Expansion/Realignment Talk Heating Up Again

[18IsTheMan]

Not talking about the average fan. I'm talking about the Presidents of major universities setting their programs up for failure.

Yes, but, again, at the time, nobody had any clue what revenue was going to do. You can go back and read articles that were written at the time of the 2013 agreement and the 2016 revision. There was no shock or surprise at the length. Indeed, it was seen as a good thing to protect the league long-term, which it is apparently doing very well.

 

[Deleted11512]

Yes, but, again, at the time, nobody had any clue what revenue was going to do. You can go back and read articles that were written at the time of the 2013 agreement and the 2016 revision. There was no shock or surprise at the length. Indeed, it was seen as a good thing to protect the league long-term, which it is apparently doing very well.

Sure, it was great for the ACC. But I remember criticism amongst the schools for signing such a long deal. My Clem buddies were pissed, and said they should have just left. I was laughing at them b/c they were going to be stuck for 10 years after the SEC uses the ACC deal to renegotiate their own deal. The SEC just signed a new 10 year deal that they will get to renegotiate BEFORE the ACC GOR expires. The market was clearly growing. And in that scenario, you want to be able to renegotiate sooner rather than later.

 

[GCJerryUSC]

Was getting my hopes up that the ACC would collapse. Now not so sure. The ACC deserves this Bad Karma for the way they treated USC and practically forced USC to withdraw in the early 70s.

Now it's a different story. USC is in the best conference with a bright future. ACC schools are worried about where they will be. There's probably some behind the scenes talking going on with some ACC schools pointing toward the B10 and SEC. There's a LOT of internet chatter about the future/non-future of the ACC.

Fate was on USC's side with it being able to join the SEC back in early 90s. I liked the SEC better at 12 teams but look forward to games with Texas and Ok.

The B10 wanted Va along with Maryland. Va stupidly stayed. Would love to see UNC and Va in SEC but probably won't happen because of their noses stuck up in the air.

 

[KingWard]

Was getting my hopes up that the ACC would collapse. Now not so sure. The ACC deserves this Bad Karma for the way they treated USC and practically forced USC to withdraw in the early 70s...

No, Sir. That was our shortsighted, maladroit, and ultimately unnecessary attempt to skirt the more stringent ACC admissions standards and lower scholarship limitations. We weren't practically forced to do anything. We had just won conference championships in both basketball in football. We left when we had them by the nuts. That's on us.

 

[atl-cock]

Ok..so what happens to the DUKE/UNC Basketball Rivalry? UNC has to hope the B10 takes them and Duke! It seems I've read in several places that the state legislature of North Carolina won't let UNC and NCSU be in different conferences. (same with Tech and UVA)..

The SEC only needs two more to control the entire south. For that to be the case, it has to be UNC/UVA that the SEC targets. You have to know, judging from the UNC sites, their fans and alumni want to be in the SEC badly. I don't think they could stomach an away game with say Minnesota or Wisconsin in November. Heck would fans even show up to UNC (football) home games vs Indiana, Purdue, or Northwestern. That would be boring as hell....

Not sure the legislature has any such authority over Dook since it's a private institution.

 

[atl-cock]

Isn’t there a state law saying Clemson vs SC have to play each other?

There was a law passed stating that USC & Clemron must play each other in football during the 1952 season. The law applied to the 1952 season only.

 

[SC95]

Conference maps look like gerrymandered political maps. It may be time to scrap conferences and start over with something that respects regional, historical, and national rivalries.

 

[HillsToSea]

No, Sir. That was our shortsighted, maladroit, and ultimately unnecessary attempt to skirt the more stringent ACC admissions standards and lower scholarship limitations. We weren't practically forced to do anything. We had just won conference championships in both basketball in football. We left when we had them by the nuts. That's on us.

Took the words out of my mouth. That mistake was on Dietzel

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

For now is a relative term.
There are talking points to say in front of the camera, and then there are talking points in the boardroom. TIFWIW.

Well, this progressed much faster than I originally posted at 09:35 a.m.


Clemson AD Graham Neff to
@247Sports
: "We're going to continue to do what's best for Clemson. That means strengthening and supporting the ACC and being a proud member, but also just making sure that we're very connected (in the industry) in doing what's best for Clemson."

