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

[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

 

[TheCusian]

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.

Lot of good points in here.

- We as Syracuse fans support a program that has "dropped down" (ie we don't have access to the same $ as SEC and B1G teams, same talent, etc) - support isn't what it was, but it's still there.

- Relegation already exists but it has less to do with results than it does with geography, old partnerships, and most importantly fan eyeballs that lead to $. It's slow and ineffecient.

- We hear from SEC folks that "it just means more" and they are nuts for CFB. The NE is dead for football! But what about Buffalo Bills? Parity allows them to compete and it drives hope. The SEC and B1G want an NFL lite but it can't exist without parity and equal footing. I suppose the end game will be 1 big league where they are all getting the same chunk of money to claim a sense of parity. But if it's not diverse geographically it will cause the sport to stop growing in areas like ours (even more than it already has).

- I agree with you on the lack of parity and lack of central office being the driver of inequality. The TV partners would have to force it or the conferences would. Tough ask when money is flowing like rivers of gold.

 

[pokercuse08]

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.

This is a really good post. In particular, the other ACC teams on the upswing. It's so important to have the conference be as strong as possible when FSU and Clemson leave. But also, the point about the SEC/B1G having teams become mediocre is a good one. It's possible that in the current college football ecosystem and the current media landscape (and they're both changing and who knows what all that looks like in 5-7 years), but it's possible that two conferences just isn't enough to fill the public perception of the 10-15 teams "worth watching."

Gonna be very interesting in a few years to see the ratings between powerhouse B1G schools with two losses as opposed to like an undefeated FSU or Clemson going up against a one or two loss UNC or Syracuse. But also even if they're perceived as better, I don't think anyone is gonna care about say a 5-4 Iowa against a 5-4 Penn State, or whatever. Doesn't matter who the losses are against, the stakes of that game just aren't that high.

So it's possible that the breakaway concept falls flat. It's also possible it doesn't. If it falls flat, the ACC could be in great shape to keep all its current teams and grow its value with one final raid of the Big 12.

 

[Hoo's That]

{snip}

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.

The lack of control is true at the FBS level, primarily because the schools and conferences don't want it to happen. It's an outgrowth of the Supreme Court decisions giving the schools control over their TV rights. I really believe that the administrations and supporters of the superpowers have become so blinded by the money that they can't see what will happen when they're left only playing each other and the soft teams on the schedules are gone. Some of it is the hubris that they'll be the ones that win and the other teams will lose. How will Bama's/Ohio State's/Georgia's supporters react to several 2-10 or 3-9 seasons in a row? The current trajectory is taking college football toward that future.

 

[TheCusian]

The lack of control is true at the FBS level, primarily because the schools and conferences don't want it to happen. It's an outgrowth of the Supreme Court decisions giving the schools control over their TV rights. I really believe that the administrations and supporters of the superpowers have become so blinded by the money that they can't see what will happen when they're left only playing each other and the soft teams on the schedules are gone. Some of it is the hubris that they'll be the ones that win and the other teams will lose. How will Bama's/Ohio State's/Georgia's supporters react to several 2-10 or 3-9 seasons in a row? The current trajectory is taking college football toward that future.

Yep. And a non-P2 conference match up of undefeated teams will start to garner more eyeballs than mediocre/poor teams with more recognizable helmets

 

[HRE Otto IV]

The Texas/Oklahoma exit seems to be misrepresented and the $100M as TV rights is being parroted around the internet incorrectly.

The original reason why they couldn't leave early was FOX. The B12 wasn't trying to stick it to them by making them stay. Once FOX was satisfied, it released the teams. If an ACC team left for the SEC, FOX would not be a factor. Supposedly FOX accepted $20M total for Texas/Oklahoma to "buy back" their TV rights. There would be no buy back needed for an ACC to SEC move.

Because of the 99 year agreement the B12 could have held Texas/Oklahoma to an $80M exit. There were questions as to whether that was legally binding. In the end the B12 settled for $50M (supposedly $40M). The ACC will have a similar issue with their exit fee.

Texas and Oklahoma aren't paying money, the B12 is withholding $50M for their conference payouts.

The B12 was more willing to let Texas/Oklahoma go early when they saw that ESPN/FOX were willing to give a good TV contract. You could see similar in the ACC. If ESPN doesn't decrease the total value, each ACC team gets about $3.5M more per year.


If a team wants to leave, the ACC will need to be made whole. If the schools are each getting $3.5M more in TV revenue per year, they cannot say they have been "damaged" by two schools going to the SEC.

