Realignment talk not going away

[Gidnik 3,270]

https://www.on3.com/teams/florida-state-seminoles/news/florida-state-intends-to-turn-up-heat-for-greater-revenue-at-acc-spring-meetings-this-week/

Florida State intends to turn up heat for greater revenue at ACC spring meetings this week

Quote

And, as Alford pointed out, the Big 12 Conference’s recently renegotiated television contract will be up for bid again following the 2030-31 season.

The fact that in-state school UCF is now joining that league is not lost on Alford.

“If you look at the revenue projections, they should have a better agreement than we have by going out to market,” he said. “That means there’s going to be another school in the state that’s going to have a better agreement than Miami and us. And that’s just not acceptable to us.”

🤣🤣

[camel at sea 589]

13 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

People say this shit all the time but the numbers don’t lie. Other than watching the final minutes of a midmajor upset, no one watches those games.

This year should have been the wet dream of everyone who loves the underdog aspect of the tournament, with only a single P5 team making the final four…and guess what…

https://nypost.com/2023/04/04/mens-march-madness-final-tv-ratings-hit-record-low/

https://thespun.com/college-hoops/sports-world-reacts-to-mens-final-four-television-ratings

Forth lowest final four ever (only saved from last place due to the Miami/UConn game) and the LOWEST men’s basketball championship game ever recorded by Neilson.

I get it, unpopular opinion but the mid majors are costing the P5 teams money, it’s a simple fact and a weird inverse.

Nobody watches mid major games (omitting some Big East teams and Gonzaga) until the final minutes if they have a realistic chance at an upset. If the upset happens then sport writers (and now social media) romanticize the “underdog” story and hype it after the fact.

The problem is that after the fact doesn’t make money for the broadcasters and advertisers. The games that make the most money are your 8/9 games between mid level ACC and Big 12 teams that people watch from beginning to end, but those aren’t as fun to write about or read about nationally the next day.

Sports journalists love the underdog but the broadcasters do not (see this year as a reason why) because no one will watch their next game either, they just assume they’ll lose so why tune in.

An all P5 tournament would get higher ratings for the broadcasters, which allows them to sell more commercials, and in turn allows the schools to make more money..,and that’s before accounting for the fact that the P5 makes less than 1/3 of the payout while accounting for nearly half the field. Just doubling their take home would be a win before you even factor in the higher ratings/advertising.

You could expand it to include all FBS and the Big East but then you could still end up with the same stinker of a final four that we had this year. But even so that new setup would still drive higher ratings overall.

Either way the basketball tournament is in for a shake up in the coming years and the underdog fans likely will not be pleased with the changes.

Generally speaking, casual fans and gamblers want to see the big upsets on the first weekend, but they want to see bluebloods or near bluebloods in the regional final and onward.  The big danger of cutting out the non-power conference programs is that you lose the appeal of the current tourney's opening weekend.  March Madness - as currently constructed - works.

In addition, you can't make a 60+ team tourney work from a pool of about 80-90 schools.  The tourney loses a lot of value if you reduce the field down to 32.  That's a notably smaller slate of games.  

[camel at sea 589]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

Agree somewhat, but getting back together with their regional foes like Pitt, Louisville, Syracuse, and Virginia Tech will appeal more to their fans and admin than playing K State and Texas Tech.

Also the more teams the Big 12 adds West of Colorado the more you strain their travel budgets and non-revenue teams. Just like the discussions we’re having about USC/UCLA, jumping more than 1 time zone is difficult so trading away Eastern schools for those West of (or near) the Mississippi will likely help both conferences.

The money would have to be close, but I could see them making a switch if its less than $10 million a year difference.

I think it's going to come down to how much of the ACC is left by the B1G and SEC.  If there are still 8-10 schools in the ACC, then the three eastern Big 12 schools would probably join up with them.  If the ACC ends up smaller than that, then the Big 12 would probably just absorb more eastern schools.  

It's hard for me to see how most of the ACC would be additive to either the SEC or B1G.  Even FSU and Clemson would probably be middle of the pack or lower with respect to AD value in the SEC.  Everyone else certainly would.  How is adding to the middle additive for everyone?  If the SEC sort of defensively grabbed the Noles and Tigers, and stopped at 18, is Miami valuable enough to split the Big Ten pie into another slice?  I think it's very questionable.  Same with UNC.  UVA, Duke, Georgia Tech would all definitely not be additive to athletics.   

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

27 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

I think it's going to come down to how much of the ACC is left by the B1G and SEC.  If there are still 8-10 schools in the ACC, then the three eastern Big 12 schools would probably join up with them.  If the ACC ends up smaller than that, then the Big 12 would probably just absorb more eastern schools.  

It's hard for me to see how most of the ACC would be additive to either the SEC or B1G.  Even FSU and Clemson would probably be middle of the pack or lower with respect to AD value in the SEC.  Everyone else certainly would.  How is adding to the middle additive for everyone?  If the SEC sort of defensively grabbed the Noles and Tigers, and stopped at 18, is Miami valuable enough to split the Big Ten pie into another slice?  I think it's very questionable.  Same with UNC.  UVA, Duke, Georgia Tech would all definitely not be additive to athletics.   

By FSU's own math, they're worth about $40m/year.   Miami is likely less.

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

1 hour ago, Gidnik said:

https://www.on3.com/teams/florida-state-seminoles/news/florida-state-intends-to-turn-up-heat-for-greater-revenue-at-acc-spring-meetings-this-week/

Florida State intends to turn up heat for greater revenue at ACC spring meetings this week

🤣🤣

FSU had 5 rated games last year, Miami had 4, just wait until UCF is on TV as much or more going forward too.   That's going to get ugly.

[TKthunder2 4,992]

1 hour ago, camel at sea said:

Generally speaking, casual fans and gamblers want to see the big upsets on the first weekend, but they want to see bluebloods or near bluebloods in the regional final and onward.  The big danger of cutting out the non-power conference programs is that you lose the appeal of the current tourney's opening weekend.  March Madness - as currently constructed - works.