 

[Deleted11512]

Well, this progressed much faster than I originally posted at 09:35 a.m.


Clemson AD Graham Neff to
@247Sports
: "We're going to continue to do what's best for Clemson. That means strengthening and supporting the ACC and being a proud member, but also just making sure that we're very connected (in the industry) in doing what's best for Clemson."

In other words: "We tried, we failed, we're stuck. Please give us more $$". It doesn't matter how connected they are to the industry. Nobody is paying that buyout for them, then not getting any revenue for their home games until 2037.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

In other words: "We tried, we failed, we're stuck. Please give us more $$". It doesn't matter how connected they are to the industry. Nobody is paying that buyout for them, then not getting any revenue for their home games until 2037.

I don't believe Clemson or any other ACC school is looking for someone to pay the buyout (not a reasonable wish). The backroom negotiations will/are centering on dissolution, at which point any payouts will be minimal comparatively speaking, and negotiable.
For those who believe it is Clemson driving the issue, they are the most vocal (at this time), but they are not the primary school that really wants an exit.

 

[KingWard]

I don't believe Clemson or any other ACC school is looking for someone to pay the buyout (not a reasonable wish). The backroom negotiations will/are centering on dissolution, at which point any payouts will be minimal comparatively speaking, and negotiable.
For those who believe it is Clemson driving the issue, they are the most vocal (at this time), but they are not the primary school that really wants an exit.

I assume you're talking farther south. Would that be correct?

 

[TN-Gamecock]

The B10 wanted Va along with Maryland. Va stupidly stayed. Would love to see UNC and Va in SEC but probably won't happen because of their noses stuck up in the air.

Which is why UNC and especially UVA may have to eat crow before all is said and done.

 

[TN-Gamecock]

Now folks look at this: by 2026 the SEC will be paying out more than the B10. By 2029 the payout will be 105 million per school in the SEC versus 55 million per school in the ACC... You know Clemson and FSU are not going to stand for that.

 

[KingWard]

Now folks look at this: by 2029, the SEC will be paying out more than the B10. 105 million per school in the SEC versus 55 million per school in the ACC... You know Clemson and FSU are not going to stand for that.

The B1G Deal is impressive on the front end, but the SEC deal is very much back-loaded. I had seen a similar matrix to the one you posted sometime last year. It eased my concerns about the SEC's position vis a vis the B1G quite a bit.

 

[TN-Gamecock]

The B1G Deal is impressive on the front end, but the SEC deal is very much back-loaded. I had seen a similar matrix to the one you posted sometime last year. It eased my concerns about the SEC's position vis a vis the B1G quite a bit.

K...so based on the SEC deal being backloaded, does brining on UNC/UVA just water down the payouts? UVA and UNC football are not going to bring much to the table in terms of viewership. In another matrix I saw, NCSU is ahead of UNC in viewership for football this past season.

 

[KingWard]

K...so based on the SEC deal being backloaded, does brining on UNC/UVA just water down the payouts? UVA and UNC football are not going to bring much to the table in terms of viewership. In another matrix I saw, NCSU is ahead of UNC in viewership for football this past season.

That's a good question and one the B1G would have to confront first if they bring in Washington and Oregon. The short answer is "yes".

The question is whether or not a league could reopen negotiations to up the ante. From a business perspective, how much value could additional schools add that aren't legacy programs - to ANY conference? There's a very real chance the pot could be spread thinner.

That's why I think Sankey will be very well informed before he jumps into the next round of expansion. Conference members will want at least the per-school payout they were expecting. Anything that reduces it is not a win.

 

[TN-Gamecock]

That's a good question and one the B1G would have to confront first if they bring in Washington and Oregon. The short answer is "yes".

The question is whether or not they could reopen negotiations to up the ante. From a business perspective, how much value could those schools add? There's a very real chance the pot could be spread thinner.

That's why I think Sankey will be very well informed before he jumps in to the next round of expansion. Conference members will want at least the per-school payout they were expecting. Anything that reduces it is not a win.

Yes...it would make more sense for the B1G to bring in UO and UW since they are taking the LA schools. I just don't see them taking those schools and then moving to southern schools. Georgraphy matters.

