(05-20-2022 11:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 11:08 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 05:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 12:47 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  X, you do realize that going division-less actually enhances the likelihood of more consolidation instead of hindering it, right? You do realize that in the age of NIL and soon to be pay for play that the pressure to keep up financially will be more crucial than ever, even for hoops? And you do realize that reducing redundant overhead like 5 sets of commissioners, conference staffs, corporate offices, utilities, and retirements is no longer practical when less overhead split more ways is more efficient? Regional play within consolidation makes sense for market reach and reduction in travel and may be achieved inside a larger organization where brands and numbers yield synergy and leverage.

The world we loved and wanted is rapidly passing. It's coming and even a P3 is likely to be a transitional phase.

With 10 conference games:
32 Schools: 3 annual + 7-7-7-7
26 Schools: 5 annual + 5-5-5-5
20 Schools: 7 annual + 3-3-3-3

With 9 conference games:
28 Schools: 3 annual + 6-6-6-6
22 Schools: 5 annual + 4-4-4-4
16 Schools: 7 annual + 2-2-2-2

With 8 conference games:
24 Schools: 3 annual + 5-5-5-5
18 Schools: 5 annual + 3-3-3-3
12 Schools: 7 annual + 1-1-1-1

How each conference will divide into their division-less scheduling has been all the rage over the last several days.
What you haven't seen is how the SEC will divide to go division-less. Wonder why?
The 3-5-5 model for a 14 team conference seems to work pretty well AND there are only 8 conference games. If there were 15 teams and 9 conference games a 4-5-5 would work.
When you get a conference with more than 15 teams scheduling to allow every team to play every other team in the conference home and home within a four year period gets really tricky. Of course the solution is just to add more conference games and eliminate non-conference matchups.
It's going to be interesting to see how the SEC addresses their new scheduling dilemma when Texas and Oklahoma join the fold.

I have a sneaky suspicion that we will be seeing bigger conferences add more conference games. As you correctly stated the solution to the SEC problem is to add. In order to get a full round robin in 4 years you go to a 10 game conference schedule problem is solved...

5 annual + 5-5-5-5

I'm curious how long until we start hearing whisper's about this kind of schedule.

What I'm seeing and hearing is that fans/schools want to play each other more often not less. Nine game schedules are not preferred but doable. My bet is that conferences will top out at 14 or 15 teams and get no bigger.
The SEC is scheduled to have 16 teams. I think they either never get to 16 of if they do they will have one team leave (despite the money) and move to another conference.
Time will tell, but the networks and conference administrators had better start listening to the fans if they want to keep their stadiums full. If they can't keep the fans engaged it won't matter how much media income there is.

Another thought would be to have annual rivals and biannual rivals. Let's take the SEC and say they add 8 to get to 24: Clemson, Duke, Florida St, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, North Carolina, and Virginia. They could do a 3/4-4/3-3-3-3 schedule. Yes, this would require a 10-game conference schedule. This would allow each of the "original" 10 SEC schools to schedule each other for a home-and-home every 4 years.

Side note: why those 8 ACC schools? At 10 conference games, this doesn't leave much room for Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and South Carolina to schedule OOC games.

Example:

School - Alabama
Annual Rivals (play all 3 every season) - Auburn, Mississippi St, Tennessee
Biannual Rivals (alternate 4/4 every other season) - Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Other Conference Opponents (alternate 3/3/3/3 every 4 seasons) - Clemson, Duke, Florida St, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Virginia

4-Year Schedule:
Year 1: @Auburn, @Arkansas, Clemson, Florida, Kentucky, @LSU, Mississippi St, North Carolina, @Oklahoma, @Tennessee
Year 2: Auburn, @Duke, @Georgia, Louisville, Mississippi, @Mississippi St, South Carolina, Tennessee, @Texas, @Vanderbilt
Year 3: @Auburn, Arkansas, @Florida, Georgia Tech, @Kentucky, LSU, Miami, Mississippi St, @Tennessee, @Virginia
Year 4: Auburn, @Florida St, Georgia, @Mississippi, @Mississippi St, @Missouri, @South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

