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

[MikeSU02]

 

[gbo]

I'm not sure why Clemson is pushing to join a P2 conference when we were a muffed punt away from being shut out by Duke...

(Didn't watch the game so can't give any thoughts)

 

[HtownOrange]

If they could make money off of it, ESPN could probably assist in having 2 teams move to the SEC. I don't think the money is there though. For example...

If ESPN told the ACC that in return for two ACC teams going to the SEC the TV contract would stay the same, it would be the equivalent of buying back the TV rights. So the ACC would have two full TV shares to divide 15 ways (more $ per team).

ESPN now has more SEC inventory. If they are paying an extra $100M per year for those two, can they make $115M+? If so then it would make sense.

Brand wise adding FSU and Clemson makes sense. Although SECN wise UNC and VA Tech would make the most sense as they add new states and markets to the SEC.

If it is profitable (which I wouldn't think it is), then it could happen. Otherwise these teams are all stuck here.

While the numbers work in the short term, ESPN would effectively be destroying the overall value of the ACC and ACCN, which will bite the ACC schools later. I get your point, but it isn’t as simple as that, the legal issues will arise and the attempt could be kept in court until the GOR ends.

Recall, the Big12 held OU and UT until they offered 2.1X the media payout to get out one year early. Recall also that USC and UCLA considered leaving the PAC early and decided it was simpler to wait out the GOR. Also recall that bath the SEC and the B1G refused any assistance with the separations.

I think your final assumption is most likely correct.

 

[HtownOrange]

I'm not sure why Clemson is pushing to join a P2 conference when we were a muffed punt away from being shut out by Duke...

(Didn't watch the game so can't give any thoughts)

No one blames your team for wanting additional resources, if you can bring us all along, we’d provably vote to join before next week. The timing really hurts in that Clemson, due to success, lost both coordinators. The game showed Venables was worth every penny. Dabo will have the Tigers back on track but it may take time.

Nothing personal, but I am hoping SU makes Clemson sorry for playing the Orange this year. Other than that, I wish you and your Tigers well.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

While the numbers work in the short term, ESPN would effectively be destroying the overall value of the ACC and ACCN, which will bite the ACC schools later. I get your point, but it isn’t as simple as that, the legal issues will arise and the attempt could be kept in court until the GOR ends.

Recall, the Big12 held OU and UT until they offered 2.1X the media payout to get out one year early. Recall also that USC and UCLA considered leaving the PAC early and decided it was simpler to wait out the GOR. Also recall that bath the SEC and the B1G refused any assistance with the separations.

I think your final assumption is most likely correct.

ACC content is solely owned by ESPN which is different than the prior two that you mentioned. Who would be damaged?

What lawsuits? ESPN would be working with the ACC to come to an exit agreement to “buy back” the TV rights for the length of the GOR. The ACC keeps $50M year which is the payout for the 2 leaving.

After the GOR the ACC value takes a big hit but that likely happens anyway.

If there are two ACC teams that bring in $100M + in the SEC, ESPN should make the move. I don’t think there are though.

Alternatively they could also agree to half and the school would cover the other half. Which is much more manageable. But again I don’t think the potential revenue warrants a move.

 

[HtownOrange]

ACC content is solely owned by ESPN which is different than the prior two that you mentioned. Who would be damaged?

What lawsuits? ESPN would be working with the ACC to come to an exit agreement to “buy back” the TV rights for the length of the GOR. The ACC keeps $50M year which is the payout for the 2 leaving.

After the GOR the ACC value takes a big hit but that likely happens anyway.

If there are two ACC teams that bring in $100M + in the SEC, ESPN should make the move. I don’t think there are though.

Alternatively they could also agree to half and the school would cover the other half. Which is much more manageable. But again I don’t think the potential revenue warrants a move.

Each school granted rights to the ACC who then granted the rights in exchange for the ACCN and as content for the ACCN. As the ACC gets 50% of the revenue generated by the ACCN removing content from the ACCN necessarily hurts revenue.

