC should be looking to expand. I don't think schools like Cal and Stanford add huge gains now, but provide stability down the line.

The real power move would be to add Stanford, Cal, WVU, and Cincinnati to get West Coast academics and the old Big East rivalries back together and incentivize schools like Louisville and Pitt to stick around.

I fear waiting around will crush the conference's stability when FSU and Clemson head out the door.

Edit: I would stipulate that the ACC will take Stanford and Cal only if ND commits to add another ACC game to the slate each year. Increases their investment and gives the ACC another big game that gets eyeballs.

 

[RamblinRed]

For those who didn't click through, the article is worth a read.

In particular, 2 things:

1 - the pro rata clause with ESPN only covers ESPN - not the ACC Network.



2 - It posits that Stanford could potentially afford, like SMU, to forego revenue distributions for some time period. Cal couldn't, which would mean it would need to be cut in for at least a partial share. So it proposes the conference might see $60MM in new revenue.

So what happens then? That's the sticking point. The idea is that some will be distributed to conference members to offset travel costs. But for the rest? You guessed it. Clemson and FSU are demanding they get higher shares than the rest of the conference.

It also paints the picture that we're dealing with days, not weeks, here. Worth a read.

Political football: ACC expansion candidates using powerful allies to try to get in the door - Yahoo Sports

Will the lobbying efforts of powerful political figures change minds and alter the votes of dissenting ACC members?

sports.yahoo.com

That is sort of sloppy writing (the article, not you).
The ACC Network is not included because that is handled separately - just like the SEC network.
ACC gets a % of profits from the ACC network. Adding teams outside the current footprint would increase the money ESPN received for the network meaning there would be more money for the schools from it. How much more I have no idea.

The other piece of poor writing (primarily in that it is making a negative assumption outside of the actual contract) is this
"An important note: All of this is contingent on ESPN increasing its payout to the ACC for expansion members. While that is a contractual obligation (as mentioned), it’s unclear exactly how willing the network is. After all, ESPN has been selective lately given the dip in linear subscribers and influx in streaming."

ESPN doesn't actually have a choice in the matter (like they didn't for the B12 either when it took the 4 PAC teams), its in the contract. They are obligated to pay it whether they would like to or not.

I expect ESPN actually would not be upset if ACC added the CA schools as it would give ESPN some programming for its late night slot.

It also sounds like the straw vote failed largely because a handful of schools wanted to try to force a different revenue model that would pay them more and a 4th school that is trying to tie itself to one of those schools for future potential movement purposes.

 

[RonJohn]

I agree. What’s interesting about FSU is that “viewership” is dependent upon “distribution“ and it is conference that owns the distribution equally.

One other thing to go along with this. FSU is basically saying that the ACC does not provide enough revenue and they are leaving as soon as possible. Then they say that they want the rest of the ACC to take sacrifices to give FSU equivalent revenue to be on par with the two big conferences. --- I am leaving as soon as I can. In the mean time, you need to live on as little as possible and give me everything that you can. --- To that the rest of the conference should tell them to F off.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Ross Dellinger reports that George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice are calling ACC administrators pressing for SMU and Stanford's admission to ACC.

Like I mentioned earlier, I bet there will be back door negotiations to get them in.

 

[g0lftime]

Bring Stanford and Cal into the ACC, then schedule FSU to play them both on the west coast about a month apart. FSU needs a reality check and if they leave the ACC, good riddance. No favors for those jerks. They are gone the first chance they get.

 

[UgaBlows]

Who else here hopes, this year more than any other, that FSU has a losing season?

Literally everyone in college football except Noles fans

 

[UgaBlows]

Bring Stanford and Cal into the ACC, then schedule FSU to play them both on the west coast about a month apart. FSU needs a reality check and if they leave the ACC, good riddance. No favors for those jerks. They are gone the first chance they get.

Make them FSU’s permanent rivals

 

[MidtownJacket]

Bring Stanford and Cal into the ACC, then schedule FSU to play them both on the west coast about a month apart. FSU needs a reality check and if they leave the ACC, good riddance. No favors for those jerks. They are gone the first chance they get.

That back to back trip would be brutal.

 

[UgaBlows]

I have argued this for some time on another board, mainly with a UGAg fan. His take is neither SEC or B1G is going to add any team that doesn’t add to the collective take for all conference teams. Which went out the window just now with the PAC team additions to B1G. In addition, he maintains that due to streaming, markets do not mean as much now than 10 years ago. He is right to a degree, but he is looking at from a SEC $$$ perspective and assumes the B1G is thinking the same way, but he doesn’t understand what B1G is looking to do.

I think it is still significant when regular B1G fans living in Atlanta start attending games and watching on TV. Atlanta is too big and growing rapidly for the market to be a non factor. I argue that markets specifically Atlanta coupled with recruiting areas are still relevant In the long run as well. So B1G adding GT and Miami are not just possible, but also likely in the future. Coupled with world class academics and AAU along with Hartfield Intl Airport right there next to us, I think it is just a matter of time before we make the move ((decade).

I am ambivalent on it. I have no interest in playing Rutgers or Wisconsin, but I would love to see us shove foot in a** against the Terps. And follow up the next few weeks against UVA UNC, Miami. But we still need Ohio State and Penn a state to visit. That will draw some eyes.

it all hinges on Brent Key and what attraction football wise he can garner in the next decade. We need everyone to be talking about how adding GT would be good for B1G football, nit FSU or Clemson.

Carriage fees are still a thing, and large markets like Atlanta and Miami are still a big deal.