ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment

[Stern]

So, we have this

 

[HRE Otto IV]

It's not full of fools' gold, it's full of United States dollars. And if the pot shrinks in 5 or 10 years because of the decisions made today, well, they still made more money for those 5-10 years and that'll help them better control the eventual outcome when a new round of moves has to be made to fix what they broke in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

You also have to keep in mind that there are individual people making these decisions, and they'll tend to be individually incentivized to chase immediate dollars - some of which will end up in their personal pockets.

University presidents aren’t NFL owners and they are not getting rich off of these moves.

 

[Orangezoo]

It's not full of fools' gold, it's full of United States dollars. And if the pot shrinks in 5 or 10 years because of the decisions made today, well, they still made more money for those 5-10 years and that'll help them better control the eventual outcome when a new round of moves has to be made to fix what they broke in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

You also have to keep in mind that there are individual people making these decisions, and they'll tend to be individually incentivized to chase immediate dollars - some of which will end up in their personal pockets.

We will see. Still a ton of assumptions here that aren't clear cut proven facts and ignoring many other factors.

 

[WoadBlue]

So in theory, if the SEC takes FSU and Clemson... ESPN still holds those schools' media rights at the current value (which would become a huge bargain in the SEC), but it gets to demand a look-in at the ACC and lower those contract payouts. This could be a huge savings for ESPN. So then you start to wonder, would ESPN be so interested in doing something like this with a handful of schools the SEC would take, that it might cut a deal with FOX on those media rights to let them take enough schools to the B1G to dissolve the ACC?

Is Disney that dirty these days, that low? I say, no doubt it is.

But the big catch in this is the fact that the only thing the BT lacks vis a vis the SEC is being the Home League for a huge area that is filled with football talent. That means that th more that the SEC allows the BT to enter the South with ACC members the more that the BT is able to cut into its talent disparity. The football talent the Bat accumulates, the more it, with a truly National conference, takes advantage over the SEC, which is restricted to just Southern states.

So, the worst case scenario for the SEC is allowing the BT to get members in the South, and especially in FL and GA because of the massive number of top recruits from those states.

And now that the BT has been pissed off by ESPN for its decision to back the SEC to the hilt, if the BT takes even 4 valuable ACC members located in the South, the BT is going to put a major hurt on ESPN. That would mean the ACC, if it survived, would be seriously weakened. And the SEC would be ESPN's only answer to the BT.

So both ESPN and the SEC either must make certain the ACC survives, or they risk being harmed greatly by the BT's National conference.

 

[WoadBlue]

University presidents aren’t NFL owners and they are not getting rich off of these moves.

Only the networks are getting rich from it all.

 

[djorange1989]

So, we have this

This is Dino’s dream, movies combined with some SU football

 

[Cuse181]

Can anyone explain why the ACC finds SMU the least bit attractive? A small private school that delivers no eyeballs. I don't get it.

because there is this made up idea that an area that already doesn't watch SMU or ACC football is going to be up in that arms in the event regional cable partners don't want to pay increased ACCN carriage fees.

SMU is hardly worth anything, but people will pretend like they are unlocking some massive market.

 

[sutomcat]

So in theory, if the SEC takes FSU and Clemson... ESPN still holds those schools' media rights at the current value (which would become a huge bargain in the SEC), but it gets to demand a look-in at the ACC and lower those contract payouts. This could be a huge savings for ESPN. So then you start to wonder, would ESPN be so interested in doing something like this with a handful of schools the SEC would take, that it might cut a deal with FOX on those media rights to let them take enough schools to the B1G to dissolve the ACC?

No. The GOR grants the rights to broadcast the games of the schools who signed it to the conference.

ESPN is not involved.

GORs provide stability. It would make zero sense to give the entities destabilizing college sports more power to do so.

This is one of many things the idiots that make podcasts for FSU and Clemson say that are categorically wrong. Those podcasts always have a new idea for getting out of tue GOR and they are always based on bad assumptions or outright lies.

This is why a GOR still hasn’t been beaten. Or even tested in court.

 

[NJneer12]

because there is this made up idea that an area that already doesn't watch SMU or ACC football is going to be up in that arms in the event regional cable partners don't want to pay increased ACCN carriage fees.

SMU is hardly worth anything, but people will pretend like they are unlocking some massive market.

Then why is the ACC even considering them with Calford?

 

[djorange1989]

No. The GOR grants the rights to broadcast the games of the schools who signed it to the conference.

