Article Here

Not sure this is anything new but wanted to post it as I saw in on FSU site this AM.

(10-03-2023 09:41 AM)IWantToTalkToRalphSampson Wrote:  Article Here

Not sure this is anything new but wanted to post it as I saw in on FSU site this AM.

Thanks for sharing this, I hadn't seen that graphic before illustrating that since 2012 FSU has played in 71% of the ACC games that got over 5 million viewers (Clemson next at 47%). Also very illuminating comments from Kansas State AD about the challenges the Big XII ran into trying to play hardball with their GoR...stay tuned!

Interesting excerpt from the article:

Florida State and Clemson realize that staying in the ACC until 2036 will be a death by a thousand cuts while their rivals get an extra $30 million a year in television revenue.

People just casually throw this number around, though we saw an ESPN article last month backtrack on that a bit and say "20s" or "high 20s". The truth is that Warren was shouting the largest number that he could possibly conceive of b/c he wanted more Pac schools (and also maybe ACC or even SEC schools?), and Petitti has been dealing with the fallout ever since. I don't know what the final difference will look like when we look at Conference revenues years down the road, but I'm highly confident that it will be less than $30m, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's less than $20m.

I think winning the ACC and going to the playoffs trumps the $ deficit FSU and Clemson will have with big 10/SEC schools.

Would anyone like to bet American dollars on Clemson and/or FSU announcing a leave from the ACC this October? I would love some free money.

(10-03-2023 10:02 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 09:41 AM)IWantToTalkToRalphSampson Wrote:  Article Here

Not sure this is anything new but wanted to post it as I saw in on FSU site this AM.

Thanks for sharing this, I hadn't seen that graphic before illustrating that since 2012 FSU has played in 71% of the ACC games that got over 5 million viewers (Clemson next at 47%). Also very illuminating comments from Kansas State AD about the challenges the Big XII ran into trying to play hardball with their GoR...stay tuned!

Here's the exact quote from the article:

Per Kansas State athletics director Gene Taylor there was significant push back from other schools to fully enforce the bylaws and Grant of Rights but the Big 12’s lawyers advised the conference that the Big 12’s bylaws were “not as rock-solid as everybody thought and we could be tied up on lawsuits forever.” That advice prompted the other schools to vote for the agreement that allowed Texas and Oklahoma to leave the Big 12 a year early.

It's important to keep in mind that OUT were already leaving, and the final decision came down to "let them leave one year early and wreak all kinds of havoc with our 4 new members and possible our new 4c, too, or do ESPN a huge solid, do the SEC a huge solid, and help us move on to our next chapter with a tiny shred of dignity". If FSU/Clemson said tomorrow "see ya!", the ACC would have more of the mindset that the Big 12 left-behinds had in June 2021; ie, we're gonna extract every single penny we can get from those guys and make their lives as miserable as possible.

If FSU/Clemson, or even FSU/Clemson/UNC arbitrarily leave, the ACC still has the minimum number of teams required to keep their contract with ESPN in force, so they will lose nothing at all by dragging the process out as long as possible in an attempt to extract as much money as possible from the departing schools. On the flip side, the departures will have a HUGE incentive to settle as quickly as possible b/c, until they settle things with the ACC, no other conference will be willing to touch them with a 10 ft pole. Tortious interference and all that is a powerful deterrent. So, if the ACC ends up refusing to settle at any price and just says "we'll let the courts decide and see what hundreds of years worth of case law says about this", they win by costing the 3 departures several years worth of media revenue, then they probably win again when their media rights ownership is confirmed by the courts. The 3 departures would have to pay exit fees, then spend the next decade literally begging the 15 schools they screwed over to settle with them at any price.

Is there any scenario above that could lead to the Big 3 making more revenues between now and 2036 by leaving the ACC rather than staying? Today, it's really hard to imagine, unless, as I've said numerous times, they get ESPN and the ACC both on board. If both ESPN and the ACC support the move, rather than the above dooomsday scenario, you have a few contracts and handshakes to work out and everything's done. The very fact that FSU has been so public with their discontent tells me that nobody is willing to help them with a move (yet). Could that change in a few years? What about 2030? 2034? There will come a time when the move makes sense and the other parties, however reluctantly, are willing to help facilitate it for the right price, but I still maintain that time is the 2030s rather than 2020s.