Even if one argues that FSU and Clemson don't appear on the ACCN, the ACC would still need to move other teams to the ESPN and ABC slots. Again, hurting revenue. Recall that the ACC is receiving more than the guarantee and the ACCN has not attained maturity, it is still growing.

Any negotiated settlement will not be at the guarantee. Due to the time remaining on the GOR, I imagine the remaining g teams would want a significantly higher multiplier than 2.1 paid by Our and UT for a one yeAr buy back.

And yes, the legal issues are real. Again, if it was easy, it would have been over and done with.

To your last point, several ACC teams are on the upswing. Letting FSU and Clemson go early for peanuts is a fool's mistake. As the ACC improves the value goes up and more teams become attractive to the alleged select two conferences. Don't t forget that the teams I. The SEC and B1G are going to become mediocre as they are too heavy with too few wins available to be significant.

This is a very complex issue and probably far more complicated than I am presenting, I simply lack the variables and data available to the real decision makers.

 

[Chris02M]

This Orlando Sentinel column by Mike Bianchi nails why college realignment is utter madness and administrators are chasing dollars they don’t need out of fear they’ll be left behind.

To quote:
It’s no secret why the ACC added this underwhelming trio; it’s because all three schools were willing to give up all or some of their TV revenue — money that the existing ACC teams will then be able to divide among themselves. In other words, the ACC added three desperate new members just so existing league teams could bleed them dry of their TV revenue.

It’s all part of the belief among college administrators that they need more and more and more money to compete with their rivals. As Florida AD Scott Stricklin told me recently about the mentality in today’s college football, “There’s nothing you won’t spend to get the best players and best people to come to your program.”

But if money is all that matters, then the Gators would beat FSU every single season because, well, the Gators have always had a significantly bigger athletic budget than the Seminoles. If money is all that matters, the Texas Longhorns — traditionally among the top two revenue producers in college athletics — would be competing for national titles most every season. The Longhorns, who have won more than eight games only once in the last nine years, bring in about $35 million more per year than Georgia, which has won back-to-back national titles.

Do athletic programs really need to make $250 million a year in revenue when $200 million or — gasp! — $150 million would suffice? As Bud Fox asked greedy billionaire Gordon Gekko in the classic movie Wall Street: “How much is enough? How many yachts can you water-ski behind?”

Florida State as more than enough money to compete for national championships. In the end, college football is about hiring a good coach, giving him decent resources, having a modicum of patience and letting him recruit and develop talent. That’s what’s the Seminoles did with Norvell, whose recruiting and work in the transfer portal has paid off handsomely.

ACC-poor FSU dominates LSU and all of its SEC money | Commentary

Breaking news: Athletic budgets, media rights deals and grant-of-rights agreements had nothing to do with FSU dominating LSU. The Seminoles have more than enough money to compete for a national cha…

www.orlandosentinel.com

not entirely accurate as stranford andcal had no tv revenue for next year

 

[Jake]

I'm not sure why Clemson is pushing to join a P2 conference when we were a muffed punt away from being shut out by Duke...

(Didn't watch the game so can't give any thoughts)

It would not be an ideal time to return to the pack…

 

[kcsu]

ESPN is not going to loose the ACC for a short term gain. They know what they have and they will make sure the ACC stays strong. I expect that the ACC picks up a few teams during the next open season on the 12 and gets a big bump at that point from ESPN

 

[sutomcat]

ESPN is not going to loose the ACC for a short term gain. They know what they have and they will make sure the ACC stays strong. I expect that the ACC picks up a few teams during the next open season on the 12 and gets a big bump at that point from ESPN

Agree that the negotiations between the B12 and ESPN are going to be really important. Not just to the B12 but to the ACC.

The ACC has the biggest markets. More so now than ever.

The ACC has the name programs. The B12 has no marquee programs. Not one.

