I'm feenin for some conference realignment news, and since there isn't any I thought it just as well if we conjured something up. That being said, ther is a recent article http://www.sbnation.com/2014/2/27/545334...-watchespn
Suggesting that the ACC is unlikely to get an SEC/Pac12/B1G type of network any time soon. Just to build a straw man that we can tear down... Do you suppose any of the ACC schools demanded a clause that the grant of rights would be null and void if they didn't get a network?
If you think about the bump in income the ACC from about 17 Mil a year to about 20 M per year per school after signing the grant of rights... that number is going to look mighty feeble in a few years when the B1G/SEC/P12 is earning 40-50M a year per school.
While I still don't think anything happens until the Maryland v ACC is settled, I think the floodgates might be reopened in the event the ACC schools are earning half of what their peers are earning. It just doesn't make sense to me that the institutions of the ACC would sign a grant of rights and guarantee they earn half of what their pers earn. I just don't see why the more prominent brands could in good faith sign that document and say it was the best thing for their institution.
With all of that in mind do you think the ACC is still vulnerable regardless of the grant of rights? I do. The issue then become how much expansion is too much. The larger the league the less it feels like a cohesive unit. I think the way the B1G could should expand is to bring in a "critical mass" of schools so the new schools feel at home. So Although I know a 24 team B1G is unlikely, I don't think it would be too awkward if the divisions were of regiona schools that fans love to hate.
For Instance
South: Virginia, Duke, Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida St, Texas
West: Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Mizzou, Illinois, Indiana
North: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Purdue, Sparty
East: Michigan, Ohio State, Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers, UConn.
If every year you play those teams in football and twice a year in basketball, you could develop a feel of conferences within a conference. Each division would have its own identity and the better part of the following old school markets would be obtained: Big Ten, Big East, ACC, Big 8, SWC.
That would be a powerful conglomorate of schools and markets.

Yes.

(03-08-2014 07:33 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Yes.

For now, yes. But in a decade or so, who knows. The B12 is in the same boat, even though I doubt there will be any changes in either after the current GoR expires. IMO both will be renewed.

As far as whether they built the GOR out of tissue paper, ESPN wouldn't have extended the contract into the second half.of the 20s on the back of.a GOR built out of tissue paper.

So except.for the Big12 possibly adding some teams if a compelling opportunity emerges over the last half if this decade, and moves in break-even or subsidy sports, P5 realignment is likely to settle down for a while.

(03-08-2014 08:22 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  As far as whether they built the GOR out of tissue paper, ESPN wouldn't have extended the contract into the second half.of the 20s on the back of.a GOR built out of tissue paper.

So except.for the Big12 possibly adding some teams if a compelling opportunity emerges over the last half if this decade, and moves in break-even or subsidy sports, P5 realignment is likely to settle down for a while.

Okay, riddle me this. Why would the bigger named programs, that had options sign the grant? I could understand if you're Wake Forest, Boston College or some other program that didn't think they had a good chance at the B1G or SEC, I could also understand the draw of staying in your traditional geography, but if you're going head to head with the SEC (Miami, Florida St, Georgia Tech, Clemson) why would you do it?

(03-08-2014 09:06 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 08:22 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  As far as whether they built the GOR out of tissue paper, ESPN wouldn't have extended the contract into the second half.of the 20s on the back of.a GOR built out of tissue paper.

So except.for the Big12 possibly adding some teams if a compelling opportunity emerges over the last half if this decade, and moves in break-even or subsidy sports, P5 realignment is likely to settle down for a while.

Okay, riddle me this. Why would the bigger named programs, that had options sign the grant? I could understand if you're Wake Forest, Boston College or some other program that didn't think they had a good chance at the B1G or SEC, I could also understand the draw of staying in your traditional geography, but if you're going head to head with the SEC (Miami, Florida St, Georgia Tech, Clemson) why would you do it?

Your math is bad and your B24 is laughable.

However to answer your riddle, FSU, UNC, Clemson, and others have the ability to do basic math.

I notice that you have elected to omit the ACC's Orange Bowl money, Football Playoff money, No-Network money from ESPN, as well as no Look-In money in 2017? Why is that? Any particular reason you omit $7.5 to $9 million from the ACC total? Also, why are you puffing up the B10/SEC/P12 revenue projection by $7 to 10 million?