 

[Prestonyte]

If Greg McElroy's opinion matters, he feels that further expansion talk for the SEC is nil or on the back burner at best and if the B1G expands to the south, Florida is the target state.

 

[Anon1658788697]

I see unc in the big 10z

Your point is a good one, and why I continue to say that the SEC wouldn't be interested in Clem/FSU. I don't think that does much in terms of TV revenue. But adding new territories does. So adding VT and NCST wouldn't dilute anything, it would add to the footprint. It's a moot point though, as the ACC ain't going anywhere.

Territories don’t matter when you’re pulling the plug on cable tv. ESPN is moving to go totally to streaming soon. Those reports are from today or yesterday. Pat Mcfee is saying the same thing and part of that move is his new contract.

College football is not regional anymore.

 

[KingWard]

If Greg McElroy's opinion matters, he feels that further expansion talk for the SEC is nil or on the back burner at best and if the B1G expands to the south, Florida is the target state.

If that's true of the SEC, it's only because there's no more money to be had per school in the foreseeable future. By the way, UCF projects to pass FSU in TV payout in less than three years. How do you think that's being received in Tallahassee?

 

[Deleted11512]

I see unc in the big 10z
Territories don’t matter when you’re pulling the plug on cable tv. ESPN is moving to go totally to streaming soon. Those reports are from today or yesterday. Pat Mcfee is saying the same thing and part of that move is his new contract.

College football is not regional anymore.

Clearly that changes things. I can't remember where I read it, but I did read that the SEC was concerned over streaming for both Clem and FSU, and that was a sticking point to bringing them in. I'll have to see if I can find that.

EDIT: Take it how you will, it was from Marc Ryan. I know people don't like his antics, but I've always found him to be insightful, and he's got contacts. But it was in comparison to OU/TX. I reckon it would depend on what options are available.

 

[Thunderstick]

...I don't know how any of this happens with the GOR, but there is too much sporadic noise about it for it to not eventually happen.

A guest on the Finebaum show recently said a dissolution of the ACC would "only" take one-half of its members (7) plus one (+1) to "bail" in order to destroy the GOR.

::Am I late joining this thread?::

 

[18IsTheMan]

A guest on the Finebaum show recently said a dissolution of the ACC would "only" take one-half of its members (7) plus one (+1) to "bail" in order to destroy the GOR.

::Am I late joining this thread?::

But I'm not sure how. The NCAA only requires 7 teams for a conference. If 8 teams band together, that still leaves the ACC with 7 teams, thus qualifying as a conference and able to retain the GOR. They'd need to get to 9, but it's a stretch to find a 9th desirable team in the ACC. It's questionable that's there's 7 or 8.

 

[atl-cock]

Yes...it would make more sense for the B1G to bring in UO and UW since they are taking the LA schools. I just don't see them taking those schools and then moving to southern schools. Georgraphy matters.

Geography matters differently to different people,

 

[Lurker123]

this time),

But I'm not sure how. The NCAA only requires 7 teams for a conference. If 8 teams band together, that still leaves the ACC with 7 teams, thus qualifying as a conference and able to retain the GOR. They'd need to get to 9, but it's a stretch to find a 9th desirable team in the ACC. It's questionable that's there's 7 or 8.

It would leave the acc with 7, but would 8 be enough to dissolve the conference (and thus the gor)? The 8 walking out the door could vote to dissolve, leaving the remaining to form a new conference.

Pure speculation, no inside info or link to this exists.

 

[Thunderstick]

But I'm not sure how. The NCAA only requires 7 teams for a conference. If 8 teams band together, that still leaves the ACC with 7 teams, thus qualifying as a conference and able to retain the GOR. They'd need to get to 9, but it's a stretch to find a 9th desirable team in the ACC. It's questionable that's there's 7 or 8.

I thought the ACC only had 14 teams. Even though Notre Dame is not a football member is it counted as an ACC member? If not, then there are only 14 teams in that league.

I guess I'm only looking at this through football lens.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

But I'm not sure how. The NCAA only requires 7 teams for a conference. If 8 teams band together, that still leaves the ACC with 7 teams, thus qualifying as a conference and able to retain the GOR. They'd need to get to 9, but it's a stretch to find a 9th desirable team in the ACC. It's questionable that's there's 7 or 8.

