Whether we like it or not, there is going to come a point where media companies are just not going to pay the same amount to every school just because they happen to be in a conference with schools that the media company values.

And I think conferences are going to try to fight that as long as possible.

Plus, media companies would like to avoid having to make that choice, because of the optics involved.

Couple this with - while I think espn would like to see FSU, and possibly other schools in the SEC for matchups, that's going to cost them money if the SEC goes from 16 schools to 18 or more schools.

So what about this:

What if espn had a meeting with the ACC and the SEC, and Vanderbilt.

The offer:

If Vanderbilt were willing to be traded for an ACC school (let's say FSU), espn would do the following:

Offer to pay Vanderbilt the difference between the SEC distributions and the ACC distributions until the end of the current SEC contract (2030).

And offer FSU an invite to the SEC, but at the ACC rate (35M - see below) until the end of the current SEC contract (2030).

Essentially FSU gets a raise, but reduced revenue at first in order to facilitate the deal.

And offer to increase the ACC deal so that the payout per school to $35M - up from just under 32M - if they add 2 schools. And a guaranteed increase to (at least) 40M in 2030 (when the SEC deal ends) - until 2036 (when the ACC deal ends). Vanderbilt would be included in the 40M, of course.

(With a guarantee, that espn would not reduce the ACC deal if the SEC at some point poached 2 more schools and the ACC needed to backfil 2 more - depending on the schools, of course).

And to help, the SEC guarantees that Vanderbilt will still play all their currently scheduled games with Tennessee, and to make sure that that is extended until 2036.

That's the carrot - now for the stick:

If Vanderbilt doesn't agree to this, the next deal for the SEC from espn would be a two-tiered deal, and Vanderbilt obviously would not be in the top tier, and with the bottom tier not likely to even make the 40M now being offered.

Yes, the SEC could try to stand behind Vanderbilt and hope that bidding from other media partners in 2030 might bail them out from espn's strategy. But considering all the changes on the horizon, and the steady downward spiral of ota and cable, I wouldn't hold my breath. Plus that potentially screws the rest of the potential "bottom tier" SEC conferences.

Does this benefit espn? Adding 2 new schools to their duopoly and getting FSU matchups in the SEC, and Vanderbilt basketball in the ACC? Yes, I would imagine so.

The cost to espn - since the swap cost is a wash - is just the incentive to the ACC, which may have happened anyway, if they decided to expand.

And the new schools themselves add a cost, of course.

So really, for espn, these are just costs they likely would have had to pay anyway, and they instead get an additional long-term benefit.

espn could wait to make a scaled-down version of this offer in 2030, but I think current circumstances (changes - cfp, nil, etc) accelerate the need.

So the question for you all is:

Do you think Vanderbilt would take this deal?

(01-09-2023 01:17 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Whether we like it or not, there is going to come a point where media companies are just not going to pay the same amount to every school just because they happen to be in a conference with schools that the media company values.

And I think conferences are going to try to fight that as long as possible.

Plus, media companies would like to avoid having to make that choice, because of the optics involved.

Couple this with - while I think espn would like to see FSU, and possibly other schools in the SEC for matchups, that's going to cost them money if the SEC goes from 16 schools to 18 or more schools.

So what about this:

What if espn had a meeting with the ACC and the SEC, and Vanderbilt.

The offer:

If Vanderbilt were willing to be traded for an ACC school (let's say FSU), espn would do the following:

Offer to pay Vanderbilt the difference between the SEC distributions and the ACC distributions until the end of the current SEC contract (2030).

And offer FSU an invite to the SEC, but at the ACC rate (35M - see below) until the end of the current SEC contract (2030).

Essentially FSU gets a raise, but reduced revenue at first in order to facilitate the deal.

And offer to increase the ACC deal so that the payout per school to $35M - up from just under 32M - if they add 2 schools. And a guaranteed increase to (at least) 40M in 2030 (when the SEC deal ends) - until 2036 (when the ACC deal ends). Vanderbilt would be included in the 40M, of course.

(With a guarantee, that espn would not reduce the ACC deal if the SEC at some point poached 2 more schools and the ACC needed to backfil 2 more - depending on the schools, of course).

And to help, the SEC guarantees that Vanderbilt will still play all their currently scheduled games with Tennessee, and to make sure that that is extended until 2036.

That's the carrot - now for the stick:

If Vanderbilt doesn't agree to this, the next deal for the SEC from espn would be a two-tiered deal, and Vanderbilt obviously would not be in the top tier, and with the bottom tier not likely to even make the 40M now being offered.

Yes, the SEC could try to stand behind Vanderbilt and hope that bidding from other media partners in 2030 might bail them out from espn's strategy. But considering all the changes on the horizon, and the steady downward spiral of ota and cable, I wouldn't hold my breath. Plus that potentially screws the rest of the potential "bottom tier" SEC conferences.

