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

[Cuse181]

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.

I don’t think Rutgers “unlocked” that value though. They may have thought it would help, but you probably get similar buy in from NYC with or without Rutgers. Penn state and Michigan have massive fan bases in the city, I’d argue in actual eyeballs that watch (versus alumni counts) they probably out perform Rutgers. Could I be wrong? Maybe but outside of one random article from “knojbi” (Whatever that is) Penn state and Michigan out perform Rutgers in NYC.

 

[All4SU]

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.

There is a way out of the GOR. All FSU and Clem have to do is find 8 teams to add to the ACC. Then work back door deals with each of them that once they are admitted they will vote with them to dissolve. Promise them part of what you would spend on GOR. Voila! A back door exit plan. Of course those schools would forever be toxic to any conference. But hey! It’s not personal. It’s just business.

 

[All4SU]

Part of the idiocy of all of this is if FSU can make the playoff every year through the ACC, they will probably net more in proceeds and alumni $ than they would make by finishing in the middle of the pack in the SEC.

 

[Cuse181]

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.

Thats what I am saying, it doesn't make a difference if they are together or not. I think they either die with each other or live with eachother.

 

[oldpinepoint]

What’s amazing to me is someone hasn’t said, hey all you P5 leagues, come here and combine. Negotiate as one group similar to the NFL. NFL gets $12.5 billion annually, cut that in half and divide by 60 and you get $100 mill each. I think there is where we are heading eventually. Just going to take some real leadership

 

[qdawgg]

Part of the idiocy of all of this is if FSU can make the playoff every year through the ACC, they will probably net more in proceeds and alumni $ than they would make by finishing in the middle of the pack in the SEC.

But that’s true for almost every team that’s left their previous conference in the last decade or so to join the B10 or SEC. Winning doesn’t matter in these decisions, at all.

 

[All4SU]

But that’s true for almost every team that’s left their previous conference in the last decade or so to join the B10 or SEC. Winning doesn’t matter in these decisions, at all.

But money does. If they make the playoffs through the ACC I would think it would offset the increased revenue they would get through the B1G or sec.

In a 10 year period, how many times could they make the playoff? 5? 6? Unless they don’t think they can make the playoff through the ACC consistently. Then their trading probably mediocrity for cash. Talk about a big FU to their fans.

 

[NJneer12]

I don’t think Rutgers “unlocked” that value though. They may have thought it would help, but you probably get similar buy in from NYC with or without Rutgers. Penn state and Michigan have massive fan bases in the city, I’d argue in actual eyeballs that watch (versus alumni counts) they probably out perform Rutgers. Could I be wrong? Maybe but outside of one random article from “knojbi” (Whatever that is) Penn state and Michigan out perform Rutgers in NYC.

As someone from that market. B1GN was never available in the NY market before Rutgers joined. As soon as Rutgers joined the Big Ten. Every single cable provider included it in some sort of package with other stations/sports channels/etc.

Now did people get that package because of Rutgers? No. lol. But the Michigan and PSU fans in the area sure did.

If Rutgers people want to make that their "win" have at it. lol

 

[SU94]

The two best mascot in college sports are Otto and The Tree. When/if Calford joins the ACC, the presser needs to feature a photo op of them meeting and hugging.

Be careful with the Tree (not an official mascot) and the Standford Band. Not as warm and fuzzy as you'd think:

What made Stanford the most banned marching band in the country

College football season is just underway, but at Stanford, the action isn't on the...

www.sfgate.com

 

[BlazeOrange]

Winning doesn’t matter in these decisions, at all.

Money and winning have been tied together, both somewhat accurately:
"If the schools get max deals to cover operating expenses, the boosters can step up wth NILs for the top recruits and the occasional over the top extra."

and delusionally:
"We'd be right up there with the top teams if we were in a big money conference..."

 

[HtownOrange]

Wasn't there some discussion on here about the conference possibly being dissolved with a simple majority vote, and that dissolving the GOR?

Wouldn't be surprised at all if Stanford, Cal, and SMU come in without voting rights for a period of several years. That would POSSIBLY (because we don't know if it can actually be dissolved this way) mean that you only needed eight votes to dissolve the conference. It's fairly easy to count to eight teams the B1G and SEC would take. Four they definitely want, you can very reasonably get them to six to eight, so they may only have to take like two extra teams they may or may not actually want in order to get the ACC to dissolve itself.

But that's all a big IF, because we don't know if that's actually how dissolving the conference works - and it may come down to a court case (or two or three). You'd also have to have FOX and ESPN negotiate over some of the media rights to make it a clean break. FOX would probably have to pay ESPN for the rights of the schools that go to the B1G.