(05-20-2022 09:36 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 11:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 11:08 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 05:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 12:47 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  With 10 conference games:
32 Schools: 3 annual + 7-7-7-7
26 Schools: 5 annual + 5-5-5-5
20 Schools: 7 annual + 3-3-3-3

With 9 conference games:
28 Schools: 3 annual + 6-6-6-6
22 Schools: 5 annual + 4-4-4-4
16 Schools: 7 annual + 2-2-2-2

With 8 conference games:
24 Schools: 3 annual + 5-5-5-5
18 Schools: 5 annual + 3-3-3-3
12 Schools: 7 annual + 1-1-1-1

How each conference will divide into their division-less scheduling has been all the rage over the last several days.
What you haven't seen is how the SEC will divide to go division-less. Wonder why?
The 3-5-5 model for a 14 team conference seems to work pretty well AND there are only 8 conference games. If there were 15 teams and 9 conference games a 4-5-5 would work.
When you get a conference with more than 15 teams scheduling to allow every team to play every other team in the conference home and home within a four year period gets really tricky. Of course the solution is just to add more conference games and eliminate non-conference matchups.
It's going to be interesting to see how the SEC addresses their new scheduling dilemma when Texas and Oklahoma join the fold.

I have a sneaky suspicion that we will be seeing bigger conferences add more conference games. As you correctly stated the solution to the SEC problem is to add. In order to get a full round robin in 4 years you go to a 10 game conference schedule problem is solved...

5 annual + 5-5-5-5

I'm curious how long until we start hearing whisper's about this kind of schedule.

What I'm seeing and hearing is that fans/schools want to play each other more often not less. Nine game schedules are not preferred but doable. My bet is that conferences will top out at 14 or 15 teams and get no bigger.
The SEC is scheduled to have 16 teams. I think they either never get to 16 of if they do they will have one team leave (despite the money) and move to another conference.
Time will tell, but the networks and conference administrators had better start listening to the fans if they want to keep their stadiums full. If they can't keep the fans engaged it won't matter how much media income there is.

Another thought would be to have annual rivals and biannual rivals. Let's take the SEC and say they add 8 to get to 24: Clemson, Duke, Florida St, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, North Carolina, and Virginia. They could do a 3/4-4/3-3-3-3 schedule. Yes, this would require a 10-game conference schedule. This would allow each of the "original" 10 SEC schools to schedule each other for a home-and-home every 4 years.

Side note: why those 8 ACC schools? At 10 conference games, this doesn't leave much room for Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and South Carolina to schedule OOC games.

Example:

School - Alabama
Annual Rivals (play all 3 every season) - Auburn, Mississippi St, Tennessee
Biannual Rivals (alternate 4/4 every other season) - Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Other Conference Opponents (alternate 3/3/3/3 every 4 seasons) - Clemson, Duke, Florida St, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Virginia

4-Year Schedule:
Year 1: @Auburn, @Arkansas, Clemson, Florida, Kentucky, @LSU, Mississippi St, North Carolina, @Oklahoma, @Tennessee
Year 2: Auburn, @Duke, @Georgia, Louisville, Mississippi, @Mississippi St, South Carolina, Tennessee, @Texas, @Vanderbilt
Year 3: @Auburn, Arkansas, @Florida, Georgia Tech, @Kentucky, LSU, Miami, Mississippi St, @Tennessee, @Virginia
Year 4: Auburn, @Florida St, Georgia, @Mississippi, @Mississippi St, @Missouri, @South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

I have to admit that scenario is intriguing. From what I know, I'm not sure how much Kentucky values the game against Louisville. The upside is that Louisville is more a cultural fit than Kansas. However, I could see Florida, Georgia and South Carolina making their desires known within the inner circle. Whether Tobacco Road is willing to swallow leaving their in-state rivals behind so that they can bring Georgia Tech along is another question.

Maybe that's the price they'd have to pay to protect Duke (and Georgia Tech).