In addition, you can't make a 60+ team tourney work from a pool of about 80-90 schools.  The tourney loses a lot of value if you reduce the field down to 32.  That's a notably smaller slate of games.  

Correct on gamblers, but for casual fans you’re falling into the romanticism trap. The numbers prove this every year. The final minutes of the upset get big ratings but that’s a very short window of time. In aggregate the 8/9 game is far better for the broadcasters/advertisers because more people watch those.

25 million people watching the last 10 minutes of a 14/3 upset does not make as much money as 10 million people watching 2 hours of the 8/9 game.

People making brackets is fun and I’ll agree that draws in some additional casual interest, but unless they are watching all the games (stats prove otherwise) that’s not driving value and thus not making money.

I think a full 64 team P5 tournament would be interesting (OU missed the tournament and beat #1 seed Alabama) but admit that even simply reducing it to FBS+Big East would still improve everything despite it allowing final four possibilities like this year.

I’ve seen proposals of requiring conferences to “pay to play” in the tournament. Make it a money losing proposition for those single bid conferences. To break even, you either need two bids or to win a single game. This would likely drive out most of these single bids leagues and allow those like the Big East, WCC, A10 to remain.

Edited May 14, 2023 by TKthunder2

[billfromlaketravis 11,487]

1 hour ago, Gidnik said:

https://www.on3.com/teams/florida-state-seminoles/news/florida-state-intends-to-turn-up-heat-for-greater-revenue-at-acc-spring-meetings-this-week/

Florida State intends to turn up heat for greater revenue at ACC spring meetings this week

🤣🤣

FSU, you signed the f***ing contract. Why should Duke and Wake Forest give the Seminoles an uneven revenue share?!

Either STFU or sue to get released from the GOR. 

In the meantime, let's all point and laugh at FSU for making less money than UCF. 

Edited May 14, 2023 by billfromlaketravis

[thunderlounge 7,844]

2 hours ago, Gidnik said:

https://www.on3.com/teams/florida-state-seminoles/news/florida-state-intends-to-turn-up-heat-for-greater-revenue-at-acc-spring-meetings-this-week/

Florida State intends to turn up heat for greater revenue at ACC spring meetings this week

🤣🤣

Maybe he should take the plea deal. 

[camel at sea 589]

4 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Correct on gamblers, but for casual fans you’re falling into the romanticism trap. The numbers prove this every year. The final minutes of the upset get big ratings but that’s a very short window of time. In aggregate the 8/9 game is far better for the broadcasters/advertisers because more people watch those.

25 million people watching the last 10 minutes of a 14/3 upset does not make as much money as 10 million people watching 2 hours of the 8/9 game.

People making brackets is fun and I’ll agree that draws in some additional casual interest, but unless they are watching all the games (stats prove otherwise) that’s not driving value and thus not making money.

I think a full 64 team P5 tournament would be interesting (OU missed the tournament and beat #1 seed Alabama) but admit that even simply reducing it to FBS+Big East would still improve everything despite it allowing final four possibilities like this year.

I’ve seen proposals of requiring conferences to “pay to play” in the tournament. Make it a money losing proposition for those single bid conferences. To break even, you either need two bids or to win a single game. This would likely drive out most of these single bids leagues and allow those like the Big East, WCC, A10 to remain.

The article you posted from thespun basically agreed with my take.  The low seed upsets do well in the early round games and the Tourney people like those upsets.  People want to see blue bloods from the regional final onward.  The mix of both is what makes the tourney great.  

This past year's Final Four is a weird thing to draw conclusions from.  There were 3 Cinderellas and the title game was a blowout.  The title game being a blowout played into its low number as much as the teams in the game.  

If you try to professionalize something that is beloved precisely because it's not professional, you're going to turn a ratings juggernaut into an expanded conference tournament that far fewer people care about.  

 

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

5 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

FSU, you signed the f***ing contract. Why should Duke and Wake Forest give the Seminoles an uneven revenue share?!

Either STFU or sue to get released from the GOR. 

In the meantime, let's all point and laugh at FSU for making less money than UCF. 

Yeah they signed the deal to get the ACC Network, thinking that was the reason the SEC was worth more.

[Hagbard Celine 10,867]

10 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

I look at her twitter feed once in a while for entertainment, but I'd be shocked if she has any real info.  

there are 64 squares on a chessboard, 32 empty squares, and 32 pieces occupying the other 32 squares

in college football realignment from 2022 forward, there are 64+x chairs, 64+y teams, and a jabillion spins

we're in a different world now

everything between 1984 (0u/dawg v. ncaa) and 2022 (usc/ucla -> b1g) was part of a construct where each move was made in a vacuum and the news/leaks associated with each move were heterogeneous and self-contained within the sphere of that move - all of the parts, voices, stakeholders, their motivations, all of it was clearly distinct and visible

everything from here forward is homogeneous, white noise, indistinguishable from everything around it, and NOTHING is real until it is announced

you'll notice that the few credible voices are not trading in bullshit; anyone speculating in the current environment has a vested interest in an outcome

see: klatt, joel

[Hagbard Celine 10,867]

10 hours ago, Gidnik said:

“If you look at the revenue projections, they should have a better agreement than we have by going out to market,” he said. “That means there’s going to be another school in the state that’s going to have a better agreement than Miami and us. And that’s just not acceptable to us.”

🤣🤣

welp, i remember not to long ago, the league that is the source of your angst, spread it's legs for you and miami, and, welp, the way things have shaken out, you could have locked down the state of florida, brought along gatech and clemson, and who knows who else from the acc, and you would be making 2x what you're going to bring in for the rest of the decade

but NOOOOOOOOOO your cigars were fascinated with their big dicks and their SITTING NATTY CORCH

just like usc+ucla+az+azstate in a pac south with UT, tech, oSu & 0u, oh what could have been

but NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO you wouldn't have it

and now here you are

cucking Central Fucking Florida

and it's just not acceptable to you!

number of fucks given by disney, the largest employer in your state: ZERO POINT ZERO

[TKthunder2 4,992]

3 hours ago, camel at sea said:

The article you posted from thespun basically agreed with my take.  The low seed upsets do well in the early round games and the Tourney people like those upsets.  People want to see blue bloods from the regional final onward.  The mix of both is what makes the tourney great.  

