Realignment talk not going away

[gatormarc 911]

1 hour ago, billfromlaketravis said:

There gotta be a contractual issue I’m missing. Going to 6 instead of 8 right now doesn’t make sense. 
 

How long is Stanford and Cal tied to the ACC? 

Just spitballing here, but potential for a lawsuit from the MWC?

Considering that the Pac2 had been talking and negotiating with the MWC, I could see them argue some sort of utilizing confidential knowledge to break the MWC apart.

[USC Traveler 488]

On 9/13/2024 at 6:08 PM, DFW Horn said:

I'm wondering why UNLV isn't in the mix, given their metro area, media market, and growth potential.

They can't be much worse than Cougar High.

It seems like their top targets are Tulane and Memphis, along with some combination of UTSA, UNT, with Rice and Texas St possibilities. 

That makes sense in terms of trying to get all of the top G6 programs into one conference.  If they can do it, they'll get the G6 playoff bid in most years.

It also makes sense to expand into TX.  

If I'm Memphis and Tulane, I'm not joining the newPAC without enough TX and/or SE schools to form a division.

Too much travel for Memphis and Tulane if they are the only additions.

So I'm thinking the newPAC wants to maintain flexibility in terms of bringing in new members so they can do what they need to do to lock up their top targets before adding a program like UNLV.

 

The other factor is the NV legislature wants to keep UNLV and UN-Reno in the same conference.

Everyone in this thread knows how that's going to work out in the long run, so the PAC is smart to wait on inviting them until there is only one slot left.

At that point, it becomes much easier for UNLV to leave by themselves.

 

On 9/13/2024 at 6:08 PM, DFW Horn said:

I'm wondering why UNLV isn't in the mix, given their metro area, media market, and growth potential.

They can't be much worse than Cougar High.

It seems like their top targets are Tulane and Memphis, along with some combination of UTSA, UNT, with Rice and Texas St possibilities. 

That makes sense in terms of trying to get all of the top G6 programs into one conference.  If they can do it, they'll get the G6 playoff bid in most years.

It also makes sense to expand into TX.  

If I'm Memphis and Tulane, I'm not joining the newPAC without enough TX and/or SE schools to form a division.

Too much travel for Memphis and Tulane if they are the only additions.

So I'm thinking the newPAC wants to maintain flexibility in terms of bringing in new members so they can do what they need to do to lock up their top targets before adding a program like UNLV.

 

The other factor is the NV legislature wants to keep UNLV and UN-Reno in the same conference.

Everyone in this thread knows how that's going to work out in the long run, so the PAC is smart to wait on inviting them until there is only one slot left.

At that point, it becomes much easier for UNLV to leave by themselves.

 

[Magabro 172]

You can say that again

[thunderlounge 7916]

[TKthunder2 4997]

If the PAC is successful in luring Memphis, Tulane and few Texas schools to their revamped conference, I think you’ll see the Sun Belt Conference go after East Carolina and South Florida.

You’d have the PAC and the SBC pretty much leading the G5.

[thunderlounge 7916]

Who woulda thought. 

[TKthunder2 4997]

American Conference going after Air Force from the MWC.

Would give them all three service academies in football.

https://www.on3.com/nil/news/american-athletic-conference-aac-targets-air-force-pac-12-expansion-memphis-tulane/

[TKthunder2 4997]

Long ESPN article on PAC expansion.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/41260683/inside-look-pac-12-conference-rebuild-add-four-teams

[Huckleberry 33076]

Rooting hard for the Beavers and Cougars. Of course I'm the softy who's also rooting for some of the remaining Big 12 schools (ISU, KU, KSU and now the 4 corners schools mainly... wait forgot WVU).

Edited September 17 by Huckleberry

[Lou_Sassle 2887]

35 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Rooting hard for the Beavers and Cougars. Of course I'm the softy who's also rooting for some of the remaining Big 12 schools (ISU, KU, KSU and now the 4 corners schools mainly... wait forgot WVU).

I get hard for cougars' beavers...

[Deej 76899]

15 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

American Conference going after Air Force from the MWC.

Would give them all three service academies in football.

https://www.on3.com/nil/news/american-athletic-conference-aac-targets-air-force-pac-12-expansion-memphis-tulane/

They should take aggy and have all three and a half. 

[Gidnik 3285]

Sounds like the acc is shitting bricks

https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-acc-exploring-new-revenue-structure-to-resolve-florida-state-clemson-lawsuits-010312039.html

Quote

The ACC is exploring a new revenue structure intended to bring an end to the litigation with its two restless members.

The conference’s presidents recently examined a proposal that would distribute revenue differently to league members in a move to provide stability and preserve the membership of Florida State and Clemson. Nothing is imminent and particulars of the deal remain mostly private, but the structure’s ultimate goal is to resolve a dispute with the Tigers and Seminoles, both suing the conference in an attempt to exit the league.

Those with knowledge of the discussions spoke to Yahoo Sports under condition of anonymity.

Discussions among league presidents are ongoing and expected to continue.

Details around the new revenue structure remain murky, but leaders have reviewed a plan to create a separate pot of revenue to be divided based on media value metrics. This separate distribution would be specifically tied to a school’s television viewership ratings for football and potentially basketball.

Any new distribution would be available to all schools.

Along with the new revenue structure, leaders are examining amending the length of the league’s grant of rights, the binding agreement at the center of lawsuits from the Seminoles and Tigers. The ACC grant of rights, binding the schools together through 2036, would presumably be shortened.

It is unclear if enough support exists to approve these drastic moves. The belief is that, at the very least, a two-thirds majority is necessary.

ACC presidents met at their annual in-person gathering last week in Charlotte where the possible settlement was discussed. They gathered on a call Tuesday — also regularly scheduled — to further discuss the issue.