The "exit" fee will need to be negotiated. Texas/Oklahoma got out for half. Maryland got out for $31M when the ACC claimed they owed $52M. Those are the precedents.


IMO the biggest issue stopping an ACC to SEC move is ESPN having the money to make it worth while. They have a lot on their plate right now. Can they really afford to keep $50M extra in the ACC, while also bumping up the SEC by $100M?

 

[orangecuse]

The lack of control is true at the FBS level, primarily because the schools and conferences don't want it to happen. It's an outgrowth of the Supreme Court decisions giving the schools control over their TV rights. I really believe that the administrations and supporters of the superpowers have become so blinded by the money that they can't see what will happen when they're left only playing each other and the soft teams on the schedules are gone. Some of it is the hubris that they'll be the ones that win and the other teams will lose. How will Bama's/Ohio State's/Georgia's supporters react to several 2-10 or 3-9 seasons in a row? The current trajectory is taking college football toward that future.

Well, perhaps, you are exaggerating somewhat to make your point? Which, some others here have also shared a similar sentiment. However, I'm not so sure the reality of what you stated will ever be the actual reality. Is it possible? I guess so, but, IMO, highly improbable is the much more likely odds. Sure, those teams could have bad seasons (according to their typical standards) but 2-10, 3-9 for "several seasons in a row." In my view, that's likely never happening. Those aforementioned schools, and the likes brass, would never stand for "several seasons" of such. That is far from mediocrity, but rather complete failure.

One of the reasons the NFL is far and above other pro sports is the general mediocrity/parity of the league's teams. However, it's at the 'highest level of play,' and, that is a matter of most significance. A team that went 7-9 or 6-10, had several legit chances in lost games to win that would've placed then at 10-6, etc. There isn't that much that separates a 6-10 NFL team from a 10-6.

This NFL season kicks off officially tomorrow. You can bet that NFL teams stadiums will be at or near capacity. Even in cities of the usual suspect teams that seemingly generally find ways to lose vs. finding ways to win. However, just as the case will be with the future inclusive college group, they are there, first and foremost.

What each school's leadership chooses to do with such inclusiveness, with all the granted/afforded means etc., well, that rests upon the stewards of their respective institutions.

 

[shantydaze]

. . .

- The SEC and B1G want an NFL lite but it can't exist without parity and equal footing. I suppose the end game will be 1 big league where they are all getting the same chunk of money to claim a sense of parity. But if it's not diverse geographically it will cause the sport to stop growing in areas like ours (even more than it already has).

Money does not bring parity. If it did, we would see parity in both the SEC and B1G already as all teams receive the same conference payout. One of the biggest reasons for parity in the NFL is the draft, something that will never fly in the college ranks.

Honestly, I think both NIL and the transfer portal will be the biggest movers for CFB parity. Gone is the day where a team could amass talent through under the table payments. The payments are still there, but now the concern over cheating is gone so more schools/coaches support it. Second, even when an Alabama or Ohio State is still leading in bringing in the talent, the coaches can not just sit the players and exclude other programs from the talent. At some point, players lower down on the depth chart are going to transfer to another program.

 

[longtimefan]

Money does not bring parity. If it did, we would see parity in both the SEC and B1G already as all teams receive the same conference payout. One of the biggest reasons for parity in the NFL is the draft, something that will never fly in the college ranks.

Honestly, I think both NIL and the transfer portal will be the biggest movers for CFB parity. Gone is the day where a team could amass talent through under the table payments. The payments are still there, but now the concern over cheating is gone so more schools/coaches support it. Second, even when an Alabama or Ohio State is still leading in bringing in the talent, the coaches can not just sit the players and exclude other programs from the talent. At some point, players lower down on the depth chart are going to transfer to another program.

And players can also transfer up, further separating the have's from the have-not's--See Verse, Jared.

 

[TheCusian]

Money does not bring parity. If it did, we would see parity in both the SEC and B1G already as all teams receive the same conference payout. One of the biggest reasons for parity in the NFL is the draft, something that will never fly in the college ranks.

Honestly, I think both NIL and the transfer portal will be the biggest movers for CFB parity. Gone is the day where a team could amass talent through under the table payments. The payments are still there, but now the concern over cheating is gone so more schools/coaches support it. Second, even when an Alabama or Ohio State is still leading in bringing in the talent, the coaches can not just sit the players and exclude other programs from the talent. At some point, players lower down on the depth chart are going to transfer to another program.

Good point. A lot of these elite programs (Bama, Ohio St) are so awash with cash that exist outside of TV money (booster $ for HC firings and NIL deals) that money still skews parity by quite a bit.

And I do think what happens is that program ceilings and floors are changed by $.