This past year's Final Four is a weird thing to draw conclusions from.  There were 3 Cinderellas and the title game was a blowout.  The title game being a blowout played into its low number as much as the teams in the game.  

If you try to professionalize something that is beloved precisely because it's not professional, you're going to turn a ratings juggernaut into an expanded conference tournament that far fewer people care about.  

 

I think we’re about to be past the point of arguing about professionalism. The players are about to get paid whether we like it or not and that will have direct consequences. You can’t have your cake and eat it too in this scenario,

But you keep going back to what the PEOPLE want, which only matters if you giving the people what they want turns into $$$, which it is not as the mid majors are depressing the value not raising it if you look at the dollars directly.

Even then, even most purists would agree that Division I is way too big and is ripe for division. A DII team can beat a DI team (remember) but that doesn’t mean we let DII teams into the DI tournament. Getting the number of eligible teams down to around 200 would be a major improvement to the 360 some odd teams in there now.

The P5 and the next two best fb conferences MWC/American, plus basketball private school conferences Big East/WCC were the only conferences to receive multiple bids. The other 23 conferences only got a single bid and 18 of those lost in the first round. There has to be room for improvement here as those 18 games are near worthless, and even the 5 upsets are only watched in the last 10 minutes (which again doesn’t generate much money).

Just limiting the tournament to FBS+Big East/WCC would keep every seed from 1-11 and cut the bottom 20 of 22. Cutout the dumb first four games at you’d have 16 additional seeds to put into the field of 64. That could easily be filled by quality teams many with 20+ wins that just miss the cut and go to the NIT (UNC, Okie St, Oregon, Clemson). Indiana/UNC would be a highly watched 4/12 game while Indiana/Drake was not. And yes this will cut out some of the ‘magic’ it won’t all go away. UNT who won the NIT would have likely been a 14 seeds under this model and still could have provided a worthwhile midmajor upset like FAU did this year.

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

Expansion and How Three Conferences Look to Compete With SEC and Big Ten

Story by Ross Dellenger 

 

Two weeks ago, inside a lavish resort in suburban Phoenix, down a long hallway and two flights of stairs, executives from two conferences inched closer to further altering the landscape of college sports.

They talked about expansion.

Often sparring publicly with one another, the two sets of league administrators separately met behind closed doors like a pair of boxers secretly preparing for the big fight against each other.

In one corner was the Pac-12, an array of broad-based universities, betrayed by their Los Angeles defectors and now at the mercy of media networks to prevent further departures.

In the other corner is the Big 12, an expanding group of universities, spanning Utah to Florida, with a brash commissioner whose aggressive nature makes him a territorial threat to the West.

The juxtaposition of the scene was fascinating—a mere 20 feet of carpet separating the two meetings within a labyrinth of convention space at the Hyatt Regency Gainey Ranch.

Within the meeting rooms, each league’s strategy unfolded ahead of their proverbial territorial battle. Just paces from the Pac-12’s gathering, Big 12 leaders discussed a list of expansion targets, four of them residing in the Pac-12: Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State and Utah.

Other targets are from a variety of leagues: San Diego State and UNLV from the Mountain West; UConn, which is independent in football and in the Big East in basketball; and Memphis, from the American. There are others too, such as Colorado State, SMU and Fresno, but they seem further down the pecking order.

The Pac-12, meanwhile, discussed its own expansion possibilities: San Diego State and SMU.

“It could be an active summer,” says one administrator with knowledge of the discussions.

The near year-long realignment buzz surrounding these two conferences—Will Pac-12 members defect to the Big 12?—is entering what appears to be its final chapter. Over the next 30 to 60 days more clarity is expected as the Pac-12’s new television deal is finalized.

But this is a small piece of a larger puzzle.

The Big 12-versus-Pac 12 territorial fight is one battle in a realignment war that has waged for decades. While the most recent moves were about the consolidation of football’s most valuable brands—Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC, and USC and UCLA to the Big Ten—the next wave is about survival.

How do the Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC keep up competitively while generating millions less than college football’s two behemoths? 

Some believe all three of them cannot co-exist successfully.

“The big next issue is, can we keep the perception of college athletics as involving all of us?” asks Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick. “Or, does the Big Ten and SEC become college athletics in terms of popular perception and if they do, how does that influence shape the future of college athletics?”

The ACC

This week in Amelia Island, administrators from the ACC gather for their own spring meetings.

More frank discussions are expected about the growing revenue gap between it and the SEC/Big Ten. Handcuffed by an ESPN broadcasting contract and grant-of-rights that extends another 13 years, ACC schools could find themselves more than $30 million behind the SEC and Big Ten in annual distribution by the time 2026 arrives.

They are not alone, as the data and analytics company Navigate showed in projections last year.

While the Pac-12 and Big 12 fight their western expansion battle, the ACC is, in many ways, fighting internally.

A subset of seven schools in the 14-member conference has coalesced over what many of them describe as an untenable situation. Officials from the seven schools, led by Florida State and Clemson, have met a handful of times over the last several months, with their lawyers examining the grant-of-rights to determine just how unbreakable it is.

Per the grant-of-rights, each ACC school gives ownership of its broadcasting rights to the league in a deal with ESPN that runs through 2036. If a school breaks the deal, the ACC will continue to own the TV rights of any of that school’s home games, according to the contract.

The ACC’s options are quite limited, both for the group of seven and the league as a whole:

1. Seek additional revenue from ESPN. This is a long shot given the network’s current situation. ESPN, in the midst of a wave of personnel cuts, is also negotiating for deals with UFC/WWE, the NBA and Pac-12. While commissioner Jim Phillips and a few ACC presidents met recently with the network over this issue, no significant cash infusion appears imminent.

