Expansion Talk 2021

[Northeast Stinger]

The pertinent part of this thread came in several early responses. Let me paraphrase it again by giving an analogy. There is a cable news channel that only 30% of cable news subscribers actually watch but which everyone who watches cable actually pays for. This makes this news channel very profitable.

So, to repeat, it does not matter how many people actually watch the ACC. It only matters that they are part of a package deal that everyone is forced to pay for. I’m guessing that a package of B1G, PAC, ACC probably forces 3/4 of cable watchers in the country to pay for it.

 

[slugboy]

I keep hearing talk of a team bolting the ACC, and what the media rights mean. Let's say the SEC decided that they wanted FSU. This is the same story for any ACC team, but we'll play with FSU for a bit

• The ACC owns FSU's media rights
• This means the SEC would not be able to broadcast FSU home games unless the ACC ceded those rights
• FSU would probably have 7 out of 12 home games. The ACC owns the rights to those games, even if FSU is in the SEC.
• The ACC owns those rights through 2036
• The ACC gets ALL the money from broadcasting the FSU home games. No matter what conference FSU is in.
• Same story if the game goes out over Amazon Prime or Netflix or Disney+. Doesn't matter.
• Even if the visitor were an SEC team, even if the game were streamed, the revenue from that game would go to the ACC. Either the SEC would pay the ACC for the game, or it would be broadcast through ACC media rights.
• Maybe even the FSU/Florida game in Tallahassee goes out over the ACC ESPN/ABC contract. "This game is brought to you by the Atlantic Coast Conference"
• For the next 15 years, the ACC gets paid for FSU home games, no matter what conference FSU is in.
• If FSU leaves the ACC, they don't get a share of the ACC media rights. The ACC still gets paid the broadcast revenue for FSU games.
• If ESPN would pay $10 million to the SEC for the FSU-Florida game and only $6 million for an ACC game, then the ACC will at least get $6 million, and the SEC will get $0. FSU home games are worthless to the SEC while the ACC holds the media rights.
• The ACC gets theirs no matter what FSU does, unless FSU just stops playing football. If they play, the ACC gets paid.
• Sure, the SEC could pay off the exit fee for FSU.
• However, the SEC would only make money from FSU away games against SEC teams. They get that money anyway, without adding FSU.
• As long as there's an ACC, the ACC gets paid through 2036.
• So, since the SEC wouldn't get FSU's media rights, or any of the money from FSU home games, why would they add them?

 

[Vespid]

I keep hearing talk of a team bolting the ACC, and what the media rights mean. Let's say the SEC decided that they wanted FSU. This is the same story for any ACC team, but we'll play with FSU for a bit

• The ACC owns FSU's media rights
• This means the SEC would not be able to broadcast FSU home games unless the ACC ceded those rights
• FSU would probably have 7 out of 12 home games. The ACC owns the rights to those games, even if FSU is in the SEC.
• The ACC owns those rights through 2036
• The ACC gets ALL the money from broadcasting the FSU home games. No matter what conference FSU is in.
• Same story if the game goes out over Amazon Prime or Netflix or Disney+. Doesn't matter.
• Even if the visitor were an SEC team, even if the game were streamed, the revenue from that game would go to the ACC. Either the SEC would pay the ACC for the game, or it would be broadcast through ACC media rights.
• Maybe even the FSU/Florida game in Tallahassee goes out over the ACC ESPN/ABC contract. "This game is brought to you by the Atlantic Coast Conference"
• For the next 15 years, the ACC gets paid for FSU home games, no matter what conference FSU is in.
• If FSU leaves the ACC, they don't get a share of the ACC media rights. The ACC still gets paid the broadcast revenue for FSU games.
• If ESPN would pay $10 million to the SEC for the FSU-Florida game and only $6 million for an ACC game, then the ACC will at least get $6 million, and the SEC will get $0. FSU home games are worthless to the SEC while the ACC holds the media rights.
• The ACC gets theirs no matter what FSU does, unless FSU just stops playing football. If they play, the ACC gets paid.
• Sure, the SEC could pay off the exit fee for FSU.
• However, the SEC would only make money from FSU away games against SEC teams. They get that money anyway, without adding FSU.
• As long as there's an ACC, the ACC gets paid through 2036.
• So, since the SEC wouldn't get FSU's media rights, or any of the money from FSU home games, why would they add them?