I do agree that NIL and transfer portal help and seem to be a net positive for schools like Syracuse.

 

[UpstateSM]

It's so embarrassing that UMass finds themselves on the outside looking in.

Threw a hissy fit and left instead of joining the MAC all sports. Has not started spending like a serious FBS school in revenue sports until the last 12 months. Stays loyal to an A10 that has terrible leadership and gets worse at basketball every season.

It is all self-inflicted. Very, very frustrating. They don't act like a flagship, football playing state school and that goes from the top of the top all the way down to the school's admin.

 

[CousCuse]

It's so embarrassing that UMass finds themselves on the outside looking in.

Threw a hissy fit and left instead of joining the MAC all sports. Has not started spending like a serious FBS school in revenue sports until the last 12 months. Stays loyal to an A10 that has terrible leadership and gets worse at basketball every season.

It is all self-inflicted. Very, very frustrating. They don't act like a flagship, football playing state school and that goes from the top of the top all the way down to the school's admin.

I follow a of different programs because the management of a college football program is so complex and interesting. The UMASS program in particular has all the odds and advantages stacked against it, that's why I find so compelling. I get the impression that the pols in Mass gave the go ahead to go FBS and said, show us some success and we'll come up with more funding. Well, since the outset the project has been poorly handle, the first coach Molinar I think, really put it behind the 8 ball. If Don Brwn can get that program on the right path, which it looks like maybe he is, the politicians and money people over there need to immediately come up with real funding to get the McGuirk up to modern standards. Still it's a better story than anything that Hollywood comes up with.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Where does the money come from? It would take them 2 decades to break even.

Taxpayers

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Gosh, how will we survive?

Count to ten, by 16.

 

[dasher]

I follow a of different programs because the management of a college football program is so complex and interesting. The UMASS program in particular has all the odds and advantages stacked against it, that's why I find so compelling. I get the impression that the pols in Mass gave the go ahead to go FBS and said, show us some success and we'll come up with more funding. Well, since the outset the project has been poorly handle, the first coach Molinar I think, really put it behind the 8 ball. If Don Brwn can get that program on the right path, which it looks like maybe he is, the politicians and money people over there need to immediately come up with real funding to get the McGuirk up to modern standards. Still it's a better story than anything that Hollywood comes up with.

Know any big time Mass pols? I do. Bill Mullens from the Mullens arena was my high school baseball coach. The guy that followed him, a good friend of mine, was the #3 man in the house. The Mass pols are never going to spend big money on the UMass football program. They just aren't. First of all, the reps from the Eastern part of the state look way, way down on the Western part of the state and the money they spent on the Western part it is reflected. They don't spend money on the Western Mass.

 

[CousCuse]

Know any big time Mass pols? I do. Bill Mullens from the Mullens arena was my high school baseball coach. The guy that followed him, a good friend of mine, was the #3 man in the house. The Mass pols are never going to spend big money on the UMass football program. They just aren't. First of all, the reps from the Eastern part of the state look way, way down on the Western part of the state and the money they spent on the Western part it is reflected. They don't spend money on the Western Mass.

Certainly you know more than me about the politics in Massachusetts. I'm only saying that with the absence of any success, nobody is going to lobby for funding. Even with that, they have spent quite a bit of money on upgrades. Personally, I'm pulling for Don Brown to accomplish a labor of Hercules and make that program into something. As I've postulated, and you've lampooned, the northeast, and by that I mean New York and New England, need UMASS and UConn playing high level college football to spur interest in the best sport there is.

 

[WoadBlue]

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.

The whole mess is now a game of the biggest business backing 2 leagues to play games of leervaged bouts of other leagues, of a type of hostile take over. It is the ugliest raw capitalism in sports. It will ruin college sports if not stopped in some way.

 

[WoadBlue]

Certainly you know more than me about the politics in Massachusetts. I'm only saying that with the absence of any success, nobody is going to lobby for funding. Even with that, they have spent quite a bit of money on upgrades. Personally, I'm pulling for Don Brown to accomplish a labor of Hercules and make that program into something. As I've postulated, and you've lampooned, the northeast, and by that I mean New York and New England, need UMASS and UConn playing high level college football to spur interest in the best sport there is.

Never happen. The region lost most of its interest in CFB no later than the dawn of the 1970s, more Riley by the close of the 1950s. That plus the deartghn of opal talent, talent on a national level, means passion for Major college CFB aint never coming back in the NY-New England area.

Major college CBB is different. The key part is that NYC especially produces so much top talent.