Does this benefit espn? Adding 2 new schools to their duopoly and getting FSU matchups in the SEC, and Vanderbilt basketball in the ACC? Yes, I would imagine so.

The cost to espn - since the swap cost is a wash - is just the incentive to the ACC, which may have happened anyway, if they decided to expand.

And the new schools themselves add a cost, of course.

So really, for espn, these are just costs they likely would have had to pay anyway, and they instead get an additional long-term benefit.

espn could wait to make a scaled-down version of this offer in 2030, but I think current circumstances (changes - cfp, nil, etc) accelerate the need.

So the question for you all is:

Do you think Vanderbilt would take this deal?

There is one way to avoid GOR entanglements. A trade is not one of them. The most fool proof is a complete merger. To do that everyone needs to get something, including the network.

You may see this playout in the Big 10's negotiations with more PAC schools. Washington and Oregon could likely move pro rata. Maybe even Stanford. Cal would have to make more than they make now, but they may not need a full share. If not Cal perhaps Colorado, or even Arizona or Utah. The point is if the transferring school makes more they don't lose. If they keep access they don't lose.

Now in the case of the SEC and the ACC both are fully owned rights wise by ESPN. A full merger in which Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, and Clemson received full SEC shares and perhaps Miami and Louisville received more than 5-million-dollar bump which everyone else would get is all that is needed to complete such a deal.

What would the SEC get? A solid control over the Southeast with no chance through the end of the old ACC GOR which would be assumed by both parties in the merger for anyone to breach the Southeast or really the Southwest.

What does the ACC get? The get to stay together while those with the most to lose by remaining don't lose anything, and everyone else gets a modest bump.

What does ESPN get? A GOR holding both until 2036. A merger of the ACCN / SECN / LHN which saves overhead and maximizes subscriptions in all states within the combined footprint at maximum ad rates (which are shared 50/50 in the existing network contracts. They get to schedule more profitable games for Miami, Louisville, Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Georgia Tech, Clemson and F.S.U.

How about Notre Dame? They keep their partial deal but can now spread that schedule around the entire inventory which offers them much more flexibility.

That's 30 plus ND. Let's round that out to 32 and pick up two more Big 12 schools in the process. They don't have to come in at full price either, but at a decent raise. Kansas, Texas Tech, perhaps Colorado?

So Skyhawk in that scenario Vanderbilt could either remain whole or at ESPN's insistence receive the average ACC share. I should think perhaps 3 tiers of payment could be set up. Since Vanderbilt has not yet received the new SEC share they could simply be locked into the old one with %'s for an escalator.

This pathway is GOR friendly, ESPN friendly, would likely cost ESPN between 240 million and 300 million, but how much would they save from the combined overhead? How much would they make over and above because of absolute control of ad rates in the predominance of the states? How much do they make in subscriptions for the combined product? How many more T1 games do they have for inventory?

They could still acquire Pacific Coast Time zone schools via additions to the New Big 12.

The SECN would now be available in New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia, and North Carolina, and perhaps Kansas or Colorado. Now that's an interesting play especially if the old LHN also carries the New Big 12 games to which ESPN has access.

North Carolina keeps Duke, Wake, and N.C. State. Syracuse, Pitt and B.C. are accounted for and the football first schools get better schedules and all make at least a little bit more than they make now, and those who spend the most to be competitive make a lot more. And ESPN gets what they have wanted without much adjustment in the long run. By 2036 all of the schools will know whether they want to continue to pursue athletics at the highest level or step down or get out. Then adjustments to the whole upper tier will occur and new contracts signed, perhaps with the collective bargaining for the whole enchilada.

(01-09-2023 02:17 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 01:17 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Whether we like it or not, there is going to come a point where media companies are just not going to pay the same amount to every school just because they happen to be in a conference with schools that the media company values.

And I think conferences are going to try to fight that as long as possible.

Plus, media companies would like to avoid having to make that choice, because of the optics involved.

Couple this with - while I think espn would like to see FSU, and possibly other schools in the SEC for matchups, that's going to cost them money if the SEC goes from 16 schools to 18 or more schools.

So what about this:

What if espn had a meeting with the ACC and the SEC, and Vanderbilt.

The offer:

If Vanderbilt were willing to be traded for an ACC school (let's say FSU), espn would do the following:

Offer to pay Vanderbilt the difference between the SEC distributions and the ACC distributions until the end of the current SEC contract (2030).

And offer FSU an invite to the SEC, but at the ACC rate (35M - see below) until the end of the current SEC contract (2030).