And perhaps most importantly, ESPN has 100% of the ACC. They are sharing the B12 with Fox.

The B1G contract expires in 2030.

The B12 contract expires in 2031.

The SEC contract expires in 2034.

The ACC contract expires in 2036.

They can’t get all of them. Even if they could afford them, they don‘t have enough channels to show that much quality content.

ESPN would surely like to take Fox’s spot in the B1G deal. I think that would be good letting Fox take full control of the B12. And ideally they would like to retain 100% of the SEC and ACC as well.

That would be a lot more expensive than staying out of the B1G deal and retaining half of the rights for the B12. Will they have the money?

That comes down to these showdowns with cable companies like Spectrum/Charter. Amd most importantly, whether they can figure out how to build an app and a network to stream sporting events as nicely as the MLB app. That part should be a lot easier to do than negotiating with cable companies. It has already been done and has been in place for a decade or more. It is shocking how little progress ESPN had made here over such a long period.

If they can’t get these stuff done, they aren’t going to have the revenues to pay the ACC rates Clemson and FSU would consider competitive. I think we all need to root for the ESPN technical people to get their act together and good a good standalone streaming package out there ASAP.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Each school granted rights to the ACC who then granted the rights in exchange for the ACCN and as content for the ACCN. As the ACC gets 50% of the revenue generated by the ACCN removing content from the ACCN necessarily hurts revenue.

Even if one argues that FSU and Clemson don't appear on the ACCN, the ACC would still need to move other teams to the ESPN and ABC slots. Again, hurting revenue. Recall that the ACC is receiving more than the guarantee and the ACCN has not attained maturity, it is still growing.

Any negotiated settlement will not be at the guarantee. Due to the time remaining on the GOR, I imagine the remaining g teams would want a significantly higher multiplier than 2.1 paid by Our and UT for a one yeAr buy back.

And yes, the legal issues are real. Again, if it was easy, it would have been over and done with.

To your last point, several ACC teams are on the upswing. Letting FSU and Clemson go early for peanuts is a fool's mistake. As the ACC improves the value goes up and more teams become attractive to the alleged select two conferences. Don't t forget that the teams I. The SEC and B1G are going to become mediocre as they are too heavy with too few wins available to be significant.

This is a very complex issue and probably far more complicated than I am presenting, I simply lack the variables and data available to the real decision makers.

You are creating a completely different argument.

It would be a negotiated settlement and not a hostile takeover.

The ACC per team payout goes up. That isn’t devaluing. And having greater T1 exposure for the left behinds is bad for those schools?

Texas got out early for a price. Paying $250M to the ACC to buyback the TV rights Is a hefty price. A team wouldn’t be walking away for free or breaking the GOR. They are doing what Texas did.

ACCN carriage fees don’t change. Ad revenue would decrease some but less than the increase you get from Tier 1/2. So net the schools make more money.

I don’t think it would be worth it to ESPN. Definitely not in the current environment. But I don’t know how much they make on these games so it could be possible.

 

[HtownOrange]

You are creating a completely different argument.

It would be a negotiated settlement and not a hostile takeover.

The ACC per team payout goes up. That isn’t devaluing. And having greater T1 exposure for the left behinds is bad for those schools?

Texas got out early for a price. Paying $250M to the ACC to buyback the TV rights Is a hefty price. A team wouldn’t be walking away for free or breaking the GOR. They are doing what Texas did.

ACCN carriage fees don’t change. Ad revenue would decrease some but less than the increase you get from Tier 1/2. So net the schools make more money.

I don’t think it would be worth it to ESPN. Definitely not in the current environment. But I don’t know how much they make on these games so it could be possible.

I have not changed my argument. I have consistently stated that the exit fee is significant and most schools cannot or will not pay it outright, let alone buy back their rights. I have consistently opined that the ACC buyback is too long for a simple calculation, as you argue $250MM, or roughly 5 years when they have another 12 years following this season, or roughly $500-$600MM. When you use the OU and UT multiplier of 2.1, you end up at $1.050-$1.26BB.