2. Secede from the league. Some of the schools, possibly the most frustrated lot such as FSU and Clemson, could pay the $120 million exit fee and hope they can break a grant-of-rights agreement that most attorneys - though maybe not their own - say is airtight. That then leaves a very big question: Where do they go? The SEC and Big Ten seem quite comfortable with their current membership, but potential western realignment could trigger them to expand more.

3. Create another league. If the seven agree to dissolve the current grant-of-rights agreement (we don’t know yet if this is a possibility), they may add a couple of more schools and begin their own association in hopes of it being more lucrative. This comes with its own issues, of course. You’d need a broadcast partner or private equity to fund such an endeavor. And, as one official asks, “Will it really be that much more lucrative?”

Basically, there are no easy answers.

No one seems to really be blaming the current commissioner, Phillips. The lengthy ESPN contract was signed by his predecessor and has put the conference at a disadvantage to the Big Ten and SEC, which signed new deals somewhat recently for more heftier payouts.

“It’s not a Jim Phillips thing,” says one high-ranking ACC official. “It’s a revenue thing.”

A fourth option for the league will be further explored this week at meetings: changing the revenue distribution model to a more merit-based system. Instead of equally distributing revenue, this system would award more dollars to those programs excelling on the field.

Administrators have spent the last couple months discussing this festering issue. It has divided a conference that is less like-minded than most leagues in the country: big football revenue-generators like Florida State, Clemson, Miami and even North Carolina grouped with the likes of Boston College, Syracuse and Wake Forest.

While a vote on a revenue distribution model isn’t expected this week, proposals are likely to be explored as university presidents are now examining the issue.

During a Board of Trustee meeting in February, FSU athletic director Michael Alford seemed to publicly fire a warning shot at the rest of the conference: Change the revenue distribution model or else.

“At the end of the day for Florida State to compete nationally, something has to change going forward,” Alford told his Board in a wide-ranging presentation in which he suggested that FSU brings in 15% of ACC media rights value but receives only 7% in distribution.

However, any change in the distribution model falls short of significantly closing the gap between the SEC and Big Ten. In the most successful year under a merit-based model, a school might receive an extra $5 million, one administrator estimates.

An unequal distribution model can also impact the culture of a conference. It can sow divisiveness within a league, says one athletic director from outside the ACC.

“It won’t stop there,” the AD says. “This will be the beginning of the end.”

The Big 12 and Pac-12

Back to that fight out West.

The Pac-12-Big 12 realignment battle will either cause small ripples across the national landscape (this happens if the Pac-12 remains intact), or trigger a tidal wave of change stretching from coast to coast (this happens if the Pac-12 has more defections).

It all hinges on the viability of the Pac-12’s new broadcasting contract, both from a financial and visibility perspective (sure, the money could be better or the same as the Big 12, but what if most of the games are on streaming?). The league is in the 10th month of negotiations. And believable details from those negotiations have been scarce.

The Pac-12’s potential instability has been the single-most speculated subject across the college sports landscape over the last few months. Through it all, the conference has publicly shown confidence in the face of assumptions of its impending doom.

One experienced executive describes the entire situation as the most “perplexing” he’s ever witnessed in media rights negotiations.

Factions have formed.

Those inside the Big 12, gunning for Pac-12 defections, believe the league is cooked. Those in the Pac-12, wanting to protect its 10 schools, believe the league will arrive at a strong enough deal coinciding with a short grant-of-rights (4 to 6 years). And then there is the media, which has produced varying reports of the situation, even sometimes sparring with one another over those reports.

One thing is certain: The Pac-12 plans to expand by adding San Diego State and maybe SMU coinciding with its completion of a new TV deal. But there is a deadline. To start play in 2024, San Diego State owes the Mountain West an exit fee of about $17 million. That triples in cost on July 1, a reason for a quasi-deadline to the situation.

One athletic administrator offers his own prediction on the outcome: “I think the highest odds - and it may not be more than 50% - is that the Pac-12 salvages something in the short term to keep it together and it is Dead Man Walking for four years, with the Big Ten and Big 12 sitting there.”

But what if it doesn’t salvage something?

Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark is aggressively pursuing expansion targets in an attempt to reach 14 or 16 members. Top priority are the Arizona schools, Colorado and Utah, but there are plenty of other potential replacements if the Pac-12 programs choose to stay.

Though San Diego State seems bound for the Pac-12—it is their preference—Yormark has held conversations with the school’s leadership about being the Big 12’s only program in the Pacific Time zone. UConn, the reigning men’s basketball champions, is a play for a foothold in the northeast as well as adding another basketball powerhouse to what currently is the best hoops league in the country. And of Memphis, the Tigers finished as a finalist the last time the Big 12 expanded.

Yormark’s interest in UNLV seems like a calculated maneuver. Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff, a former casino executive who resides in Las Vegas, is slowly shifting the conference’s hub to Sin City. In an interesting wrinkle, could Kliavkoff’s targeting of SMU be a similar play? SMU is located in the Big 12’s own hub city of Dallas.

The Big 12’s expansion decisions could be solidified in a matter of weeks. Conference administrators meet at the end of the month in West Virginia, including school presidents.

The Big Ten and SEC

This past winter, Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren made a push to expand again, this time targeting Washington and Oregon as a pair of West Coast neighbors to go along with new additions USC and UCLA.

To expand again, more broadcasting dollars (at least $200 million a year) were needed to assure that school distribution remained whole. The most likely broadcasting dollars would come from ESPN or streamers Amazon and Apple. Neither happened.

“It was ‘Show me the money!’ and there wasn’t any money,” says one Big Ten administrator.

Money aside, many of the league’s athletic directors and presidents did not have the appetite for further expansion—and still do not. As one recently told SI, “We are done.” But will that change if the Pac-12 begins to crumble? Will there be any new money, potentially from Big Ten partner FOX or even ESPN?

