Exactly. And thanks for relating actual facts
Conference Realignment
- Thread starter DavidBenAkiva
- Start date
RoseBowl1942
Member
Not to be a narcissist, but I have a strange feeling that I am a big part of the reason this feature was enhanced…
OldPhiKap
Super Moderator
It is a happy upgrade like many of the features here, and was not engineered for any particular poster or posters.
(And since I can see your post, you know that you're not on my ignore list!)
wichitadevil
Member
I am not convinced that the B1G and SEC are interested in Clemson and FSU now or any time before 2036. It's also difficult for me to believe that Clemson and FSU would join the B12 for equal or less money than they will earn from media contracts in the ACC over that period given that any exit scenario will involve them paying tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, which they will never recoup in the B12. I assume that their objective in the current litigation is just to squeeze more/unequal revenue out of their ACC contracts during the GOR. It seems to me like the "success fund" that is enabled by the unequal distributions to Stanford, Cal and SMU is the perfect solution to the FSU/Clemson gripe. They should put up or shut up. If they can win in the ACC, they can get more money from the ACC. Apparently, that may not be so easy for them. See, e.g., Ga Tech 24-FSU 21 last Saturday.
My contribution to this speculation/handwringing fest is that I believe there are two possible outcomes of all this. One, that has been mentioned before, is that football is carved out from the rest of college sports and there is some kind of superleague created, maybe with some formal system of promotion and relegation involved. Seems kind of dumb to me since we already have something called the NFL and every new football league that has tried to truly compete with it in my lifetime has failed. But definitely plausible. In that scenario, the rest of college sports may slip back into a more regional/conference orientation in order to save the costs associated with travel for the volleyball and track and field teams and others. I guess it's possible that there could be some kind of association of basketball with the football superleague, but the NCAA basketball tournament is already such a great and valuable product and the resources required to support top level basketball are just so much less than football, that it's not obvious to me that basketball needs to break away like that. But people do all kinds of counterproductive things if they see even short term financial gain in it so who knows what will happen to basketball.
The other possible outcome is that we just kind of settle into the current alignment and the B1G and SEC make more media money than everybody else for a while or forever. And every few years there will be some shakeup in the margins of conference composition. Maybe UNC and UVA go to the B1G at some point, although my personal belief is that UNC has plenty of money and exposure, and the value of controlling the ACC is much greater to them than the possibility of an extra 20% or 25% of athletic media revenue over time.
My contribution to this speculation/handwringing fest is that I believe there are two possible outcomes of all this. One, that has been mentioned before, is that football is carved out from the rest of college sports and there is some kind of superleague created, maybe with some formal system of promotion and relegation involved. Seems kind of dumb to me since we already have something called the NFL and every new football league that has tried to truly compete with it in my lifetime has failed. But definitely plausible. In that scenario, the rest of college sports may slip back into a more regional/conference orientation in order to save the costs associated with travel for the volleyball and track and field teams and others. I guess it's possible that there could be some kind of association of basketball with the football superleague, but the NCAA basketball tournament is already such a great and valuable product and the resources required to support top level basketball are just so much less than football, that it's not obvious to me that basketball needs to break away like that. But people do all kinds of counterproductive things if they see even short term financial gain in it so who knows what will happen to basketball.
The other possible outcome is that we just kind of settle into the current alignment and the B1G and SEC make more media money than everybody else for a while or forever. And every few years there will be some shakeup in the margins of conference composition. Maybe UNC and UVA go to the B1G at some point, although my personal belief is that UNC has plenty of money and exposure, and the value of controlling the ACC is much greater to them than the possibility of an extra 20% or 25% of athletic media revenue over time.
ChillinDuke
Member
I tend to agree with RoseBowl in content, if not always in tone.
I, as usual, will post my required reminder that the B12 media contract expires at the end of the 2030-2031 season. So they should be starting negotiations (my guess) around 2029, which frankly isn't all that far from now.