Your estimate does not even cover the rights the ACC will gain by not agreeing to the offer. Negotiations don't work that way unless you have no leverage. In this scenario, FSU and Clemson have no leverage as they are under contract (as is every ACC school).

As to the carriage fees, they will not increase significantly as people cut the cord, sure some streaming will be available, but that is too difficult at this time to assume it will be cover the cord cutting losses. Yes, the ACC may get a nice bump with CA and TX, but that is not revenue FSU and Clemson get to use to negotiate down their buy back.

To your final comments, there is no way ESPN can simply move the FSU and Clemson rights to the SEC, that is bargaining in bad faith. Unless the ACC is heavily compensated, there is no incentive for the remaining ACC teams to agree to a buy back by FSU and Clemson. All the ACC has to do is file a case in court and keep it there so long as it is not frivolous, the ACC wins by default.

I am not sure why you want to let FSU and Clemson out on the cheap. If they are leaving in 2036, then they are leaving in 2036. What incentive is there to let them out early and on the cheap? There is no benefit. Keep them locked down and continue to build up the remaining teams. The option to buy back their rights is always on the table, but as UT and OU proved, the price is steep. From FSU and Clemson's perspective, the money is not as bad as the FSU AD cried about. The have an easy path to the playoffs.

If ESPN fails the ACC and does not make a sweet offer in 2036 then all ACC teams need to see what is out there and in their best interest. I personally believe that ESPN will not allow Fox more "territory". If ESPN kills off the ACC, then ESPN will be no better than Jefferson Pilot for the SEC, a regional carrier. If that happens, ESPN can write off college sports as a whole because Fox, NBC, CBS, and the streamers know the boon that is CFB and Hoops. They are not likely to give up control again for a long time.

Please note, too many mouths on the web are only looking at this from a conference perspective. See Paul Finebaum. Are highly biased. Finebaum, the Dude, Frank the Tank, et al. All of them ignore the networks and the streamers who need content - and have the bucks!, ignore hoops as a revenue source, even though they freely admit that hoops is at least 25% of the contract but offers much more upside on revenue, and cannot keep their biases from ruling their "opinions". I wish we had access to the full matrix the decision makers get to see.

 

[MikeSU02]

I have not changed my argument. I have consistently stated that the exit fee is significant and most schools cannot or will not pay it outright, let alone buy back their rights. I have consistently opined that the ACC buyback is too long for a simple calculation, as you argue $250MM, or roughly 5 years when they have another 12 years following this season, or roughly $500-$600MM. When you use the OU and UT multiplier of 2.1, you end up at $1.050-$1.26BB.

Your estimate does not even cover the rights the ACC will gain by not agreeing to the offer. Negotiations don't work that way unless you have no leverage. In this scenario, FSU and Clemson have no leverage as they are under contract (as is every ACC school).

As to the carriage fees, they will not increase significantly as people cut the cord, sure some streaming will be available, but that is too difficult at this time to assume it will be cover the cord cutting losses. Yes, the ACC may get a nice bump with CA and TX, but that is not revenue FSU and Clemson get to use to negotiate down their buy back.

To your final comments, there is no way ESPN can simply move the FSU and Clemson rights to the SEC, that is bargaining in bad faith. Unless the ACC is heavily compensated, there is no incentive for the remaining ACC teams to agree to a buy back by FSU and Clemson. All the ACC has to do is file a case in court and keep it there so long as it is not frivolous, the ACC wins by default.

I am not sure why you want to let FSU and Clemson out on the cheap. If they are leaving in 2036, then they are leaving in 2036. What incentive is there to let them out early and on the cheap? There is no benefit. Keep them locked down and continue to build up the remaining teams. The option to buy back their rights is always on the table, but as UT and OU proved, the price is steep. From FSU and Clemson's perspective, the money is not as bad as the FSU AD cried about. The have an easy path to the playoffs.