For several months now, the league has been mired in legal challenges with two of its most prominent members. FSU and Clemson, unhappy with the conference’s financials, are seeking an exit from the grant of rights as well as the league’s ESPN television contract.

The schools’ potential willingness to remain in the conference is, for some, a shocking revelation and an about-face from their previous actions. The unequal revenue structure is not a wholly new idea. Last year, FSU officials and board members suggested that the conference distribution formula for its television money — now evenly distributed — be instead tied to viewership and other media value data.

The proposal is seen as a temporary solution to keep them in the conference ahead of any court decision over the validity of the grant of rights.

A potential loss in court that immediately opens the grant of rights could have a catastrophic impact not only on the ACC but other conferences, setting a precedent for all schools to break what were at first thought to be binding agreements.

The proposal comes after the conference approved earlier this year what it describes as a “success initiative,” a system that distributes more revenue to teams that excel in football and basketball. The initiative would reward high-performing football programs as much as $25 million if all success benchmarks are met, such as qualifying for a bowl game, finishing inside the top 25 and advancing through the College Football Playoff.

The initiative — as well as this new revenue structure — is an attempt for commissioner Jim Phillips and league administrators to reward winning in a way that helps close the financial gap between the ACC and the two richest conferences: the SEC and Big Ten. The gaps in television distribution — a primary reason for FSU and Clemson’s attempted exits — could soar to more than $30 million per school within the next two years.

 

Television contracts provide schools their main source of revenue, at some places responsible for one-third of an athletic department’s budget. It is the driving force for the most recent wave of conference realignment, as schools eschew historic rivalries and geographic footprints to shift to leagues with TV deals that pay out more money.

While more money doesn’t always lead to more success, there is a correlation between success and resources, administrators say. It’s a reason FSU and Clemson officials are pursuing exit plans — something that Phillips described over the summer as “disruptive and harmful” to the conference.

The league has been “working towards” keeping the two schools in the league, he told Yahoo Sports in July, and they have been engrossed in court-ordered mediation now for weeks. Those at Clemson and FSU have felt that, if they are legally unhinged from the ACC’s grant of rights, there will be takers.

It is unlikely that any SEC or Big Ten school will agree to accept a reduction in their TV distribution to add any school. For the SEC, that is especially so given its footprint: the league already owns a foothold in South Carolina and in Florida.

In order for the Big Ten and SEC to expand, they’d likely need more money from their television partners — a lot more money (more than $100 million a year). That’s primarily Fox for the Big Ten and ESPN for the SEC.

ESPN is squarely in the middle of the situation.

Though the standard belief is that the contract extends through 2036, that’s not actually true. The deal ends in 2027. ESPN must elect by next February to opt in for another nine years. The ACC and ESPN have been in active negotiations over the extension, conversations that Phillips has described as “positive and productive.”

 

[DFW Horn 6161]

18 hours ago, Deej said:

They should take aggy and have all three and a half. 

Do even half of the aggy corps turds ever serve in the military?

[Magus Ossis 2836]

3 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Do even half of the aggy corps turds ever serve in the military?

The real meaning of 2%er: at a "military" school with incoming classes now over 10,000, they commissioned fewer than 200 officers last May.

[statsman 5477]

That is an interesting idea. FSU and Clemson feel they need to leave because they need more media revenue to compete (assuming they can get into the B1G or SEC). The ACC is thinking about unequal revenue sharing to entice them to stay, similar to the old SWC and old B12. 
 
It seems like kicking the can down the road. If the options are:

1. Status quo

2. Unequal revenue sharing

3. FSU and Clemson split,

then the ACC preferences are 1,2,3 and FSU/Clemson preferences are 3,2,1,…if FSU/Clemson can go SEC/B1G. If FSU/Clemson can only go B12, their preferences are probably 2,1/3. 

[Magus Ossis 2836]

I don't know the answer, but I think I know the question: where does ESPN want FSU?

[TKthunder2 4997]

1 hour ago, Magus Ossis said:

I don't know the answer, but I think I know the question: where does ESPN want FSU?

If they were a completely free agent they’d want them in the SEC. The whole argument that they already have the states of Florida and South Carolina is overblown. It’s no longer about tv footprints/markets, it’s about how many eyeballs watch and will pay to watch your program.

FSU/Clemson along with ND are the only 3 remaining programs that have a top 25 stadium by capacity that are not already in the Big Ten or SEC. Clemson/UGA pulled 8 million viewers in week one and FSU’s first 2 games against weak competition were over 4 million. In week 3 FSU’s game against Memphis was the highest rated game on ESPN that day.

FSU/Clemson in the SEC equals even more big games. It would be a great opportunity for ESPN…if they were free agents but they are not. ESPN has them for cheap until 2036.

ESPN has been cutting costs and even though FSU/Clemson would bring in some more viewers, it’s not worth paying them another $50million a year. ESPN is a business and won’t pay out money for a product that is only marginally better than what they currently have.

[Josef Pwag 1741]

3 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

ESPN has them for cheap until 2036.

This is the key to everything.

ESPN will renew the deal and keep the GOR in place. If FSU & Clemson leave for the SEC, ESPN has to pay more for their home games. If they leave for the B1G, they lose this value content all together. 

[Ojo Rojo 1967]

What does the endgame look like? If FSU and Clemson leave the ACC, the ACC is the new Big XII without banner programs.  They go where?  SEC?  At what point do the SEC and Big 10 become the new NCAA?  Why wouldn't they just become the new Division I?  The NCAA already doesn't award the national championship in football, right?  Why are bigtime football programs still following NCAA rules?  What leverage does the NCAA have in football?

