Conference Realignment

[WreckinGT]

That is an interpretation of what the "nine-year option" is, it isn't the text from the contract that explains in detail what it is. It could simply be a misinterpretation. There are no contract wording details, so there are only "hints" about what FSU wants to "hint" about.

Also, there are multiple ways of reading the last quote you put in there. "unilateral option to extend --- with its already out-of-market rates". If they are stating the contract exactly correct, does that mean that they have a nine-year option to extend or cancel the contract, or does that mean that they have a nine-year option to use the predetermined rates and not increase them? Words can impress a meaning, but actually mean something else. That is why in this entire discussion I have been warning to refrain from deciding conclusively what the facts are from just pieces of information. The public used to have enough information to believe the Earth is flat. Once they obtained more information, most now understand that the Earth is round. Partial information often leads to the wrong conclusions.

EDIT: Even more questions about the wording in the FSU complaint. "...2016 ACC Tier I Agreement granted ESPN a unilateral option to extend that agreement..." Does "that" refer to the 2016 ACC Tier I Agreement, or a different agreement. I am not a lawyer, but I believe most lawyers would expressly make it clear what agreement is being discussed. "That" can be ambiguous. It could refer to the ACC Network. (Not saying it does, just pointing out that it isn't extremely clear.) Words are very important in contracts and in legal filings. Lawyers will spend lots of time analyzing a contract for where commas are placed, or what multiple meanings a pronoun in the contract could have. In fact, most contracts I have dealt with have definitions of what each term in the contract is and refrain from using pronouns. I have read thousands of legal filings, but many that I have have definitions for who the plaintiff is, who the defendant is, what all of the contracts involved are, what the law being referenced is, and they don't leave things up to understanding of pronouns.

I mean if you really want more verification they also discuss it in the latest BOT meeting that you can find on YouTube. They are very clear in those discussions as well. How do you look at this spreadsheet from the legal complaint and think, I'm still not sure what they mean?

It's pretty blatant. It's very clear. The only thing I can think at this point is you don't trust FSU's legal team to know how to read a contract. Im not sure there is much evidence that is true.

 

[stinger 1957]

UVA is actually not that big- 22k enrollment, VT has 30,500, GT 27k

That would be pretty great if they added those 6 ACC teams, I am all for it. I have to think the SEC would make a play for most of the same schools.

I've heard VT has a much bigger following in DC/Baltimore/N. VA metroplex than UVA. Seems UVA does not have a very big following and with MD already covering the metroplex it is not making a ton of sense to me that BIG takes UVA and VT is not AAU, I think VT ends up in SEC, that's new money/territory for them including the metroplex.

 

[WreckinGT]

According to FSU, ESPN has an option to pull out in 2026-2027. They would be a fool to do so because the contract with the ACC is extremely favorable for them, and I've read that it's more profitable than the SEC contract for them.

However, there's always a chance ESPN could be working behind the scenes to move schools (UNC/UVA) to the SEC or the Big 12 (every other attractive ACC school) and rid themselves of the ACC contract altogether to consolidate the schools in their media portfolio and focus on growing the SEC even further. That's essentially what ESPN was accused of by the Big 12 when Texas and Oklahoma moved to the SEC.



Bowlsby further noted that Oklahoma and Texas have been taking part in Big 12 strategy meetings—during which proprietary information was shared—while working in secret to abandon the conference for the SEC.

"It causes me to further suspect [ESPN] had their hands all over the Texas and Oklahoma move to the SEC," Bowlsby said. "They were as deceptive as you can possibly be. There are right and wrong ways to these things. They sought to deceive us from the very beginning."

The commissioner called the network's actions "tortious interference" and claims he has documented evidence to back up his claims.


Tortious interference is why schools leaving a conference always claim they were the ones that reached out to the conference (*wink wink*).

It's also funny how ESPN quickly gave the Big12 a new deal and helped facilitate the demise of the PAC 12 and moved some of those schools to the Big 12.