If ESPN fails the ACC and does not make a sweet offer in 2036 then all ACC teams need to see what is out there and in their best interest. I personally believe that ESPN will not allow Fox more "territory". If ESPN kills off the ACC, then ESPN will be no better than Jefferson Pilot for the SEC, a regional carrier. If that happens, ESPN can write off college sports as a whole because Fox, NBC, CBS, and the streamers know the boon that is CFB and Hoops. They are not likely to give up control again for a long time.

Please note, too many mouths on the web are only looking at this from a conference perspective. See Paul Finebaum. Are highly biased. Finebaum, the Dude, Frank the Tank, et al. All of them ignore the networks and the streamers who need content - and have the bucks!, ignore hoops as a revenue source, even though they freely admit that hoops is at least 25% of the contract but offers much more upside on revenue, and cannot keep their biases from ruling their "opinions". I wish we had access to the full matrix the decision makers get to see.

If FSU and Clemson could leave, they would. There is a legal, clear path to do so.

But they can’t.

Same with UNC (they are a little less vocal with Delaney, an alum, no longer being the B1G commish).

The money and media landscape are going to change significantly over the next decade.

The idea that there is an inevitable soccer-like setup with a breakaway league are ignoring a host of issues that are cultural, legal and financial.

It’s not even ESPN and Fox in a vacuum, it’s Disney or Amazon or Apple or some other entity. College sports wanted to step into big business and now they’ll get it.

Again, I’ll say it: if FSU or Clemson want to leave, they can. The only thing stopping them is their own inability to have the money to do so.

People are assigning a mythical financial standing on these football teams because of the passion of college football fans.

 

[kcsu]

I have not changed my argument. I have consistently stated that the exit fee is significant and most schools cannot or will not pay it outright, let alone buy back their rights. I have consistently opined that the ACC buyback is too long for a simple calculation, as you argue $250MM, or roughly 5 years when they have another 12 years following this season, or roughly $500-$600MM. When you use the OU and UT multiplier of 2.1, you end up at $1.050-$1.26BB.

Your estimate does not even cover the rights the ACC will gain by not agreeing to the offer. Negotiations don't work that way unless you have no leverage. In this scenario, FSU and Clemson have no leverage as they are under contract (as is every ACC school).

As to the carriage fees, they will not increase significantly as people cut the cord, sure some streaming will be available, but that is too difficult at this time to assume it will be cover the cord cutting losses. Yes, the ACC may get a nice bump with CA and TX, but that is not revenue FSU and Clemson get to use to negotiate down their buy back.

To your final comments, there is no way ESPN can simply move the FSU and Clemson rights to the SEC, that is bargaining in bad faith. Unless the ACC is heavily compensated, there is no incentive for the remaining ACC teams to agree to a buy back by FSU and Clemson. All the ACC has to do is file a case in court and keep it there so long as it is not frivolous, the ACC wins by default.

I am not sure why you want to let FSU and Clemson out on the cheap. If they are leaving in 2036, then they are leaving in 2036. What incentive is there to let them out early and on the cheap? There is no benefit. Keep them locked down and continue to build up the remaining teams. The option to buy back their rights is always on the table, but as UT and OU proved, the price is steep. From FSU and Clemson's perspective, the money is not as bad as the FSU AD cried about. The have an easy path to the playoffs.

If ESPN fails the ACC and does not make a sweet offer in 2036 then all ACC teams need to see what is out there and in their best interest. I personally believe that ESPN will not allow Fox more "territory". If ESPN kills off the ACC, then ESPN will be no better than Jefferson Pilot for the SEC, a regional carrier. If that happens, ESPN can write off college sports as a whole because Fox, NBC, CBS, and the streamers know the boon that is CFB and Hoops. They are not likely to give up control again for a long time.