Total ACC revenues this year will be about $23 million. In 2014/15 the ACC adds about $5.5 million per team for the Orange Bowl and Playoff, plus about a half a million for Louisville. That puts the ACC at about $29 million. In 2016 if there is no network, the ACC gets $2 million a team from ESPN. That puts the ACC at $31 million or so. In 2017 there is a contractual look in so if the ACC gets just a 5% TV bump on TV money of about $23 million, that's another million for a total of $32 million by 2018. There is another look-in in 2022.

The B10 only distributed about $19 million in TV this year. Their new bowl and playoff money is 6.3 million. Their NCAA revenues are about $4 million per team. That's $29 million or so, but let's round that to $30 million for 2015 and 2016. Do you really think the B10's total tv revenues are going to nearly double in 2017? You really think they are going from $20 million per team to $40 million per team for TV? Even if their base contract doubles that's just $12 million, a far cry from $50 million.

Whenever these articles surface, one thing is always true, the ACC's revenue total will not include bowl money, playoff money, or ESPN's other guarantee money. Increased NCAA monies are also ignored. The second thing that is true that the B10 and other conference numbers will include ALL possible revenue streams.

So what's you real agenda?

BIG takes Virginia, Duke, UNC, Georgia Tech, Florida State from the ACC and Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas from the Big XII and Missiouri from the SEC to go to 20 schools I think you will see these reactions from the rest of the conferences

SEC
Adds NCSU, VT, WVU, CLEM, OKST, KState, TTU to go to 20.

NORTH
Kentucky
West Virginia
Virginia Tech
Vanderbilt
Tennessee

EAST
NC State
South Carolina
Clemson
Georgia
Florida

SOUTH
Auburn
Alabama
Ole Miss
Mississippi State
LSU

WEST
Arkansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
Texas A&M
Texas Tech

ACC Takes Over the Big XII and the American and goes to 20 with left over teams
NORTH
Boston College
Syracuse
Temple
Pitt
Old Dominion

SOUTH
East Carolina
Wake Forest
UCF
South Florida
Miami

CENTRAL
Iowa State
Cincinnati
Louisville
Memphis
Tulane

WEST
Tulsa
TCU
SMU
Baylor
Houston

Navy goes back to Indepdent and Notre Dame drops deal with ACC scheduling.

INDY
BYU
Notre Dame
Army
Navy

PAC-12 Would stay at 12.

(03-08-2014 07:33 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Yes.

This.

(03-08-2014 08:05 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 07:33 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Yes.

For now, yes. But in a decade or so, who knows. The B12 is in the same boat, even though I doubt there will be any changes in either after the current GoR expires. IMO both will be renewed.

You dream sir. Grant renewals like grants must be unanimous. Self interest will assure that does not happen again.

Realignment has never been over. I think there's been something like only 3 or 4 years in the history of the NCAA when there hasn't been some kind of movement. But, realignment will take a longer pause at the P5 level when all of the monetary disbursements are at least close enough to make movement not worth anyone's effort. Should the Big 10 and SEC approach the $40 million level by the end of this decade more movement is assured. And it will be further consolidation based upon markets and quality content. What form that takes as far as the number of surviving conferences remains to be seen. We could still have 5 with top schools leaving two of them to consolidate with other top earners, or we could see as few as 3 conferences emerge.

As for the OP the PAC12 will not make anywhere close to what the Big 10 and SEC are projected to make. They are saved thus far by virtue of geography. Otherwise I think the PAC would have been breached as well.

(03-08-2014 08:22 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  As far as whether they built the GOR out of tissue paper, ESPN wouldn't have extended the contract into the second half.of the 20s on the back of.a GOR built out of tissue paper.

So except.for the Big12 possibly adding some teams if a compelling opportunity emerges over the last half if this decade, and moves in break-even or subsidy sports, P5 realignment is likely to settle down for a while.

Why not? All the GOR does is place the ability to make future moves solely at the discretion of the networks without having to have feigned valuation calls and the pretense of not interfering. The length of the contract just permits ESPN to have time to let contract negotiations with the Big 10, and the possibility of getting a piece of the PACN, play out before they decide the most profitable product placement. Tying up the ACC in total and sewing up the T3 of Kansas and Texas is what stopped realignment. The GOR's just took it out of the hands of the conferences and placed it in the hands of the power brokers. Now FOX and ESPN can work out movement based upon what is mutually beneficial. The commissioners will express preferences the networks will work within those guidelines and then they will enhance markets, content, and develop a structure that will deliver the most advertising dollars and generate the most public interest. It was, is, and will continue to be the hostile takeover of an undervalued commodity that will be capitalized for the investors (networks). The death of personal high dollar contributors with the loss of the WWII generation (who had no net debt), the loss of tax base for states due to the economic downturn and the loss of manufacturing jobs to overseas cheap labor, and the cutting of available Federal money have all formed a milieu ripe for the move. A live entertainment commodity with relatively low overhead provided the only other impetus necessary.