I hate realignment.  I liked the old regional conferences.  There is an organizational solution that would be better for the athletes and fans, but not as good financially.  The best financial solution is what we currently have, with everyone's sole goal of maximizing revenue.  Is there any end where all of the schools in the former Power 5 form a new division, the G5 are in a second, lower tier division, and the schools are grouped regionally again?

Edit:  I didn't consider enough how much TV/ESPN is pulling the strings here.  The last couple of posts made me realize that.  If TV/ESPN is driving the train, then they would want better games, which means more good teams in fewer conferences and less cupcake games and uneven matchups to get more interest and eyeballs.

Edited September 18 by Ojo Rojo

[BigHornedLurker 1968]

1 hour ago, Josef Pwag said:

This is the key to everything.

ESPN will renew the deal and keep the GOR in place. If FSU & Clemson leave for the SEC, ESPN has to pay more for their home games. If they leave for the B1G, they lose this value content all together. 

I generally agree with this , but it is only as true as keeping them out of the big10 

I think what made the texas and ou move possible was the fox involvement which isn't present with the acc. 

Espn wanted to decrease the risk in the texas position and also nuke the LHN . This made a move possible. 

Only way I can see a FSU or Clemson move is with decreased payouts , and also a heavy upfront GOR exit fee 

 

FSU and Clemson screwed themselves with all of this 

[statsman 5477]

I don’t think FSU/Clemson would go along with this (did they have anything to do with its creation?) if they had offers from the SEC or B1G. 

[Horn of Gabriel 1670]

21 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

What does the endgame look like? If FSU and Clemson leave the ACC, the ACC is the new Big XII without banner programs.  They go where?  SEC?  At what point do the SEC and Big 10 become the new NCAA?  Why wouldn't they just become the new Division I?  The NCAA already doesn't award the national championship in football, right?  Why are bigtime football programs still following NCAA rules?  What leverage does the NCAA have in football?

I hate realignment.  I liked the old regional conferences.  There is an organizational solution that would be better for the athletes and fans, but not as good financially.  The best financial solution is what we currently have, with everyone's sole goal of maximizing revenue.  Is there any end where all of the schools in the former Power 5 form a new division, the G5 are in a second, lower tier division, and the schools are grouped regionally again?

Edit:  I didn't consider enough how much TV/ESPN is pulling the strings here.  The last couple of posts made me realize that.  If TV/ESPN is driving the train, then they would want better games, which means more good teams in fewer conferences and less cupcake games and uneven matchups to get more interest and eyeballs.

Your post implies that the "old regional conferences" are better for fans.  They weren't.  The old regional conferences had us playing Baylor, TCU, Houston and Tech.  The new arrangement has us playing Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, and Arkansas.  These are much better competition, better games to watch, and will force Texas to raise their bar.  Texas does best when it is challenged, and worst when we rest on our laurels and play Baylor.  And all of those are benefits even before we consider the extra money that comes along with going to the SEC.

The end game in the medium term is the Power 2 conferences of Big10 and SEC take more and more playoff spots and squeeze out the ACC, Big12, and G5 down to 1 spot each.  That will happen either formally via guaranteed spots, or informally via the committee recognizing the strength of schedule of the P2.

The end-end game in the long term is that the Big10 and SEC probably either merge or create a formal partnership of equals where they build "new" conferences that allow them to drop out the Vandy's and Purdue's, pick up the FSU and Clemsons and consolidate down to a true Power conference of 40ish teams.  The playoff will already be at 16 teams by then, and they'll reserve 1-2 spots for the rest of the non Power teams to disarm the anti-trust stuff, but it will essentially be a Power conference playoff at that point.  The players will be employees of the universities, and taking a cut of the TV revenues and governed by some type of CBA.  The Power conference will set their own rules for paying players beyond that, for recruiting, officiating, everything to replace the NCAA governance.  There will be a commissioner of the Power conference who is less powerful than the NFL commissioner but more powerful than the current conference commissioners.  They'll try to adopt some type of "salary cap," but that will be resisted by Texas, Georgia, and the big players, but the smaller ones will push for it to create "balance."  There will probably be some compromise on that somewhere along the way - but the cat is out of the bag and we're not going back to under-the-table money.

[BigHornedLurker 1968]

7 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Your post implies that the "old regional conferences" are better for fans.  They weren't.  The old regional conferences had us playing Baylor, TCU, Houston and Tech.  The new arrangement has us playing Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, and Arkansas.  These are much better competition, better games to watch, and will force Texas to raise their bar.  Texas does best when it is challenged, and worst when we rest on our laurels and play Baylor.  And all of those are benefits even before we consider the extra money that comes along with going to the SEC.

The end game in the medium term is the Power 2 conferences of Big10 and SEC take more and more playoff spots and squeeze out the ACC, Big12, and G5 down to 1 spot each.  That will happen either formally via guaranteed spots, or informally via the committee recognizing the strength of schedule of the P2.

The end-end game in the long term is that the Big10 and SEC probably either merge or create a formal partnership of equals where they build "new" conferences that allow them to drop out the Vandy's and Purdue's, pick up the FSU and Clemsons and consolidate down to a true Power conference of 40ish teams.  The playoff will already be at 16 teams by then, and they'll reserve 1-2 spots for the rest of the non Power teams to disarm the anti-trust stuff, but it will essentially be a Power conference playoff at that point.  The players will be employees of the universities, and taking a cut of the TV revenues and governed by some type of CBA.  The Power conference will set their own rules for paying players beyond that, for recruiting, officiating, everything to replace the NCAA governance.  There will be a commissioner of the Power conference who is less powerful than the NFL commissioner but more powerful than the current conference commissioners.  They'll try to adopt some type of "salary cap," but that will be resisted by Texas, Georgia, and the big players, but the smaller ones will push for it to create "balance."  There will probably be some compromise on that somewhere along the way - but the cat is out of the bag and we're not going back to under-the-table money.