If no one is paying attention, ESPN is not a friendly partner with the ACC (or any conference not named the SEC). They would be more than happy to have the best schools from the ACC in the SEC and do away with their ACC obligations.

A completely reasonable approach would be for ESPN to move some of the better ACC teams to the SEC. Let some others go to the Big 10. Refuse the 2025 option, shut down the ACC Network and then negotiate a new deal with whatever remains in the ACC for lower tier content at a much cheaper rate. Not saying they will do that but it doesn't seem like a far fetched scenario to me.

 

[RonJohn]

I agree. With the breaking news of a shared streaming service between the sports media heavyweights, NFL in talks to acquire a big interest in ESPN, I think we're more likely to see less conferences in the future.

Also keep in mind about conference consolidation: At some point, the schools will have to directly pay SAs. Where will that money come from? Money that was once earmarked for schools in various conferences getting shifted to consolidated mega conferences. SAs getting paid is coming, and I think media companies and the mega conferences know that and are putting in motion a way to address that.

I think the media companies are less concerned with what will happen to conferences and SA pay and more with what will make money for them. Keep in mind that the NFL media contracts are worth more than $10 billion. The Big10 and SEC contracts are just now reaching $1 billion each. I haven't looked for and added all of the numbers together, but I think media rights for all of college football (hundreds of teams when you count contracts with FCS) are worth less than half of what the NFL contracts are for 32 teams. Then you add NBA, MLB, NASCAR, PGA Golf, Tennis, etc to the mix, college sports are only a small portion of all of the media rights value.

Sports, awards shows, and things like Americas Got Talent are the only things that keep linear TV running. Netflix, Amazon, AppleTV, etc all get television series out thru a non-linear streaming service. Spectrum had a big fight with ESPN, basically telling ESPN that in order to continue to receive subscription revenue from Spectrum customers they had to include the ESPN streaming services as part of that contract. The media companies know that sports is a large part of linear TV. They want to cut out the middle men. (Cable, Sat, Streaming providers) The old cable type distribution business is falling apart, even when you include streaming like YTTV. This is very dangerous for the cable companies, because most people I know would cancel cable/sat/YTTV if all of the sports were on a sport centric streaming service. It is also dangerous for ESPN because they stand to lose a large portion of their revenue in the very near future if cable/sat companies respond very negatively to this. It also would stop their long standing business practice of charging everyone for ESPN even if they have no interest in sports. The sports centric service would have only sports fans subscribing. This is a continuation of the fight over who controls live TV, instead of a fight to do anything particular about college athletics.

 

[RonJohn]

It's pretty blatant. It's very clear. The only thing I can think at this point is you don't trust FSU's legal team to know how to read a contract. Im not sure there is much evidence that is true.

I don't "trust" any legal team without verification. I have not chosen a side and decided to argue whatever fits my "narrative". I am actually trying to find and analyze actual real data. The chart you posted from the complaint is an interpretation, it isn't from the actual ESPN contract. If you want to go through the FSU complaint in detail, then let's do it. Look at item 72, which is the next item below the chart you posted:

Perhaps most glaring, as the above chart demonstrates, (a) in 2016, the ACC negotiated NO guaranteed payments from ESPN for the nine-year period of extension mandated under the 2016 Grant of Rights, from 2027 to 2036; and (b) the ACC left in place an outdated and increasingly below market base payment rate (first negotiated in 2012), for 24 years – more than a generation

Well, which is it. Is it (a) no guaranteed payments, or (b) an outdated and increasingly below market base payment rate.. for 24 years? How is it outdated and increasingly below market value if it doesn't exist at all? The entire document is filled with ambiguous and conflicting arguments. THAT is why I am skeptical of things in the FSU complaint. It isn't put together in a logically flowing fashion that leads you logically to a conclusion based in law.

I am not emotionally ant-FSU. I attempted to read and understand their complaint, but was left spinning in circles when I read the actual language in the document. If you can go point by point and explain how everything ties together logically I am willing to listen. If you can point me to someone who actually goes through their complaint and logically and legally ties all of their points together and can explain the pronouns and apparent contradictions, I am willing to read it. I am not adverse to reading long form articles to understand information. I have not found anyone who has done that for the FSU complaint.