Good description. You're a patient man....I gave up trying to explain. Perplexing quite a few here who think the GOR is not that big of a deal. For possible suitors, one would have to think it's what you call a deal breaker.

 

[Coloradojacket]

So let's just boil this down to what it is. This is not about the SEC. The SEC is full of mediocre and some bad teams. Georgia is doing better because Tennessee, Auburn, and Florida are worse. Now maybe Florida is improving as they ransacked UGA last year. UGA this year is conjecture right now. LSU had a one year monster year and now they suck. Texas A&M is the new darling...but they can't beat Clemson.

This is all about Bama....Saban is the best coach in college football right now and has built a dominant program. Saban is the SEC. Money, Bama has always had money but now they have a coach that is a recruiting, coaching machine. He wins with players and scheme. Can he lose one every now and then, sure, it is college football.

Why is this different than say when the Bear was there....because the Bear was up against John McKay, Joe Paterno, Woody Hayes, Bo Schembeckler, Bob Devaney. If you look back at the 90's it was all about two teams, Florida and FSU. Spurrier and Bowden.

Coaching Coaching Coaching. And right now there is no one close...maybe Dabo but he is a QB away from 2 losses.

Money can buy you a coach or buy you out of a coach, but you better start by getting a good coach.

 

[BCJacket]

I keep hearing talk of a team bolting the ACC, and what the media rights mean. Let's say the SEC decided that they wanted FSU. This is the same story for any ACC team, but we'll play with FSU for a bit

• The ACC owns FSU's media rights
• This means the SEC would not be able to broadcast FSU home games unless the ACC ceded those rights
• FSU would probably have 7 out of 12 home games. The ACC owns the rights to those games, even if FSU is in the SEC.
• The ACC owns those rights through 2036
• The ACC gets ALL the money from broadcasting the FSU home games. No matter what conference FSU is in.
• Same story if the game goes out over Amazon Prime or Netflix or Disney+. Doesn't matter.
• Even if the visitor were an SEC team, even if the game were streamed, the revenue from that game would go to the ACC. Either the SEC would pay the ACC for the game, or it would be broadcast through ACC media rights.
• Maybe even the FSU/Florida game in Tallahassee goes out over the ACC ESPN/ABC contract. "This game is brought to you by the Atlantic Coast Conference"
• For the next 15 years, the ACC gets paid for FSU home games, no matter what conference FSU is in.
• If FSU leaves the ACC, they don't get a share of the ACC media rights. The ACC still gets paid the broadcast revenue for FSU games.
• If ESPN would pay $10 million to the SEC for the FSU-Florida game and only $6 million for an ACC game, then the ACC will at least get $6 million, and the SEC will get $0. FSU home games are worthless to the SEC while the ACC holds the media rights.
• The ACC gets theirs no matter what FSU does, unless FSU just stops playing football. If they play, the ACC gets paid.
• Sure, the SEC could pay off the exit fee for FSU.
• However, the SEC would only make money from FSU away games against SEC teams. They get that money anyway, without adding FSU.
• As long as there's an ACC, the ACC gets paid through 2036.
• So, since the SEC wouldn't get FSU's media rights, or any of the money from FSU home games, why would they add them?

One question I have about this, which probably depends on exactly how the contracts are written. What if: FSU decides to leave for the SEC. The SEC schedules it so that FSU either plays at the opponent or a 'neutral site' in Atlanta, Jacksonville, wherever; always as the 'visiting' team. No 'home' games at all. FSU would lose ticket revenue, obviously. But they could arrange it so FSU gets a compensating cut of neutral site ticket sales and TV money. Or alternately (more realistically) the SEC just makes sure any notable games are away. FSU only plays FCS, G5, Vandy, etc at 'home'. The games worth TV money are 'away' and under the SEC purview.

I doubt they'd actually do that. It would be a major detriment to recruiting. But the threat might be enough to get the ACC to agree to a settlement...