Essentially FSU gets a raise, but reduced revenue at first in order to facilitate the deal.

And offer to increase the ACC deal so that the payout per school to $35M - up from just under 32M - if they add 2 schools. And a guaranteed increase to (at least) 40M in 2030 (when the SEC deal ends) - until 2036 (when the ACC deal ends). Vanderbilt would be included in the 40M, of course.

(With a guarantee, that espn would not reduce the ACC deal if the SEC at some point poached 2 more schools and the ACC needed to backfil 2 more - depending on the schools, of course).

And to help, the SEC guarantees that Vanderbilt will still play all their currently scheduled games with Tennessee, and to make sure that that is extended until 2036.

That's the carrot - now for the stick:

If Vanderbilt doesn't agree to this, the next deal for the SEC from espn would be a two-tiered deal, and Vanderbilt obviously would not be in the top tier, and with the bottom tier not likely to even make the 40M now being offered.

Yes, the SEC could try to stand behind Vanderbilt and hope that bidding from other media partners in 2030 might bail them out from espn's strategy. But considering all the changes on the horizon, and the steady downward spiral of ota and cable, I wouldn't hold my breath. Plus that potentially screws the rest of the potential "bottom tier" SEC conferences.

Does this benefit espn? Adding 2 new schools to their duopoly and getting FSU matchups in the SEC, and Vanderbilt basketball in the ACC? Yes, I would imagine so.

The cost to espn - since the swap cost is a wash - is just the incentive to the ACC, which may have happened anyway, if they decided to expand.

And the new schools themselves add a cost, of course.

So really, for espn, these are just costs they likely would have had to pay anyway, and they instead get an additional long-term benefit.

espn could wait to make a scaled-down version of this offer in 2030, but I think current circumstances (changes - cfp, nil, etc) accelerate the need.

So the question for you all is:

Do you think Vanderbilt would take this deal?

There is one way to avoid GOR entanglements. A trade is not one of them. The most fool proof is a complete merger. To do that everyone needs to get something, including the network.

You may see this playout in the Big 10's negotiations with more PAC schools. Washington and Oregon could likely move pro rata. Maybe even Stanford. Cal would have to make more than they make now, but they may not need a full share. If not Cal perhaps Colorado, or even Arizona or Utah. The point is if the transferring school makes more they don't lose. If they keep access they don't lose.

Now in the case of the SEC and the ACC both are fully owned rights wise by ESPN. A full merger in which Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, and Clemson received full SEC shares and perhaps Miami and Louisville received more than 5-million-dollar bump which everyone else would get is all that is needed to complete such a deal.

What would the SEC get? A solid control over the Southeast with no chance through the end of the old ACC GOR which would be assumed by both parties in the merger for anyone to breach the Southeast or really the Southwest.

What does the ACC get? The get to stay together while those with the most to lose by remaining don't lose anything, and everyone else gets a modest bump.

What does ESPN get? A GOR holding both until 2036. A merger of the ACCN / SECN / LHN which saves overhead and maximizes subscriptions in all states within the combined footprint at maximum ad rates (which are shared 50/50 in the existing network contracts. They get to schedule more profitable games for Miami, Louisville, Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Georgia Tech, Clemson and F.S.U.

How about Notre Dame? They keep their partial deal but can now spread that schedule around the entire inventory which offers them much more flexibility.

That's 30 plus ND. Let's round that out to 32 and pick up two more Big 12 schools in the process. They don't have to come in at full price either, but at a decent raise. Kansas, Texas Tech, perhaps Colorado?

So Skyhawk in that scenario Vanderbilt could either remain whole or at ESPN's insistence receive the average ACC share. I should think perhaps 3 tiers of payment could be set up. Since Vanderbilt has not yet received the new SEC share they could simply be locked into the old one with %'s for an escalator.

This pathway is GOR friendly, ESPN friendly, would likely cost ESPN between 240 million and 300 million, but how much would they save from the combined overhead? How much would they make over and above because of absolute control of ad rates in the predominance of the states? How much do they make in subscriptions for the combined product? How many more T1 games do they have for inventory?

They could still acquire Pacific Coast Time zone schools via additions to the New Big 12.

The SECN would now be available in New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia, and North Carolina, and perhaps Kansas or Colorado. Now that's an interesting play especially if the old LHN also carries the New Big 12 games to which ESPN has access.

North Carolina keeps Duke, Wake, and N.C. State. Syracuse, Pitt and B.C. are accounted for and the football first schools get better schedules and all make at least a little bit more than they make now, and those who spend the most to be competitive make a lot more. And ESPN gets what they have wanted without much adjustment in the long run. By 2036 all of the schools will know whether they want to continue to pursue athletics at the highest level or step down or get out. Then adjustments to the whole upper tier will occur and new contracts signed, perhaps with the collective bargaining for the whole enchilada.