Please note, too many mouths on the web are only looking at this from a conference perspective. See Paul Finebaum. Are highly biased. Finebaum, the Dude, Frank the Tank, et al. All of them ignore the networks and the streamers who need content - and have the bucks!, ignore hoops as a revenue source, even though they freely admit that hoops is at least 25% of the contract but offers much more upside on revenue, and cannot keep their biases from ruling their "opinions". I wish we had access to the full matrix the decision makers get to see.

Please stop making sense

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I have not changed my argument. I have consistently stated that the exit fee is significant and most schools cannot or will not pay it outright, let alone buy back their rights. I have consistently opined that the ACC buyback is too long for a simple calculation, as you argue $250MM, or roughly 5 years when they have another 12 years following this season, or roughly $500-$600MM. When you use the OU and UT multiplier of 2.1, you end up at $1.050-$1.26BB.

Your estimate does not even cover the rights the ACC will gain by not agreeing to the offer. Negotiations don't work that way unless you have no leverage. In this scenario, FSU and Clemson have no leverage as they are under contract (as is every ACC school).

As to the carriage fees, they will not increase significantly as people cut the cord, sure some streaming will be available, but that is too difficult at this time to assume it will be cover the cord cutting losses. Yes, the ACC may get a nice bump with CA and TX, but that is not revenue FSU and Clemson get to use to negotiate down their buy back.

To your final comments, there is no way ESPN can simply move the FSU and Clemson rights to the SEC, that is bargaining in bad faith. Unless the ACC is heavily compensated, there is no incentive for the remaining ACC teams to agree to a buy back by FSU and Clemson. All the ACC has to do is file a case in court and keep it there so long as it is not frivolous, the ACC wins by default.

I am not sure why you want to let FSU and Clemson out on the cheap. If they are leaving in 2036, then they are leaving in 2036. What incentive is there to let them out early and on the cheap? There is no benefit. Keep them locked down and continue to build up the remaining teams. The option to buy back their rights is always on the table, but as UT and OU proved, the price is steep. From FSU and Clemson's perspective, the money is not as bad as the FSU AD cried about. The have an easy path to the playoffs.

If ESPN fails the ACC and does not make a sweet offer in 2036 then all ACC teams need to see what is out there and in their best interest. I personally believe that ESPN will not allow Fox more "territory". If ESPN kills off the ACC, then ESPN will be no better than Jefferson Pilot for the SEC, a regional carrier. If that happens, ESPN can write off college sports as a whole because Fox, NBC, CBS, and the streamers know the boon that is CFB and Hoops. They are not likely to give up control again for a long time.

Please note, too many mouths on the web are only looking at this from a conference perspective. See Paul Finebaum. Are highly biased. Finebaum, the Dude, Frank the Tank, et al. All of them ignore the networks and the streamers who need content - and have the bucks!, ignore hoops as a revenue source, even though they freely admit that hoops is at least 25% of the contract but offers much more upside on revenue, and cannot keep their biases from ruling their "opinions". I wish we had access to the full matrix the decision makers get to see.

Agree you haven't changed your argument. My point is what I posted has little to do with your argument. You are tangenting.

Why are you assuming Clemson? It wasn't too long ago that I would argue that GA Tech was a better FB program (Ross/O'Leary/Gailey/Johnson > Hatfield/West/Bowden). Clemson's success the last 10 years or so has been great, but that doesn't ensure future success. IMO if the scenario I laid out happens it would be FSU and UNC.

But back to my point the exit would be very expensive and nearly impossible for a school to do on its own. That is where ESPN could assist and "buy back" the TV rights. You are totally ignoring this angle. Whether or not ESPN can afford it (which I suspect they cannot) is a fair argument.

You are also assuming hostility. If the ACC wanted to play hardball, no one can leave. But why choose that route? If over the next 10 years the ACC can make MORE money for everyone, why turn that down out of spite? If (a big IF) all parties can come to an agreement, why not? You keep making it so a mutually beneficial exit is NOT possible. That is naive.