So don't stake your security on the length of a contract or on a Grant of Rights either of which is enforceable at the discretion of a network, especially since networks can minimize damages, and reward moves in spite of, and because of, the GOR's.

(03-08-2014 10:02 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 07:33 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Yes.

This.

Double this.

Maryland obviously wanted to move... at least after they had their top 'decider' positions infiltrated by B10 folks... Maybe if you put the full-court press on Pitt or Cuse, they might move. but I don't see anyone else in the conference wanting to move to the B10.

I take it for granted that FSU & Clemson would love to move to the Sec, but other than that... it's not really a matter of how solid the GoR is, it's only as solid as schools desire to move, and I just don't think the B10 is all that attractive to the schools they would really want.

You'll likely have to hope the Sec can do your dirty work for you... same as the B12...

(03-08-2014 09:13 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 09:06 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 08:22 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  As far as whether they built the GOR out of tissue paper, ESPN wouldn't have extended the contract into the second half.of the 20s on the back of.a GOR built out of tissue paper.

So except.for the Big12 possibly adding some teams if a compelling opportunity emerges over the last half if this decade, and moves in break-even or subsidy sports, P5 realignment is likely to settle down for a while.

Okay, riddle me this. Why would the bigger named programs, that had options sign the grant? I could understand if you're Wake Forest, Boston College or some other program that didn't think they had a good chance at the B1G or SEC, I could also understand the draw of staying in your traditional geography, but if you're going head to head with the SEC (Miami, Florida St, Georgia Tech, Clemson) why would you do it?

Your math is bad and your B24 is laughable.

However to answer your riddle, FSU, UNC, Clemson, and others have the ability to do basic math.

I notice that you have elected to omit the ACC's Orange Bowl money, Football Playoff money, No-Network money from ESPN, as well as no Look-In money in 2017? Why is that? Any particular reason you omit $7.5 to $9 million from the ACC total? Also, why are you puffing up the B10/SEC/P12 revenue projection by $7 to 10 million?

Total ACC revenues this year will be about $23 million. In 2014/15 the ACC adds about $5.5 million per team for the Orange Bowl and Playoff, plus about a half a million for Louisville. That puts the ACC at about $29 million. In 2016 if there is no network, the ACC gets $2 million a team from ESPN. That puts the ACC at $31 million or so. In 2017 there is a contractual look in so if the ACC gets just a 5% TV bump on TV money of about $23 million, that's another million for a total of $32 million by 2018. There is another look-in in 2022.

The B10 only distributed about $19 million in TV this year. Their new bowl and playoff money is 6.3 million. Their NCAA revenues are about $4 million per team. That's $29 million or so, but let's round that to $30 million for 2015 and 2016. Do you really think the B10's total tv revenues are going to nearly double in 2017? You really think they are going from $20 million per team to $40 million per team for TV? Even if their base contract doubles that's just $12 million, a far cry from $50 million.

Whenever these articles surface, one thing is always true, the ACC's revenue total will not include bowl money, playoff money, or ESPN's other guarantee money. Increased NCAA monies are also ignored. The second thing that is true that the B10 and other conference numbers will include ALL possible revenue streams.

So what's you real agenda?

Agenda?... I started the post by saying that since there is no news, let me throw some shite against the wall and see if anything sticks. Just getting some conversation going, no agenda.
The B24 example speaks to the issues of having any cohesion in a league bigger that probably 16 teams. It's not all that practical unless you regionalize.
Although you clearly know far more of the details of ACC contracts then I do, I am certain that Maryland isn't going through a messy divorce and giving up UVA, VaTech, Duke, & Carolina to receive in the same ballpark of money... doesn't pass the smell test.
Do I think that the Big Ten will double their current rate for Tier 1 rights (I'm an Ohio State Fan) of course I do. But seriously, Fox is already on record as saying that they plan on making a major push to acquire those rights. So I think it is reasonable to think that given the market... Double is well within the realm of possibility.
The point I was making was that I don't understand why Florida State for instance signed the grant... Bare minimum that is leverage to shift power away from Tobacco Road. Unless that grant brings you up to snuff with the SEC, I wouldn't have signed it.

(03-09-2014 12:02 AM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  Maryland obviously wanted to move... at least after they had their top 'decider' positions infiltrated by B10 folks...

