Conference Realignment

Status
Not open for further replies.
#576      
The Galloping Ghost
Calvin said:
1. Making a sport more exclusive, by definition is hurting the fanbase --agreed. However, we're talking about University Presidents, most of whom are far into their careers with maybe a 3-5 year timeline. As we've seen time and time again, they're looking to max out revenue over the near to mid-term. It would be great if they consider the long term future, and no doubt some will, but I think history has shown they won't look that far out. They all have their eye on the next media rights, and the windfall of an expanded playoff.
Click to expand...
No disagreement here.

Calvin said:
4. The media partners are going to have a lot of clout in how this plays out. They know the numbers, or at least have the most persuasive idea of what they will be, since they'll be bidding on the rights. There's going to be a huge battle behind the scenes to take advantage of a new landscape and expanded playoff. There for sure will be winners and losers. Kinda wish Delany was at the helm.
Click to expand...
This really is one of the biggest aspects to watch. ESPN was instrumental in the SEC adding OU and UT. Fox owns 49% of the BTN. One would assume Fox is heavily invested in countering ESPN's move.

Interestingly, unlike the SEC and B1G, the Pac-12 owns their network outright. That initially seemed like a really smart play, but knowing what we know now might be one of the things that kill the conference.
 
#577      
ugottabjoshinme
Clemson and FSU have reportedly reached out to the SEC about joining the conference.

This is going to become a joke real quick.
 
#578      
The Galloping Ghost
ugottabjoshinme said:
Clemson and FSU have reportedly reached out to the SEC about joining the conference.

This is going to become a joke real quick.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
#580      
PIT_ILL
ugottabjoshinme said:
Clemson and FSU have reportedly reached out to the SEC about joining the conference.

This is going to become a joke real quick.
Click to expand...
I feel like this would require the ACC to implode. I thought I read that their media deal was not very team/conference friendly.

That being said I actually think this scenario would be great for the B1G. It could very well push ND, Duke, UNC, and GT to the B1G. GT isn't as sexy of a pick as UT, OK, FSU, Clem or the other three mentioned but they open the Atlanta market.
 
#581      
Joel Goodson
PIT_ILL said:
I feel like this would require the ACC to implode. I thought I read that their media deal was not very team/conference friendly.

That being said I actually think this scenario would be great for the B1G. It could very well push ND, Duke, UNC, and GT to the B1G. GT isn't as sexy of a pick as UT, OK, FSU, Clem or the other three mentioned but they open the Atlanta market.
Click to expand...

Agree w/the gist, but I think VA is very, very likely to get an invitation (to the BIG). Also, ND will join the BIG when hell freezes over or there are literally no other viable options.
 
#586      
mattcoldagelli
With the caveat that all hurdles exist until they don’t, the ACC Grant of Rights agreement is a different ball of wax than the B12’s.
 
#587      
ChiefGritty
mattcoldagelli said:
With the caveat that all hurdles exist until they don’t, the ACC Grant of Rights agreement is a different ball of wax than the B12’s.
Click to expand...
One thing that kinda buzzes in the back of my mind though, the grant of rights means that the ACC owns those media rights until 2033 or whatever. And the ACC has sold those rights back-to-front to ESPN.

The SEC has also sold those rights back-to-front to ESPN now too.

There is no question that the fee to broadcast Clemson games until 2033 goes from ESPN, to the ACC, and eventually back to Clemson under the financial terms of that contract.

Buuuuuut, why does ESPN care whether Clemson plays in the ACC or not? If Clemson is willing to accept their ACC money for a few years while playing in a different ESPN-dominated league, the grant of rights doesn't really create the intended financial leverage does it?

Am I missing something here? Obviously Clemson would miss out on the bonanza of the next SEC TV deal. But they would either way, what's the difference?
 
#588      
Calvin
ChiefGritty said:
One thing that kinda buzzes in the back of my mind though, the grant of rights means that the ACC owns those media rights until 2033 or whatever. And the ACC has sold those rights back-to-front to ESPN.

The SEC has also sold those rights back-to-front to ESPN now too.

There is no question that the fee to broadcast Clemson games until 2033 goes from ESPN, to the ACC, and eventually back to Clemson under the financial terms of that contract.

Buuuuuut, why does ESPN care whether Clemson plays in the ACC or not? If Clemson is willing to accept their ACC money for a few years while playing in a different ESPN-dominated league, the grant of rights doesn't really create the intended financial leverage does it?