(05-21-2022 04:34 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  I have to admit that scenario is intriguing. From what I know, I'm not sure how much Kentucky values the game against Louisville. The upside is that Louisville is more a cultural fit than Kansas. However, I could see Florida, Georgia and South Carolina making their desires known within the inner circle. Whether Tobacco Road is willing to swallow leaving their in-state rivals behind so that they can bring Georgia Tech along is another question.

Maybe that's the price they'd have to pay to protect Duke (and Georgia Tech).

I'm of the belief that if we can raid the ACC then Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech could all be added. They seem to have friends at their cross state rivals. Each also has the benefit of having appeal to current members. Each of those schools represent short trips and marketable games to tons of other schools in the region.

It's obviously been a while since Georgia Tech was all that great, but I don't think it much matters. Plenty of current SEC schools would enjoy having them on their schedule in place of the typical cupcake. Florida State and Clemson are a little more obvious in that regard due to their pedigree.

I wouldn't have a problem with Louisville, but I'm not sure the people at Kentucky would go to bat for them.

The interesting thing to me is that if we go division-less then we don't have to have a number divisible by 4 or 3. No need to constrain ourselves. As long as we've got even numbers and can keep everyone playing every week if need be then there's plenty of benefit in just declaring some permanent rivals and allowing the best performers to qualify for the title game.

Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, and Miami all make sense for a variety of reasons. The SEC would be delighted to add Notre Dame in a 10th spot, but Kansas would work as well.

The SEC at 26? As long as the money works then I don't see a problem with it.

(05-21-2022 04:34 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 09:36 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 11:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 11:08 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 05:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  How each conference will divide into their division-less scheduling has been all the rage over the last several days.
What you haven't seen is how the SEC will divide to go division-less. Wonder why?
The 3-5-5 model for a 14 team conference seems to work pretty well AND there are only 8 conference games. If there were 15 teams and 9 conference games a 4-5-5 would work.
When you get a conference with more than 15 teams scheduling to allow every team to play every other team in the conference home and home within a four year period gets really tricky. Of course the solution is just to add more conference games and eliminate non-conference matchups.
It's going to be interesting to see how the SEC addresses their new scheduling dilemma when Texas and Oklahoma join the fold.

I have a sneaky suspicion that we will be seeing bigger conferences add more conference games. As you correctly stated the solution to the SEC problem is to add. In order to get a full round robin in 4 years you go to a 10 game conference schedule problem is solved...

5 annual + 5-5-5-5

I'm curious how long until we start hearing whisper's about this kind of schedule.

What I'm seeing and hearing is that fans/schools want to play each other more often not less. Nine game schedules are not preferred but doable. My bet is that conferences will top out at 14 or 15 teams and get no bigger.
The SEC is scheduled to have 16 teams. I think they either never get to 16 of if they do they will have one team leave (despite the money) and move to another conference.
Time will tell, but the networks and conference administrators had better start listening to the fans if they want to keep their stadiums full. If they can't keep the fans engaged it won't matter how much media income there is.

Another thought would be to have annual rivals and biannual rivals. Let's take the SEC and say they add 8 to get to 24: Clemson, Duke, Florida St, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, North Carolina, and Virginia. They could do a 3/4-4/3-3-3-3 schedule. Yes, this would require a 10-game conference schedule. This would allow each of the "original" 10 SEC schools to schedule each other for a home-and-home every 4 years.

Side note: why those 8 ACC schools? At 10 conference games, this doesn't leave much room for Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and South Carolina to schedule OOC games.

Example:

School - Alabama
Annual Rivals (play all 3 every season) - Auburn, Mississippi St, Tennessee
Biannual Rivals (alternate 4/4 every other season) - Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Other Conference Opponents (alternate 3/3/3/3 every 4 seasons) - Clemson, Duke, Florida St, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Virginia

4-Year Schedule:
Year 1: @Auburn, @Arkansas, Clemson, Florida, Kentucky, @LSU, Mississippi St, North Carolina, @Oklahoma, @Tennessee
Year 2: Auburn, @Duke, @Georgia, Louisville, Mississippi, @Mississippi St, South Carolina, Tennessee, @Texas, @Vanderbilt
Year 3: @Auburn, Arkansas, @Florida, Georgia Tech, @Kentucky, LSU, Miami, Mississippi St, @Tennessee, @Virginia
Year 4: Auburn, @Florida St, Georgia, @Mississippi, @Mississippi St, @Missouri, @South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

I have to admit that scenario is intriguing. From what I know, I'm not sure how much Kentucky values the game against Louisville. The upside is that Louisville is more a cultural fit than Kansas. However, I could see Florida, Georgia and South Carolina making their desires known within the inner circle. Whether Tobacco Road is willing to swallow leaving their in-state rivals behind so that they can bring Georgia Tech along is another question.