The ACC should be trying to side broker a deal in which a subset of [strong] B12 schools bolt for the ACC in exchange for a sweetened deal with ESPN. The argument would be some form of saving ESPN money by highgrading their media content into one of the two conferences (ACC, B12), not both. They could shift money to the ACC and shift money away from the B12, thereby stabilizing the ACC as the third best conference and making the B12 the clearly shakiest - but still existing for CFP purposes and to basically placehold schools that simply can't find a way themselves.
I don't pretend to know (or have the expertise on) how to pitch this plan. I'll leave that to Commissioners and lawyers. But it doesn't seem far-fetched to me.
Alternatively, the ACC could do nothing and risk the B12 doing the exact reverse.
- Chillin
I, as usual, will post my required reminder that the B12 media contract expires at the end of the 2030-2031 season. So they should be starting negotiations (my guess) around 2029, which frankly isn't all that far from now.
The ACC should be trying to side broker a deal in which a subset of [strong] B12 schools bolt for the ACC in exchange for a sweetened deal with ESPN. The argument would be some form of saving ESPN money by highgrading their media content into one of the two conferences (ACC, B12), not both. They could shift money to the ACC and shift money away from the B12, thereby stabilizing the ACC as the third best conference and making the B12 the clearly shakiest - but still existing for CFP purposes and to basically placehold schools that simply can't find a way themselves.
I don't pretend to know (or have the expertise on) how to pitch this plan. I'll leave that to Commissioners and lawyers. But it doesn't seem far-fetched to me.
Alternatively, the ACC could do nothing and risk the B12 doing the exact reverse.
- Chillin
sagegrouse
Member
This discussion seems to be starting with the transaction -- schools change conferences -- not with some of the underlying forces, such as:
1. Under what conditions would the Big Ten and SEC expand beyond 18 teams. How would they manage it? Would they just basically divide the schools into two heaps with minimal interaction, or do something else. Or, just agree that 18 is the most they can handle?
2. The ACC agreement ends in 2036, I believe. Why would anyone expect movements to occur until around then? Texas and OU had a one-year overlap. The PAC 12 was facing renewals and fell apart completely.
3. If media dollars become increasingly attached to the schools via streaming arrangements or something else, why should there be conferences at all? I haven't though much or know much about this, but it may be worth thinking about.
1. Under what conditions would the Big Ten and SEC expand beyond 18 teams. How would they manage it? Would they just basically divide the schools into two heaps with minimal interaction, or do something else. Or, just agree that 18 is the most they can handle?
2. The ACC agreement ends in 2036, I believe. Why would anyone expect movements to occur until around then? Texas and OU had a one-year overlap. The PAC 12 was facing renewals and fell apart completely.
3. If media dollars become increasingly attached to the schools via streaming arrangements or something else, why should there be conferences at all? I haven't though much or know much about this, but it may be worth thinking about.
ChillinDuke
Member
I'll play...
Under the conditions that they make more money. I don't pretend to know exactly what triggers that, but it's not hard to envision an addition of a school, e.g. Notre Dame, triggering a concurrent restructuring of their media deal or somehow adding additional dollars into the equation.
How they'll manage it? I don't know, but does it really matter (compared to the $$$)? They'll figure it out. It's not like this is sending a manned flight to Mars. The B1G just added USC/UCLA for Pete's sake (who's Pete?) - they're figuring it out.
Well, FSU is actively trying to fight it's way out, for one. I understand and don't completely disagree with your point here. But it's definitely possible - like significantly more possible than when most people around here post something absurd and then say "I used the word 'possible' ".
Then, like I said, there's the B12 date which front runs the ACC by 5 years. There could definitely be movement in advance of that - more likely movement into the ACC. But anything is possible (see what I did there?).
It's a great question. Texas kinda tried going this route with the Longhorn Network - but probably too early in today's streaming world. A savvy commissioner (which the ACC may not have) should be approaching an extension/renewal with incumbents (ESPN, e.g.) while also doing what everyone else does - call Amazon. Or Netflix. Or Hulu (they have live sports, I'm told). Or ALL OF THEM.