My evidence is pretty solid, while the evidence of the schools wanting to leave that they'll actually be able to do so is based upon one brash statement and a whole lot of message board conspiracy theories.

(10-03-2023 10:18 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  It's important to keep in mind that OUT were already leaving, and the final decision came down to "let them leave one year early and wreak all kinds of havoc with our 4 new members and possible our new 4c, too, or do ESPN a huge solid, do the SEC a huge solid, and help us move on ...

This would be consistent with our values and history. The Big XII is where you want to be until you get a B1G or SEC call-up.

I understand the arguments being made by those who believe the ACC GOR situation is very different from the B12 situation, and thus any schools wanting to leave the ACC would be in a much more difficult and costly bind, and I admit I don't have rational/factual rebuttals to them.

Nevertheless, I do kind of believe in the idea of irresistible force and momentum in some aspects of athletic life, and it just seems to me that recently at least, if there is buzzing about leaving, the schools doing the buzzing manage to leave, despite all of the apparent constraints that would seem to make it unlikely for them to do so. I mean, if someone had told me four years ago that as of 2024, TX and OU would be in the SEC and USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington would be in the B1G, and that Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and Colorado would all leave for a B12 that did not include TX and OU, I just wouldn't have believed any of it, and yet here we are.

No facts to support it, but IMO these seemingly impregnable GORs and/or exit fees may well be Maginot Lines that provide false sense of security for the lower-value schools that have hunkered down in and behind them, but can actually be overrun or swept around, etc.

Not saying I know this for sure in the case of the ACC situation, but that's my gut feeling. In the end, I feel that if UNC/FSU/CLE want out soon, they will get out soon, and at a cost that isn't prohibitive.

We shall see.

(10-03-2023 10:04 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Interesting excerpt from the article:

Florida State and Clemson realize that staying in the ACC until 2036 will be a death by a thousand cuts while their rivals get an extra $30 million a year in television revenue.

People just casually throw this number around, though we saw an ESPN article last month backtrack on that a bit and say "20s" or "high 20s". The truth is that Warren was shouting the largest number that he could possibly conceive of b/c he wanted more Pac schools (and also maybe ACC or even SEC schools?), and Petitti has been dealing with the fallout ever since. I don't know what the final difference will look like when we look at Conference revenues years down the road, but I'm highly confident that it will be less than $30m, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's less than $20m.

We know the Big 10 numbers Bryan. We don't yet know the SEC's numbers other than a lowball guess made on a failed CBS offer.

This is a better article than most. They recognize the changes in preferences based upon the transition of the payout calculations to actual number of viewers. This is key to understanding FSU and Clemson's value to the SEC. I wish they would quit mentioning Finebaum because he is a paid ESPN disinformation distributor.

In 1991 Clemson and Florida State were sought by the SEC. Clemson's interest proved to be tepid at the time. F.S.U. had three times applied for SEC membership in the 80's. There was some irritation at the SECs consistent rejections. But the SEC made a mistake in '91. I was told that the SEC used ESPN for a valuation. Therefore, ESPN knew how much we would offer and when we were scheduled to make the offer and in those days with the market footprint model just getting underway ESPN likely saw a way to help the value of a conference whose rights they wished to purchase (ACC) and do it, in their minds, without hurting the SEC's value since we had Florida already. In fact, the networks loved to divide the schools in large states into different conferences, so they could double dip the state ad rates for two different conferences if the network held rights to both conferences.

This is why in 2011 ESPN was allegedly pushing plans to put Texas into the ACC and A&M into the SEC, and to send Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC. That way Texas, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia would be divided. No need to do that in Georgia since Tech joined the ACC in 1978.

What changes with the shift from market footprint to actual viewers is that now Clemson and Florida State are worth more in the SEC to ESPN than they are in the ACC. Simply put they will face schools that draw as well as they do and the brand on brand competition will NET the network significantly more than splitting the advertising footprints can. This is why PAC 12 schools with brand are worth more in the Big 10 than together. It is why the two highest drawing conferences are now the loci of super conference formation.

North Carolina is an important market and top brand which draws viewers even if they are hoops first because the football team is better than average, especially with Mack Brown there.