 

[Techster]

I think the media companies are less concerned with what will happen to conferences and SA pay and more with what will make money for them. Keep in mind that the NFL media contracts are worth more than $10 billion. The Big10 and SEC contracts are just now reaching $1 billion each. I haven't looked for and added all of the numbers together, but I think media rights for all of college football (hundreds of teams when you count contracts with FCS) are worth less than half of what the NFL contracts are for 32 teams. Then you add NBA, MLB, NASCAR, PGA Golf, Tennis, etc to the mix, college sports are only a small portion of all of the media rights value.

Sports, awards shows, and things like Americas Got Talent are the only things that keep linear TV running. Netflix, Amazon, AppleTV, etc all get television series out thru a non-linear streaming service. Spectrum had a big fight with ESPN, basically telling ESPN that in order to continue to receive subscription revenue from Spectrum customers they had to include the ESPN streaming services as part of that contract. The media companies know that sports is a large part of linear TV. They want to cut out the middle men. (Cable, Sat, Streaming providers) The old cable type distribution business is falling apart, even when you include streaming like YTTV. This is very dangerous for the cable companies, because most people I know would cancel cable/sat/YTTV if all of the sports were on a sport centric streaming service. It is also dangerous for ESPN because they stand to lose a large portion of their revenue in the very near future if cable/sat companies respond very negatively to this. It also would stop their long standing business practice of charging everyone for ESPN even if they have no interest in sports. The sports centric service would have only sports fans subscribing. This is a continuation of the fight over who controls live TV, instead of a fight to do anything particular about college athletics.

What portion of that $10 billion NFL media contracts are allocated to labor (i.e. NFL salaries)? You can find that portion spelled out in the NFL players bargaining agreement.

What you need to know about the approved NFL CBA: Biggest changes and what's new

Two more playoff teams. Expanded rosters. A 17th game ... eventually. Here's everything in the new CBA that will run through the 2030 season.

www.espn.com

Starting in 2021, the players will get at least 48% of all league revenue, and that figure could get higher depending on how the league does in negotiating new TV deals. Once the league moves to a 17-game season, the players' share of revenue includes a "media kicker," which constitutes an additional share of revenue based on the size of the TV contracts. According to the NFLPA memo, if the league's TV revenues increase by 60%, the players' share of revenue increases to 48.5%. That share can climb as high as 48.8% if the league's TV revenues increase by 120% or more, and it cannot be reduced via "stadium credits" -- meaning that any money the owners take off the top of the revenue pile for stadium construction and renovation cannot push the players' share of revenue below 48% (or whatever the media kicker brings it to) during the life of the deal.

Media companies are literally helping pay for those NFL salaries so they are in fact concerned with what happens to SA pay, and ultimately the conferences because they will ultimately be the ones that fund SAs. Once SAs get paid, and they will, it will most likely come through a bargaining agreement as most expect SAs to unionize soon so they can form a collective bargaining entity.

If schools can't afford to pay SAs, then there are no games. If there are no games, then the media companies have nothing to broadcast. This goes to my point that the media companies will be incentivized and motivated to consolidate as many of the conferences as possible because the cost of the college sports business will rise significantly once SA compensation comes online.

I also think it could be the end of many sports programs, or split college sports into a tier that pays SAs, and a tier where SAs get "compensated" for tuition and boarding expenses only and that tier will probably be a group of schools that have no media contracts at all.

 

[WreckinGT]

I've heard VT has a much bigger following in DC/Baltimore/N. VA metroplex than UVA. Seems UVA does not have a very big following and with MD already covering the metroplex it is not making a ton of sense to me that BIG takes UVA and VT is not AAU, I think VT ends up in SEC, that's new money/territory for them including the metroplex.