The 8 teams can vote for the dissolution of the ACC. So if those 8 have a landing spot, the other 7 would either disperse, merge into another conference, or attempt to create another conference by adding other schools.

 

[Irvin Snibbley]

With the Grant of Rights,who exactly owns the TV rights? Is it the conference itself or the TV network?

 

[18IsTheMan]

The 8 teams can vote for the dissolution of the ACC. So if those 8 have a landing spot, the other 7 would either disperse, merge into another conference, or attempt to create another conference by adding other schools.

I don't think it would ever work. The blog post below gives a great breakdown of the Big 12 bylaws, which are surely similar to most other conferences out there. The ACC almost certainly has similar language, which is why this hasn't been done. The long and short of it: if you're found to be trying to leave the conference, you are considered to have given up your voting rights. The criteria given are VERY broad. This totally neuters dissolution. The article summarizes by noting that fans have to stop thinking of this as a legal issue and start thinking of it as a financial issue.

Dissolution is Not a Solution to Break a Grant of Rights Agreement

It has been a whirlwind for the past three weeks since the Big Ten announced that it was expanding with USC and UCLA. I have a lot of thoughts on what the Big Ten will (or more likely, won’t)…

frankthetank.org

Notable excerpt:
It’s subsection (ii) that really serves to protect schools from any clandestine attempts by other members to get around the GOR or take other drastic measures, such as dissolution. That clause effectively gives Disinterested Directors the ability to deem a school to have Withdrawn from the league (and thereby losing their voting rights) if (a) there are statements or actions that make it appear that school is attempting to leave the league, (b) a school breaches or intends to breach the bylaws or specifically the GOR or (c ) a school fails to provide the conference with notice within 12 hours of a third party offer or inducement for that school to leave the league or breach its GOR obligations.

Thus, it doesn’t matter if a school that is trying to leave the conference provides notice of withdrawal or not. As soon as the other members suspect that a school is taking to actions to get out of the GOR specifically (much less leave the league entirely), those other members can deem such school to have Withdrawn from the league and lose its voting rights in the process.

Now, in theory, some schools could conceivably get together a call for a dissolution vote before the other members can deem them to be Withdrawn. However, in practicality, if a school suddenly says, “We’re calling a vote for a dissolution of the conference today” out of nowhere, every other member is going to instantly know that the only reason that’s happening is that school wants to leave the conference and/or break the GOR. Those other members would then invoke the clause that allows them to deem that school to have Withdrawn from the league.

Plus, even if several schools are able to get a dissolution vote passed initially, the left behind members would instantly file a lawsuit and it would invariably come out in discovery that the departing schools were acting in contravention of the bylaws prior to that vote. That would mean that the left behind members would have a strong claim that the departing schools should have either been deemed to have Withdrawn from the conference or defined as Interested Parties that should never have been allowed to vote for dissolution. In turn, that dissolution vote would be deemed invalid and the left behind schools could continue the operations of the conference and enforce any obligations, including but not limited to GOR terms and exit penalties.

 

[GCJerryUSC]

No, Sir. That was our shortsighted, maladroit, and ultimately unnecessary attempt to skirt the more stringent ACC admissions standards and lower scholarship limitations. We weren't practically forced to do anything. We had just won conference championships in both basketball in football. We left when we had them by the nuts. That's on us.

I don't think so. The ACC dropped those strict admission standards almost as soon as USC withdrew. Almost all of them were against USC even the ACC commissioner who should have been neutral was against USC. Exception Clemson. Guess who's getting the last laugh? The ACC might be in much better shape if they had compromised with USC. USC even tried to get back in but was denied. So it's Double Bad Karma on the ACC.

 

[Irvin Snibbley]

Not sure if you lay the blame on leaving the ACC on football,basketball,or both...I know that Carolina's failure to be able to get Freddie Soloman and Isaac Jackson in for football and basketball with unable to get MIke Grosso in,were both sore subjects.

 

[Deleted11512]

With the Grant of Rights,who exactly owns the TV rights? Is it the conference itself or the TV network?