Maybe that's the price they'd have to pay to protect Duke (and Georgia Tech).

If the SEC took 8 from the ACC, it wouldn't be those 8. It would be FSU, Clemson, GT, VT, UVA, UNC, NC State, [Duke/Miami]. Duke's Vandy like tendencies are overlooked since UK would throw a hissy about UofL. Duke may be the cost of doing business to get UNC/NC State... but I imagine if given a blank slate the SEC would prefer to triple dip only Florida and Texas. They kinda already triple dip Texas.

(05-21-2022 10:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  It's obviously been a while since Georgia Tech was all that great, but I don't think it much matters.

2014 wasn't that long ago. Though Collins is doing the reputation no favors.

It's funny. One of the reasons that fans are excited about "no division football" is that they will be able to play other teams in their conference more often.
Personally I don't care about playing Syracuse and Boston College more often but I will be glad to be able to play Clemson and Florida State every other year as opposed to waiting 6 years.
Why then would any conference want to get bigger just to recreate the situation we are so excited to get away from?

If ESPN added 8 ACC teams to the SEC, based on projections, it would cost them an approximate additional $400 Million per year in media rights fees.
If other speculation from this board is correct and the remaining 6 ACC schools are lumped in with the Big 12 and are paid $300 Million per year (ACC schools only).
Makes economic sense to pay out $100 Million a year more and reduce inventory?

(05-22-2022 09:51 AM)XLance Wrote:  It's funny. One of the reasons that fans are excited about "no division football" is that they will be able to play other teams in their conference more often.
Personally I don't care about playing Syracuse and Boston College more often but I will be glad to be able to play Clemson and Florida State every other year as opposed to waiting 6 years.
Why then would any conference want to get bigger just to recreate the situation we are so excited to get away from?

As has been described above ... permanent rivals ... then a play frequently pool ... then a play infrequently pool. Which solves your BC/Cuse gripe.

I presume the ACC-B1G challenge would replace the SEC-Big12 challenge.

In hoops you could do a home and home round robin regionally which would be tremendously popular.

(05-22-2022 10:03 AM)XLance Wrote:  If ESPN added 8 ACC teams to the SEC, based on projections, it would cost them an approximate additional $400 Million per year in media rights fees.
If other speculation from this board is correct and the remaining 6 ACC schools are lumped in with the Big 12 and are paid $300 Million per year (ACC schools only).
Makes economic sense to pay out $100 Million a year more and reduce inventory?

In this scenario, the ACC would effectively cease to exist, clauses in the GOR would trigger mandatory renegotiation, and the remaining "ACC" would get a radical pay cut. That frees up about 2/5 of the money needed at Disney to pay for everything. I don't know how much monopoly ad rates in the entire SE adds on. Or what the newly bolstered matchups/rivalries/schedules would add on. I would imagine this would also increase the asking price for SECN Alternate to be as high or very close to as high to SECN Primary. You'd need two around the clock channels for the content. Given the merged conferences' proclivities to air certain non-revenue sports (gymnastics, softball, lacrosse, soccer, wrestling, baseball), you maybe could do three channels.

(05-22-2022 10:26 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-22-2022 10:03 AM)XLance Wrote:  If ESPN added 8 ACC teams to the SEC, based on projections, it would cost them an approximate additional $400 Million per year in media rights fees.
If other speculation from this board is correct and the remaining 6 ACC schools are lumped in with the Big 12 and are paid $300 Million per year (ACC schools only).
Makes economic sense to pay out $100 Million a year more and reduce inventory?