 

[slugboy]

One question I have about this, which probably depends on exactly how the contracts are written. What if: FSU decides to leave for the SEC. The SEC schedules it so that FSU either plays at the opponent or a 'neutral site' in Atlanta, Jacksonville, wherever; always as the 'visiting' team. No 'home' games at all. FSU would lose ticket revenue, obviously. But they could arrange it so FSU gets a compensating cut of neutral site ticket sales and TV money. Or alternately (more realistically) the SEC just makes sure any notable games are away. FSU only plays FCS, G5, Vandy, etc at 'home'. The games worth TV money are 'away' and under the SEC purview.

I doubt they'd actually do that. It would be a major detriment to recruiting. But the threat might be enough to get the ACC to agree to a settlement...

If I’m a lawyer for the ACC, and I see a team getting more than 50% of the gate, either directly or indirectly through a compensating cut, I’d argue in court that it’s a home game.
For FSU, that would mean playing a lot of games in Tampa; for Clemson they’d either be trying to play in Atlanta or Charlotte. And that’s IF you could make that work for 15 straight years. That would really hurt the fan base.
Also, imagine taking a 2 hour bus ride to seven “neutral site” games a year, and traveling away to the rest. That’d be rough on a team. As a player, you’d be in a hotel for every game of the year.
Ironically, Georgia Tech could probably make it work at the Benz. It’s a lot easier for an urban school to pull that off.
And that’s IFF you can make that work in court to get media rights to those games. If those aren’t SEC games, you might have to split the media payout, too.

 

[RonJohn]

One question I have about this, which probably depends on exactly how the contracts are written. What if: FSU decides to leave for the SEC. The SEC schedules it so that FSU either plays at the opponent or a 'neutral site' in Atlanta, Jacksonville, wherever; always as the 'visiting' team. No 'home' games at all. FSU would lose ticket revenue, obviously. But they could arrange it so FSU gets a compensating cut of neutral site ticket sales and TV money. Or alternately (more realistically) the SEC just makes sure any notable games are away. FSU only plays FCS, G5, Vandy, etc at 'home'. The games worth TV money are 'away' and under the SEC purview.

I doubt they'd actually do that. It would be a major detriment to recruiting. But the threat might be enough to get the ACC to agree to a settlement...

I have seen several people pose this potential loophole to the ACC GOR. I haven't seen the actual language of the GOR contracts, have you? When they were first signed and then extended, some sports media labeled it as "media rights" and some labeled it as "home media rights". Did those who labeled it as "home" media rights read the language, or just use assumptions? If it is such an easy loophole to exploit, then why would the lawyers allow it to be in the contract? Does the SEC own the media rights to the mutt-UF game in Jacksonville, or is it a loophole that allows the mutts and UF to keep the media money for that game to themselves apart from the SEC?

If they scheduled all of the big games to be real away games, would FSU fans want to join the SEC if it meant that every UF game for the next 15 years would be in Gainesville?

 

[GTNavyNuke]

You mention a really interesting point to me about this discussion being couched in the football forum. I don’t know what kind of crossover we have between boards. I spend 75% of my time in either football or basketball when only one of those are in season and probably split the time between those two in the off season or overlap.

I’ve struggled with keeping my comments on Football only in this thread, but have tried because I don’t want to make the Mod’s difficult jobs and harder. That said I do think the comments about SEC breaking away are undervaluing March Madness and the College World Series. It’s a lot to suggest that they’ll make decisions off football only, football first certainly - but to the complete detriment of all other programs? Seems too far of a stretch for me.

Again, I’m not advocating for the alliance schools to freeze out the SEC, just to claw back some of the power and a sublimated return of the “College Athletics” experience off the backs of football powerhouses with limited to no academic integrity. While we are at it, the ACC has it’s own issues with the academic topic too. So not saying our noses are entirely clean either.

Agree with the $ for basketball being substantial. But like 20% of football?

Not any substantial $ impact from CWS at all but I don't have any facts on the amount of revenue generated by the CWS. Seems to be limited to a very few ESPN eyeballs from a limited number of fans and decreases as teams are eliminated. Anyone have any CWS revenue facts?