Oh, I think the merge idea is interesting too. But I was more curious what everyone thinks as far as whether Vanderbilt would take such an offer as I laid out.

From your response, it sounds like you're in the "no" camp : )

If you're a cynic, there is precedent for this. You think it's a coincidence that Oklahoma and Texas, the two far most valuable members of the Big 12, both decided to simultaneously call the SEC to ask to join. The move allows ESPN to pay them SEC rates and the rest of the Big 12 significantly less rather than pay the entire Big 12 on average more per school. Even if ESPN has to pay more overall they're getting Texas/Oklahoma vs. Texas A&M, LSU, Alabama, and Georgia as opposed to Iowa State, Baylor, etc. How about UCLA and USC to the Big Ten?

Now of course getting the SEC and Big Ten to shed their dead weight members will be tougher to do. The only thing the networks could do is offer them a contract for a new conference where they choose who is in it and offer them a higher average per team than they would under the current SEC or Big Ten, essentially offering them more money to ditch the Vanderbilts and the Rutgerses. They benefit because they never get stuck having to air their games and every game will be a heavy weight. Sure, in a heavy weight conference, someone will finish last but we see that even when Nebraska sucks they still draw 80,000 fans a game. No one wants a Vanderbilt that's in last place. Or maybe the networks will just offer the Alabama's and Ohio State's independent contracts, they can stay in the SEC and Big Ten but Alabama will make more money than Vanderbilt and Ohio State more than Rutgers. Now how the conferences respond to that remains to be seen.

(01-09-2023 02:34 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 02:17 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 01:17 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Whether we like it or not, there is going to come a point where media companies are just not going to pay the same amount to every school just because they happen to be in a conference with schools that the media company values.

And I think conferences are going to try to fight that as long as possible.

Plus, media companies would like to avoid having to make that choice, because of the optics involved.

Couple this with - while I think espn would like to see FSU, and possibly other schools in the SEC for matchups, that's going to cost them money if the SEC goes from 16 schools to 18 or more schools.

So what about this:

What if espn had a meeting with the ACC and the SEC, and Vanderbilt.

The offer:

If Vanderbilt were willing to be traded for an ACC school (let's say FSU), espn would do the following:

Offer to pay Vanderbilt the difference between the SEC distributions and the ACC distributions until the end of the current SEC contract (2030).

And offer FSU an invite to the SEC, but at the ACC rate (35M - see below) until the end of the current SEC contract (2030).

Essentially FSU gets a raise, but reduced revenue at first in order to facilitate the deal.

And offer to increase the ACC deal so that the payout per school to $35M - up from just under 32M - if they add 2 schools. And a guaranteed increase to (at least) 40M in 2030 (when the SEC deal ends) - until 2036 (when the ACC deal ends). Vanderbilt would be included in the 40M, of course.

(With a guarantee, that espn would not reduce the ACC deal if the SEC at some point poached 2 more schools and the ACC needed to backfil 2 more - depending on the schools, of course).

And to help, the SEC guarantees that Vanderbilt will still play all their currently scheduled games with Tennessee, and to make sure that that is extended until 2036.

That's the carrot - now for the stick:

If Vanderbilt doesn't agree to this, the next deal for the SEC from espn would be a two-tiered deal, and Vanderbilt obviously would not be in the top tier, and with the bottom tier not likely to even make the 40M now being offered.

Yes, the SEC could try to stand behind Vanderbilt and hope that bidding from other media partners in 2030 might bail them out from espn's strategy. But considering all the changes on the horizon, and the steady downward spiral of ota and cable, I wouldn't hold my breath. Plus that potentially screws the rest of the potential "bottom tier" SEC conferences.

Does this benefit espn? Adding 2 new schools to their duopoly and getting FSU matchups in the SEC, and Vanderbilt basketball in the ACC? Yes, I would imagine so.

The cost to espn - since the swap cost is a wash - is just the incentive to the ACC, which may have happened anyway, if they decided to expand.

And the new schools themselves add a cost, of course.

So really, for espn, these are just costs they likely would have had to pay anyway, and they instead get an additional long-term benefit.

espn could wait to make a scaled-down version of this offer in 2030, but I think current circumstances (changes - cfp, nil, etc) accelerate the need.

So the question for you all is:

Do you think Vanderbilt would take this deal?

There is one way to avoid GOR entanglements. A trade is not one of them. The most fool proof is a complete merger. To do that everyone needs to get something, including the network.

You may see this playout in the Big 10's negotiations with more PAC schools. Washington and Oregon could likely move pro rata. Maybe even Stanford. Cal would have to make more than they make now, but they may not need a full share. If not Cal perhaps Colorado, or even Arizona or Utah. The point is if the transferring school makes more they don't lose. If they keep access they don't lose.