In a college sports landscape that is more or less blowing up, why don't commissioners blow up the incumbent business model and find alternatives that could bring in larger (or different) revenue streams)? /Rant
- Chillin
Under the conditions that they make more money. I don't pretend to know exactly what triggers that, but it's not hard to envision an addition of a school, e.g. Notre Dame, triggering a concurrent restructuring of their media deal or somehow adding additional dollars into the equation.
How they'll manage it? I don't know, but does it really matter (compared to the $$$)? They'll figure it out. It's not like this is sending a manned flight to Mars. The B1G just added USC/UCLA for Pete's sake (who's Pete?) - they're figuring it out.
Well, FSU is actively trying to fight it's way out, for one. I understand and don't completely disagree with your point here. But it's definitely possible - like significantly more possible than when most people around here post something absurd and then say "I used the word 'possible' ".
Then, like I said, there's the B12 date which front runs the ACC by 5 years. There could definitely be movement in advance of that - more likely movement into the ACC. But anything is possible (see what I did there?).
It's a great question. Texas kinda tried going this route with the Longhorn Network - but probably too early in today's streaming world. A savvy commissioner (which the ACC may not have) should be approaching an extension/renewal with incumbents (ESPN, e.g.) while also doing what everyone else does - call Amazon. Or Netflix. Or Hulu (they have live sports, I'm told). Or ALL OF THEM.
In a college sports landscape that is more or less blowing up, why don't commissioners blow up the incumbent business model and find alternatives that could bring in larger (or different) revenue streams)? /Rant
- Chillin
Not specific to luvdahops, my pie bet offer regarding FSU and Clemson both going to either the SEC or the BIG is available to the first taker.
I suspect if a settlement to leave the ACC was reached today, both schools would hear from both conferences today. the bet is that both schools go to one of either the BIG or the SEC.
I see validity in some of your points, but I think there are other considerations that make this less certain (not wrong, just less certain).
I think you are right that if (big if) FSU or Clemson comes free of the ACC, there will be pressure in the B1G and SEC to add them to make sure the other conference doesn't. That said, I think there are a number of factors that pull in the opposite direction:
- ESPN (SEC) was already paying for them through the ACC deal. They won't want to pay twice for the same team. Fox (B1G) might be more eager for a footprint in SEC territory.
- Both of these schools are a significant step down in academics from the existing members in the B1G. In that conference, the university presidents still hold much of the power. I think their response to adding either of these would be "Ewww."
- Both the B1G and the SEC are just beginning to digest the additional teams they got. I don't either is eager for more change right now (in X years, maybe?)
- I think that even FSU or Clemson would lead to REDUCED revenue per school in those two conferences, if they were added as full share members. With the number of teams they have, they don't need more inventory in general. And they really don't need more "name" teams either. There are only so many time slots for games of significance. The B1G just added a team that played in the national championship last year for half price. Why would Clemson deserve more? Those new half price members are now some of the ones voting on whether they think adding more teams (and at what price) is a good idea.
Settlement? I'd bet a pie on that. Ain't gonna be no settlement. The ACC has NO reason to settle. Drag it out, and make it hurt.
Over what time frame?
Seems like these issues are what drives the decoupling football from the universities narrative. Idk the viability of that, or how it would actually be structured, but it may solve the Title IX requirements. But wouldn’t it also free football programs from funding the non-rev sports?
No bet! On this we agree. Most ACC schools don’t have a reliable landing spot. Would it just take a majority vote by the members to settle?
I don’t know when/if the settlement happens. I’m not betting that the teams negotiate a settlement in a certain time. I’m betting that when Clemson and FSU are free, SEC and/or BIG will snap them up.
So we could set a time period and end up with no winner. That would be fine. I’m saying the notion that the BIG and SEC won’t be interested is nonsense.
Happy to take the other side of that argument and set 8/1/28 as a deadline. Accept, reject or counter as you wish.
But there aren’t facts in the article. It’s all conjecture.
Phredd3
Member
Hmm. Could it?