If there are defectors in the Pac-12 South to the Big 12, the Big Ten could add Pac-12 north schools like Washington and Oregon, at that point desperate for a home, at likely a discount (they’d almost certainly accept a partial distribution rate). And if the Big Ten again expands, what then does that mean for the SEC, which has long fielded interest from ACC schools?

There’s been a long history of interest from the SEC in certain ACC powers as well. In fact, in 1990, when the league voted to expand, officials explored a variety of targets, seriously vetting Florida State before settling on South Carolina and Arkansas. Years later, then-coach Bobby Bowden and several athletic administrators involved in the process revealed that they turned down an invitation.

Three decades later, the Seminoles are eyeing an exit path, but a route to the SEC isn’t easy. There is little appetite from risk-averse league presidents to tangle themselves in a potential sticky legal situation over a grant-of-rights. In another note, the league already has a foothold in Florida with the Gators (and as for Clemson, the SEC is already in South Carolina with the Gamecocks). For the SEC, the more attractive options may be schools in new states like North Carolina and Virginia.

For now, the SEC door feels closed, and the Big Ten door seems only slightly ajar. But as is the case with conference realignment, the tide changes quickly.

Everyone is watching the West.

The Pac-12 and Big 12 enter the biggest realignment battle in years, a fight that could expedite what many believe is an inevitability: the football powers consolidating for what seems to be a semi-professional future model.

“The next wave is coming,” says one Power 5 university president. “It’s not going to stay still. It’s just a matter of when.”

[closetohumping 17,442]

WVU would be perfect for the ACC.  They have three rivals.

[Vertigo 20,289]

20 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

 When the ACC gets picked apart, the more likely scenario is that the B12 absorbs the ACC schools that have some appeal, but are not taken by the BIG/SEC.

That would set the B12 up as a true coast to coast conference (league), and put them firmly in a tier of their own in CFB.

There's a bunch of different ways it could play out, but even in a worst case scenario for the B12, they'd get some good additions:

Let's say BIG gets UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, and Miami, with UVA and UNC using the leverage of going SEC to bring Duke along.

SEC takes FSU, Clemson, VT and NC St.

B12 would certainly take UL and Pitt.  Along with WVU and Cincy, that's a nice division with games that will draw eyeballs- especially on a Thursday night.

Would the B12 take Wake ?  

Cuse and BC probably left behind.  Memphis, Tulane and maybe even USF (more FL access for B12) would be better additions East of Texas.

There is no way that adding 4 ACC schools for either the B1G or SEC will increase or even keep the distributions even for existing schools. Assuming FSU and Clemson go SEC, those are the two biggest footprints in the league in terms of eyeballs, and I believe FSU averages just over 2 Million per game. Most all of the other schools, including UNC and VA hover around 1 Million, which is coincidentally the exact same as the majority of the new B12. 

There are only a couple of properties in the ACC that are truly additive, and those would most likely go to the SEC. The most likely scenario is that the B1G adds Washington and Oregon, SEC adds FSU and Clemson, and we call it a day unless the B1G starts culling the bottom of the league and replacing them with ACC schools, which I have a hard time believing they would do that. Bringing in UNC/VA/or Miami is likely not going to keep them whole. 

That leaves the B12 in the enviable position to grab the best of the rest. Va Tech in football would be a coup, as would UNC, Louisville, and Miami. There is really no reason to add anyone else unless Yormark is thinking Basketball brands, in which case I could see invites to Duke and Wake.  

In that scenario, The B1G goes to 18, the SEC goes to 18, the B12 goes to 18, and the P12 schools are left with their dicks in their hands in the MWC. 

 

Would the B12 do something like Duke and Wake over Colorado and Arizona? Doubtful, but if the P12 schools are going to be stupid enough to wait around until Oregon and Washington leave, then I could see some big brands getting left out in the cold. 

Edited May 15, 2023 by Vertigo

['stache 21,816]

Let all three combine into a conglomerate and let Yormark find the best way to monitize. Or, the seven ACC schools should convince the networks to hold a convention to dissolve the PAC/XII/ACC and monitize the best 16-20. Again, with Yormark at the helm. I'm really impressed with his ingenuity. 

[DanTheHorn 4,925]

1 hour ago, Vertigo said:

There is no way that adding 4 ACC schools for either the B1G or SEC will increase or even keep the distributions even for existing schools. Assuming FSU and Clemson go SEC, those are the two biggest footprints in the league in terms of eyeballs, and I believe FSU averages just over 2 Million per game. Most all of the other schools, including UNC and VA hover around 1 Million, which is coincidentally the exact same as the majority of the new B12.

I still say that merit based distributions are coming to all leagues including to al the big brands that reside in the SEC and B1G today. The programs that bring in the money will find a way to get their due and smaller brands will just have to sit there and take it. The sooner they realize that it will eventually happen the better deal they might be able to wiggle themselves into getting. For instance, the big brands in the SEC could decide to dissolve and than take applications by willing partners as a way to get their due. Same thing with a partnership of the big brands from B1G and the ACC.

[PilotsError 2,287]

5 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

I still say that merit based distributions are coming to all leagues including to al the big brands that reside in the SEC and B1G today. The programs that bring in the money will find a way to get their due and smaller brands will just have to sit there and take it. The sooner they realize that it will eventually happen the better deal they might be able to wiggle themselves into getting. For instance, the big brands in the SEC could decide to dissolve and than take applications by willing partners as a way to get their due. Same thing with a partnership of the big brands from B1G and the ACC.

 

Quantity can be a quality of its own.

If the big money schools are going to go nuclear in the future, the schools that don't drive the $$$ (these schools are the majority) can band together and tell the big boys to fuck themselves if the money gap gets too big.  

 

[FartingDreamer 138]

20 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

I still say that merit based distributions are coming to all leagues including to al the big brands that reside in the SEC and B1G today. The programs that bring in the money will find a way to get their due and smaller brands will just have to sit there and take it. The sooner they realize that it will eventually happen the better deal they might be able to wiggle themselves into getting. For instance, the big brands in the SEC could decide to dissolve and than take applications by willing partners as a way to get their due. Same thing with a partnership of the big brands from B1G and the ACC.