Now in the case of the SEC and the ACC both are fully owned rights wise by ESPN. A full merger in which Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, and Clemson received full SEC shares and perhaps Miami and Louisville received more than 5-million-dollar bump which everyone else would get is all that is needed to complete such a deal.

What would the SEC get? A solid control over the Southeast with no chance through the end of the old ACC GOR which would be assumed by both parties in the merger for anyone to breach the Southeast or really the Southwest.

What does the ACC get? The get to stay together while those with the most to lose by remaining don't lose anything, and everyone else gets a modest bump.

What does ESPN get? A GOR holding both until 2036. A merger of the ACCN / SECN / LHN which saves overhead and maximizes subscriptions in all states within the combined footprint at maximum ad rates (which are shared 50/50 in the existing network contracts. They get to schedule more profitable games for Miami, Louisville, Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Georgia Tech, Clemson and F.S.U.

How about Notre Dame? They keep their partial deal but can now spread that schedule around the entire inventory which offers them much more flexibility.

That's 30 plus ND. Let's round that out to 32 and pick up two more Big 12 schools in the process. They don't have to come in at full price either, but at a decent raise. Kansas, Texas Tech, perhaps Colorado?

So Skyhawk in that scenario Vanderbilt could either remain whole or at ESPN's insistence receive the average ACC share. I should think perhaps 3 tiers of payment could be set up. Since Vanderbilt has not yet received the new SEC share they could simply be locked into the old one with %'s for an escalator.

This pathway is GOR friendly, ESPN friendly, would likely cost ESPN between 240 million and 300 million, but how much would they save from the combined overhead? How much would they make over and above because of absolute control of ad rates in the predominance of the states? How much do they make in subscriptions for the combined product? How many more T1 games do they have for inventory?

They could still acquire Pacific Coast Time zone schools via additions to the New Big 12.

The SECN would now be available in New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia, and North Carolina, and perhaps Kansas or Colorado. Now that's an interesting play especially if the old LHN also carries the New Big 12 games to which ESPN has access.

North Carolina keeps Duke, Wake, and N.C. State. Syracuse, Pitt and B.C. are accounted for and the football first schools get better schedules and all make at least a little bit more than they make now, and those who spend the most to be competitive make a lot more. And ESPN gets what they have wanted without much adjustment in the long run. By 2036 all of the schools will know whether they want to continue to pursue athletics at the highest level or step down or get out. Then adjustments to the whole upper tier will occur and new contracts signed, perhaps with the collective bargaining for the whole enchilada.

Oh, I think the merge idea is interesting too. But I was more curious what everyone thinks as far as whether Vanderbilt would take such an offer as I laid out.

From your response, it sounds like you're in the "no" camp : )

I agree with your offer.. as a Tulane fan .. I know that some in the Vanderbilt camp will use our experience in the 60’s as a data point to not do the deal. But the unlike Tulane in the 60’s their landing spot is definitely in line with their peer school goals…

I think it’s a great deal because the “stick”is a real possibility …

(01-09-2023 06:53 AM)schmolik Wrote:  If you're a cynic, there is precedent for this. You think it's a coincidence that Oklahoma and Texas, the two far most valuable members of the Big 12, both decided to simultaneously call the SEC to ask to join. The move allows ESPN to pay them SEC rates and the rest of the Big 12 significantly less rather than pay the entire Big 12 on average more per school. Even if ESPN has to pay more overall they're getting Texas/Oklahoma vs. Texas A&M, LSU, Alabama, and Georgia as opposed to Iowa State, Baylor, etc. How about UCLA and USC to the Big Ten?

Now of course getting the SEC and Big Ten to shed their dead weight members will be tougher to do. The only thing the networks could do is offer them a contract for a new conference where they choose who is in it and offer them a higher average per team than they would under the current SEC or Big Ten, essentially offering them more money to ditch the Vanderbilts and the Rutgerses. They benefit because they never get stuck having to air their games and every game will be a heavy weight. Sure, in a heavy weight conference, someone will finish last but we see that even when Nebraska sucks they still draw 80,000 fans a game. No one wants a Vanderbilt that's in last place. Or maybe the networks will just offer the Alabama's and Ohio State's independent contracts, they can stay in the SEC and Big Ten but Alabama will make more money than Vanderbilt and Ohio State more than Rutgers. Now how the conferences respond to that remains to be seen.

What I'm proposing here is the "nicer" path.

The easier path is for espn to offer a separate deal to the top schools of the SEC, to incentivize them to leave the SEC and form a new conference. But that is much more ruthless, in my opinion.