ESPN is not involved.

GORs provide stability. It would make zero sense to give the entities destabilizing college sports more power to do so.

This is one of many things the idiots that make podcasts for FSU and Clemson say that are categorically wrong. Those podcasts always have a new idea for getting out of tue GOR and they are always based on bad assumptions or outright lies.

This is why a GOR still hasn’t been beaten. Or even tested in court.

Yep there is one way out of the GOR and I paraphrase Henry Hill: “ you want out of the GOR? **k you, pay me”

 

[cuse62]

The other thing I was wondering is how the NFL perceives this? They don‘t want the minor league that they do not have to pay, blown up.

 

[Cuse181]

They need one FSU/Clemson/UNC vote to expand, and they need to expand to avoid turning into the next Pac-4.

What does expanding actually change though? FSU gets what? 20M more from success incentives every 3-4 years? That still leaves them with a $20M-30M+ gap to SEC and BIG10. This doesn't save the ACC much like the BIG12's expansion doesn't actually save them. The BIG12's (potential) value is in their shorter contract but that's a double edged sword because they could just as easily get raided again in 2031, or even see their contract gutted in the next round of negotiations.

The ACC and the BIG12 are either both going to survive or both going to die, there is no middle ground. A Combined BIG12/ACC sans FSU and Clemson is not anymore attractive then two conferences split up.

At the end of the day, its either:
1) Two super conferences in BIG and SEC with a lower division or
2) BIG, SEC, ACC and BIG12 remain power 4 with G5 still allowed to trail behind

The 3 super conference idea has zero juice because all of the valuable schools are already gone.

 

[Chip]

Yeah, there’s no way to run a competitive football program when a school is only making $40-50 million a year in media rights. And has a bottomless pit of booster money.

Do people even hear themselves?

Who gives a crap if Indiana and Ole Miss make more media money? There’s like 8 programs in those 2 conferences that Clemson competes with for national HS recruits and big name transfers. They can’t hoard all of them.

We are so through the looking glass with this nonsense.

7 home games * 80,000 fans per game * average ticket price of what, $100? $56M. Doesn't include parking, concessions, merch.

How much can it cost to operate and maintain?

Say a prayer for them.

 

[oldpinepoint]

More money doesn’t make up for a poorly run athletic program, it will eventually catch up to you

 

[kcsu]

I sincerely hope no conference is making decisions based on the long term viability of cable TV.

Today is what matters relative to the current agreement. Today the Bay area and Dallas. California and Texas matter.

 

[kcsu]

More money doesn’t make up for a poorly run athletic program, it will eventually catch up to you

Just ask Maryland

 

[kcsu]

because there is this made up idea that an area that already doesn't watch SMU or ACC football is going to be up in that arms in the event regional cable partners don't want to pay increased ACCN carriage fees.

SMU is hardly worth anything, but people will pretend like they are unlocking some massive market.

Rutgers was worth less and they got an invite to the Big for the same reason that SMU will for the ACC. subscribers

 

[Scooch]

Today is what matters relative to the current agreement. Today the Bay area and Dallas. California and Texas matter.

A few things...

1) Both the San Fran/Oak/San Jose and Dallas/Ft. Worth markets have among the lowest rates of cable subscriptions in the country. There isn't a ton of additional money the ACCN can make in those markets, assuming the cable operators in them quickly transition to an in-market rate. My hunch, based on a lot of real-world experience, is that they will not. That rate may take years to garner, if ever. Relatedly...

2) There is almost no chance other markets in CA and TX pay the in-state rate for the ACCN. They will kick, scream, litigate and likely drop ESPN entirely before you see it happen.

3) Speaking of dropping ESPN, that is going to be offered as a stand-alone DTC service quite soon. And at that point, the entire premise of in-market and in-state rates for ACCN is going to disappear.

I'll reiterate, no conference should be making decisions based on the long term viability of cable.

 

[Cuse181]

Rutgers was worth less and they got an invite to the Big for the same reason that SMU will for the ACC. subscribers

Then why didn't the BIG add SMU, or TCU or any Texas schools? If Dallas is attractive and there is a critical mass of fans willing to watch regionally inconsequential games then they should've been at the top of the list.

Rutgers was a mistake by the BIG10. NYC was and is a Unicorn, the BIG didn't and doesnt need Rutgers to have the NYC market, evidenced by the largest fanbase in NYC seemingly being pro-Penn State (according to NYT and Wall Street Journal in the 2010s).