 

[CousCuse]

Never happen. The region lost most of its interest in CFB no later than the dawn of the 1970s, more Riley by the close of the 1950s. That plus the deartghn of opal talent, talent on a national level, means passion for Major college CFB aint never coming back in the NY-New England area.

Major college CBB is different. The key part is that NYC especially produces so much top talent.

You can't imagine how much New York and New England have changed since the 1970's. The simple fact is there hasn't been major college football in New England until UConn became FBS in 2004 and then UMass in 2012. Well, except for BC who doesn't really count for a myriad of reasons. I mean, if lacrosse is growing all over the country, college football could boom in New England. They just need a rooting interest.

 

[dasher]

You can't imagine how much New York and New England have changed since the 1970's. The simple fact is there hasn't been major college football in New England until UConn became FBS in 2004 and then UMass in 2012. Well, except for BC who doesn't really count for a myriad of reasons. I mean, if lacrosse is growing all over the country, college football could boom in New England. They just need a rooting interest.

It takes a lot more players to be good in Football. As we saw last year.

 

[HtownOrange]

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?

You accused me of creating a new argument in the post I responded to. No matter, I didn’t.

Regarding the schools who want to leave, it is immaterial who leaves, the principles remain the same.

You state I am assuming hostility. Who wants any teams to leave, beyond the two or three that may presently have a landing spot? None of the remaining schools want anyone to leave. That creates hostility. And they remain in power, not the schools with wandering eyes. There has been zero comments or statements from ACC schools regarding a consensus to part ways, let alone to d so amicably. You are assuming facts not in evidence. Can it happen, yes, I already alluded to a future where things can be resolved, but at this juncture, there remains no incentive to accommodate FSU and/or anyone leaving. Everyone knows FSU and Clemson lack the financials to leave anytime soon. Everyone knows UNC lacks the will to write the check. Both points have been previously stated.

You are intermingling points regarding the exit fees and TV rights/payouts. The exit fee is just that, the cost of getting out. You point out the Big12’s 99 year agreement, but there is no exchange of promises, just we will stay together for 99 years and if someone wants out this is the exit fee. The ACC knew they needed an increased fee to garner further rights negotiations, Maryland jumped before the increase, they understood this point and knew they were more likely committed to the exit fee than not. The major difference is that the ACC established the current exit fee for the purpose of attracting a partner for the network, the ACCN. The Big12 had no such purpose, plus 99 years is questionably long.

Regarding the TV rights, you undervalue the TV rights at $25MM. The value is what ESPN pays annually, even the guarantee is much higher than you posit, thus the numbers don’t work out correctly. The need to buy back rights at $50MM was a ballpark figure averaged over the next 12 years. Compared to UT and OU, they needed to pay to get out the one year early, otherwise they could not go anywhere. The Big12 exit fee was more of a one-sided promise and lacked substance of a contract; juxtapose the ACC purpose of opening negotiations for a network (this is oversimplified), this makes the ACC’s exit fee much stronger than the Big12’s. Regarding the buyback, the Big12’s TV rights at the time of negotiations were around $200MM annually, or $20MM, probably a little higher because contracts escalate over time, but not too much. Even their new deal is only valued around $30MM/team (granted, if UT and OU were involved it would be much higher). With a questionable exit fee and low valued rights, OU and UT still paid $50MM each, per announced $100MM exit deal. Or a factor of 2.1X Rights and a token amount for the exit fee. Recall that initially, the Big12 was going to make both wait out the GOR, they only negotiated a deal when it was to their advantage. Regardless, it took a lot of time to bargain away one year. What is lacking in your calculations is a desire by the remaining ACC teams to actually agree to anything.

Further, you assume ESPN wants to pay a couple teams more in the SEC, that makes no sense because 1) ESPN has to pay more! 2) it destroys the ACC and the ACCN. ESPN and the ACC have vested interest in continuing to make money. ESPN has no interest in destroying a major property. 3) If the door is opened to teams leaving, the door is opened to Fox grabbing schools, too. 4) schools with wandering eyes either lack the resources to make the move (yes, FSU’ offer of $300 MM was an insult to everyone and they didn’t even have that available). 5) Plus many more reasons we don’t know about But ACC members and ESPN do.

i have consistently held that a deal my arise down the road but a deal now is a fool’s errand. The current ACC teams are on the rise, overall. FSU and Clemson drive ratings the most. The ACC remains seriously undervalued. ESPN has look-ins to adjust the ACC’s payouts. The ACC covers the most densely populated and projected to grow territory. The GOR is solid. If it was easy to break the agreement, it would have been done before now. At this juncture, the ACC has no incentive to work with FSU or any other school wishing to jump.