I think this is the bingo. 

What I'm not sure is how it all comes together. 

I don't think anyone gets kicked out as much as left behind. 

My suspicion is ND may be the key , forms it's own league and aligns the major members into it 

[TKthunder2 4997]

Lots of thoughts where this can go. You can have a true super league where the best of Big Ten and SEC split off and form a new league. You can have a partnership model where both leagues remain separate and just negotiate a single post season game together where the winners of their individual conference only playoff play each other. You can have a deal where they basically continue as is but grow and raise the cost of entry until it’s only a few conferences participating at the elite level. They can split off from the NCAA entirely, or just breakaway team sports or revenue sports. It’s hard to tell what the future may bring and there are a lot of lawsuits and TV money that could significantly change what direction the winds may blow. But above it all, getting into the SEC or Big Ten is the safest bet, which is why you’ll continue to see FSU/Clemson and UNC pushing to join.

[TrashMaster G 17590]

It seems inevitable, but I hope the super league never happens. 

Not that I like the NCAA. I don't. It’s shit. But one of the most beautiful aspects of college football is the unpredictability.  The huge upsets. Northern Illinois beating Notre Dame in their house.

If every game is a power team vs a power team, this becomes the NFL with marching bands and college students. We lose so much of the unpredictability and awesomeness.

I'll go yell at some clouds now.

[Texas Wahoo 3403]

1 hour ago, statsman said:

I don’t think FSU/Clemson would go along with this (did they have anything to do with its creation?) if they had offers from the SEC or B1G. 

Quote

Along with the new revenue structure, leaders are examining amending the length of the league’s grant of rights, the binding agreement at the center of lawsuits from the Seminoles and Tigers. The ACC grant of rights, binding the schools together through 2036, would presumably be shortened.

It is unclear if enough support exists to approve these drastic moves. The belief is that, at the very least, a two-thirds majority is necessary.

 

 

Edited September 18 by Texas Wahoo

[Huckleberry 33076]

1 hour ago, TrashMaster G said:

It seems inevitable, but I hope the super league never happens. 

Not that I like the NCAA. I don't. It’s shit. But one of the most beautiful aspects of college football is the unpredictability.  The huge upsets. Northern Illinois beating Notre Dame in their house.

If every game is a power team vs a power team, this becomes the NFL with marching bands and college students. We lose so much of the unpredictability and awesomeness.

I'll go yell at some clouds now.

100% agree. It will also shock a lot of alumni when 7-5 is a good season. That's what happens when there are only 40 teams and you only play each other. One of the reasons I think it can be held off is when the coaches and athletic directors realize this. 

[USC Traveler 488]

2 hours ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Your post implies that the "old regional conferences" are better for fans.  They weren't.  The old regional conferences had us playing Baylor, TCU, Houston and Tech.  The new arrangement has us playing Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, and Arkansas.  These are much better competition, better games to watch, and will force Texas to raise their bar.  Texas does best when it is challenged, and worst when we rest on our laurels and play Baylor.  And all of those are benefits even before we consider the extra money that comes along with going to the SEC.

100%.  Same situation out West.  The entertainment value of my season tickets jumped exponentially with USC moving to the BIG.

We essentially traded games against CU, ASU, UA and Cal, for home games vs PSU, Wiscy, Neb and a road game @ UM this week.

Still have ND, UCLA and one of UW/UO each year, just like UT still has OU, and now gets little brother and Arky back on the schedule every year.

Sure, there's Vandy and MSU/ MN and MD on our respective schedules, but that's a small price to pay for the massive upgrade in quality games.

Best of all worlds for anyone who wants to see top-tier games, and not just those involving your program.

I always watch RRS, but can't wait to also see UT play UGA, Arky and aggy.

And all of this topped off by a 12 team playoff ?  LFG!!!

 

 

[TKthunder2 4997]

1 hour ago, TrashMaster G said:

It seems inevitable, but I hope the super league never happens. 

Not that I like the NCAA. I don't. It’s shit. But one of the most beautiful aspects of college football is the unpredictability.  The huge upsets. Northern Illinois beating Notre Dame in their house.

If every game is a power team vs a power team, this becomes the NFL with marching bands and college students. We lose so much of the unpredictability and awesomeness.

I'll go yell at some clouds now.

I personally don’t think you’ll see a true super league, ironically I think we’ll see the 12 team playoff as a turning point going back to the old bowl system (hear me out).

SEC and Big Ten see the bulk of the 12 team playoff selections and the other games against the B12/ACC/G5 are mostly non competitive (Cincy) or they win the first round and fail the second round (TCU/UGA) which damages the product overall. At the same time more pressure will be placed on CCGs and especially the loser (or winner if they go to 16).

The best solution would be to bring the majority of the playoffs in house. CCG weekend becomes round one of a 4 team conference playoff. The 1&2 seed host home games, then round two on NYD becomes the new CCG (SEC at Atlanta, Big Ten in the Rose which solves 2 major issues for them). Then two weeks later the winners of these games play against each other in a BigTen/SEC challenge (not an official national championship, but it is defacto).

After this we go back to the old bowl/poll system. The round 1 playoff losers can play in the bowls versus Big 12/ACC/G5 teams just like they always have. They can still do a NY6 type bowl arrangement and have contractual bowl games so this avoids many of the pitfalls of antitrust because it’s just going back to a previous system.

SEC and Big Ten keep what they kill. Early OOC games and bowl games can still be played. I think this is a more likely future especially since it came out that the networks considered the first round playoff games to less than desirable. The expansion to 12 was to satisfy the B12/ACC/G5/ND but if the Big Ten/SEC can do their own thing and each get 4 spots where their games are more valued, this seems like the most obvious solution especially if they add in ND/FSU/Clemson and a few others into the mix.