Those three are absolutely more valuable to ESPN in the SEC even at 35 million more per year cost to ESPN. The fourth school is unnamed for a reason. What that reason is can only be speculated. Perhaps it's a school not in the ACC. Perhaps it's a school in the ACC which needs to be packaged with North Carolina. Perhaps they don't want a fuss over who it is. I guess we'll find out when it happens.

The other thing reinforced by this article is that the announcement for departure and negotiated settlements predicated by it will come a lot sooner than 2036. And if Clemson stories are to be believed likely before the end of October.

This brings us back to the Magnificent 7. If the inventory requirements for the super conferences (which as they grow replaces the need for the rights of smaller conferences with lesser TV draw) creates the need to pick up a larger number of schools, then the taking of the remaining best brands will accelerate. IMO, this is one reason why the Big 10 went ahead with Washington and Oregon and may like to nab Stanford if the ACC does lose key players. If the Magnificent 7 are all bound for the SEC, perhaps the ACC schools wanted to sneak in an 8th to begin with in the first group of four to announce. Or perhaps ESPN wanted to sneak in one not in the ACC before the final four came in. That's why I think the mystery school is either Duke or Kansas.

The story also lines up with the rumors I heard two years ago that had non administrative representatives of North Carolina and Clemson meeting with the SEC just a few days after the OU and UT story broke. I was told that the Clemson spokesperson doing the inquiring did so for FSU too which would mean they have been linked for two years now, and that the UNC representative spoke for another as well. In 2011 their AD asked questions which included Duke. Hence my suspicions. But ESPN has long had a keen interest in Kansas supporting their T3 rights until ESPN purchased all of the T3 rights to the Big 12. So this seems to me (the silent 4th) to be either the insertion of Kansas with the necessitated limitation of only one other UNC school, or the inclusion of Duke at the insistence of UNC with N.C. State already possibly being part of a larger move to 24. It's intriguing and we won't know until it's done.

What happens if they move 8 over? Then those not coming become instant potentialities for the Big 12.

Do that and ND is free to affiliate or move to the Big 10 possibly with Kansas and 4 more former PAC 12 schools, likely Colorado, Utah, and the Arizona schools. That's my guess anyway.

Colorado has had 5 consecutive games with viewership over $5M this season.

Clemson has 8 games with viewership over $5M over a 10 year period.

If Realignment is still another 10 years away. Colorado with Coach Prime and AAU status could be more attractive than Clemson.

(10-03-2023 10:18 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 10:02 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 09:41 AM)IWantToTalkToRalphSampson Wrote:  Article Here

Not sure this is anything new but wanted to post it as I saw in on FSU site this AM.

Thanks for sharing this, I hadn't seen that graphic before illustrating that since 2012 FSU has played in 71% of the ACC games that got over 5 million viewers (Clemson next at 47%). Also very illuminating comments from Kansas State AD about the challenges the Big XII ran into trying to play hardball with their GoR...stay tuned!

Here's the exact quote from the article:

Per Kansas State athletics director Gene Taylor there was significant push back from other schools to fully enforce the bylaws and Grant of Rights but the Big 12’s lawyers advised the conference that the Big 12’s bylaws were “not as rock-solid as everybody thought and we could be tied up on lawsuits forever.” That advice prompted the other schools to vote for the agreement that allowed Texas and Oklahoma to leave the Big 12 a year early.

It's important to keep in mind that OUT were already leaving, and the final decision came down to "let them leave one year early and wreak all kinds of havoc with our 4 new members and possible our new 4c, too, or do ESPN a huge solid, do the SEC a huge solid, and help us move on to our next chapter with a tiny shred of dignity". If FSU/Clemson said tomorrow "see ya!", the ACC would have more of the mindset that the Big 12 left-behinds had in June 2021; ie, we're gonna extract every single penny we can get from those guys and make their lives as miserable as possible.

If FSU/Clemson, or even FSU/Clemson/UNC arbitrarily leave, the ACC still has the minimum number of teams required to keep their contract with ESPN in force, so they will lose nothing at all by dragging the process out as long as possible in an attempt to extract as much money as possible from the departing schools. On the flip side, the departures will have a HUGE incentive to settle as quickly as possible b/c, until they settle things with the ACC, no other conference will be willing to touch them with a 10 ft pole. Tortious interference and all that is a powerful deterrent. So, if the ACC ends up refusing to settle at any price and just says "we'll let the courts decide and see what hundreds of years worth of case law says about this", they win by costing the 3 departures several years worth of media revenue, then they probably win again when their media rights ownership is confirmed by the courts. The 3 departures would have to pay exit fees, then spend the next decade literally begging the 15 schools they screwed over to settle with them at any price.