So I was curious if Vanderbilt might be interested in this, possibly more palatable, option.

(01-09-2023 02:34 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 02:17 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 01:17 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Whether we like it or not, there is going to come a point where media companies are just not going to pay the same amount to every school just because they happen to be in a conference with schools that the media company values.

And I think conferences are going to try to fight that as long as possible.

Plus, media companies would like to avoid having to make that choice, because of the optics involved.

Couple this with - while I think espn would like to see FSU, and possibly other schools in the SEC for matchups, that's going to cost them money if the SEC goes from 16 schools to 18 or more schools.

So what about this:

What if espn had a meeting with the ACC and the SEC, and Vanderbilt.

The offer:

If Vanderbilt were willing to be traded for an ACC school (let's say FSU), espn would do the following:

Offer to pay Vanderbilt the difference between the SEC distributions and the ACC distributions until the end of the current SEC contract (2030).

And offer FSU an invite to the SEC, but at the ACC rate (35M - see below) until the end of the current SEC contract (2030).

Essentially FSU gets a raise, but reduced revenue at first in order to facilitate the deal.

And offer to increase the ACC deal so that the payout per school to $35M - up from just under 32M - if they add 2 schools. And a guaranteed increase to (at least) 40M in 2030 (when the SEC deal ends) - until 2036 (when the ACC deal ends). Vanderbilt would be included in the 40M, of course.

(With a guarantee, that espn would not reduce the ACC deal if the SEC at some point poached 2 more schools and the ACC needed to backfil 2 more - depending on the schools, of course).

And to help, the SEC guarantees that Vanderbilt will still play all their currently scheduled games with Tennessee, and to make sure that that is extended until 2036.

That's the carrot - now for the stick:

If Vanderbilt doesn't agree to this, the next deal for the SEC from espn would be a two-tiered deal, and Vanderbilt obviously would not be in the top tier, and with the bottom tier not likely to even make the 40M now being offered.

Yes, the SEC could try to stand behind Vanderbilt and hope that bidding from other media partners in 2030 might bail them out from espn's strategy. But considering all the changes on the horizon, and the steady downward spiral of ota and cable, I wouldn't hold my breath. Plus that potentially screws the rest of the potential "bottom tier" SEC conferences.

Does this benefit espn? Adding 2 new schools to their duopoly and getting FSU matchups in the SEC, and Vanderbilt basketball in the ACC? Yes, I would imagine so.

The cost to espn - since the swap cost is a wash - is just the incentive to the ACC, which may have happened anyway, if they decided to expand.

And the new schools themselves add a cost, of course.

So really, for espn, these are just costs they likely would have had to pay anyway, and they instead get an additional long-term benefit.

espn could wait to make a scaled-down version of this offer in 2030, but I think current circumstances (changes - cfp, nil, etc) accelerate the need.

So the question for you all is:

Do you think Vanderbilt would take this deal?

There is one way to avoid GOR entanglements. A trade is not one of them. The most fool proof is a complete merger. To do that everyone needs to get something, including the network.

You may see this playout in the Big 10's negotiations with more PAC schools. Washington and Oregon could likely move pro rata. Maybe even Stanford. Cal would have to make more than they make now, but they may not need a full share. If not Cal perhaps Colorado, or even Arizona or Utah. The point is if the transferring school makes more they don't lose. If they keep access they don't lose.

Now in the case of the SEC and the ACC both are fully owned rights wise by ESPN. A full merger in which Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, and Clemson received full SEC shares and perhaps Miami and Louisville received more than 5-million-dollar bump which everyone else would get is all that is needed to complete such a deal.

What would the SEC get? A solid control over the Southeast with no chance through the end of the old ACC GOR which would be assumed by both parties in the merger for anyone to breach the Southeast or really the Southwest.

What does the ACC get? The get to stay together while those with the most to lose by remaining don't lose anything, and everyone else gets a modest bump.

What does ESPN get? A GOR holding both until 2036. A merger of the ACCN / SECN / LHN which saves overhead and maximizes subscriptions in all states within the combined footprint at maximum ad rates (which are shared 50/50 in the existing network contracts. They get to schedule more profitable games for Miami, Louisville, Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Georgia Tech, Clemson and F.S.U.

How about Notre Dame? They keep their partial deal but can now spread that schedule around the entire inventory which offers them much more flexibility.

That's 30 plus ND. Let's round that out to 32 and pick up two more Big 12 schools in the process. They don't have to come in at full price either, but at a decent raise. Kansas, Texas Tech, perhaps Colorado?

So Skyhawk in that scenario Vanderbilt could either remain whole or at ESPN's insistence receive the average ACC share. I should think perhaps 3 tiers of payment could be set up. Since Vanderbilt has not yet received the new SEC share they could simply be locked into the old one with %'s for an escalator.