In this scenario, the ACC would effectively cease to exist, clauses in the GOR would trigger mandatory renegotiation, and the remaining "ACC" would get a radical pay cut. That frees up about 2/5 of the money needed at Disney to pay for everything. I don't know how much monopoly ad rates in the entire SE adds on. Or what the newly bolstered matchups/rivalries/schedules would add on. I would imagine this would also increase the asking price for SECN Alternate to be as high or very close to as high to SECN Primary. You'd need two around the clock channels for the content. Given the merged conferences' proclivities to air certain non-revenue sports (gymnastics, softball, lacrosse, soccer, wrestling, baseball), you maybe could do three channels.

I think the remaining ACC teams grab a couple of stand ins to remain a conference and sue the 8 for "exit fees" which are now at about $110 Million.
The federal government has already ruled that the exit fee is in a North Carolina court jurisdiction and the trial would have to be in a North Carolina State court.
I wouldn't bet against the remaining 6 even though Carolina and Duke might be on the opposing side. $880 Million is a lot of incentive to go to court.

(05-22-2022 10:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-22-2022 10:26 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-22-2022 10:03 AM)XLance Wrote:  If ESPN added 8 ACC teams to the SEC, based on projections, it would cost them an approximate additional $400 Million per year in media rights fees.
If other speculation from this board is correct and the remaining 6 ACC schools are lumped in with the Big 12 and are paid $300 Million per year (ACC schools only).
Makes economic sense to pay out $100 Million a year more and reduce inventory?

In this scenario, the ACC would effectively cease to exist, clauses in the GOR would trigger mandatory renegotiation, and the remaining "ACC" would get a radical pay cut. That frees up about 2/5 of the money needed at Disney to pay for everything. I don't know how much monopoly ad rates in the entire SE adds on. Or what the newly bolstered matchups/rivalries/schedules would add on. I would imagine this would also increase the asking price for SECN Alternate to be as high or very close to as high to SECN Primary. You'd need two around the clock channels for the content. Given the merged conferences' proclivities to air certain non-revenue sports (gymnastics, softball, lacrosse, soccer, wrestling, baseball), you maybe could do three channels.

I think the remaining ACC teams grab a couple of stand ins to remain a conference and sue the 8 for "exit fees" which are now at about $110 Million.
The federal government has already ruled that the exit fee is in a North Carolina court jurisdiction and the trial would have to be in a North Carolina State court.
I wouldn't bet against the remaining 6 even though Carolina and Duke might be on the opposing side. $880 Million is a lot of incentive to go to court.

If we get true pay-for-play then current contracts will have been negotiated under fundamentally different economic realities.

The strength of the GOR is debatable anyway, but whoever moving has an out to at least negotiate their exit.

And if UNC, Duke, and NC State are all moving then the courts in NC will have an inherent motivation(ethical or not) to allow everything to proceed with few hiccups.

Throw in the fact there's a handful of ACC schools that might just throw in the towel on major athletics if the players become quasi-employees.

(05-22-2022 10:26 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-22-2022 10:03 AM)XLance Wrote:  If ESPN added 8 ACC teams to the SEC, based on projections, it would cost them an approximate additional $400 Million per year in media rights fees.
If other speculation from this board is correct and the remaining 6 ACC schools are lumped in with the Big 12 and are paid $300 Million per year (ACC schools only).
Makes economic sense to pay out $100 Million a year more and reduce inventory?

In this scenario, the ACC would effectively cease to exist, clauses in the GOR would trigger mandatory renegotiation, and the remaining "ACC" would get a radical pay cut. That frees up about 2/5 of the money needed at Disney to pay for everything. I don't know how much monopoly ad rates in the entire SE adds on. Or what the newly bolstered matchups/rivalries/schedules would add on. I would imagine this would also increase the asking price for SECN Alternate to be as high or very close to as high to SECN Primary. You'd need two around the clock channels for the content. Given the merged conferences' proclivities to air certain non-revenue sports (gymnastics, softball, lacrosse, soccer, wrestling, baseball), you maybe could do three channels.