Pete Thamel is about as well connected as anyone out there and his expansion rankings go 1. UNC, 2. UVA, 3/4. FSU and Clemson in some order.

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football/college-football-expansion-realignment-big-ten-sec-north-carolina-virginia

It may not make sense to some but UVA is going to be a coveted team by the Big 10 and SEC. They will likely land in one or the other.

 

[RonJohn]

What portion of that $10 billion NFL media contracts are allocated to labor (i.e. NFL salaries)?

But that has nothing to do with the media companies and the negotiations about media value. The media company doesn't pay more because the players are getting a portion of the funds. The media companies negotiate rates that they believe will be profitable for them, and the NFL does whatever it wants to (or is contractually required to) do with those funds.

What I was saying is that media companies starting their own live streaming service company isn't about controlling what happens in college sports or with college athletes. It is about maximizing revenue for the media companies. I was pointing out that college athletics are only a small portion of the entire media rights that the media companies pay for. They pay attention, yes. They try to maximize what they can get out of college athletic competitions, and they try to minimize what they have to pay for media rights to colleges. College football isn't the most important, the NFL is. All of college football combined would be second, but the NBA is more than double the size of any single conference. MLB is about 1.5 times the Big10 and SEC (individually). NASCAR is about even with the Big10 and the SEC. College football is an important part of the sports TV world, but it isn't the driver. The NFL is the big player. The NBA is second. Then there are several things mixed in with the two biggest football conferences. This service may have impacts on college football if it is launched, but I don't believe that changing college sports is even part of the reason for launching it.

 

[Techster]

But that has nothing to do with the media companies and the negotiations about media value. The media company doesn't pay more because the players are getting a portion of the funds. The media companies negotiate rates that they believe will be profitable for them, and the NFL does whatever it wants to (or is contractually required to) do with those funds.

What I was saying is that media companies starting their own live streaming service company isn't about controlling what happens in college sports or with college athletes. It is about maximizing revenue for the media companies. I was pointing out that college athletics are only a small portion of the entire media rights that the media companies pay for. They pay attention, yes. They try to maximize what they can get out of college athletic competitions, and they try to minimize what they have to pay for media rights to colleges. College football isn't the most important, the NFL is. All of college football combined would be second, but the NBA is more than double the size of any single conference. MLB is about 1.5 times the Big10 and SEC (individually). NASCAR is about even with the Big10 and the SEC. College football is an important part of the sports TV world, but it isn't the driver. The NFL is the big player. The NBA is second. Then there are several things mixed in with the two biggest football conferences. This service may have impacts on college football if it is launched, but I don't believe that changing college sports is even part of the reason for launching it.

It absolutely has a LOT to do with media contract values. You don't think the NFL and teams calculated labor (NFL salaries) in their valuation of the media contract they were seeking? It will be the same for conferences when it comes time to pay SAs. If each team in a conference is use to making $50 million/year from their media contract, but they know they will have $5 million a year in SA salaries coming online in 5 years, who do you think they will ask for that extra $5 million? If ESPN doesn't want to pay the SEC that extra $5 million per year, FOX would be more than happy to pay it. You can try to make salaries a fungible classification in your eyes, but ultimately the labor is part of the media valuation. Media companies need to make profit, but so do college teams...at least the college teams with the clout to ask for an increase in the media valuation (SEE: SEC, B1G). That does not bode well for conferences not named the SEC or B1G.

No one said all the media moves are aimed specifically at college sports or conferences. My inference to it with college sports is that it portends a sea change in how media does things in the future. Media companies are clearly cutting costs while trying to maximize value of certain assets. Pro sports will always trump college sports, but the cost to be in the college sports business is rising. Something will get cut out for cost savings, and all signs point to college sports gettting the short end of the cost savings stick.

 

[Techster]

BTW, reading up on the streaming service partnership between FOX/Disney-ABC/WB, I ran across this article:



Here's the part that is of interest to GT fans and our ultimate fate once the ACC GOR runs out:

For example: While the NFL has pursued streaming deals for its games, the league loves linear cable, satellite and broadcast television because it delivers the big audiences that drive its revenue.