This pathway is GOR friendly, ESPN friendly, would likely cost ESPN between 240 million and 300 million, but how much would they save from the combined overhead? How much would they make over and above because of absolute control of ad rates in the predominance of the states? How much do they make in subscriptions for the combined product? How many more T1 games do they have for inventory?

They could still acquire Pacific Coast Time zone schools via additions to the New Big 12.

The SECN would now be available in New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia, and North Carolina, and perhaps Kansas or Colorado. Now that's an interesting play especially if the old LHN also carries the New Big 12 games to which ESPN has access.

North Carolina keeps Duke, Wake, and N.C. State. Syracuse, Pitt and B.C. are accounted for and the football first schools get better schedules and all make at least a little bit more than they make now, and those who spend the most to be competitive make a lot more. And ESPN gets what they have wanted without much adjustment in the long run. By 2036 all of the schools will know whether they want to continue to pursue athletics at the highest level or step down or get out. Then adjustments to the whole upper tier will occur and new contracts signed, perhaps with the collective bargaining for the whole enchilada.

Oh, I think the merge idea is interesting too. But I was more curious what everyone thinks as far as whether Vanderbilt would take such an offer as I laid out.

From your response, it sounds like you're in the "no" camp : )

I'm definitely in the "no" camp on this. And I can't imagine that deal being offered. That scenario (FSU backfilling for Vandy) would cause Clemson and a few other ACC schools to go nuclear. And the votes (75% majority) very likely wouldn't be there. And if they somehow got the 75% required, the schools who voted against it would probably be emboldened to fight the GoR. When the day that SEC/B1GvsACC realignment goes down, it won't just be one school being substituted for another. It will be a day long remembered.

I don’t see the rest of the ACC going along with this plan. Having games in Florida is very important to the ACC. Ths sort of horse trading will definitely drive others to seek a BigTen, SEC or possibly Big12 membership.

(01-09-2023 01:17 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Whether we like it or not, there is going to come a point where media companies are just not going to pay the same amount to every school just because they happen to be in a conference with schools that the media company values.

I don't think they care, not one little tiny bit. Fox and NBC and CBS are paying what they're paying the Big Ten for the CCG and for OSU-Michigan and for Penn State and now USC and probably Wisconsin and Iowa and oh yeah Nebraska. (Sorry if I forgot your fave, pretend I listed them).

It's no skin off of NBC's nose if Rutgers and Indiana and Minnesota cash an equal check. They're paying what they're paying to get what they're getting.

Maybe OSU and Michigan and USC and Alabama and Georgia decide that THEY'RE tired of carrying Rutgers and Vanderbilt and Arkansas and Iowa, and form a SuperLeague or something. But the idea that Disney and ESPN executives care about how the SEC spends their money is not a strong one.

I think Vandy would refuse a move to the ACC and I don’t see ESPN doing this. No, Vandy doesn’t move the needle, but neither does Mississippi State.

This is an interesting hypothetical (as SkyHawk is know for thoughtful presentations of this sort). It made me ponder.

As a Vanderbilt fan of more than 50 years, I have long been intrigued by VU being in the ACC with Wake, Duke, Georgia Tech, Virginia, North Carolina and Miami. Association with those schools simply "feels right" for Vanderbilt.

But to answer SkyHawk's question: VU officials might consider the offer but I doubt they would take it.

Of the private schools in the five all-sports power leagues, Vanderbilt might be the most noteworthy — because Nashville is likely more important to the SEC than the cities in which the other P5 privates are located are important to their respective conferences (including Northwestern/Chicago to the Big Ten). Nashville is a true "SEC city" on just about every level. As a Nashvillian, I can say we are still much more a "college sports town" than a "pro sports town" (unlike Chicago, as I just used as an example, which is overwhelmingly a pro sports town). And though having Vanderbilt as a member is not critical for Nashville to be an SEC level, it is very helpful.

As often discussed in these yearly threads, the Vanderbilt's of college football are highly valuable. They allow the marginal teams get that 6th win of their season to get to bowl eligibility. Plus Nashville is a great market for the SEC. People aren't necessarily watching the Commodores but they are invested in the rest of the league.

(01-09-2023 09:33 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  As often discussed in these yearly threads, the Vanderbilt's of college football are highly valuable. They allow the marginal teams get that 6th win of their season to get to bowl eligibility. Plus Nashville is a great market for the SEC. People aren't necessarily watching the Commodores but they are invested in the rest of the league.

Exactly.

Vanderbilt is everything that you'd want out of a last place team (and note that they had the same record as both Texas A&M and Auburn this season): directly located in a key market, prestigious academics, solid athletic department overall, etc. I'd say the same about schools like Northwestern, Duke, Stanford, etc.