Is there any scenario above that could lead to the Big 3 making more revenues between now and 2036 by leaving the ACC rather than staying? Today, it's really hard to imagine, unless, as I've said numerous times, they get ESPN and the ACC both on board. If both ESPN and the ACC support the move, rather than the above dooomsday scenario, you have a few contracts and handshakes to work out and everything's done. The very fact that FSU has been so public with their discontent tells me that nobody is willing to help them with a move (yet). Could that change in a few years? What about 2030? 2034? There will come a time when the move makes sense and the other parties, however reluctantly, are willing to help facilitate it for the right price, but I still maintain that time is the 2030s rather than 2020s.

My evidence is pretty solid, while the evidence of the schools wanting to leave that they'll actually be able to do so is based upon one brash statement and a whole lot of message board conspiracy theories.

Completely Agree with you Byran. Your more prolific posting in this forum has been greatly appreciated.

(10-03-2023 09:41 AM)IWantToTalkToRalphSampson Wrote:  10/3/23 Tomahawk Nation on FSU/Clemson Potential Exit

Very good summary of where this matter stands, imo.

Two items of note in the article:

1) "The new public details of Texas and Oklahoma’s divorce from the Big 12 may provide a road map. The move to the SEC will cost Texas and Oklahoma roughly half of what was believed with most of the money coming from distributions withheld by the Big 12 rather than any upfront payments by the schools. ESPN will also provide transitional payments directly to Texas and Oklahoma next year as the schools won’t receive funds from the SEC’s primary revenue sharing pool."

How much are these transitional payments? And why is a determinedly cost-conscious ESPN (or so we've been told) taking this step? And could transitional payments come into play for FSU, Clemson, UNC (and other ACC schools coveted by the SEC and/or B1G)?

2) Per Kansas State athletics director Gene Taylor there was significant push back from other schools to fully enforce the bylaws and Grant of Rights but the Big 12’s lawyers advised the conference that the Big 12’s bylaws were “not as rock-solid as everybody thought and we could be tied up on lawsuits forever.” That advice prompted the other schools to vote for the agreement that allowed Texas and Oklahoma to leave the Big 12 a year early.

What was ESPN's role in shaping the perception that the GoR wasn't so ironclad after all? What was the quid pro quo among Yappy Yormark, ESPN and FOX to complete the Big XII media rights deal, successfully raid the Pac-12 and get the OU/UT transition done a year early in a manner satisfactory to all parties?

I mentioned a while back that one possible strategy for the ACC's "haves" was to drown — or simply threaten to down — the league office with lawsuits wrt to the GoR.

In other words, it's just cheaper for all parties to settle and move on.

How likely is it that we are headed down the path?

(10-03-2023 10:54 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  Colorado has had 5 consecutive games with viewership over $5M this season.

Clemson has 8 games with viewership over $5M over a 10 year period.

If Realignment is still another 10 years away. Colorado with Coach Prime and AAU status could be more attractive than Clemson.

The problem with CU is that it’s impossible to know how long Deion will be there. If he’s still there in 5 years and they’re still running peak Alabama ratings, then they could very well get an invite in 2028. If Jerry or FSU hire him away then CU turns back into a frog and nobody wants them.

How much does that make Deion worth to CU? I talked about a $200m contract being on the horizon in CFB the other day. I think CU would pay Deion 10 yrs, $200m if they were certain that would get them into the P2, and he’d be worth every penny.

(10-03-2023 10:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I understand the arguments being made by those who believe the ACC GOR situation is very different from the B12 situation, and thus any schools wanting to leave the ACC would be in a much more difficult and costly bind, and I admit I don't have rational/factual rebuttals to them.