Am I missing something here? Obviously Clemson would miss out on the bonanza of the next SEC TV deal. But they would either way, what's the difference?
Click to expand...

I'm speculating like everyone else, but I suspect that the idea is to grab the most valuable properties, and cut out the weaker ones when the expanded playoff gets worked out. If the strongest programs can shed the weaker revenue programs, they'll be in prime position to concentrate the higher revenue among them, get the best media deal, and have enormous clout in dictating terms for an expanded playoff. The more teams you cut out, the more of that sweet extra money the big boys will keep. I could see it getting ugly since there isn't much oversight at this point --just conferences falling apart while trying to do battle with the behemoth SEC.
 
#589      
ChiefGritty
Calvin said:
there isn't much oversight at this point --just conferences falling apart while trying to do battle with the behemoth SEC.
Click to expand...
Well, to keep beating the drum, the Big Ten and Pac 12 (would need the help of Fox/CBS/Whoever of course) can relegate this entire tinpot SEC dictatorship to a rump regional circus with the stroke of a pen.
 
#590      
ILL_INI
ChiefGritty said:
One thing that kinda buzzes in the back of my mind though, the grant of rights means that the ACC owns those media rights until 2033 or whatever. And the ACC has sold those rights back-to-front to ESPN.

The SEC has also sold those rights back-to-front to ESPN now too.

There is no question that the fee to broadcast Clemson games until 2033 goes from ESPN, to the ACC, and eventually back to Clemson under the financial terms of that contract.

Buuuuuut, why does ESPN care whether Clemson plays in the ACC or not? If Clemson is willing to accept their ACC money for a few years while playing in a different ESPN-dominated league, the grant of rights doesn't really create the intended financial leverage does it?

Am I missing something here? Obviously Clemson would miss out on the bonanza of the next SEC TV deal. But they would either way, what's the difference?
Click to expand...
Why would the ACC pay Clemson anything if they moved to the SEC? Isn't that what giving up the grant of rights means, giving up their media rights and revenue share?

It would be really interesting if the ACC could keep Clemson off television if they moved to the SEC, but I'm not sure how road games would work.
 
#591      
ILL_INI
The Galloping Ghost said:
No disagreement here.


This really is one of the biggest aspects to watch. ESPN was instrumental in the SEC adding OU and UT. Fox owns 49% of the BTN. One would assume Fox is heavily invested in countering ESPN's move.

Interestingly, unlike the SEC and B1G, the Pac-12 owns their network outright. That initially seemed like a really smart play, but knowing what we know now might be one of the things that kill the conference.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, Fox has had a majority stake (51%) in BTN for almost ten years now.
 
#592      
IlliniKrush
Don’t get me wrong I understand the money side of this but remember that half of the conference games will be a loss for someone. By only adding good teams to the conference even good teams will accumulate losses. Will Texas fans and AD be satisfied going 4-5, 5-4, 6-3 multiple years in a row? And if you are already one of the bottom feeders in the SEC should you really be in favor of adding Texas and Oklahoma? Do you just be happy with 0, 1 or 2 SEC wins and count your money?

That’s why I think adding Kansas to the B1G could make a lot of sense. You get the BBall $$$ and get another FB team to eat up the losses. Then you can add a Texas A&M/ND type program. Win-Win
 
#593      
PIT_ILL
Joel Goodson said:
Agree w/the gist, but I think VA is very, very likely to get an invitation (to the BIG). Also, ND will join the BIG when hell freezes over or there are literally no other viable options.
Click to expand...

Agreed VA/VaTech are pretty likely targets. I can see a scenario that brings ND in but it takes a lot of dominoes. The ACC essentially needs to cease to exist or at least enough that the contracts dissolve. Additionally the B1G would need to snag USC and Stanford. At that point most of ND's traditionally scheduled games are in the B1G already.
 
#594      
PIT_ILL
IlliniKrush said:
Don’t get me wrong I understand the money side of this but remember that half of the conference games will be a loss for someone. By only adding good teams to the conference even good teams will accumulate losses. Will Texas fans and AD be satisfied going 4-5, 5-4, 6-3 multiple years in a row? And if you are already one of the bottom feeders in the SEC should you really be in favor of adding Texas and Oklahoma? Do you just be happy with 0, 1 or 2 SEC wins and count your money?