[Vertigo 20311]

4 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

If they were a completely free agent they’d want them in the SEC. The whole argument that they already have the states of Florida and South Carolina is overblown. It’s no longer about tv footprints/markets, it’s about how many eyeballs watch and will pay to watch your program.

FSU/Clemson along with ND are the only 3 remaining programs that have a top 25 stadium by capacity that are not already in the Big Ten or SEC. Clemson/UGA pulled 8 million viewers in week one and FSU’s first 2 games against weak competition were over 4 million. In week 3 FSU’s game against Memphis was the highest rated game on ESPN that day.

FSU/Clemson in the SEC equals even more big games. It would be a great opportunity for ESPN…if they were free agents but they are not. ESPN has them for cheap until 2036.

ESPN has been cutting costs and even though FSU/Clemson would bring in some more viewers, it’s not worth paying them another $50million a year. ESPN is a business and won’t pay out money for a product that is only marginally better than what they currently have.

You are missing an important point. If FSU and Clemson both leave, then you are creating a defacto G5 out of the other leagues on a financial level. While Clemson and FSU may get their money, the leverage of the ACC is greatly diminished, which would force them to take a smaller TV deal. This, in turn, will force the B12 to take a smaller deal next time around and it will cascade down. The $50 million to 2 schools would pale in comparison to the money saved on all of the other conferences that they are affiliated with by resetting the market. Plus, they will make that money back in the first year or two with top tier games that can be scheduled.  

[USC Traveler 488]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

You can have a deal where they basically continue as is but grow and raise the cost of entry until it’s only a few conferences participating at the elite level. 

You can have a partnership model where both leagues remain separate and just negotiate a single post season game together where the winners of their individual conference only playoff play each other.

I switched the order of those two sentences in your post because I think the first scenario leads to the second.  The other conferences get priced out over time, and we end up with an AFL-NFL setup between the BIG and SEC.

At least in the medium term, there's too much history and brand value for each entity separately, and neither commissioner nor conference execs will be incentivized to give up their jobs in a full merger.  But they'll make a fortune splitting the rights to a championship game you're describing, and they'll agree on rules that govern everything: player payments, recruiting, etc, including a joint CBA with the players.

It would also make sense for them to do a "BIG/SEC shootout" where each team plays one team from the other conference in a home and home over two years.  UT-OSU, USC-Bama, UM-UGA, all the way down to Vandy-UCLA.  Spread the games over the first three weeks of the season so that you have a tier 1, 2 and 3 game each weekend between the conferences.  Rotate the matchups within each tier every two years.  ESPN and FOX would happily pay for those games.

Would be fun to get some UT-USC home and homes in that format.

 

 

[Huckleberry 33076]

That sounds absolutely terrible. I'm sure it will happen. 

['stache 21844]

1 hour ago, Vertigo said:

You are missing an important point. If FSU and Clemson both leave, then you are creating a defacto G5 out of the other leagues on a financial level. While Clemson and FSU may get their money, the leverage of the ACC is greatly diminished, which would force them to take a smaller TV deal. This, in turn, will force the B12 to take a smaller deal next time around and it will cascade down. The $50 million to 2 schools would pale in comparison to the money saved on all of the other conferences that they are affiliated with by resetting the market. Plus, they will make that money back in the first year or two with top tier games that can be scheduled.  

The Big XII and ACC Lite will still be miles ahead in popularity and revenue from the AAC and MWC, the best of the G5 (including if the best of those become the new Pac 12). I think the set up would be the same. BIG and SEC get a majority of the playoff spots, the Big XII and ACC will be all but guaranteed one spot each for their respective champions with potentially an additional spot in strong years, and the G5(6) will have access with at least one spot for the highest ranked champion. If the ACC goes to unequal revenue sharing to keep FSU and Clemson, so be it, the BIG and SEC will go that route too soon, I'm absolutely certain. 

Edited September 18 by 'stache

[Mittens 8299]

What we’re hearing about the Pac-12, AAC and Mountain West’s next moves

The next phase of conference realignment is a tug of war.

Can the rebuilding Pac-12 convince the likes of Memphis, Tulane and maybe a few others to come west and join their new conference? Or can the AAC convince its current members to stay and add a school like Air Force into the fold and strengthen itself? That’s what’s on the board. The Pac-12 is attempting to go big, metaphorically, to create the best non-Power 4 conference, while the AAC is trying to hold onto that mantle.

The Athletic spoke with more than a dozen people involved in the discussions, and no one sees an easy move, making it difficult to predict how it all shakes out. No school is sure what another will do, and they’re all trying to set up calls to find out what each other are thinking ahead of conference calls on Wednesday. It’s up to the leadership of both conferences to convince a handful of schools of their vision.

What are those visions and plans? Here’s what I’m hearing.

Pac-12

The poaching of the Mountain West Four — Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State and San Diego State — came together very quickly last week and was kept to a small inner circle to prevent leaks that could unravel the plans at the last minute. People in the Mountain West were aware something was afoot but could not stop the four from leaving to join Oregon State and Washington State.

Having created some momentum, the Pac-12 is on to Step 2 in its effort to create a Best of the Rest conference. Having grabbed the top of the Mountain West, it wants the top of the American Athletic Conference, and it wants to do it as soon as possible in order to begin real conversations with prospective TV partners. (The league needs at least eight members by July 1, 2026.)

Multiple sources briefed on the league’s thinking tell The Athletic that Memphis and Tulane are the Pac-12’s top targets. While conversations are being had, it’s not clear the two are sold yet on the league’s speculative plan. AAC commissioner Tim Pernetti was at last Saturday’s Tulane-Oklahoma football game in Norman and was in Memphis on Tuesday for a previously scheduled visit.