Nevertheless, I do kind of believe in the idea of irresistible force and momentum in some aspects of athletic life, and it just seems to me that recently at least, if there is buzzing about leaving, the schools doing the buzzing manage to leave, despite all of the apparent constraints that would seem to make it unlikely for them to do so. I mean, if someone had told me four years ago that as of 2024, TX and OU would be in the SEC and USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington would be in the B1G, and that Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and Colorado would all leave for a B12 that did not include TX and OU, I just wouldn't have believed any of it, and yet here we are.

No facts to support it, but IMO these seemingly impregnable GORs and/or exit fees may well be Maginot Lines that provide false sense of security for the lower-value schools that have hunkered down in and behind them, but can actually be overrun or swept around, etc.

Not saying I know this for sure in the case of the ACC situation, but that's my gut feeling. In the end, I feel that if UNC/FSU/CLE want out soon, they will get out soon, and at a cost that isn't prohibitive.

We shall see.

IMO, some of the best legal minds were and are at work finding a crack in the GOR without prohibitive cost. It has not been found yet or we would know about it.

(10-03-2023 10:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 10:04 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Interesting excerpt from the article:

Florida State and Clemson realize that staying in the ACC until 2036 will be a death by a thousand cuts while their rivals get an extra $30 million a year in television revenue.

People just casually throw this number around, though we saw an ESPN article last month backtrack on that a bit and say "20s" or "high 20s". The truth is that Warren was shouting the largest number that he could possibly conceive of b/c he wanted more Pac schools (and also maybe ACC or even SEC schools?), and Petitti has been dealing with the fallout ever since. I don't know what the final difference will look like when we look at Conference revenues years down the road, but I'm highly confident that it will be less than $30m, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's less than $20m.

We know the Big 10 numbers Bryan. We don't yet know the SEC's numbers other than a lowball guess made on a failed CBS offer.

This is a better article than most. They recognize the changes in preferences based upon the transition of the payout calculations to actual number of viewers. This is key to understanding FSU and Clemson's value to the SEC. I wish they would quit mentioning Finebaum because he is a paid ESPN disinformation distributor.

In 1991 Clemson and Florida State were sought by the SEC. Clemson's interest proved to be tepid at the time. F.S.U. had three times applied for SEC membership in the 80's. There was some irritation at the SECs consistent rejections. But the SEC made a mistake in '91. I was told that the SEC used ESPN for a valuation. Therefore, ESPN knew how much we would offer and when we were scheduled to make the offer and in those days with the market footprint model just getting underway ESPN likely saw a way to help the value of a conference whose rights they wished to purchase (ACC) and do it, in their minds, without hurting the SEC's value since we had Florida already. In fact, the networks loved to divide the schools in large states into different conferences, so they could double dip the state ad rates for two different conferences if the network held rights to both conferences.

This is why in 2011 ESPN was allegedly pushing plans to put Texas into the ACC and A&M into the SEC, and to send Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC. That way Texas, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia would be divided. No need to do that in Georgia since Tech joined the ACC in 1978.

What changes with the shift from market footprint to actual viewers is that now Clemson and Florida State are worth more in the SEC to ESPN than they are in the ACC. Simply put they will face schools that draw as well as they do and the brand on brand competition will NET the network significantly more than splitting the advertising footprints can. This is why PAC 12 schools with brand are worth more in the Big 10 than together. It is why the two highest drawing conferences are now the loci of super conference formation.

North Carolina is an important market and top brand which draws viewers even if they are hoops first because the football team is better than average, especially with Mack Brown there.

Those three are absolutely more valuable to ESPN in the SEC even at 35 million more per year cost to ESPN. The fourth school is unnamed for a reason. What that reason is can only be speculated. Perhaps it's a school not in the ACC. Perhaps it's a school in the ACC which needs to be packaged with North Carolina. Perhaps they don't want a fuss over who it is. I guess we'll find out when it happens.

The other thing reinforced by this article is that the announcement for departure and negotiated settlements predicated by it will come a lot sooner than 2036. And if Clemson stories are to be believed likely before the end of October.

This brings us back to the Magnificent 7. If the inventory requirements for the super conferences (which as they grow replaces the need for the rights of smaller conferences with lesser TV draw) creates the need to pick up a larger number of schools, then the taking of the remaining best brands will accelerate. IMO, this is one reason why the Big 10 went ahead with Washington and Oregon and may like to nab Stanford if the ACC does lose key players. If the Magnificent 7 are all bound for the SEC, perhaps the ACC schools wanted to sneak in an 8th to begin with in the first group of four to announce. Or perhaps ESPN wanted to sneak in one not in the ACC before the final four came in. That's why I think the mystery school is either Duke or Kansas.