I'd distinguish those types of schools from Nebraska and Texas A&M. They have huge value with their rabid fan bases, but as a conference, you really *don't* want those schools finishing in last place. That's a drag on conference value much more than the Vandy/Northwestern-types finishing in last place.

Good points about Vanderbilt actually offering value to the SEC by being beatable in football.

No league needs every program to be able to be powerful every year in either football or hoops. And for those leagues' "bad" programs in either sport ... better those programs be "understandably and helpfully bad" than otherwise.

VU serves a solid role in the SEC in many areas (including as a manageable football foe). Some on this board struggle to grasp that concept.

… intriguing concept - I do agree Vandy would be a great fit in the ACC, IF the ACC remains generally intact...

BUT, the overall concept here appears to be the first step in the 'big breakaway' to form the 'MEGA-CONFERENCE' separate from the NCAA and all others... once the SEC scuttles Vandy out, they would then look around for a few more to toss... then the B1G would of course have to retaliate by bringing in, say, UO and Udub, thus tossing out a few of their 'perennial bottom dwellers'... this 'trickles down' to all other conferences, resulting in 'stronger' overall conferences, but in actuality maybe a bit TOO 'sterile'.

For example, 10 years ago, Kentucky football was 'meh' at best - now, they are still in the top half of the SEC East (a down season for them in 2022), but have been in the mix the last 4-5 seasons... so, do you toss them due to OVERALL history, or keep them due to recent success? (obviously we are not considering the basketball side of things here).

An even BETTER example is TCU, which was pretty woeful, post-Patterson... until 2022...

The other issue is the SEC and Big Ten are at 16 now and the rumors of Oregon and Washington to the Big Ten persist plus all heck will break lose once the ACC GOR expires if not sooner. Unless the money is astronomical, you're splitting it 18, 20 ways. Look what happened to the WAC, Big East, etc. Not to mention consider how to schedule a 20 team conference. Even if you go to a 10 game conference schedule, you can only play one team every year while still playing everyone every other year. All of a sudden teams play less often.

(01-09-2023 10:13 AM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  An even BETTER example is TCU, which was pretty woeful, post-Patterson... until 2022...

Post-Patterson? He left in 2021, an interim finished 1-2, and Dykes arrived in 2022.

(01-09-2023 10:21 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 10:13 AM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  An even BETTER example is TCU, which was pretty woeful, post-Patterson... until 2022...

Post-Patterson? He left in 2021, an interim finished 1-2, and Dykes arrived in 2022.

...well, yep I guess I meant the last few seasons he had... he had a 'every other season' thing going on those last 4-5 seasons (thanks, Wiki ) but I guess I was just thinking IIRC there was some 'resistance' to adding TCU in the Big XII back whenever that was...

(01-09-2023 10:13 AM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  … intriguing concept - I do agree Vandy would be a great fit in the ACC, IF the ACC remains generally intact...

BUT, the overall concept here appears to be the first step in the 'big breakaway' to form the 'MEGA-CONFERENCE' separate from the NCAA and all others... once the SEC scuttles Vandy out, they would then look around for a few more to toss... then the B1G would of course have to retaliate by bringing in, say, UO and Udub, thus tossing out a few of their 'perennial bottom dwellers'... this 'trickles down' to all other conferences, resulting in 'stronger' overall conferences, but in actuality maybe a bit TOO 'sterile'.

For example, 10 years ago, Kentucky football was 'meh' at best - now, they are still in the top half of the SEC East (a down season for them in 2022), but have been in the mix the last 4-5 seasons... so, do you toss them due to OVERALL history, or keep them due to recent success? (obviously we are not considering the basketball side of things here).

An even BETTER example is TCU, which was pretty woeful, post-Patterson... until 2022...

Patterson was head coach in 2021.

Vandy is also fairly decent in basketball and won the CWS not long ago.

Another reason Vandy wouldn’t leave is that right now they are in the middle of the SEC footprint. So it is a relatively short drive for visiting fans to go watch a beatdown. Would ACC members (many of whom are basketball first people) make the effort to get to Nashville? Do they want to give up guaranteed sellouts?

(01-09-2023 09:33 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  As often discussed in these yearly threads, the Vanderbilt's of college football are highly valuable. They allow the marginal teams get that 6th win of their season to get to bowl eligibility. Plus Nashville is a great market for the SEC. People aren't necessarily watching the Commodores but they are invested in the rest of the league.

I have a feeling eventually the SEC, the other power conferences, and the networks are going to get rid of the six win rule so that won't be a factor. If ESPN makes more money showing 5-7 Texas A&M than 6 win MAC teams, they'll find a way.