The infrastructure for the SECN and ACCN could be combined. The studios in Charlotte are already centrally placed. I don't know if you could sell both channels on a national basis in the current climate, but there's flexibility there.

Exclusive games on ESPN+ will bring returns in the new market dynamic...I'm talking football and basketball games that would normally be on ESPN or ESPN2. They'll need to do that eventually to drive subscriptions.

Of course, it's possible ESPN may discontinue another channel or two in order to account for everything. But either way, I don't see that alternate channels will be in high demand. A lot of that will simply be online.

(05-22-2022 06:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-22-2022 10:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-22-2022 10:26 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-22-2022 10:03 AM)XLance Wrote:  If ESPN added 8 ACC teams to the SEC, based on projections, it would cost them an approximate additional $400 Million per year in media rights fees.
If other speculation from this board is correct and the remaining 6 ACC schools are lumped in with the Big 12 and are paid $300 Million per year (ACC schools only).
Makes economic sense to pay out $100 Million a year more and reduce inventory?

In this scenario, the ACC would effectively cease to exist, clauses in the GOR would trigger mandatory renegotiation, and the remaining "ACC" would get a radical pay cut. That frees up about 2/5 of the money needed at Disney to pay for everything. I don't know how much monopoly ad rates in the entire SE adds on. Or what the newly bolstered matchups/rivalries/schedules would add on. I would imagine this would also increase the asking price for SECN Alternate to be as high or very close to as high to SECN Primary. You'd need two around the clock channels for the content. Given the merged conferences' proclivities to air certain non-revenue sports (gymnastics, softball, lacrosse, soccer, wrestling, baseball), you maybe could do three channels.

I think the remaining ACC teams grab a couple of stand ins to remain a conference and sue the 8 for "exit fees" which are now at about $110 Million.
The federal government has already ruled that the exit fee is in a North Carolina court jurisdiction and the trial would have to be in a North Carolina State court.
I wouldn't bet against the remaining 6 even though Carolina and Duke might be on the opposing side. $880 Million is a lot of incentive to go to court.

If we get true pay-for-play then current contracts will have been negotiated under fundamentally different economic realities.
WHY?

The strength of the GOR is debatable anyway, but whoever moving has an out to at least negotiate their exit.

I didn't say anything about GOR's only exit fees. Every ACC school has agreed to the current exit fee, there is no "out"


And if UNC, Duke, and NC State are all moving then the courts in NC will have an inherent motivation(ethical or not) to allow everything to proceed with few hiccups.

North Carolina trial law is taught at Wake Forest. A lot of the State Judges are Wake Forest graduates not graduates of Duke or Carolina.


Throw in the fact there's a handful of ACC schools that might just throw in the towel on major athletics if the players become quasi-employees.

why throw in the towel when there is a big payday ahead?

(05-22-2022 07:41 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-22-2022 06:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-22-2022 10:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-22-2022 10:26 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-22-2022 10:03 AM)XLance Wrote:  If ESPN added 8 ACC teams to the SEC, based on projections, it would cost them an approximate additional $400 Million per year in media rights fees.
If other speculation from this board is correct and the remaining 6 ACC schools are lumped in with the Big 12 and are paid $300 Million per year (ACC schools only).
Makes economic sense to pay out $100 Million a year more and reduce inventory?

In this scenario, the ACC would effectively cease to exist, clauses in the GOR would trigger mandatory renegotiation, and the remaining "ACC" would get a radical pay cut. That frees up about 2/5 of the money needed at Disney to pay for everything. I don't know how much monopoly ad rates in the entire SE adds on. Or what the newly bolstered matchups/rivalries/schedules would add on. I would imagine this would also increase the asking price for SECN Alternate to be as high or very close to as high to SECN Primary. You'd need two around the clock channels for the content. Given the merged conferences' proclivities to air certain non-revenue sports (gymnastics, softball, lacrosse, soccer, wrestling, baseball), you maybe could do three channels.