The story also lines up with the rumors I heard two years ago that had non administrative representatives of North Carolina and Clemson meeting with the SEC just a few days after the OU and UT story broke. I was told that the Clemson spokesperson doing the inquiring did so for FSU too which would mean they have been linked for two years now, and that the UNC representative spoke for another as well. In 2011 their AD asked questions which included Duke. Hence my suspicions. But ESPN has long had a keen interest in Kansas supporting their T3 rights until ESPN purchased all of the T3 rights to the Big 12. So this seems to me (the silent 4th) to be either the insertion of Kansas with the necessitated limitation of only one other UNC school, or the inclusion of Duke at the insistence of UNC with N.C. State already possibly being part of a larger move to 24. It's intriguing and we won't know until it's done.

What happens if they move 8 over? Then those not coming become instant potentialities for the Big 12.

Do that and ND is free to affiliate or move to the Big 10 possibly with Kansas and 4 more former PAC 12 schools, likely Colorado, Utah, and the Arizona schools. That's my guess anyway.

We don’t actually know the B1G numbers. That huge spread of $7b-$8.4b looks more like $7b every single day. At our current pace, both the SEC and the Pac will beat the B1G’s ratings this year, and the Big 12 could beat the B1G next year if CU continues at this pace. FSU is tearing it up in the ACC, too. NBC has been getting lower ratings than the BTN. Are any of those bonuses tied to ratings, or to ratings relative to other conferences? How hard will NBC and CBS work to pay as little as possible for their low ratings?

I’m predicting now that the SEC contract ends up paying as much as or more than the B1G contract, plus we get the bonus of the 24/7 ESPN hype machine.

(10-03-2023 11:44 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 09:41 AM)IWantToTalkToRalphSampson Wrote:  10/3/23 Tomahawk Nation on FSU/Clemson Potential Exit

Very good summary of where this matter stands, imo.

Two items of note in the article:

1) "The new public details of Texas and Oklahoma’s divorce from the Big 12 may provide a road map. The move to the SEC will cost Texas and Oklahoma roughly half of what was believed with most of the money coming from distributions withheld by the Big 12 rather than any upfront payments by the schools. ESPN will also provide transitional payments directly to Texas and Oklahoma next year as the schools won’t receive funds from the SEC’s primary revenue sharing pool."

How much are these transitional payments? And why is a determinedly cost-conscious ESPN (or so we've been told) taking this step? And could transitional payments come into play for FSU, Clemson, UNC (and other ACC schools coveted by the SEC and/or B1G)?

2) Per Kansas State athletics director Gene Taylor there was significant push back from other schools to fully enforce the bylaws and Grant of Rights but the Big 12’s lawyers advised the conference that the Big 12’s bylaws were “not as rock-solid as everybody thought and we could be tied up on lawsuits forever.” That advice prompted the other schools to vote for the agreement that allowed Texas and Oklahoma to leave the Big 12 a year early.

What was ESPN's role in shaping the perception that the GoR wasn't so ironclad after all? What was the quid pro quo among Yappy Yormark, ESPN and FOX to complete the Big XII media rights deal, successfully raid the Pac-12 and get the OU/UT transition done a year early in a manner satisfactory to all parties?

I mentioned a while back that one possible strategy for the ACC's "haves" was to drown — or simply threaten to down — the league office with lawsuits wrt to the GoR.

In other words, it's just cheaper for all parties to settle and move on.

How likely is it that we are headed down the path?

First, it's nice to converse with someone who knows how business is conducted instead of a bunch of youngsters who have been preconditioned to believe everything they are told and deny everything vehemently until another authority figure tells them otherwise.

But to expand on our remarks in retrospect, it seems to me that it was necessary for the Big 10 to let certain properties of the PAC 12 seek shelter in the Big 12 and ACC until the disposition of the ACC freed Notre Dame. They took 4 of the top 6 brands in the PAC 12, having to initially pass on ASU until the AAU status was granted, and not being able to overplay their hand until the disposition of a few other things would be known, like how much of the ACC would ESPN seek to keep full access to, how large would Sankey permit the SEC to grow, and how much inventory would the main two networks want? When the ACC is managed, likely wholesale, then FOX will know exactly how to finalize the last 6 positions of the Big 10. If the ACC sends 5 schools to the Big 12, Notre Dame remains independent, or joins the Big 10, then FOX knows. Until that happens, they would have no idea how to continue expansion.