“One of the secrets of our success is that we’re really committed to broadcast television,” NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said this week from the Super Bowl site in Las Vegas. “ As I’ve said 90 percent of our games are on broadcast and free over-the-air television. I think it is the reason you’ll see over 200 million people watch this game here in the United States and on the broadest possible platform.”

By creating an app that makes its games available to watch on an online app, the three media companies could be accelerating the demise of linear TV and the revenue that comes from it as more linear TV subscribers cut the cable cord and migrate to this new app. It’s part of a vexing problem facing media companies as viewers ditch linear TV for streaming, where content can be more difficult to monetize.

Despite glorification of streaming and its projected revenue potential, there's still two big issues with it: It's more difficult to reach new customers (in this case viewers) via streaming, and the ability to monetize streaming content is harder. If the NFL is having a difficult time moving away from linear/broadcast TV for those two reasons, how will college sports overcome it?

What does that mean for GT? Well, despite what some have said, market size still does matter, and that doesn't include everything else being located in the state of GA offers a prospective conference (I'm talking to you, B1G).

 

[slugboy]

I mean if you really want more verification they also discuss it in the latest BOT meeting that you can find on YouTube. They are very clear in those discussions as well. How do you look at this spreadsheet from the legal complaint and think, I'm still not sure what they mean?

View attachment 15705
It's pretty blatant. It's very clear. The only thing I can think at this point is you don't trust FSU's legal team to know how to read a contract. Im not sure there is much evidence that is true.

My reading is this:
The grant of rights is the ownership of the broadcast rights. The ACC owns these through the GOR contract with the conference members. This goes through 2036.

The ESPN contract is essentially a lease for those rights, or a loan of those rights through 2027, and where the payments currently come from.

FSU’s lawyers are conflating those two things. That’s not necessarily incompetence—that’s also something you do when there’s an inconvenient fact you want someone to ignore. FSU’s lawyers are trying to say “the GOR ends when the currently negotiated payments end”, rather than being something that could be sold to someone else

If they were mineral rights, it’s the same as a group of property owners pooling their rights for a bigger deal. The rights are pooled to 2036, and Exxon has an extraction contract through 2027, renewable through 2036. If they don’t renew, the pool can be sold to BP or another company.

FSU is trying to argue the 2027 date is an out, when they certainly didn’t view it as an out when they signed the contract. So far, I think their arguments are pretty weak, but weak arguments have worked before.

 

[orientalnc]

I mean if you really want more verification they also discuss it in the latest BOT meeting that you can find on YouTube. They are very clear in those discussions as well. How do you look at this spreadsheet from the legal complaint and think, I'm still not sure what they mean?

View attachment 15705
It's pretty blatant. It's very clear. The only thing I can think at this point is you don't trust FSU's legal team to know how to read a contract. Im not sure there is much evidence that is true.

This chart was produced by FSU (or their lawyers). It is not from the ESPN contract.

It doesn't make sense for the ACC to announce, at the annual meeting in June of 2016, that they had extended their "rights agreement" for nine years when, in fact, they had not done that. I don't always agree with the ACC folks in Greensboro Charlotte, but to stand up there and lie about something that the members know isn't true is just ludicrous. Every member school is represented on the conference board and knew the details of the ESPN agreement. Do you believe every conference member was in on the lie? And now FSU has forgotten what happened in 2016? Or, do you believe the conference tricked the member schools and lied to them about the contract? And, UNC and NC State and UVA, who almost own the conference outright, missed on that detail as well?

The big question mark for ESPN in 2016 was how profitable would be ACC Network be out beyond 2027. That would be a reasonable option for the ACC to agree to.

 

[Vespidae]

This chart was produced by FSU (or their lawyers). It is not from the ESPN contract.

