Conference Realignment

So maybe the ACC isn't so unstable after all...

Well, sorta.

Part of the negotiations though, is a lessening of the GOR exit fee after 2031. That doesn’t exactly give me complete confidence in the long term stability of the conference.
 
Well, sorta.

Part of the negotiations though, is a lessening of the GOR exit fee after 2031. That doesn’t exactly give me complete confidence in the long term stability of the conference.
I read the story as indicating that Clemson/FSU have proposed that as part of the settlement discussions, but it isn't clear whether that aspect of the proposal has gotten any traction from the ACC/remaining schools side:

"As reported by Yahoo Sports in September, Clemson and FSU introduced a new revenue structure proposal during negotiations with the ACC that creates a separate pot of cash to be divided based on media value metrics and other football performance marks. The proposal was introduced to ACC university presidents and is one of a possible two-part solution to a settlement.

The schools are proposing changes to the conference’s grant-of-rights agreement — at the center of both lawsuits — such as possibly reducing the penalty fees tethered to the contract or an amendment in its length
."

If I were the ACC side, I would be very open to the first aspect of the "possible two-part solution" -- increasing distributions to the more valuable league members -- and would maybe consider reducing the withdrawal penalties, but I would draw a pretty hard line on not agreeing to shorten the GOR. The ACC was already in a strong legal position on the validity of the GOR, and that position is only strengthened by ESPN's exercise of the option to keep its contract in place through 2036. Clemson/FSU's big stick was mostly the PR hit of having the public black eye of litigation, but they've already fired that shot and merely continuing the litigation will have diminishing PR effect.
 
There are likely different sources putting their own spin on this agreement, but if it is as stated, it is confusing to me. We have heard for a long time that the ACC is in dire straits due to being locked into a terrible contract with ESPN. If this is true, then why would the ACC need to offer additional value in order for ESPN to continue the contract? It seems like they could have offered "value-added" games in return for a bump in fees. I guess if ESPN surprisingly didn't renew the contract it could provide an exit for ACC teams, but it would also allow the league to negotiate a new, better contract (and many seem to think the SEC and Big Ten would like to see the other conferences stay in tact rather than further grow themselves). If the contract is so out of line with other conferences a chance to open things up and renegotiate would seem welcome.

Similarly, it seems that Clemson and FSU are, again, getting a guarantee for more performance related payouts that will benefit them. In return for this benefit, they are asking for the GOR to be shortened. The only thing the ACC seems to get, if these reports are true, is that the teams drop their lawsuits. But they seemed unlikely to win, and that the lawsuits would be more costly for them than the ACC. It was frustrating to see the ACC offer improved payouts to FSU and Clemson last time only to see them quickly turn around and sue the conference. This time, there isn't even a time gap - they want more money and a quicker exit.
 
The second sentence from the quote explains, at least in part: "These include creating more marquee matchups in football and men's basketball to maximize content on the networks."

So Duke's basketball schedule would get tougher (probably a good thing, but would make the regular season title even more of a joke than it is today).

I read the story as indicating that Clemson/FSU have proposed that as part of the settlement discussions, but it isn't clear whether that aspect of the proposal has gotten any traction from the ACC/remaining schools side:

"As reported by Yahoo Sports in September, Clemson and FSU introduced a new revenue structure proposal during negotiations with the ACC that creates a separate pot of cash to be divided based on media value metrics and other football performance marks. The proposal was introduced to ACC university presidents and is one of a possible two-part solution to a settlement.

The schools are proposing changes to the conference’s grant-of-rights agreement — at the center of both lawsuits — such as possibly reducing the penalty fees tethered to the contract or an amendment in its length
."

If I were the ACC side, I would be very open to the first aspect of the "possible two-part solution" -- increasing distributions to the more valuable league members -- and would maybe consider reducing the withdrawal penalties, but I would draw a pretty hard line on not agreeing to shorten the GOR. The ACC was already in a strong legal position on the validity of the GOR, and that position is only strengthened by ESPN's exercise of the option to keep its contract in place through 2036. Clemson/FSU's big stick was mostly the PR hit of having the public black eye of litigation, but they've already fired that shot and merely continuing the litigation will have diminishing PR effect.
I think you are right. Some people on this thread would do well to pause and actually to read some of the articles cited since some have gone off the rails. For one thing, there is a proposal to reward teams that are bigger draws, but that group is NOT cast in stone, i.e. it makes perfect sense that it would change over time...historically that group is portrayed as FSU, Miami, Clemmons and unc, but that doesn't make them permanent in that group.
It would seem that Clemmons and FSU now realize their lawsuits were not going to be fruitful (FSU only filed one because the board of trustees told them to) and now they have a face saving way out.
And yes, I don't see shortening the period of the GOR to make any sense for the league. Doing that would make leaving a whole lot easier in just the next few years....
 
Remember, the Big 12's contract comes due in only a few years, well inside the ACC's soon-to-be-extended 2036 expiration date. By shoring up the league at least for the medium term, the ACC has a chance to watch the next card flip over from the B12.