It was clear to me with the 7 that there was a core of ACC schools seeking to hang together. North Carolina and Virginia didn't want to divide their schools again. Place 8 and the rest is easy. When those are known quantities as to their future affiliations, then piecing together the rest to the West becomes a much easier task. Why? It resolves any conflict among the presidents as to who to add to the Big 10. It makes schools some were willing to pass over for a shot at North Carolina or Virginia easier to accept. It determines the availability of Kansas. And it leaves only choices not options.

Something was extremely fishy to me when nobody made a bid for the PAC 12 which exceeded ESPN's. When has that ever happened? Lowballed and locked out what did the PAC 12 has as options but to move. And where were they going to head but to the Big 10. Those not taken initially had to go to the Big 12 because the SEC wasn't offering. And what about the talk of ESPN scuttling or resisting PAC 12 expansion initially for the ACC? They had to make sure FOX got the first 4 they wanted from the PAC 12. When the SEC takes its first four from the ACC it will be the reciprocation of a quid pro quo. Then the SEC will follow up with the next 4 of the magnificent 7 and likely stop at 24. Why not stop at 20? Because none of the seven will likely have agreed unless all were placed. Once those are in place the 4 corners will be revisited.

Could there be a twist? Possibly, but not if the intention of the 7 is to stay together. If that is not the intention, but rather the intention is to place all 7, then after the first 4 head to the SEC, the next 3 could be open to the Big 10, which would open the four corners to the SEC and maybe that's a ploy to give Sankey cover to expand further West against the wishes of the SEC presidents. If those are the only targets left which add markets and value, then maybe.

But my money is on the 7 wanting to stay together, and ESPN wanting to keep them so. My reason is because ESPN carefully assembled a nice monopoly in the SE & SW and will hang onto it. They will get all they want out of their portion of the Big 12 and the Super SEC (Old Southern Conference) that they want. This appeases the core of the ACC, the SEC leaves natural relationships restored for the former PAC 12 schools. Then Oregon State and Washington State to the Big 12 makes a good deal of sense, along with the 5 remaining ACC schools.

The playing of the hand to finesse the final result seems too complete for there not to have been a great deal of backroom cooperation at the corporate level.

What amazes me is the comprehensive destruction of the PAC 12, the bolting of Texas and Oklahoma, and there are still those who don't think this thing finishes with the ACC.

(10-03-2023 10:04 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Interesting excerpt from the article:

Florida State and Clemson realize that staying in the ACC until 2036 will be a death by a thousand cuts while their rivals get an extra $30 million a year in television revenue.

People just casually throw this number around, though we saw an ESPN article last month backtrack on that a bit and say "20s" or "high 20s". The truth is that Warren was shouting the largest number that he could possibly conceive of b/c he wanted more Pac schools (and also maybe ACC or even SEC schools?), and Petitti has been dealing with the fallout ever since. I don't know what the final difference will look like when we look at Conference revenues years down the road, but I'm highly confident that it will be less than $30m, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's less than $20m.

I guess you will be surprised. The Big 10 distributed $19 million more than the ACC and the SEC $10 million more last year, before their huge raises. The SEC is up $18-22 million just on their 2:30 slot, while the Big 10 increased more.

(10-03-2023 10:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I understand the arguments being made by those who believe the ACC GOR situation is very different from the B12 situation, and thus any schools wanting to leave the ACC would be in a much more difficult and costly bind, and I admit I don't have rational/factual rebuttals to them.

Nevertheless, I do kind of believe in the idea of irresistible force and momentum in some aspects of athletic life, and it just seems to me that recently at least, if there is buzzing about leaving, the schools doing the buzzing manage to leave, despite all of the apparent constraints that would seem to make it unlikely for them to do so. I mean, if someone had told me four years ago that as of 2024, TX and OU would be in the SEC and USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington would be in the B1G, and that Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and Colorado would all leave for a B12 that did not include TX and OU, I just wouldn't have believed any of it, and yet here we are.