But it's all at least feasible, and if there's enough extra money for FOX and ESPN to make over the next ~decade by doing it now, they'll try to find a way.

ESPN and the ACC are beneficiaries of the GOR. Even if the simple majority can dissolve the conference, ESPN has rights and does not have to approve of allowing FSU's - or any ACC team - to take their rights. ESPN has already created the ACCN, invested a lot of money and paid more than the agreement once revenue exceeded the break even point. This has been discussed

As to the dissolution of the ACC, I imagine the ACC and teams without a landing spot would argue that the amendments clause requires a 3/4vote, dissolution is an amendment to the formation and must have a 3/4 ote. If nothing else, it goes up the issue in court for a while and the teams cannot go as easily as projected. I don't think we get there because the exit and GOR are cost prohibitive to most ACC schools.

 

[Toga]

I actually read all 273 pages of this, I will put it as politely as I can, garbage. Given the fact that Florida State and Clemson are out as soon as possible, among other schools, why would the rest of the conference give incentives to those schools. Why take money out of their pocket; and give it to schools that aren’t staying?

To have enough schools in the league so that ESPN doesn't give a major haircut to the remaining teams. Is that number 13?

 

[HtownOrange]

Wasn't there some discussion on here about the conference possibly being dissolved with a simple majority vote, and that dissolving the GOR?

Wouldn't be surprised at all if Stanford, Cal, and SMU come in without voting rights for a period of several years. That would POSSIBLY (because we don't know if it can actually be dissolved this way) mean that you only needed eight votes to dissolve the conference. It's fairly easy to count to eight teams the B1G and SEC would take. Four they definitely want, you can very reasonably get them to six to eight, so they may only have to take like two extra teams they may or may not actually want in order to get the ACC to dissolve itself.

But that's all a big IF, because we don't know if that's actually how dissolving the conference works - and it may come down to a court case (or two or three). You'd also have to have FOX and ESPN negotiate over some of the media rights to make it a clean break. FOX would probably have to pay ESPN for the rights of the schools that go to the B1G.

But it's all at least feasible, and if there's enough extra money for FOX and ESPN to make over the next ~decade by doing it now, they'll try to find a way.

ESPN and the ACC are beneficiaries of the GOR. Even if the simple majority can dis

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?

You have just described tortious interference. That would be ugly for ESPN and the SEC and FSU/Clemson.

When thousands of lawyers have looked at breaking GORs for several years and not one has proscribed an even moderately feasible solution, it's time to believe the GOR is tight.

NOTE: GORs are used in other entertainment and have been used to stick it to naive artists for decades. They have been upheld in court. Believe what you want , for my take, if a respectable attorney had at least a near even chance to win the issue, the attorney would file in good faith and try. This has not happened which leads me to believe no attorney believes they can bring a case to court in good faith attempting the break the GOR.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

To have enough schools in the league so that ESPN doesn't give a major haircut to the remaining teams. Is that number 13?

From what I read that whole thing seems like a twisting of the facts. It sounds like ESPN has a standard out clause if X amount of teams leave they have the right to revalue. So even the SEC would have this. We know the B12 had it and ESPN chose not to lower their value several times.

Also it isn’t the number of teams so if the ACC goes from 17 to 15, ESPN might have an option even though the ACC is now 14.

People are twisting this to make it look like the ACC has a bad deal. Which is totally disingenuous. They also make it sound like the value goes down automatically, when it is an option.

 

[pokercuse08]

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

The part I bolded is incredibly naïve in my opinion. I don't know if bags of cash are literally landing on doorsteps, but I'm pretty confident that it's not a coincidence that university presidents are making purely money-motivated decisions in almost every one of these cases.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

The part I bolded is incredibly naïve in my opinion. I don't know if bags of cash are literally landing on doorsteps, but I'm pretty confident that it's not a coincidence that university presidents are making purely money-motivated decisions in almost every one of these cases.

You do realize that conference TV money is chump change compared to the academic money? And that the presidents are academics who aren’t that into sports? Some who even dislike it? They aren’t making decisions that can impact the academic side for a measly $25M.

 

[pokercuse08]

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

ESPN is not involved.

The GOR grants the rights to broadcast the games of those schools to the conference, but the ACC then has a deal with ESPN in which ESPN gets the right to broadcast these games in exchange for payment to the ACC.

So I guess the question is, did ESPN actually sign a deal where they are paying a fixed rate to the ACC per school, regardless of whether the most valuable schools leave?