That would be shortsighted as it would kill interest in the sports with all the big name brands concentrated in one conference or division.  Chiefs won't be chiefs for long without their Indians.  

[Vertigo 20,289]

16 minutes ago, PilotsError said:

 

Quantity can be a quality of its own.

If the big money schools are going to go nuclear in the future, the schools that don't drive the $$$ (these schools are the majority) can band together and tell the big boys to fuck themselves if the money gap gets too big.  

 

I really doubt that would ever happen. The smaller schools drafting off of the bigger schools benefits them far more than just being with a bunch of similarly sized schools. Look at what has happened to the P12 after USC/UCLA left. While the B12 has done fine, if Yormark had done that TV deal with Texas and OU included, the payout would have likely been over $40 million per school. If all of the big money schools get together then you essentially just create NFL lite and a huge gap to the next groups of schools. The small schools can tell the big schools to fuck off all they want, but at the end of the day they have no hope of ever catching them and it would get even worse in your scenario. 

Creating a super league with the top 32 revenue schools would basically kill college football as we know it. 

Edited May 15, 2023 by Vertigo

[DanTheHorn 4,925]

19 minutes ago, FartingDreamer said:

That would be shortsighted as it would kill interest in the sports with all the big name brands concentrated in one conference or division.  Chiefs won't be chiefs for long without their Indians.  

I guess I did not express my self very well because what I meant was the big brands are going to take applications from the little guys that are willing to be part of a conference with the big boys and willing to share unequally. So no, conference size does not shrink nor do the little guys have to join together in numbers they just have to be first as a willing partner with the big brands. They get the little guys that maintain interest in the sport and get a bigger piece of the pie and the little guys probably get paid more than if they stayed out of the equation.

Edited May 15, 2023 by DanTheHorn

[camel at sea 589]

2 hours ago, Vertigo said:

There are only a couple of properties in the ACC that are truly additive, and those would most likely go to the SEC. The most likely scenario is that the B1G adds Washington and Oregon, SEC adds FSU and Clemson, and we call it a day unless the B1G starts culling the bottom of the league and replacing them with ACC schools, which I have a hard time believing they would do that. Bringing in UNC/VA/or Miami is likely not going to keep them whole. 

That leaves the B12 in the enviable position to grab the best of the rest.

If the ACC is only down two schools, I think they'd not only hold off any attempts by the Big 12 to poach from them, they'd be in good position to poach from the Big 12.  The ACC would still have Miami, VaTech, UNC, Duke, Pitt, etc.  I think if that group of schools called WVU, Cincy, and/or UCF, any of them would come running provided the money was even close to similar.  Travel, rivalries, and academics would all be better for them in the ACC.

On the flip side, I don't think the Big 12 would be all that broken up to see them go (especially if all three were to go together.)  In addition to collecting some buyout money, that would remove travel headaches and allow for some more cohesive conference branding.  The Big 12 could also at that point add more western schools if it wanted.      

[mdmost 43,003]

 

[Uncle Nate 2,097]

8 minutes ago, mdmost said:

 

I believe I read somewhere it only takes 8 votes of the 15 members to dissolve the ACC.  Would Duke join the 7 to dissolve the ACC?  

I'm a little surprised to see NC State in that group.  I don't see them, nor Va Tech for that matter, finding homes in the BIG or SEC.  

[Saint Austin 745]

5 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

I believe I read somewhere it only takes 8 votes of the 15 members to dissolve the ACC.  Would Duke join the 7 to dissolve the ACC?  

I'm a little surprised to see NC State in that group.  I don't see them, nor Va Tech for that matter, finding homes in the BIG or SEC.  

I can see NC State riding shotgun with UNC. The Wolfpack may be more desirable on the whole to the SEC than a Krzyzewski-less Duke. Likewise, I could also see VaTech as a riding partner with UVA to the SEC.

[Al_4_ISU 12,464]

14 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

I believe I read somewhere it only takes 8 votes of the 15 members to dissolve the ACC.  Would Duke join the 7 to dissolve the ACC?  

I'm a little surprised to see NC State in that group.  I don't see them, nor Va Tech for that matter, finding homes in the BIG or SEC.  

NC State wouldn't make the Big 10, but they'd fit the SEC - especially if UNC was in the Big 10.

I'd think if that tweet is true, it wouldn't be hard to talk the Pitts and Louisvilles of the world and to signing along and joining the Big 12, especially with both schools having either their fiercest rival or an old rival in the league.

['stache 21,816]

I don't believe they can dissolve with 8, otherwise they could easily get Duke or GT to go along with them and get it over with, or at least force the networks into renegotiating the GOR with the threat of making it void with a vote of 8.

[Josef Pwag 1,738]

25 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

I believe I read somewhere it only takes 8 votes of the 15 members to dissolve the ACC.   

I've read contradictory things over the years. No one ever has a real answer about this.

[Al_4_ISU 12,464]

3 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I don't believe they can dissolve with 8, otherwise they could easily get Duke or GT to go along with them and get it over with, or at least force the networks into renegotiating the GOR with the threat of making it void with a vote of 8.

The ones who would end up in the Big 12 might be willing to go along too.  Pitt, Louisville, and Syracuse would all make a ton of sense in the Big 12's basketball first mentality and be similarly situated for football.

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

27 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

NC State wouldn't make the Big 10, but they'd fit the SEC - especially if UNC was in the Big 10.

I'd think if that tweet is true, it wouldn't be hard to talk the Pitts and Louisvilles of the world and to signing along and joining the Big 12, especially with both schools having either their fiercest rival or an old rival in the league.

The AAC would be weird as hell if this came to be.