“The speculation is going to be speculation,” he told local reporters. “There never seems to be any point where people are spending more effort building than they are maybe trying to tear down. As we look at the landscape, there’s an opportunity right now to continue to build on this stuff. I feel great about the membership right now, especially because of the transparency in the conversations that we’re having.”

Both Memphis and Tulane have invested heavily in athletics and found recent success in football. The Tigers, who reached the 2019 Cotton Bowl, have upgraded their on-campus facilities and are in the process of upgrading Simmons Bank Liberty Stadium with help from taxpayer money. The department has a $25 million NIL investment from FedEx over the next five years, and the football team is 3-0 coming off a win at Florida State. Tulane won the Cotton Bowl two years ago and hired away Troy’s successful head coach Jon Sumrall after Willie Fritz left for Houston. The school is also working on building a practice bubble.

UTSA, North Texas, South Florida and Texas State are among the other central/eastern options the Pac-12 is looking into, with UTSA considered the favorite among the group. Getting into Texas is especially important for certain Pac-12 schools, and each prospective member has its own selling point. UTSA’s plan to merge with UT Health San Antonio will be a huge boost for the school and its resources — the kind of move school presidents like — and it’s located in a big city that has supported UTSA football. USF is now a member of the Association of American Universities, a prestigious academic group, with working plans for an on-campus stadium, but it may just be too far away on the map.

Back west, UNLV was left out of the initial Mountain West move. Rebels football is having its most (and only) success in decades, now ranked in a major poll for the first time, but the question is whether the school has enough support and investment that will continue past this moment in time. The belief is that UNLV can ultimately split from fellow university system member Nevada for a conference move if needed.

“They are two very distinct schools with two very distinct communities, media markets, trajectories,” system regent Heather Brown told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “I do not think, under any circumstance, they should be considered a package deal. It doesn’t make sense.”

The Pac-12’s availability as an option for UNLV and Air Force is more likely if the conference strikes out on its eastern swing attempts. Adding three football members to get to nine would make football scheduling simple with eight conference games. Although Oregon State athletic director Scott Barnes told The Athletic on Saturday that football is a requirement for members, other sources briefed on the league’s thinking believe that’s just for this next step, not ruling out the possibility that the league would try to add a school like Gonzaga to what could be a strong basketball conference.

What the Pac-12 is selling these schools is still an unknown commodity. While popular college sports valuation consultant Navigate can project numbers, the conference is not working off a normal media rights deal. The league will have to go to market to figure out exactly what it is worth.

Some sources familiar with the league’s thinking hope to land somewhere between $10 to $15 million per school per year, while other sources call that number premature and say it depends on who else joins. That number would be up from the Mountain West’s estimated $6 million annual per-school payouts from TV and the AAC’s $7 million for original members like Memphis and Tulane, though recent AAC additions like UTSA make less than that.

Industry sources believe TNT Sports could be a potential TV partner to watch for the Pac-12, having recently picked up sub-licensed College Football Playoff games and some Mountain West games for truTV as it handles the fallout of losing the NBA. The CW already has a partnership with the two-member Pac-12 and could look to expand that. What role will streaming play? The old Pac-12 had an offer from Apple that wasn’t enough to keep members from fleeing to the Big Ten and Big 12, but it could be part of a package. The Pac-12 has pitched its Pac-12 Enterprises production studio as a revenue-driver and as help for would-be broadcasters.

The estimated $111 million the Pac-12 stands to owe the Mountain West ($17 million in exit fees for each school, plus $43 million in poaching fees from the Pac-12/MW scheduling agreement) could become a point of contention. Some sources around the situation believe the Pac-12 will try to negotiate that number down in some way, while others are dubious it can be done. AAC defections would also owe exit fees likely in the tens of millions of dollars. While the Pac-12 can use its estimated $250 million war chest to fill in gaps, that money won’t last forever. Around $65 million was initially earmarked for rebuilding, with the rest going to operations.

The Pac-12 will also have to negotiate a payout from the new College Football Playoff contract that begins in 2026, as it wasn’t a signee to the agreement that is almost finalized. Group of 5 schools are set to receive about $1.8 million per school, and there’s a contract look-in with ESPN in 2028. A CFP format isn’t locked in beyond 2025, but it’s almost certainly not going to create a sixth automatic spot for a conference champion.

Barnes said Saturday that the six Pac-12 schools have signed a “long-term” grant of rights to lock themselves together. What they’re locked into remains to be seen. That unknown is what has AAC schools cautious about making a jump. But if one or two does, that would increase pressure on another to not be left behind.

“People are being very calculated and want more information,” one AAC administrator said.

AAC

Pernetti was hired to the commissioner job in April, meaning the same presidents making these realignment decisions are the ones who trusted his leadership enough to hire him. The idea of a rebuilding Pac-12 targeting the AAC is also not a surprising concept. The conference had talked about this possibility for months.

The AAC is targeting Air Force as a potential addition, according to sources briefed on the conference’s strategy. Talks of adding the Falcons have happened for years, including in 2021 when former AAC commissioner Mike Aresco looked to add a western wing of his own with Air Force, Boise State, Colorado State and San Diego State — almost the reverse of what’s happening now. With Army football joining the AAC this year, the draw of having all three service academies is obvious. Air Force’s TV rights also aren’t locked into a TV deal separate from a conference like the Army-Navy Game with CBS, meaning Air Force football could slide in and be of value to ESPN, which owns all AAC rights.

The question is what happens to Air Force’s other sports. The Falcons are a full member of the Mountain West, but Army and Navy are football-only members in the AAC, playing most other sports in the Patriot League. The AAC could take many of Air Force’s other sports, but if it doesn’t, the West Coast Conference or some combination involving the WAC, Summit or other leagues could be a possibility. Air Force already has two sports in the Mountain Pacific Sports Federation, for example.