 

[Vespid]

One question I have about this, which probably depends on exactly how the contracts are written. What if: FSU decides to leave for the SEC. The SEC schedules it so that FSU either plays at the opponent or a 'neutral site' in Atlanta, Jacksonville, wherever; always as the 'visiting' team. No 'home' games at all. FSU would lose ticket revenue, obviously. But they could arrange it so FSU gets a compensating cut of neutral site ticket sales and TV money. Or alternately (more realistically) the SEC just makes sure any notable games are away. FSU only plays FCS, G5, Vandy, etc at 'home'. The games worth TV money are 'away' and under the SEC purview.

I doubt they'd actually do that. It would be a major detriment to recruiting. But the threat might be enough to get the ACC to agree to a settlement...

That's a pretty big gamble to take. Legal terms like "Good Faith" and "Honesty in Fact" would prove problematic in those scenarios IMHO.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

If I’m a lawyer for the ACC, and I see a team getting more than 50% of the gate, either directly or indirectly through a compensating cut, I’d argue in court that it’s a home game.
For FSU, that would mean playing a lot of games in Tampa; for Clemson they’d either be trying to play in Atlanta or Charlotte. And that’s IF you could make that work for 15 straight years. That would really hurt the fan base.
Also, imagine taking a 2 hour bus ride to seven “neutral site” games a year, and traveling away to the rest. That’d be rough on a team. As a player, you’d be in a hotel for every game of the year.
Ironically, Georgia Tech could probably make it work at the Benz. It’s a lot easier for an urban school to pull that off.
And that’s IFF you can make that work in court to get media rights to those games. If those aren’t SEC games, you might have to split the media payout, too.

Yes, exactly. Even if you could sort through the legal nightmare the fan base would take a hit that would take an entire generation to rebuild. It would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. It would almost be like SMU coming back from the death penalty in terms of building your fan base and recruiting back up.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

If Covid spikes every fall, this could be a moot point.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

Which SEC division would want Clemson in their division? I'd hope they'd play \ beat uGag every year.

 

[RonJohn]

I think it is worth asking again: Who owns the media rights to the annual muff-UF game in Jacksonville?

That is a neutral site game, but it is included every year in the SEC suite of games, and sometimes is the main CBS game of the week. Maybe the SEC wrote that game specifically into their contracts since it is a yearly occurrence. Maybe the SEC contract language is different than the ACC contract. However, maybe media rights do not only include games played on campus.

 

[slugboy]

You mention a really interesting point to me about this discussion being couched in the football forum. I don’t know what kind of crossover we have between boards. I spend 75% of my time in either football or basketball when only one of those are in season and probably split the time between those two in the off season or overlap.

I’ve struggled with keeping my comments on Football only in this thread, but have tried because I don’t want to make the Mod’s difficult jobs and harder. That said I do think the comments about SEC breaking away are undervaluing March Madness and the College World Series. It’s a lot to suggest that they’ll make decisions off football only, football first certainly - but to the complete detriment of all other programs? Seems too far of a stretch for me.

Again, I’m not advocating for the alliance schools to freeze out the SEC, just to claw back some of the power and a sublimated return of the “College Athletics” experience off the backs of football powerhouses with limited to no academic integrity. While we are at it, the ACC has it’s own issues with the academic topic too. So not saying our noses are entirely clean either.

This might help, but it may lean more to football than it entirely should: https://www.bannersociety.com/2020/4/8/21211241/college-athletic-budgets-football

You could argue (and they do) that even Kansas makes more from Football than Basketball.

Duke has a healthier athletic budget than we do, because of basketball, and there are other schools that also do that. Clemson has really neglected their basketball program and has all their eggs in the “football” basket, and it’s worked for them.

It’s a bad analogy, but from a financial point of view, I think of football as the burger and basketball as the fries. Basketball is good money, but it’s secondary to football. Having both is better than having one. Tech would be a lot better off financially if our basketball program had never gone through a dry spell. But if we’d kept a mid-O’Leary-era football team over the last 20 years, we’d be killing it right now.

 

[RonJohn]

This might help, but it may lean more to football than it entirely should: https://www.bannersociety.com/2020/4/8/21211241/college-athletic-budgets-football

You could argue (and they do) that even Kansas makes more from Football than Basketball.