Yeah that is probably the gist of it, right there.

I'm actually related to one of the deciders at Clemson and I am fairly positive that Nobody there has even the slightest interest in getting out of the ACC.

(03-09-2014 01:22 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 12:02 AM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  Maryland obviously wanted to move... at least after they had their top 'decider' positions infiltrated by B10 folks...

Yeah that is probably the gist of it, right there.

I'm actually related to one of the deciders at Clemson and I am fairly positive that Nobody there has even the slightest interest in getting out of the ACC.

I guess that is why they appointed a realignment committee and named the participants through Tiger.net in 2010.

(03-09-2014 01:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 01:22 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 12:02 AM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  Maryland obviously wanted to move... at least after they had their top 'decider' positions infiltrated by B10 folks...

Yeah that is probably the gist of it, right there.

I'm actually related to one of the deciders at Clemson and I am fairly positive that Nobody there has even the slightest interest in getting out of the ACC.

I guess that is why they appointed a realignment committee and named the participants through Tiger.net in 2010.

Heh.

A lot has changed since then.

(03-09-2014 01:38 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 01:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 01:22 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 12:02 AM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  Maryland obviously wanted to move... at least after they had their top 'decider' positions infiltrated by B10 folks...

Yeah that is probably the gist of it, right there.

I'm actually related to one of the deciders at Clemson and I am fairly positive that Nobody there has even the slightest interest in getting out of the ACC.

I guess that is why they appointed a realignment committee and named the participants through Tiger.net in 2010.

Heh.

A lot has changed since then.

The steam came of the kettle a bit, but it is still over the fire. Financial disparity led to the formation of the committee the first time around and it will again unless some substantial additions come the way of the ACC. The OP's strongest point pertains to the growing disparity that will arise following 2016 and will peak in 2018. It is not inconceivable that the gap could be $10 million. Add Texas and get a real network instead of a streaming site and then we can start to talk parity.

I just can't understand why we're arguing about something 10 years from now. For all we know power shifts to the northeast and Pitt, PSU, WVU, Syracuse, and BC are national powers (ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN BUT JUST SAYING). It's going a totally different paradigm 10 years from now. We're likely going to see networks on the internet based off the Hulu and WWE Network model. So why argue about so many unknowns?

(03-09-2014 02:26 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I just can't understand why we're arguing about something 10 years from now. For all we know power shifts to the northeast and Pitt, PSU, WVU, Syracuse, and BC are national powers (ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN BUT JUST SAYING). It's going a totally different paradigm 10 years from now. We're likely going to see networks on the internet based off the Hulu and WWE Network model. So why argue about so many unknowns?

Because it's not about the conferences. It is about the shaping of product by the networks (ESPN & FOX). They are the ones interested in markets. They are the ones interested in content. They are the ones interested in advertising money. And, they are the ones interested in shaping the playoff structure to engage as much of the national audience as possible for as long as possible with a predictable structure because their research has proven through the NFL that predictable structure encourages viewing, and it encourages understanding and trust of the game, which encourages ancillary industries (like Atlantic City and Las Vegas) all of which spike the popularity of the game by maximizing the demographics of interest.

Do you think for a moment that people in Birmingham woke up one morning and said, "Gee Missouri sure would be nice to have" or that Swofford suddenly thought that Syracuse was irresistible to Virginians? All of these moves are paid for by the networks and are part of the product shaping of their new found industry, college football. That's why this isn't over and that's why all the GOR's did is place the future realignment in the hands of the Grant holders, the networks who can then determine how to minimize losses by teams left behind (by paying their full contracts until termination) and rewarding the schools that are moved (by doubling their payouts).

All of the recent realignment is corporately driven and they have been successful because jobs were shipped overseas, state governments are having a hard time raising funds with which to supply the schools, the federal government is cutting back on spending, and the colleges needed new revenue streams which their commissioners (all of whom worked for or with networks writing sports contracts before becoming commissioners) would naturally seek with the very networks with which they were so familiar. So the monetary need of the schools was the opening the networks needed to lure the changes they wanted through providing more money. Money that is cheap to them because college football is part of the entertainment industry, but it doesn't have the overhead in production costs like Mad Men or Black Sails might have so its cheap even at $50 million per team for 60 or 64 teams. The entities of the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC and ACC mean nothing. They are just vehicles for the arrangement of product. When product is finally arranged to maximize advertising revenue and structured for an easy to follow and understandable playoff arrangement, realignment will be over.

It's not about the conferences and hasn't been for nearly 30 years now.