It doesn't make sense for the ACC to announce, at the annual meeting in June of 2016, that they had extended their "rights agreement" for nine years when, in fact, they had not done that. I don't always agree with the ACC folks in Greensboro Charlotte, but to stand up there and lie about something that the members know isn't true is just ludicrous. Every member school is represented on the conference board and knew the details of the ESPN agreement. Do you believe every conference member was in on the lie? And now FSU has forgotten what happened in 2016? Or, do you believe the conference tricked the member schools and lied to them about the contract? And, UNC and NC State and UVA, who almost own the conference outright, missed on that detail as well?

The big question mark for ESPN in 2016 was how profitable would be ACC Network be out beyond 2027. That would be a reasonable option for the ACC to agree to.

“Back in 2016, the ACC and ESPN agreed to a 20-year media rights deal through 2035-36, a deal that brought about the birth of the ACC Network — owned and operated by ESPN — which launched in 2019.

At the same time, the ACC extended its grant of rights deal nine additional years, taking that through 2035-36.”

All they did is match the duration of each agreement.

 

[RonJohn]

It absolutely has a LOT to do with media contract values. You don't think the NFL and teams calculated labor (NFL salaries) in their valuation of the media contract they were seeking? It will be the same for conferences when it comes time to pay SAs. If each team in a conference is use to making $50 million/year from their media contract, but they know they will have $5 million a year in SA salaries coming online in 5 years, who do you think they will ask for that extra $5 million? If ESPN doesn't want to pay the SEC that extra $5 million per year, FOX would be more than happy to pay it. You can try to make salaries a fungible classification in your eyes, but ultimately the labor is part of the media valuation. Media companies need to make profit, but so do college teams...at least the college teams with the clout to ask for an increase in the media valuation (SEE: SEC, B1G). That does not bode well for conferences not named the SEC or B1G.

What I was saying is that the costs to the college conferences is not a concern on the negotiating side of the media companies. Of course the colleges will be concerned with the costs. The current Big10 media contract expires in 2030. The current SEC contract expires in 2034. If players are declared employees, unionize, and have a contract in 2026 to receive 20% of the revenue of college football, will the media partners automatically pay more money to the Big10? SEC? Will ESPN renegotiate with the SEC because their costs have risen, or will ESPN hold the SEC to the signed contract? When it comes to negotiating a new contract with the Big10, will the media companies use the Big10's costs as the starting point for negotiations or will they look at their costs and desired profit as the starting point? I do agree with you that the colleges will want to get more to cover increasing costs, however I disagree that the media companies will just agree to that.

Another thing to consider. If this occurs, will players unionize by conference or nationally? It would be easy to say that players in the large conferences would want the large conferences to be separate. However, there is always the possibility of transferring out which would take those players out of the large conferences. If the potential college players union negotiates a contract similar to the NFL, then the media revenue percentage would be taken out of the media revenue for all colleges, so the money available to players wouldn't depend on which conference you play in. It could push even further for the "pro" and "academic" split so the top layer is totally separate from the NCAA and is a different negotiating body. Whatever would result is not extremely clear, but it would make college athletics much, much different.

 

[iceeater1969]

My reading is this:
The grant of rights is the ownership of the broadcast rights. The ACC owns these through the GOR contract with the conference members. This goes through 2036.

The ESPN contract is essentially a lease for those rights, or a loan of those rights through 2027, and where the payments currently come from.

FSU’s lawyers are conflating those two things. That’s not necessarily incompetence—that’s also something you do when there’s an inconvenient fact you want someone to ignore. FSU’s lawyers are trying to say “the GOR ends when the currently negotiated payments end”, rather than being something that could be sold to someone else

If they were mineral rights, it’s the same as a group of property owners pooling their rights for a bigger deal. The rights are pooled to 2036, and Exxon has an extraction contract through 2027, renewable through 2036. If they don’t renew, the pool can be sold to BP or another company.

FSU is trying to argue the 2027 date is an out, when they certainly didn’t view it as an out when they signed the contract. So far, I think their arguments are pretty weak, but weak arguments have worked before.