What remains is to ponder why you want FSU and others to jump? As an Orange fan, there is no benefit to the ACC at this time, why make a bad deal now?

 

[HRE Otto IV]

You accused me of creating a new argument in the post I responded to. No matter, I didn’t.

Regarding the schools who want to leave, it is immaterial who leaves, the principles remain the same.

You state I am assuming hostility. Who wants any teams to leave, beyond the two or three that may presently have a landing spot? None of the remaining schools want anyone to leave. That creates hostility. And they remain in power, not the schools with wandering eyes. There has been zero comments or statements from ACC schools regarding a consensus to part ways, let alone to d so amicably. You are assuming facts not in evidence. Can it happen, yes, I already alluded to a future where things can be resolved, but at this juncture, there remains no incentive to accommodate FSU and/or anyone leaving. Everyone knows FSU and Clemson lack the financials to leave anytime soon. Everyone knows UNC lacks the will to write the check. Both points have been previously stated.

You are intermingling points regarding the exit fees and TV rights/payouts. The exit fee is just that, the cost of getting out. You point out the Big12’s 99 year agreement, but there is no exchange of promises, just we will stay together for 99 years and if someone wants out this is the exit fee. The ACC knew they needed an increased fee to garner further rights negotiations, Maryland jumped before the increase, they understood this point and knew they were more likely committed to the exit fee than not. The major difference is that the ACC established the current exit fee for the purpose of attracting a partner for the network, the ACCN. The Big12 had no such purpose, plus 99 years is questionably long.

Regarding the TV rights, you undervalue the TV rights at $25MM. The value is what ESPN pays annually, even the guarantee is much higher than you posit, thus the numbers don’t work out correctly. The need to buy back rights at $50MM was a ballpark figure averaged over the next 12 years. Compared to UT and OU, they needed to pay to get out the one year early, otherwise they could not go anywhere. The Big12 exit fee was more of a one-sided promise and lacked substance of a contract; juxtapose the ACC purpose of opening negotiations for a network (this is oversimplified), this makes the ACC’s exit fee much stronger than the Big12’s. Regarding the buyback, the Big12’s TV rights at the time of negotiations were around $200MM annually, or $20MM, probably a little higher because contracts escalate over time, but not too much. Even their new deal is only valued around $30MM/team (granted, if UT and OU were involved it would be much higher). With a questionable exit fee and low valued rights, OU and UT still paid $50MM each, per announced $100MM exit deal. Or a factor of 2.1X Rights and a token amount for the exit fee. Recall that initially, the Big12 was going to make both wait out the GOR, they only negotiated a deal when it was to their advantage. Regardless, it took a lot of time to bargain away one year. What is lacking in your calculations is a desire by the remaining ACC teams to actually agree to anything.

Further, you assume ESPN wants to pay a couple teams more in the SEC, that makes no sense because 1) ESPN has to pay more! 2) it destroys the ACC and the ACCN. ESPN and the ACC have vested interest in continuing to make money. ESPN has no interest in destroying a major property. 3) If the door is opened to teams leaving, the door is opened to Fox grabbing schools, too. 4) schools with wandering eyes either lack the resources to make the move (yes, FSU’ offer of $300 MM was an insult to everyone and they didn’t even have that available). 5) Plus many more reasons we don’t know about But ACC members and ESPN do.

i have consistently held that a deal my arise down the road but a deal now is a fool’s errand. The current ACC teams are on the rise, overall. FSU and Clemson drive ratings the most. The ACC remains seriously undervalued. ESPN has look-ins to adjust the ACC’s payouts. The ACC covers the most densely populated and projected to grow territory. The GOR is solid. If it was easy to break the agreement, it would have been done before now. At this juncture, the ACC has no incentive to work with FSU or any other school wishing to jump.

What remains is to ponder why you want FSU and others to jump? As an Orange fan, there is no benefit to the ACC at this time, why make a bad deal now?

You said a lot of words but in there you admit it CAN be done. Whether or not it is worth the money and whether or not the ACC will allow it to happen is another story.

You are wrong about Texas/Oklahoma. They paid an exit fee of $50M each. That includes the $80M exit and any compensation for their one year of TV. Saying it was just for TV rights is false. They should have paid over $100M each and negotiated for less than half. So why would one think that an ACC team would owe $50M per year of the TV contract?

So if SU is given the below offer you want them to turn it down? Why?

Teams A and B announce they are going to SEC in 2026. 2025 SU gets $5M (our end of exit fee withholdings). 2026 SU gets $5M (last half of exit fees), 2027-2035 SU gets $3.75M more per year (TV payout).

Are we not better off?