Here's the pre-Duke résumé of the last long-term coach at Duke:
| 1976–1979 | Banks HS (AL) (assistant) |
|---|---|
| 1980–1981 | Banks HS (AL) |
| 1982 | Tennessee (assistant) |
| 1983–1998 | Tennessee (TE, RB, QB, PGC/QB, OC/QB, AHC/OC/QB) |
| 1998–2004 | Ole Miss (Head Coach) |
| 2006–2007 | Tennessee (AHC/OC/QB) |
Cutcliffe turned 50 in the year his Ole Miss job ended.
And here's the Diaz résumé to date:
| 1998–1999 | Florida State (GA) |
|---|---|
| 2000–2007 | NC State (GA, LB, S/ST) |
| 2006–2009 | Middle Tennessee (DC/S, DC/LB) |
| 2010 | Mississippi State (DC/LB) |
| 2011–2013 | Texas (DC/LB) |
| 2014 | Louisiana Tech (DC/LB) |
| 2015 | Mississippi State (DC/LB) |
| 2016–2018 | Miami (FL) (DC) |
| 2019–2021 | Miami (FL) (Head Coach) |
| 2022–2023 | Penn State (DC/LB) |
Diaz is 50 years old right now. That track record doesn't scream "long term" to me.
From Sankey's comments about FSU, it seems like the SEC isn't (at least at this time) particularly interested in them, nor would I expect the SEC be very eager to take on Clemson, as neither of those schools bring in new markets and the incumbent competitors Florida and S. Carolina don't appear to be interested in the boosts those schools would get from joining the SEC. Maybe the "markets" issue is less important than it was for the last round of expansion with the next rounds driven as much or more by the depth/intensity of interest for streaming purposes that a Clemson/FSU brings to the SEC vs. the new markets of North Carolina and Virginia. But, I would bet that Carolina (for sure) and perhaps Virginia are as, if not more, attractive to the SEC than Clemson and FSU.
Certainly it is true that if/when Clemson and FSU free up that one or the other might be snapped up by the BIG/SEC rather than have them go to the other, but unless and until there is a ruling in the Court case and the ACC/ESPN contract remains potentially in place until 2036, the only way that happen would be if ESPN decided it wanted to help facilitate it through settlement. But, ESPN has no reason to do that -- why help FSU move to the BIG (and the Fox contract) or Clemson to the SEC, where ESPN would be paying more for the Clemson inventory it already has at a lower price?
Also, dlmzzz made what I think is a good point that, at their current sizes, the BIG and SEC already have plenty of high quality inventory, with multiple attractive games on each weekend of the conference season. Further expansion wouldn't really add much on top of that, as at least half of the Clemson or Florida St. games that might be added would be against the likes of Vandy/Miss St. or Indiana/Purdue, and/or dilutive of Texas-Georgia or Oregon-Ohio St. matchups added through the current round of expansion.
hustleplays
Member
Extremely interesting and important discussion!
I have a question about UConn's motivations regarding exploring becoming a member in the B12.
Several posters have stated that this shows UConn's desperation, tenuous state, etc. But I'm wondering how much we know about how UConn sees it. Do we have good first hand, inside information? From UConn's perspective, is this a "nice to do" or a "must do"?
I have a question about UConn's motivations regarding exploring becoming a member in the B12.
Several posters have stated that this shows UConn's desperation, tenuous state, etc. But I'm wondering how much we know about how UConn sees it. Do we have good first hand, inside information? From UConn's perspective, is this a "nice to do" or a "must do"?
King of Defense
Member
I really see just one difference here. Cutcliffe was able to get promoted several times at the same school. That's not particularly common. Diaz took a more typical path, having to hop from school to school (town to town, up and down the dial).
Would Diaz, given a second chance to be a head coach, stick around for a while out of appreciation? Or would he have the sort of record that is impressive enough for Duke -- bowl games most years, the occasional 8-4 or 9-3 record -- but not something that would make Penn State or Texas come calling when they next have a head-coaching vacancy?
I think Cutcliffe was also motivated by (A) having a second chance after his heart attack and (B) having a chance to build a program -- and then enjoying the benefits of doing so. If he went back to the SEC for a job other than Georgia or Alabama, he would've been just another coach who didn't win a national championship. At Duke, he's a legend. We really should name something after him.