Imo, Forced pooling and related state laws has been tested in court. Also , the royalties to land owners do not reqire ANY LANDOWNER PERFORMANCE are a.gross % of revenue that results from WORK OF THE OIL COMPANY.

Our agreement is likely clear that the POOLED LANDOWNERS WILL ACT s a Group and wach INDIVIDUAL WILL SPEND MONEY TO TRY TO FIND OIL.

(FSU is saying we did our part and want the RENT SEEKERS (GT) to recive less.)

This will all be solved using negotiations when the oil company money is paused or throttled.

While you are sueing them, lwho will hire you to play football. Do you have $ to ride out decades of appeals and is it a slam dunk court case? .
As an owner of engineering company snever sued oil company. Now we did negotiate some nice small payments AND SOME COMMITMENTS FOR FUTURE WORK IN ANOTHER FORM.

Surely the ACC, Big 12, and plus some ARE A WORTHY AREA OF TV EYEBALLS. NEGOTIATE A TRY AGAIN is likly going on now.

 

[Vespidae]

Whatever would result is not extremely clear, but it would make college athletics much, much different.

Charles Barkley last night said that he was very concerned about the future of college sports. Paraphrasing, "If it continues the way it is going, five teams will control all of college sports."

It is insane to compare Georgia Southern to Ohio State. The governing body (NCAA or whoever replaces it) should organize it in tiers by some criteria; e.g., enrollment, NIL, etc. And simply set a number of tiers to create a reasonable competitive group ... with 134 D1 teams, at 16 per tier, you have 8-ish tiers with like competitors, probably all of whom can organize a similar NIL collective and have each team collective make the SA an "employee". While they can still transfer, you can deny payouts or set them up in a way that encourages 'thoughtful" transfers, not just NIL-hopping.

High schools have done this for decades. Only in college does it get all screwed up.

 

[RonJohn]

Charles Barkley last night said that he was very concerned about the future of college sports. Paraphrasing, "If it continues the way it is going, five teams will control all of college sports."

It is insane to compare Georgia Southern to Ohio State. The governing body (NCAA or whoever replaces it) should organize it in tiers by some criteria; e.g., enrollment, NIL, etc. And simply set a number of tiers to create a reasonable competitive group ... with 134 D1 teams, at 16 per tier, you have 8-ish tiers with like competitors, probably all of whom can organize a similar NIL collective and have each team collective make the SA an "employee". While they can still transfer, you can deny payouts or set them up in a way that encourages 'thoughtful" transfers, not just NIL-hopping.

High schools have done this for decades. Only in college does it get all screwed up.

That isn't what is happening exactly. The recent NLRB decision is that Dartmouth basketball players are employees of the school. If that decision holds and is expanded, that would mean that football players at Auburn are employees of Auburn, not students who are employees of a third party collective. Not saying this will happen, but if the current path continues, Auburn players could organize a union and negotiate a contract with Auburn. Or SEC players could organize a union and negotiate a contract with the SEC. Or all college players could organize a union and negotiate a contract with the NCAA. I don't think the SEC would want a national players union to negotiate a contract that the SEC only has minimal ability to control. I think that any governmental declaration (law, NLRB, courts, etc) that athletes are employees of the schools would force a break up of the NCAA. I think it is already headed in that direction. This would just make it happen faster, and by faster I mean almost immediately.

 

[stinger78]

They’re finally killing the goose… over money. Colleges cannot sustain athletes who must be considered employees. The risk assessments will not bear it. It would be better to classify them as contractors with no benefits. That means they pay for their own healthcare, training, etc. It’s just all screwed up!

 

[CEB]

After the 2024-2025 season, the Big12 will be working off of a new media contract. At that point, per member school payouts will be roughly equal to the ACC per member payout (I do believe the ACC per member will be higher by $2-5 million/member depending on the year).