That’s why I think adding Kansas to the B1G could make a lot of sense. You get the BBall $$$ and get another FB team to eat up the losses. Then you can add a Texas A&M/ND type program. Win-Win
Click to expand...
Much like 5 star recruits these schools don't think they can ever be bottom dwellers.
 
#595      
Calvin
IlliniKrush said:
Don’t get me wrong I understand the money side of this but remember that half of the conference games will be a loss for someone. By only adding good teams to the conference even good teams will accumulate losses. Will Texas fans and AD be satisfied going 4-5, 5-4, 6-3 multiple years in a row? And if you are already one of the bottom feeders in the SEC should you really be in favor of adding Texas and Oklahoma? Do you just be happy with 0, 1 or 2 SEC wins and count your money?

That’s why I think adding Kansas to the B1G could make a lot of sense. You get the BBall $$$ and get another FB team to eat up the losses. Then you can add a Texas A&M/ND type program. Win-Win
Click to expand...

It's an interesting question. I think the reason you go after those programs is that they're highly resistant to losing fans. So as long as they cycle through the bad years with some good years, they'll still be huge money-making machines. Going from a 4 team playoff to a 12 team playoff will dramatically change the payouts at the end of the year, so even a bottom feeder could see a lot of $ if the conference produces multiple playoff teams. I could see the current SEC getting 4 teams in the playoff easily, and likely more. I guess what I'm saying is that competitive balance isn't much of a factor when you're talking about poaching teams for $. The downside of Texas is way, way more than the upside of say, Kansas.

I really don't like the idea of Clemson and FSU joining the SEC, but other than the timing being bad, why wouldn't they?
 
#596      
ILL_INI
Calvin said:
I really don't like the idea of Clemson and FSU joining the SEC, but other than the timing being bad, why wouldn't they?
Click to expand...
Agreed, but why would the SEC want them? The conference already has a presence in both states. It's a popular belief that when Saban retires, Swinney will take over. Clemson obviously has had success before Swinney, but I don't know if they can keep their elite status when he goes.

The ACC seems like they have more than their fair share of teams who had a nice run but seem to have trouble maintaining success after a coaching change: FSU, Miami, VA Tech. Clemson feels like they'll be next.
 
#597      
mattcoldagelli
ILL_INI said:
Agreed, but why would the SEC want them? The conference already has a presence in both states.
Click to expand...
And said presences in both states would be very much against both additions. I know they just told Texas A&M to pound sand, but feels like this would be a different story.
 
#598      
Joel Goodson
IlliniKrush said:
Don’t get me wrong I understand the money side of this but remember that half of the conference games will be a loss for someone. By only adding good teams to the conference even good teams will accumulate losses. Will Texas fans and AD be satisfied going 4-5, 5-4, 6-3 multiple years in a row? And if you are already one of the bottom feeders in the SEC should you really be in favor of adding Texas and Oklahoma? Do you just be happy with 0, 1 or 2 SEC wins and count your money?

That’s why I think adding Kansas to the B1G could make a lot of sense. You get the BBall $$$ and get another FB team to eat up the losses. Then you can add a Texas A&M/ND type program. Win-Win
Click to expand...

On paper, sure. The problem is there aren't any A&M/ND type programs beyond the aforementioned and those schools aren't coming.
 
#599      
mattcoldagelli
IlliniKrush said:
That’s why I think adding Kansas to the B1G could make a lot of sense. You get the BBall $$$ and get another FB team to eat up the losses. Then you can add a Texas A&M/ND type program. Win-Win
Click to expand...
But the only possible "Texas A&M/ND type" program is in the PAC-12 and would want to come with one other western school, which kind of boxes Kansas out.
 
#600      
RedRocksIllini
Calvin said:
I'm speculating like everyone else, but I suspect that the idea is to grab the most valuable properties, and cut out the weaker ones when the expanded playoff gets worked out. If the strongest programs can shed the weaker revenue programs, they'll be in prime position to concentrate the higher revenue among them, get the best media deal, and have enormous clout in dictating terms for an expanded playoff. The more teams you cut out, the more of that sweet extra money the big boys will keep. I could see it getting ugly since there isn't much oversight at this point --just conferences falling apart while trying to do battle with the behemoth SEC.
Click to expand...
This, to me, is being overlooked here. The real concern for us should not be who gets added but rather who gets politely asked to leave.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back