The AAC’s pitch to keep the likes of Tulane, Memphis and others is multi-pronged. It has a long-term TV deal with ESPN into the early 2030s, providing stability and a lot more exposure. That deal, which has been the most lucrative among the Group of 5, has a look-in clause coming up within the next two years, sources say.

“That’s our best thing going, our deal with ESPN,” said one AAC source.

Travel would be easier staying in the AAC, with many AAC schools sitting in major cities and many alumni on the East Coast — Tulane has a large alumni base in New York. Pernetti has also injected an energy and forward-looking approach since taking over. He’s been open about taking on a private equity or capital investment, which would provide a financial boost to schools.

“All of these things are growth opportunities for the conference,” Pernetti said Tuesday in Memphis. “What’s good about the membership is they bought into that vision and feel good about what those opportunities can do to accelerate investment and the success we’re having.”

The message from the AAC is that prospective Pac-12 members don’t need to rush into a decision, while the Pac-12 hopes to move fast.

Mountain West

Down to eight football-playing members, the Mountain West is still assessing its next steps — most notably, how much money it can expect to receive from the Pac-12. But with schools like UNLV and Air Force still eyeing moves, it’s a precarious situation.

Sources familiar with discussions believe UTEP and Texas State are potential targets, as FBS members who wouldn’t have to make a transition. Sam Houston might be an option, too. New Mexico State is in the region, but the school is going through a presidential search, and New Mexico may not favor adding the Aggies. FCS Tarleton, located in Stephenville, is another potential Texas option. The school just recently completed its transition from Division II but is growing rapidly and has a lot of money at its disposal.

The question is what kind of Mountain West these potential additional schools would be walking into. Texas State likely prefers the Sun Belt where it sits (or a possible future AAC invite), while Conference USA has a grant of rights that makes an exit fee larger, the only G5 league with such an agreement.

“If (these) eight can stay together and we can add some teams, we can really be a good league,” Wyoming athletic director Tom Burman told in-house media last Friday. “If (the Pac-12 can’t add AAC schools), it’s likely they’re going to circle back to the Mountain West, and we could lose an additional member or two members. So that’s why expansion is very, very important.”

['stache 21844]

Texas State if not part of the new Pac feels way safer in the Sunbelt and would be a logical add for the AAC if UTSA goes new Pac. Not sure MWC Lite makes any sense for them.

[LTbear 4171]

I think the Sun Belt is a great fit for Texas State. And it's a pretty solid G5 league. 

[pops 7006]

On 9/13/2024 at 7:46 PM, gatormarc said:

Just spitballing here, but potential for a lawsuit from the MWC?

Considering that the Pac2 had been talking and negotiating with the MWC, I could see them argue some sort of utilizing confidential knowledge to break the MWC apart.

There are some pretty big penalties put in place when the pac2 and the mwc entered into a scheduling agreement this year to prevent exactly this. I think it is around 17 million a school and then like 50 million from the pac2 so a total of around 110 million. If the PAC had grabbed 8 schools from the mwc, those 8 would have been enough to dissolve the mwc and there would have been no penalties. But the 4 that left now no longer have voting rights so I think they would need to get 6 to vote to disband the league now if they circle back. Pac2 must think they have a good shot at AAC schools because grabbing only 4 initially doesn't make a lot of sense if you have to come back. 

[LTbear 4171]

5 hours ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Your post implies that the "old regional conferences" are better for fans.  They weren't.

Depends on what each of you were valuing. Bigger name brand matchups = new way is better. Better ability to travel to away games and shit-talk to rival fans in your day-to-day = old way was better. 

1 minute ago, pops said:

There are some pretty big penalties put in place when the pac2 and the mwc entered into a scheduling agreement this year to prevent exactly this. I think it is around 17 million a school and then like 50 million from the pac2 so a total of around 110 million. If the PAC had grabbed 8 schools from the mwc, those 8 would have been enough to dissolve the mwc and there would have been no penalties. But the 4 that left now no longer have voting rights so I think they would need to get 6 to vote to disband the league now if they circle back. Pac2 must think they have a good shot at AAC schools because grabbing only 4 initially doesn't make a lot of sense if you have to come back. 

I think the only other MWC school they want at all is UNLV. 

[statsman 5477]

1 hour ago, LTbear said:

Depends on what each of you were valuing. Bigger name brand matchups = new way is better. Better ability to travel to away games and shit-talk to rival fans in your day-to-day = old way was better. 

But, really, it’s only a change for Texas and OU, right? Baylor, TCU, TT, UH, TSU, UTSA, OSU, Tulsa… they all still get to play each other and shit talk each other. They still have nearby travel, right?

[Ojo Rojo 1967]

6 hours ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Your post implies that the "old regional conferences" are better for fans.  They weren't.  The old regional conferences had us playing Baylor, TCU, Houston and Tech.  The new arrangement has us playing Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, and Arkansas.  These are much better competition, better games to watch, and will force Texas to raise their bar.  Texas does best when it is challenged, and worst when we rest on our laurels and play Baylor.  And all of those are benefits even before we consider the extra money that comes along with going to the SEC.

The end game in the medium term is the Power 2 conferences of Big10 and SEC take more and more playoff spots and squeeze out the ACC, Big12, and G5 down to 1 spot each.  That will happen either formally via guaranteed spots, or informally via the committee recognizing the strength of schedule of the P2.