There is a chance the ACC can plunder a couple key programs in the B12, causing significant instability in that conference to the point of degrading their next negotiation, and shifting TV contract dollars from a ~50/50 B12/ACC split to something more favorable to a stronger, clear third conference, ACC.

A chance.

- Chillin
 
I have said before, when I look at competition, I like the Big 12 better than the ACC. Academics to me are secondary for athletic affiliation, especially as long as the group down the road is in the ACC and I don't think of FSU as an academic heavyweight.

Unless and until we see a bunch of the ACC schools dumping lots of money into their football and basketball programs, I think the ACC remains second rate. I see the Big 12 as being stronger top to bottom.
 
Remember, the Big 12's contract comes due in only a few years, well inside the ACC's soon-to-be-extended 2036 expiration date. By shoring up the league at least for the medium term, the ACC has a chance to watch the next card flip over from the B12.

There is a chance the ACC can plunder a couple key programs in the B12, causing significant instability in that conference to the point of degrading their next negotiation, and shifting TV contract dollars from a ~50/50 B12/ACC split to something more favorable to a stronger, clear third conference, ACC.

A chance.

- Chillin
How would that work? ESPN would up the value of the TV contract immediately to support stealing some desirable B12 schools?

So it's a game of piracy. You either eat or get eaten.

I guess if you picked off 6 schools, you could have a 24-team super conference with an ACC West, ACC South, ACC North. Something like this?

ACC West
Stanford
Cal
SMU
Kansas
Houston
Baylor
Arizona
BYU


ACC South
Miami
FSU
GA Tech
Clemson
Duke
Wake
UNC
NC State

ACC North
Louisville
West Virginia
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Notre Dame
Pittsburgh
Boston College
Syracuse

In basketball, two games each with our seven teams in the ACC South plus single games against teams like Kansas, Arizona, Houston, Louisville.

Then in football you cut the regular season a game short and have a playoff with the 3 division winners and 1 wildcard team. It could work.
 
moi, I don't see any logic or synergy in grabbing Big 12 teams. Leave 'em where they are.....but to each his own.
Standing pat unfortunately doesn’t work, and hasn’t since the demise of the SWC at least. If the ACC could pick up the 5 state flagship schools on easy terms (or 4, if it’s the couch-burners who are left out of things) then the ACC should do it.
 
I think we should create One league for ALL Division One Schools. Then we set up divisions of 12 teams each and attempt to respect geography but giving attention to the level of participation in Minor sports. I wonder what that would look like. 🦉🍭😎
At least for revenue sports. The 120 or so schools that are basically pro sports organizations, playing each other and divided up geographically. Other sports could be in leagues that minimize travel etc.
 
How would that work? ESPN would up the value of the TV contract immediately to support stealing some desirable B12 schools?

So it's a game of piracy. You either eat or get eaten.

I guess if you picked off 6 schools, you could have a 24-team super conference with an ACC West, ACC South, ACC North. Something like this?

ACC West
Stanford
Cal
SMU
Kansas
Houston
Baylor
Arizona
BYU


ACC South
Miami
FSU
GA Tech
Clemson
Duke
Wake
UNC
NC State

ACC North
Louisville
West Virginia
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Notre Dame
Pittsburgh
Boston College
Syracuse

In basketball, two games each with our seven teams in the ACC South plus single games against teams like Kansas, Arizona, Houston, Louisville.

Then in football you cut the regular season a game short and have a playoff with the 3 division winners and 1 wildcard team. It could work.
I doubt Notre Dame ever agrees to this, but sign me up.
 
Pre-game last night, the broadcast crew expressed concern over the future of best rivalry in college b-ball. Cheats with Bill at the helm joining the B1G even came up. Assume they have no more info regarding realignment than the average fan?
 
Pre-game last night, the broadcast crew expressed concern over the future of best rivalry in college b-ball. Cheats with Bill at the helm joining the B1G even came up. Assume they have no more info regarding realignment than the average fan?
ha I'm sure unc thinks they will be invited to the NFL. I think Duke's options now are pretty clear: stay with the ACC, it is now likely it will hold together (both Clemson and FSU now saying no, we really didn't want to leave, just exploring options, etc), but if it does not look for a B1G offer....
Meanwhile everyone has a shot at more revenue if their ratings are good enough...
 
Pre-game last night, the broadcast crew expressed concern over the future of best rivalry in college b-ball. Cheats with Bill at the helm joining the B1G even came up. Assume they have no more info regarding realignment than the average fan?
Dan Shulman grew up in baseball and broadcasts college basketball and (I looked at Wikipedia) eons ago did some hockey and a tiny bit of (Canadian) college football broadcasting. He has no idea if Belichick and Kerlina football are going to drag u*NC into the B1G. Neither does Bilas.
 
Dan Shulman grew up in baseball and broadcasts college basketball and (I looked at Wikipedia) eons ago did some hockey and a tiny bit of (Canadian) college football broadcasting. He has no idea if Belichick and Kerlina football are going to drag u*NC into the B1G. Neither does Bilas.
Indeed. You look at current trends in football and hoops and can wonder exactly how much bigger a draw unc is, and is going to be, vs Duke.
 
Back
Top