Now this is where we need to think about the makeup of the conference and how it impacts the overall value of the conference. There is no way the ACC holds onto UNC and FSU at minimum. They've both said they need to leave to compete nationally...and both schools will be welcomed by the SEC (UNC) or the B1G (UNC and FSU) once the GOR is figured out or expires naturally. There's a high probability UVA is right behind UNC and FSU. That's 3 of the ACC's biggest "brands". Neither ESPN or FOX will pay the ACC the same amount of money without the two biggest brands in the ACC. There's no way the ACC makes up the gap between them and the SEC/B1G by 2036, which is expected to be north of $50 million gap per member school. UNC and FSU is not turning that down...and they'd be stupid to.

Let's say the ACC does raid the Big 12 in 2030...which school does the ACC take to replace the value of UNC or FSU (I believe UVA will be easy to replace with an "equal value" Big 12 school)? None...there are no schools in the Big12 of "equal value" to UNC or FSU that ESPN or FOX will pay at UNC's and FSU's valuation. That means the ACC value to the media companies drops. The ACC per member payout will drop significantly...and we already saw it play out with USC and UCLA leaving the PAC 12.

This is where the ACC's GOR ending in 2036 is actually more of a detriment to the ACC than an advantage to the Big 12's contract ending in 2030. Every party (all conferences, media companies, and sports playing universities) knows UNC and FSU (at minimum) are leaving the ACC, which means there's no negotiation power for the ACC. ESPN and FOX are not paying for Oklahoma State/Arizona/UCF/whatever Big12 team to join the ACC knowing that FSU and UNC are leaving in 2036. That would require all members of the ACC in 2030 to extend the GOR past 2036 (we all know that is NOT happening) because once UNC and FSU leaves, the value of the ACC as a conference drops regardless of who the ACC may bring over from the Big12. Why would any member of the Big 12 leave for the ACC if they know the biggest and most valuable members are leaving? At best, any team from the Big 12 moving to the ACC would receive equal revenue...and that's being generous. Why would a team from the Big 12 want to move to ACC knowing our conference leadership is poor? Even if the Big 12 media value drops in 2030, what does that mean for the ACC knowing that UNC and FSU, at minimum, are leaving the ACC?

Oh, this all assumes ESPN and FOX actually want to plow more money into the ACC and Big 12 at the end of the 2036 road, especially given how both media companies will already "hold" the vast majority of the most popular brands in their portfolio with the B1G and SEC. ESPN and FOX letting the PAC 12 die is a dire warning that nothing is given anymore. Just because your school wants to play sports doesn't mean there's a media company willing to finance like they once did.

I agree there is not a B12 school that replaces FSU or UNC pound for pound. If there were, that school wouldn’t be in the current B12. That said, I don’t think we have to replace pound for pound in order to increase our media revenue. I THINK our deal is below market currently. Two things about that:
1. If that assumption is correct, the likelihood of ESPN exercising the option (if the option is what we think it is) is VERY good. Especially if the option doesn’t have a wild $$ bump in it.
2. If we are under market with current members, some of the big brands could leave in 2036 without it being wildly detrimental to our bottom line going forward.

ESPN needs live sports programming. They are pushing more channels and more games. The ACC will have a deal as long as we don’t go full retard like the PAC.

By the way; ESPN and Fox didn’t kill the PAC.. or even let the PAC die. There was a deal out there for about what the B12 just got and the PAC pounded the table and demanded $50m per team. When the media companies said no, the PAC members were rats off a sinking ship. There was a PAC deal to be had in the $30m range as I understand.
ESPN won’t protect / defend the ACC, but If the ACC goes toe up, it will be self inflicted.

 

[stinger78]

sEcSPN needs content to sell. They have to like having the ACC at the level they have them now, so agree, they will exercise the option. If the ACC accepted a unilateral option with no look in, then they get what they deserve.

However, sEcSPN would love nothing more than to move 2-3 of the ACC’s top programs into the already high paying conference. That way, they only pay those 2-3 teams enhanced media rights and the ACC look in nets nothing due then to the absence of those 2-3 programs. They bump the SECheat, keep the ACC the same, and increase only the handful of teams who were “asked” to move.