The ACC owns their media rights. I would be absolutely wild for half the conference to go against the other half, even if they can in the bylaws. The amount of litigation that would trigger would be YUGE. And nobody really knows what's in the ACC deal...it's private. So who knows what other clauses are in there. I think if it were as easy as 8 teams getting together to kill it, it would have already been done.

 

[18IsTheMan]

The ACC owns their media rights. I would be absolutely wild for half the conference to go against the other half, even if they can in the bylaws. The amount of litigation that would trigger would be YUGE. And nobody really knows what's in the ACC deal...it's private. So who knows what other clauses are in there. I think if it were as easy as 8 teams getting together to kill it, it would have already been done.

Right. There’s a reason that people in the know describe the GOR as ironclad. The GOR from 2013 is available online and says clearly that it is irrevocable under any circumstance. Tie that together with the bylaws, which almost certainly block any dissolution measures, and it’s airtight. Even if all ACC members wanted to disband, the disinterested members could simply say they all waived their voting rights.

That’s why the blog post I noted above accurately states that this is a financial issue not a legal one. If it was legal, it would already be done. And that’s why the schools are looking at unequal revenue sharing instead.

Look at the hassle it was for Texas and OU to leave the Big 12 just 2 years early and what it cost.

Further, from ESPN’s perspective, why would they enter into a media rights deal with a conference if that conference could be disbanded on a whim, with teams jumping to the Big 10 and ESPN rival Fox?

 

[Irvin Snibbley]

I believe from hearing other reports that even if these teams were to pay he huge buyout they would still not own the television rights to their broadcasts until the GOR expires..The old double whammy.I could have misunderstood that though.

 

[Deleted11512]

I believe from hearing other reports that even if these teams were to pay he huge buyout they would still not own the television rights to their broadcasts until the GOR expires..The old double whammy.I could have misunderstood that though.

That is true. That's where the group of 8 talk came in. There was talk that if 8 got together maybe they could dissolve the ACC all together. Doesn't sound like that's an option though. They're all stuck. And the best part about it is THEY ALL AGREED TO IT!! They weren't forced to do anything. They got exactly what they wanted, and now they want to blow the conference up. Unreal.

 

[Lurker123]

I think if it were as easy as 8 teams getting together to kill it, it would have already been done.

I think it would be hard to get 8 teams together that have a landing spot set up. Because they won't sign up for that until they know where they are going.

 

[KingWard]

But I'm not sure how. The NCAA only requires 7 teams for a conference. If 8 teams band together, that still leaves the ACC with 7 teams, thus qualifying as a conference and able to retain the GOR. They'd need to get to 9, but it's a stretch to find a 9th desirable team in the ACC. It's questionable that's there's 7 or 8.

I saw in print someplace that Louisville had joined the original seven. That would make a majority of the ACC dissident.

 

[KingWard]

I don't think so. The ACC dropped those strict admission standards almost as soon as USC withdrew. Almost all of them were against USC even the ACC commissioner who should have been neutral was against USC. Exception Clemson. Guess who's getting the last laugh? The ACC might be in much better shape if they had compromised with USC. USC even tried to get back in but was denied. So it's Double Bad Karma on the ACC.

No, sir. The NCAA imposed national qualification standards and scholarship limits that rendered all conference regulations in those regards moot. The ACC did nothing on its own. Everyone was working with the same numbers. The SEC hated it because some schools had been taking as many as 90 players.

 

[Anon1658788697]

Right. There’s a reason that people in the know describe the GOR as ironclad. The GOR from 2013 is available online and says clearly that it is irrevocable under any circumstance. Tie that together with the bylaws, which almost certainly block any dissolution measures, and it’s airtight. Even if all ACC members wanted to disband, the disinterested members could simply say they all waived their voting rights.

That’s why the blog post I noted above accurately states that this is a financial issue not a legal one. If it was legal, it would already be done. And that’s why the schools are looking at unequal revenue sharing instead.

Look at the hassle it was for Texas and OU to leave the Big 12 just 2 years early and what it cost.

Further, from ESPN’s perspective, why would they enter into a media rights deal with a conference if that conference could be disbanded on a whim, with teams jumping to the Big 10 and ESPN rival Fox?

It’s been stated several times that’s not the real gor. Even Ad’s and presidents have said the only way to view it is to send a representative from the school to ACC headquarters.