I believe the Tier 1/2 rights from ESPN is $25M a year. Why would there be a need to buy back rights for $50M? The B12 let Texas out early because it made them more money. This move would be the same. Also wasn't what Texas paid the exit fee AND one year of TV rights? The B12 had a 99 year commitment and to get out you needed to pay 2 years of revenue ($80M). So in reality they only paid $50M to leave a year early AND get out of the 99 year. They got off cheap.

ESPN would be $weetening the pot as incentive. If they wanted to, they could play hardball too. If two ACC teams leave for the SEC then they can still get 1/2 TV shares for their road games (same as they would make in the ACC). Their home games would be owned by the ACC who sold them to ESPN. So ESPN can chose to put FSU vs Miss State as the ACC Tier 1/2 game in a given week and relegate the actual ACC games. That would kill exposure for the ACC teams. So not only does the ACC not have more money, they have less TV slots.

Again if there is no mutual agreement this cannot happen. If there is a mutual agreement, there is no reason for a lawsuit is there?

 

[Orangefan1]

Agree you haven't changed your argument. My point is what I posted has little to do with your argument. You are tangenting.

Why are you assuming Clemson? It wasn't too long ago that I would argue that GA Tech was a better FB program (Ross/O'Leary/Gailey/Johnson > Hatfield/West/Bowden). Clemson's success the last 10 years or so has been great, but that doesn't ensure future success. IMO if the scenario I laid out happens it would be FSU and UNC.

But back to my point the exit would be very expensive and nearly impossible for a school to do on its own. That is where ESPN could assist and "buy back" the TV rights. You are totally ignoring this angle. Whether or not ESPN can afford it (which I suspect they cannot) is a fair argument.

You are also assuming hostility. If the ACC wanted to play hardball, no one can leave. But why choose that route? If over the next 10 years the ACC can make MORE money for everyone, why turn that down out of spite? If (a big IF) all parties can come to an agreement, why not? You keep making it so a mutually beneficial exit is NOT possible. That is naive.

I believe the Tier 1/2 rights from ESPN is $25M a year. Why would there be a need to buy back rights for $50M? The B12 let Texas out early because it made them more money. This move would be the same. Also wasn't what Texas paid the exit fee AND one year of TV rights? The B12 had a 99 year GOR and to get out you needed to pay 2 years of revenue ($80M). So in reality they only paid $20M to leave a year early.

ESPN would be $weetening the pot as incentive. If they wanted to, they could play hardball too. If two ACC teams leave for the SEC then they can still get 1/2 TV shares for their road games (same as they would make in the ACC). Their home games would be owned by the ACC who sold them to ESPN. So ESPN can chose to put FSU vs Miss State as the ACC Tier 1/2 game in a given week and relegate the actual ACC games. That would kill exposure for the ACC teams. So not only does the ACC not have more money, they have less TV slots.

Again if there is no mutual agreement this cannot happen. If there is a mutual agreement, there is no reason for a lawsuit is there?

Regardless we know that Stanford SMU and California will be a part of the ACC and I’m excited about it. I also feel like Syracuse will be fine now because we will still be relevant in football somehow. Also we saw Saturday how quickly people’s opinions can be another a team after they crash and burn like Clemson did. The tide is turning. Clemson was an 8-3 team for a long time before recent success but that always cycles to someone else eventually. The good news is Syracuse can go undefeated and have a change at a title every year in football.

 

[Hoo's That]

I gave this the "Ha Ha", but it really isn't funny. They can see the writing on the wall WRT SMU's potential.

 

[Hoo's That]

Just combine the SEC with the ACC and do promotion and relegation. Bottom 1/2 teams earn less $ but still have access to playoff. Preserves inventory for ESPN and puts onus to compete on the field vs off it.