I think the remaining ACC teams grab a couple of stand ins to remain a conference and sue the 8 for "exit fees" which are now at about $110 Million.
The federal government has already ruled that the exit fee is in a North Carolina court jurisdiction and the trial would have to be in a North Carolina State court.
I wouldn't bet against the remaining 6 even though Carolina and Duke might be on the opposing side. $880 Million is a lot of incentive to go to court.

If we get true pay-for-play then current contracts will have been negotiated under fundamentally different economic realities.
WHY?

The strength of the GOR is debatable anyway, but whoever moving has an out to at least negotiate their exit.

I didn't say anything about GOR's only exit fees. Every ACC school has agreed to the current exit fee, there is no "out"


And if UNC, Duke, and NC State are all moving then the courts in NC will have an inherent motivation(ethical or not) to allow everything to proceed with few hiccups.

North Carolina trial law is taught at Wake Forest. A lot of the State Judges are Wake Forest graduates not graduates of Duke or Carolina.


Throw in the fact there's a handful of ACC schools that might just throw in the towel on major athletics if the players become quasi-employees.

why throw in the towel when there is a big payday ahead?

Pyrrhic victory. Won a big battle but lost the war.

If you guys are right and some future Supreme Court action invalidates the GoRs... wouldn't that also invalidate the TV contracts, too?

Asking for a friend...

(05-23-2022 06:06 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If you guys are right and some future Supreme Court action invalidates the GoRs... wouldn't that also invalidate the TV contracts, too?

Asking for a friend...

Have you asked yourself why the SEC contract jumped so much and why the Big Ten contract, though the T1 may not be a billion dollar baby, will likely do the same? Change to accommodate built in overhead is likely baked in. They won't have to be redone if NIL and Pay for Play were factored. The PAC 12 and Big 12 will get new contracts as well. So if this course of argument proves true and GOR's signed under old conditions are voided by court mandated compliance which creates inequity in old contracts, for which precedent exists, only the ACC will need a new contract by 2025. Everyone else will have them. So yes, in your case it would both open the GOR and mandate a new contract with the Network. In all other cases new GORs will have been signed under contracts accounting for the changed conditions.

(05-23-2022 06:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-23-2022 06:06 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If you guys are right and some future Supreme Court action invalidates the GoRs... wouldn't that also invalidate the TV contracts, too?

Asking for a friend...

Have you asked yourself why the SEC contract jumped so much and why the Big Ten contract, though the T1 may not be a billion dollar baby, will likely do the same? Change to accommodate built in overhead is likely baked in. They won't have to be redone if NIL and Pay for Play were factored. The PAC 12 and Big 12 will get new contracts as well. So if this course of argument proves true and GOR's signed under old conditions are voided by court mandated compliance which creates inequity in old contracts, for which precedent exists, only the ACC will need a new contract by 2025. Everyone else will have them. So yes, in your case it would both open the GOR and mandate a new contract with the Network. In all other cases new GORs will have been signed under contracts accounting for the changed conditions.

^

(05-23-2022 03:25 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

The question is...

Is Scott Stricklin speaking out of turn? Is Greg Sankey's directive to be creative being taken out of context by the likes of Stricklin or no?

Point being, what if ESPN wants an SEC-only playoff and what if ESPN is going to grow the SEC once more in order to account for a reality where the network can't control a national playoff?

The Big Ten and friends could do the same and that product could belong solely to Fox. But if the SEC partners with it's own alliance then it could create a compelling product and every dime would stay in-house even if the pot would be smaller.

https://mikefarrellsports.com/2022/05/is...expansion/

Quote:With the ACC locked into a TV Deal with the ACC Network until the 2035-36 season, ESPN has the leverage to relieve the ACC from a deal prematurely if it benefits ESPN.

How would it benefit ESPN is by bolstering a super conference for the SEC and its SEC Playoff?

The portfolio of the ACC has so many assets the SEC covets without messing with its foundational blueprint.

Clemson, Miami, Florida State, Georgia Tech, UNC, Duke, UVA, VA Tech, and Louisville all have assets whether it is football, basketball, or baseball that an All-SEC Conference in football would covet.

They keep the geographical football the SEC covets, keep that regional aspect, add marquee names to the equation, and has a deeper talent pool.

JR, is that you?