The end-end game in the long term is that the Big10 and SEC probably either merge or create a formal partnership of equals where they build "new" conferences that allow them to drop out the Vandy's and Purdue's, pick up the FSU and Clemsons and consolidate down to a true Power conference of 40ish teams.  The playoff will already be at 16 teams by then, and they'll reserve 1-2 spots for the rest of the non Power teams to disarm the anti-trust stuff, but it will essentially be a Power conference playoff at that point.  The players will be employees of the universities, and taking a cut of the TV revenues and governed by some type of CBA.  The Power conference will set their own rules for paying players beyond that, for recruiting, officiating, everything to replace the NCAA governance.  There will be a commissioner of the Power conference who is less powerful than the NFL commissioner but more powerful than the current conference commissioners.  They'll try to adopt some type of "salary cap," but that will be resisted by Texas, Georgia, and the big players, but the smaller ones will push for it to create "balance."  There will probably be some compromise on that somewhere along the way - but the cat is out of the bag and we're not going back to under-the-table money.

I didn't mean the old regional conferences with all the same teams.  What I intended to say was regional conference made up of only P2 teams, or whatever we're calling them - revenue positive teams? Attractive media property teams?  So, for example, the new regional conference for us would be:  UT, OU, a&m, LSU, Arkansas, OSU, Missouri, Kansas, Kansas St., Colorado.

[pops 7006]

2 hours ago, LTbear said:

Depends on what each of you were valuing. Bigger name brand matchups = new way is better. Better ability to travel to away games and shit-talk to rival fans in your day-to-day = old way was better. 

I think the only other MWC school they want at all is UNLV. 

I'm surprised Vegas didn't get an invite initially. Perfect for conference headquarters, basketball tourney and football conference championship. I know they've been shit in football, always, but I would think NIL could change that. And basketball has struggled after Kruger but we know what they can be with the right guy. 

[chainsaw 9873]

10 years ago I would have been involuntarily committed for saying UTSA could end up in the PAC.

[LTbear 4171]

2 hours ago, statsman said:

But, really, it’s only a change for Texas and OU, right? Baylor, TCU, TT, UH, TSU, UTSA, OSU, Tulsa… they all still get to play each other and shit talk each other. They still have nearby travel, right?

Yes, and if I lived in Texas and were attending Baylor games, I would enjoy that aspect. Not sure why that seems difficult for you to understand? It's pretty simple, right?

[LTbear 4171]

1 hour ago, pops said:

I'm surprised Vegas didn't get an invite initially. Perfect for conference headquarters, basketball tourney and football conference championship. I know they've been shit in football, always, but I would think NIL could change that. And basketball has struggled after Kruger but we know what they can be with the right guy. 

Lots of rumors that UNLV and UNR are somewhat tied together, though one regent seemed to voice otherwise. Who knows. Personally I think they'll eventually take UNLV. UNLV, for their part, picked a nice time to be ranked for the first time ever. 

Edited September 19 by LTbear

[statsman 5477]

38 minutes ago, LTbear said:

Yes, and if I lived in Texas and were attending Baylor games, I would enjoy that aspect. Not sure why that seems difficult for you to understand? It's pretty simple, right?

So, what is the problem? You’re a Baylor fan, and if you lived in Texas, you could go to regional games, right? Baylor is in a league with UH, TT, TCU, and schedules Texas State and SMU. So, what is your concern about how things are or will be?

[LTbear 4171]

32 minutes ago, statsman said:

So, what is the problem? You’re a Baylor fan, and if you lived in Texas, you could go to regional games, right? Baylor is in a league with UH, TT, TCU, and schedules Texas State and SMU. So, what is your concern about how things are or will be?

Son, untwist your panties. You are the most consistently wound up, defensive little guy on this thread, by a wide margin. Like a frat boy who just had a Four Loko. There isn't a problem, and I have no concern, you're just so hyper-defensive that you invent "problems" in your head. I simply responded to someone else conjecturing about why a different poster indicated he liked more regional conferences (and said poster even came in to clarify he liked regional conferences amongst like-ish brands). One can like brand on brand matchups while still thinking it's stupid to see serious reports discuss the merits of FSU joining the Big Ten. 

Edited September 19 by LTbear

[0xdeadbeef 1652]

I must have missed what changed for the ACC to start talking about changing revenue sharing.  Why do they need to try and make FSu and Clemson happy?   There is no unequal revenue sharing that is going to make everyone happy. Someone is going to get less and be unhappy. 

When the FSU and Clemson lawsuits were filed, Internet lawyers said the GOR was short, sweet, and unbreakable?   If the lawsuit had a win-indicator, it seemed like it was 99.9% for an ACC win.   Has something changed on that front? Is the Win indicator for the lawsuit dropping?   That's the only thing that I can think of that would motivate the ACC to do this.

 

[LTbear 4171]

1 minute ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

I must have missed what changed for the ACC to start talking about changing revenue sharing.  Why do they need to try and make FSu and Clemson happy?   There is no unequal revenue sharing that is going to make everyone happy. Someone is going to get less and be unhappy. 

When the FSU and Clemson lawsuits were filed, Internet lawyers said the GOR was short, sweet, and unbreakable?   If the lawsuit had a win-indicator, it seemed like it was 99.9% for an ACC win.   Has something changed on that front? Is the Win indicator for the lawsuit dropping?   That's the only thing that I can think of that would motivate the ACC to do this.

 

Ya I'm assuming something has to be up that makes the ACC think they might lose. 

[TKthunder2 4997]

42 minutes ago, LTbear said:

Ya I'm assuming something has to be up that makes the ACC think they might lose. 

I believe this was FSU and Clemson proposing a settlement as a part of their court ordered mediation. But yes, the GOR for live state run performances has not been tested and after Texas and Oklahoma got away early from the Big 12 for next to nothing, I don’t think the ACC is feeling super confident in going to court.

[notre dame joe 195]

9 hours ago, LTbear said:

Depends on what each of you were valuing. Bigger name brand matchups = new way is better. Better ability to travel to away games and shit-talk to rival fans in your day-to-day = old way was better. 

He said the new way is better then proceeded to list the ways the sport has become a corporation.