Duke has a healthier athletic budget than we do, because of basketball, and there are other schools that also do that. Clemson has really neglected their basketball program and has all their eggs in the “football” basket, and it’s worked for them.

It’s a bad analogy, but from a financial point of view, I think of football as the burger and basketball as the fries. Basketball is good money, but it’s secondary to football. Having both is better than having one. Tech would be a lot better off financially if our basketball program had never gone through a dry spell. But if we’d kept a mid-O’Leary-era football team over the last 20 years, we’d be killing it right now.

During the O'Leary years, we had an AD who said on the radio that GT would never be consistently good in football, Then we had an AD who put GT deep in debt to build facilities not related to football, and then an AD who intentionally tried to tank the football program. I like TStan, but he has a 20 years of mistakes at AD to make up for.

 

[TruckStick]

During the O'Leary years, we had an AD who said on the radio that GT would never be consistently good in football, Then we had an AD who put GT deep in debt to build facilities not related to football, and then an AD who intentionally tried to tank the football program. I like TStan, but he has a 20 years of mistakes at AD to make up for.

I think a couple good years of wins 8-12+ with Todd will propel tech into upper 1/2 of ACC revs. Todd can really capitalize on Football above average success.

 

[orientalnc]

If I’m a lawyer for the ACC, and I see a team getting more than 50% of the gate, either directly or indirectly through a compensating cut, I’d argue in court that it’s a home game.
For FSU, that would mean playing a lot of games in Tampa; for Clemson they’d either be trying to play in Atlanta or Charlotte. And that’s IF you could make that work for 15 straight years. That would really hurt the fan base.
Also, imagine taking a 2 hour bus ride to seven “neutral site” games a year, and traveling away to the rest. That’d be rough on a team. As a player, you’d be in a hotel for every game of the year.
Ironically, Georgia Tech could probably make it work at the Benz. It’s a lot easier for an urban school to pull that off.
And that’s IFF you can make that work in court to get media rights to those games. If those aren’t SEC games, you might have to split the media payout, too.

I may not be correct in this argument, but I can see the ACC media contract with ESPN guaranteeing at least six home games for each ACC team. You can play with numbers and venue, but a game between Alabama and FSU, played in Tampa or Jacksonville is not a Bama home home game. And FSU will be the team allocating student tickets, not Bama.

But, those faux games with money will not be a part of the SEC strategy. They will play it straight and give the ACC FSU's share of the entire SEC media distribution because the penalties for not doing that would be far greater than following the terms of the ACC GOR.

FSU willingly gave up their media rights to the ACC. They were not under duress when they signed the contract and benefitted from the GOR for several years.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

You guys are putting way too much importance in these contracts. Never has a team had to pay the full buyout. There are always negotiations and they never go to court.

 

[yjack]

You guys are putting way too much importance in these contracts. Never has a team had to pay the full buyout. There are always negotiations and they never go to court.

Buyout and media rights are two different things. That's why, unless the Big 12 evaporates, Texas and Oklahoma aren't joining the SEC until 2025.

 

[orientalnc]

You guys are putting way too much importance in these contracts. Never has a team had to pay the full buyout. There are always negotiations and they never go to court.

Penalty clauses are more difficult to enforce than grants of rights. The publishing and entertainment businesses have used grants of rights for a long time. This is not new turf.

Here is how it works. The ACC members knew they could negotiate a much better collective deal with ESPN if they negotiated as a group. But the group members wanted to assure that the group would stay together for the life of the media contract. So did ESPN. In the example, FSU was able to get a bigger media payday by allowing the ACC to negotiate on their behalf. But the price of that bigger payday was giving the ACC their media rights for the life of the contract. It's not like FSU did not get something in return for those rights.

I think Texas and OU are facing the same problem.

Here is the problem. Let's say FSU has $40 million in media distribution from the existing ACC contract with ESPN. They jump to the SEC and their media distribution increases to $60 million. Guess what? That $60 million belongs to the ACC because they own the Seminoles' media rights. The SEC could try to play games with the the definition of the media distribution, but it would not work in court.