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

1 hour ago, Vertigo said:

I really doubt that would ever happen. The smaller schools drafting off of the bigger schools benefits them far more than just being with a bunch of similarly sized schools. Look at what has happened to the P12 after USC/UCLA left. While the B12 has done fine, if Yormark had done that TV deal with Texas and OU included, the payout would have likely been over $40 million per school. If all of the big money schools get together then you essentially just create NFL lite and a huge gap to the next groups of schools. The small schools can tell the big schools to fuck off all they want, but at the end of the day they have no hope of ever catching them and it would get even worse in your scenario. 

Creating a super league with the top 32 revenue schools would basically kill college football as we know it. 

Closer to $55-60m actually.

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

1 hour ago, Uncle Nate said:

I believe I read somewhere it only takes 8 votes of the 15 members to dissolve the ACC.  Would Duke join the 7 to dissolve the ACC?  

I'm a little surprised to see NC State in that group.  I don't see them, nor Va Tech for that matter, finding homes in the BIG or SEC.  

Dissolution is usually hard.   For the Big 12, after the 2010 realignment, rewrote their bylaws to basically state the last one in the room retains ownership and anyone communicating they're leaving loses their vote.   When the ACC made their new deal with ESPN, they basically took all the lock downs that the Big 12 added and made them even tighter.

Edited May 15, 2023 by Hurtlocker

[gatormarc 911]

1 minute ago, Hurtlocker said:

Dissolution is usually hard.   For the Big 12, after the 2010 realignment, rewrote their bylaws to basically state the last one in the room retains ownership, down to one, and anyone communicating their leaving loses their vote.   When the ACC made their new deal with ESPN, they basically took all the lock downs that the Big 12 added, and made them even tighter.

I'd love to have a look at their bylaws. Unfortunately, I can't find anything recent online.

[Jabberwocky 1,666]

 

[BurntOrange&White 39,934]

Sounds like a made up number of linear partners 

[Al_4_ISU 12,464]

I didn't know there were 9 linear options, unless you're counting every iteration of ESPN and Fox as a separate potential partner.

[Texas Wahoo 3,397]

25 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I didn't know there were 9 linear options, unless you're counting every iteration of ESPN and Fox as a separate potential partner.

ESPN, Fox, CBS, NBC, Turner/TBS/TNT/Tru, CW, Ion, USA? ... I'm out, at least if we're only looking at networks that currently show some sports.  I suppose it could be something out of left-field like WGN or something like that.

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

42 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

I'd love to have a look at their bylaws. Unfortunately, I can't find anything recent online.

For the Big 12, in order to dissolve you need a super majority of "disinterested directors" which basically means ones who don't have an active stake in the issue at hand.   E.g. if you want to leave and its in your best interest to dissolve, you become an "interested director", which is what Texas and Oklahoma became when they announced they were leaving.   So to dissolve with 10 they needed 8, but after they left, they needed 6 of the remaining 8 schools to sign on.   

So, if the ACC copied this, they would need 12 members to dissolve if all parties remained "disinterested".   If the 8 who weren't interested made the claim the seven listed above were interested parties, then they'd need 6 of the remaining 8 to dissolve.

It's sort of a safety net to keep everyone from just skuttling the conference unless all members are on board with the idea.

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

53 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

Either they talked to nine because 1-8 said no, or they can't get people to commit to enough inventory.   Having games spread out all over the guide is almost as bad as going only streaming.

My guess is they get a game a week on linear, that is always Oregon vs someone else.

[bullet 1,597]

2 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

I believe I read somewhere it only takes 8 votes of the 15 members to dissolve the ACC.  Would Duke join the 7 to dissolve the ACC?  

I'm a little surprised to see NC State in that group.  I don't see them, nor Va Tech for that matter, finding homes in the BIG or SEC.  

I think that is a state law, but I doubt it supersedes conference by-laws.  As I recall, they need 75% for major changes.

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

1 hour ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

Why does Williams right like a third grader? Why do I see the same prose from Williams, Apple, conference executive or anyone else interviewed by Williams?

 When are we going to establish an enforceable code of ethics on our media? And, for  the matter, our politicians, educators, religious orgs, corporate executives and their lobbyists, etc, etc...

[bullet 1,597]

https://virginiatech.sportswar.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2022/08/2020-21-ACC-Manual-2020-9-17-2.pdf

ACC manual.  Key parts;

"...Each Director shall be entitled to one vote each. Except as otherwise provided herein or in the Bylaws, if a quorum is present when a vote of the Directors is taken, the affirmative vote of a majority of all Directors present for such vote shall be an act of the Board. For the avoidance of doubt, all references in this Constitution or the Bylaws to the affirmative vote of: (a) a majority or two-thirds (2/3) of all “Directors present”, shall mean a majority or two-thirds (2/3) of all the Directors who are present at a Board meeting at which a quorum exists; (b) two-thirds (2/3) of all the Directors, shall mean two-thirds (2/3) of all the Directors of the Board, even if one or more of such Directors is not present for such vote (“Absolute Two-Thirds Matters”); and (c) three-fourths (3/4) of all the Directors, shall mean three-fourths (3/4) of all the Directors of the Board, even if one or more of such Directors is not present for such vote (“Absolute Three-Fourths Matters”). The Absolute Two-Thirds Matters are as follows: (i) any amendment to Article 2.5 of the Bylaws (Finances), (ii) selecting or changing the location of the Conference office, (iii) entering into or amending any Material Media Rights Agreement (as defined in Section 2.3.1(q)), (iv) the appointment, extension of the term, or removal of the Commissioner or the other matters set forth in Section 1.5.2.1.1, and (v) the initiation of any material litigation involving the Conference (but not, for clarity, the settlement of any 22 2020-21 ACC MANUAL ACC | CONSTITUTION litigation involving the Conference, which requires the affirmative vote of a majority of all Directors present for such vote). The Absolute Three-Fourths Matters are as follows: (i) the admission of new Members to the Conference pursuant to Section 1.4.3, (ii) the expulsion, suspension or probation of a Member pursuant to Section 1.4.4, (iii) any amendment of this Constitution, (iv) any amendment of the Bylaws (except amendments to Article 2.5), and (v) waiver of notice or other required process for a Board meeting pursuant to Section 1.5.1.5..."