Promotion and relegation is a concept totally alien to US sports. No one except soccer fans wants any part of it.

 

[Hoo's That]

ACC content is solely owned by ESPN which is different than the prior two that you mentioned. Who would be damaged?

{snip}

No, the ACCN is a 50/50 proposition between the conference and ESPN. ESPN has the right to broadcast 90-some-odd percent of ACC content. There are still football and basketball games covered by the Raycom/CW contract.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

No, the ACCN is a 50/50 proposition between the conference and ESPN.

Yes that isn’t what I meant. My point was you don’t have to negotiate with FOX. That was the thorn in Texas’ side NOT the B12 schools.

 

[MikeSU02]

Promotion and relegation is a concept totally alien to US sports. No one except soccer fans wants any part of it.

This is one of the items that I meant by the cultural hurdles to do this in my previous post. It’s never happening here.

It’s also inextricably linked to the financial component.

It’s also mapping to a paradigm that is done for a pro sport and not a college one. things like eligibility limit on years a player can play as in college.

 

[BlazeOrange]

Promotion and relegation is a concept totally alien to US sports. No one except soccer fans wants any part of it.

It's common in beer league sports with multiple local leagues.

The problem is when money and scheduling come into play.

 

[Phillymoose]

This is one of the items that I meant by the cultural hurdles to do this in my previous post. It’s never happening here.

It’s also inextricably linked to the financial component.

It’s also mapping to a paradigm that is done for a pro sport and not a college one. things like eligibility limit on years a player can play as in college.

It goes even further, and in many ways shines a light on the underlying 'problem'.

All the major sports in the US have some form of salary cap (or spending control). Teams can go over the cap and be penalized (and do sometimes), but there is a financial disincentive to do it. These sports have league offices that operate in everyone's top-down interests. The goals (among others) are integrity (of the rules), marketability of the product, and parity. Dynasties are fun, but that new hockey team in Tampa is not going to last long if Chicago or Pittsburgh wins every year. Parity is good for a sport.

Soccer in England is weird. There is no salary cap, and the same rich teams are often in the top 5, but there is very much a league office seeing to things top-down. The difference is, these teams and cities are so old and embedded in the culture that even when teams drop to Champions level, they still get a lot of local support, and the 'dream' alone of getting into the Premier League is enough to sustain them. I don't think US fans would support a pro franchise that was 'dropped down' like this. It offends our sensibilities.

Which brings us to what's happening in CFB. There is no central office looking after the integrity of the sport as a whole. Lack of parity is the goal of the wealthier teams and conferences, and there is no one there to stop the mad dash into the destruction of the overall sport. Take it to its natural conclusion (and I don't see anyone or anything getting in the way), and vast populations of the country will not have teams with realistic access to games that 'matter'. The funny thing is - everyone sees it. Everyone admits it (even the perpetrators), but they also can't stop. It's like a virus that needs to run its course.

 

[TheCusian]

Promotion and relegation is a concept totally alien to US sports. No one except soccer fans wants any part of it.

Oh, I agree.

But that doesn't mean that it isn't a good solution. If it were just the money (top 1/2 finishers get x2 and bottom 1/2 get x1 for example) - it would be performance based with a chance for all programs to reach the top 1/2. It would solve FSU/Clemson thinking that they are above everyone (prove it) and would allow the TV partners to "rig" the schedule to top 1/2 teams making it more valuable to advertisers.

 

[TheCusian]

This is one of the items that I meant by the cultural hurdles to do this in my previous post. It’s never happening here.

It’s also inextricably linked to the financial component.

It’s also mapping to a paradigm that is done for a pro sport and not a college one. things like eligibility limit on years a player can play as in college.

I agree with the cultural hurdles. I'd call it something different lol.

The roster churn in pro soccer is not all unlike college. Even more so with the transfer portal and money actually flowing to players. It all looks more like EPL/Champions league more and more.

But 'Merica