 

[Cuse181]

A few things...

1) Both the San Fran/Oak/San Jose and Dallas/Ft. Worth markets have among the lowest rates of cable subscriptions in the country. There isn't a ton of additional money the ACCN can make in those markets, assuming the cable operators in them quickly transition to an in-market rate. My hunch, based on a lot of real-world experience, is that they will not. That rate may take years to garner, if ever. Relatedly...

2) There is almost no chance other markets in CA and TX pay the in-state rate for the ACCN. They will kick, scream, litigate and likely drop ESPN entirely before you see it happen.

3) Speaking of dropping ESPN, that is going to be offered as a stand-alone DTC service quite soon. And at that point, the entire premise of in-market and in-state rates for ACCN is going to disappear.

I'll reiterate, no conference should be making decisions based on the long term viability of cable.

Bingo

 

[kcsu]

Then why didn't the BIG add SMU, or TCU or any Texas schools? If Dallas is attractive and there is a critical mass of fans willing to watch regionally inconsequential games then they should've been at the top of the list.

Rutgers was a mistake by the BIG10. NYC was and is a Unicorn, the BIG didn't and doesnt need Rutgers to have the NYC market, evidenced by the largest fanbase in NYC seemingly being pro-Penn State (according to NYT and Wall Street Journal in the 2010s).

Because they lost out on AM and Texas. Also because the Bar is already too high for the Big to make a marginal move. The ACC is in a different position.

 

[Scooch]

7 home games * 80,000 fans per game * average ticket price of what, $100? $56M. Doesn't include parking, concessions, merch.

How much can it cost to operate and maintain?

Say a prayer for them.

Not to mention the additional tuition money coming from the increase in out-of-state students that attend Clemson now. A development that is fueled, in no small part, due to the exposure the perennial BCS/playoff-contending football program has given the school.

But how can they "stay competitive" with the likes of Purdue and Kentucky?!

 

[HRE Otto IV]

What does expanding actually change though? FSU gets what? 20M more from success incentives every 3-4 years? That still leaves them with a $20M-30M+ gap to SEC and BIG10. This doesn't save the ACC much like the BIG12's expansion doesn't actually save them. The BIG12's (potential) value is in their shorter contract but that's a double edged sword because they could just as easily get raided again in 2031, or even see their contract gutted in the next round of negotiations.

The ACC and the BIG12 are either both going to survive or both going to die, there is no middle ground. A Combined BIG12/ACC sans FSU and Clemson is not anymore attractive then two conferences split up.

At the end of the day, its either:
1) Two super conferences in BIG and SEC with a lower division or
2) BIG, SEC, ACC and BIG12 remain power 4 with G5 still allowed to trail behind

The 3 super conference idea has zero juice because all of the valuable schools are already gone.

How is a combined ACC/B12 really any different than separate? In that case you have a Super 2, a Power 1, and a G5.

If the SEC took FSU, Clemson, VA Tech, NC State and the B18 took Notre Dame, UVA, UNC, GA Tech, Miami, Stanford that would leave the ACC with BC, SU, Pitt, Louisville, Duke, Wake, SMU, Cal. Now your choices are to rebuild a new national ACC (can’t leave Cal alone) or half those teams can go to the better fit B12.

Would be ironic if the addition of Cal and SMU is what kills the chance of survival.

But we don’t know how this all plays out. I can totally see an Academic Colleges Conference made up of 18-24 Top 100 schools.

 

[Scooch]

Then why didn't the BIG add SMU, or TCU or any Texas schools? If Dallas is attractive and there is a critical mass of fans willing to watch regionally inconsequential games then they should've been at the top of the list.

Rutgers was a mistake by the BIG10. NYC was and is a Unicorn, the BIG didn't and doesnt need Rutgers to have the NYC market, evidenced by the largest fanbase in NYC seemingly being pro-Penn State (according to NYT and Wall Street Journal in the 2010s).

I don't think Rutgers was a mistake, given when they were added. They were invited in 2012. That was a couple years before cable subscriptions peaked in the U.S. (2014), and several years before cord-cutting began to have a significant impact on the bottom line.

The B1G has made a lot of money in the past decade from their network being carried on the basic tier in the NY market. It wouldn't make sense to add Rutgers today, but in 2012 it did.

I don't know what the ACC sees in SMU, but if it's for "Dallas cable TV homes" then it's not a bright idea.

 

[OrangeXtreme]