No facts to support it, but IMO these seemingly impregnable GORs and/or exit fees may well be Maginot Lines that provide false sense of security for the lower-value schools that have hunkered down in and behind them, but can actually be overrun or swept around, etc.

Not saying I know this for sure in the case of the ACC situation, but that's my gut feeling. In the end, I feel that if UNC/FSU/CLE want out soon, they will get out soon, and at a cost that isn't prohibitive.

We shall see.

I think there is just too much smoke. Plus, UT and OU got out for very little. What is pretty certain is that the ACC can't enforce the exit fees. 3 years revenue is excessive. They might get up to $30 million, but not $150 million. The exit fees are not the issue. What it takes to buy out the GOR is the issue.

There is too much smoke for their not to be fire behind the scenes.

I would say too much smoke to believe there is fire for this case. No need to say you want to get out. If you are actually leaving, you simply leave without saying.

How exactly Clemson, FSU, or UNC plan on dealing with the ACC exit fee or Grant of Rights is still unclear.

Still haven’t found an answer yet?

(10-03-2023 10:18 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 10:02 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 09:41 AM)IWantToTalkToRalphSampson Wrote:  Article Here

Not sure this is anything new but wanted to post it as I saw in on FSU site this AM.

Thanks for sharing this, I hadn't seen that graphic before illustrating that since 2012 FSU has played in 71% of the ACC games that got over 5 million viewers (Clemson next at 47%). Also very illuminating comments from Kansas State AD about the challenges the Big XII ran into trying to play hardball with their GoR...stay tuned!

Here's the exact quote from the article:

Per Kansas State athletics director Gene Taylor there was significant push back from other schools to fully enforce the bylaws and Grant of Rights but the Big 12’s lawyers advised the conference that the Big 12’s bylaws were “not as rock-solid as everybody thought and we could be tied up on lawsuits forever.” That advice prompted the other schools to vote for the agreement that allowed Texas and Oklahoma to leave the Big 12 a year early.

It's important to keep in mind that OUT were already leaving, and the final decision came down to "let them leave one year early and wreak all kinds of havoc with our 4 new members and possible our new 4c, too, or do ESPN a huge solid, do the SEC a huge solid, and help us move on to our next chapter with a tiny shred of dignity". If FSU/Clemson said tomorrow "see ya!", the ACC would have more of the mindset that the Big 12 left-behinds had in June 2021; ie, we're gonna extract every single penny we can get from those guys and make their lives as miserable as possible.

If FSU/Clemson, or even FSU/Clemson/UNC arbitrarily leave, the ACC still has the minimum number of teams required to keep their contract with ESPN in force, so they will lose nothing at all by dragging the process out as long as possible in an attempt to extract as much money as possible from the departing schools. On the flip side, the departures will have a HUGE incentive to settle as quickly as possible b/c, until they settle things with the ACC, no other conference will be willing to touch them with a 10 ft pole. Tortious interference and all that is a powerful deterrent. So, if the ACC ends up refusing to settle at any price and just says "we'll let the courts decide and see what hundreds of years worth of case law says about this", they win by costing the 3 departures several years worth of media revenue, then they probably win again when their media rights ownership is confirmed by the courts. The 3 departures would have to pay exit fees, then spend the next decade literally begging the 15 schools they screwed over to settle with them at any price.

Is there any scenario above that could lead to the Big 3 making more revenues between now and 2036 by leaving the ACC rather than staying? Today, it's really hard to imagine, unless, as I've said numerous times, they get ESPN and the ACC both on board. If both ESPN and the ACC support the move, rather than the above dooomsday scenario, you have a few contracts and handshakes to work out and everything's done. The very fact that FSU has been so public with their discontent tells me that nobody is willing to help them with a move (yet). Could that change in a few years? What about 2030? 2034? There will come a time when the move makes sense and the other parties, however reluctantly, are willing to help facilitate it for the right price, but I still maintain that time is the 2030s rather than 2020s.

My evidence is pretty solid, while the evidence of the schools wanting to leave that they'll actually be able to do so is based upon one brash statement and a whole lot of message board conspiracy theories.

It's a shame that the Big 12 didn't put as much effort in updating their bylaws as they did when they drafted their GOR.