 

[Orangezoo]

The part I bolded is incredibly naïve in my opinion. I don't know if bags of cash are literally landing on doorsteps, but I'm pretty confident that it's not a coincidence that university presidents are making purely money-motivated decisions in almost every one of these cases.

So you are thinking there are a bunch of side deals school presidents at state schools, whose compensation is public, are brokering on the side directly as a result of their position? That's quite an assertion not to mention referring to others as naive.

 

[Scooch]

I don’t think Rutgers “unlocked” that value though. They may have thought it would help, but you probably get similar buy in from NYC with or without Rutgers. Penn state and Michigan have massive fan bases in the city, I’d argue in actual eyeballs that watch (versus alumni counts) they probably out perform Rutgers. Could I be wrong? Maybe but outside of one random article from “knojbi” (Whatever that is) Penn state and Michigan out perform Rutgers in NYC.

The addition of Rutgers increased the rate that NY market cable operators paid for the BTN.

Prior to Rutgers joining they were likely paying 10-15 cents per subscriber per month, and the network was most often offered on a sports tier.

After adding them those operators paid well over $1 per subscriber per month, and the BTN was moved to a basic tier.

You are right that Penn State delivers much bigger ratings in the NY market than Rutgers. But that’s not what the addition of Rutgers was about.

 

[pokercuse08]

You do realize that conference TV money is chump change compared to the academic money? And that the presidents are academics who aren’t that into sports? Some who even dislike it? They aren’t making decisions that can impact the academic side for a measly $25M.

We're talking about university presidents who make $300K to $1M a year. They're not immune to being swayed by financial incentives, no matter how immoral it may seem. If a bag equivalent to a year's salary shows up and all they have to do is the same thing everyone else is doing, they're probably going to take it.

 

[Orangezoo]

We're talking about university presidents who make $300K to $1M a year. They're not immune to being swayed by financial incentives, no matter how immoral it may seem. If a bag equivalent to a year's salary shows up and all they have to do is the same thing everyone else is doing, they're probably going to take it.

Who are also subject to laws, regulations and university policies. This isn't a college recruit getting a bag under the NCAAs nose. When it comes to that part of this I think you are a bit out of your depth.

 

[pokercuse08]

So you are thinking there are a bunch of side deals school presidents at state schools, whose compensation is public, are brokering on the side directly as a result of their position? That's quite an assertion not to mention referring to others as naive.

I think it's naïve to think that deals worth $30-50M a year are being cut, with major input/control from university presidents, and none of them are getting a little piece for themselves. I wish we lived in a world where people were beyond reproach and didn't do stuff like that, but I've had that innocence ripped away from me as I've gotten older.

I wouldn't be surprised if they're literally getting bags of money, but it's probably a little less overt. It's probably promises of future no-show jobs, board seats, etc, that wouldn't look all that out of the ordinary.

 

[sutomcat]

Be careful with the Tree (not an official mascot) and the Standford Band. Not as warm and fuzzy as you'd think:

What made Stanford the most banned marching band in the country

College football season is just underway, but at Stanford, the action isn't on the...

www.sfgate.com

I love everything I read about the Stanford band. It is everything I wish SUMB was.

If Stanford joins the ACC, my most anticipated event might be watching those people perform. I am sure we will get zinged pretty good!

 

[pokercuse08]

Who are also subject to laws, regulations and university policies.

I wish we lived in a world where white collar criminals were brought to justice regularly, but we don't. This type of stuff happens all the time in all sorts of areas with stricter laws and regulations than whatever university presidents are supposed to abide by. The vast majority of people taking bribes and kickbacks don't get caught, and most of the ones who do suffer such small penalties that they still make a tidy profit on the bribe or kickback anyway.

 

[Orangezoo]

I think it's naïve to think that deals worth $30-50M a year are being cut, with major input/control from university presidents, and none of them are getting a little piece for themselves. I wish we lived in a world where people were beyond reproach and didn't do stuff like that, but I've had that innocence ripped away from me as I've gotten older.

I wouldn't be surprised if they're literally getting bags of money, but it's probably a little less overt. It's probably promises of future no-show jobs, board seats, etc, that wouldn't look all that out of the ordinary.

It's nothing to do with innocence. If someone is doing this it's rare and they are likely not long for the job. This stuff doesn't just happen in high profile state jobs. It's a conflict of interest at minimum but there is so much more to it. Having a career working around non profits and executives along with a heavily regulated industry- what you are talking about, corruption, is not as common as the movies make it out to be.