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

*write

[Vertigo 20,289]

10 minutes ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

Why does Williams right like a third grader? Why do I see the same prose from Williams, Apple, conference executive or anyone else interviewed by Williams?

 When are we going to establish an enforceable code of ethics on our media? And, for  the matter, our politicians, educators, religious orgs, corporate executives and their lobbyists, etc, etc...

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

Just now, Vertigo said:

It's very easy to see Williams wrote the "interviews" in his own words.

[Satchel 6,938]

Uh oh:

https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2023/05/15/clemson-florida-state-among-seven-acc-schools-exploring-exit-possibilities-report/

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) May 15, 2023

According to McMurphy, Clemson, Florida State, Miami, North Carolina, Virginia, and Virginia Tech are calling themselves “The Magnificent Seven,” which is referring to a report from Sports Illustrated’s Ross Dellenger that talked about seven programs that are trying to find their way out of this awful TV deal.

“A subset of seven schools in the 14-member conference has coalesced over what many of them describe as an untenable situation,” Dellenger writes. “Officials from the seven schools, led by Florida State and Clemson, have met a handful of times over the past several months, with their lawyers examining the grant-of-rights to determine just how unbreakable it is.“

It appears that the ACC might not be sitting on solid footing right now if the reports are true. Outside of the Big Ten and SEC, conferences seem to be dealing with all kinds of fluidity as they try to do what’s best for their respective futures.

The Big 12 is in the best shape of the remaining three power five conferences, with expanded members and the best TV deal of the trio. Plus, if they can add a couple of pieces out west, they might even get a better number. The only thing that is certain is that things will keep changing as the conferences position themselves moving forward.

This summer is pivotal for the landscape of college athletics, and will certainly be one of the top storylines to follow as we inch closer to media days in a couple of months.

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

So we could be very close to the ACC exit number, if the SEC is willing to take a second public in North Carolina State and VT. Would the SEC, B1G, Big 12 make these deals behind closed doors with the intentions of then breaking away from the rest of the NCAA in football?

 

1. UVA - SEC/B1G

2. VT - SEC

3. NC - SEC/B1G

4. NC St - SEC

5. Clemson - SEC

6. FSU - SEC

7. Georgia Tech - B1G

8. Miami - B1G

9. Notre Dame - B1G

*10. Louisville - Big 12

*11. Pitt - Big 12

*(the money would be just as good in the Big 12 as the ACC)

One more and the ACC no longer exists. Duke? Syracuse to the Big 12?

[Crockett 490]

59 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Uh oh:

https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2023/05/15/clemson-florida-state-among-seven-acc-schools-exploring-exit-possibilities-report/

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) May 15, 2023

According to McMurphy, Clemson, Florida State, Miami, North Carolina, Virginia, and Virginia Tech are calling themselves “The Magnificent Seven,” which is referring to a report from Sports Illustrated’s Ross Dellenger that talked about seven programs that are trying to find their way out of this awful TV deal.

“A subset of seven schools in the 14-member conference has coalesced over what many of them describe as an untenable situation,” Dellenger writes. “Officials from the seven schools, led by Florida State and Clemson, have met a handful of times over the past several months, with their lawyers examining the grant-of-rights to determine just how unbreakable it is.“

It appears that the ACC might not be sitting on solid footing right now if the reports are true. Outside of the Big Ten and SEC, conferences seem to be dealing with all kinds of fluidity as they try to do what’s best for their respective futures.

The Big 12 is in the best shape of the remaining three power five conferences, with expanded members and the best TV deal of the trio. Plus, if they can add a couple of pieces out west, they might even get a better number. The only thing that is certain is that things will keep changing as the conferences position themselves moving forward.

This summer is pivotal for the landscape of college athletics, and will certainly be one of the top storylines to follow as we inch closer to media days in a couple of months.

[gatormarc 911]

2 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

For the Big 12, in order to dissolve you need a super majority of "disinterested directors" which basically means ones who don't have an active stake in the issue at hand.   E.g. if you want to leave and its in your best interest to dissolve, you become an "interested director", which is what Texas and Oklahoma became when they announced they were leaving.   So to dissolve with 10 they needed 8, but after they left, they needed 6 of the remaining 8 schools to sign on.   

So, if the ACC copied this, they would need 12 members to dissolve if all parties remained "disinterested".   If the 8 who weren't interested made the claim the seven listed above were interested parties, then they'd need 6 of the remaining 8 to dissolve.

It's sort of a safety net to keep everyone from just skuttling the conference unless all members are on board with the idea.

Found the ACC bylaws. As far as I can find it, there is no provision for a process for dissolution aside from the fiduciary responsibilities of handling assets, etc and nothing about disinterested members, and also nothing about existing contracts/debts.

Quote

2.11.3.4 Dissolution Clause. Upon the dissolution of the Conference, the Board shall dispose of all the assets of the organization exclusively for the purpose of the organization in such manner, or to such organization or organizations organized and operated exclusively for charitable, educational, religious or scientific purposes as shall at the time qualify as an exempt organization or organizations under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (or the corresponding provisions of any future United States Internal Revenue Law), as the Board shall determine. Any of such assets not so disposed of shall be disposed of by the state court of jurisdiction in which the principal office of the organization is then located, exclusively for such purposes or to such organization or organizations as said court shall determine which are organized and operated exclusively for such purposes.

So I guess that's where the "8 votes" comes from, the assumption that a simple majority is enough since it's not spelled out as requiring a 2/3 or 3/4 vote as some of the other sections spell out.

I guess it could easily be a case of "yes, you can dissolve the ACC but even that doesn't remove the requirements of your contract with ESPN."

https://virginiatech.sportswar.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2022/08/2020-21-ACC-Manual-2020-9-17-2.pdf 

Edit: I see bullet already tackled much of this. I really should have refreshed the screen before posting.

Edited May 15, 2023 by gatormarc