Could the ACC add both Texas and Oklahoma? In addition to enticing the Longhorns, this also gives the ACC another marquee football property, and the Sooners are good enough to compete in the ACC in a number of Olympic sports.
Clearly the simplest option would be to add them both as football members. If the ACC had to maintain two divisions, one of them heads to the Atlantic and one to the Coastal. The Red River Rivalry remains a protected crossover.
If the ACC was able to go to quads, it might look something like this:
UNC, Clem, UVa, BC
NCSU, GT, VPI, Tex
Duke, FSU, Lou, Okla
Wake, Mia, Pitt, Syr
Everyone plays nine games - in the illustration above, a school plays everyone in the same row and column annually for six games, then the other three games would rotate on a three year cycle.
The other option would be to give them both Notre Dame-style deals. Texas and Oklahoma get five games per year against the ACC, plus the Red River Rivaly. If Notre Dame agreed to a sixteenth ACC game every third year, it would allow the ACC schools not to have two of Texas, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame in one season, and then allow Notre Dame to play both Texas and Oklahoma once every three years.
Yes. FSU and Clemson would be beside themselves if both Texas and Oklahoma joined.
I'd rather see 4x5 pods with a west pod anchored by Texas and Oklahoma. However, this scenario has its own set of issues.
Duke has already put the kibosh on Oklahoma.
(07-22-2017 11:26 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Duke has already put the kibosh on Oklahoma.
How so?
I think any conference would add both Texas and Oklahoma but would they both go to the ACC if given their choice of conferences? Probably not but not impossible. What happens to the rest of the Big 12, specifically Kansas and Oklahoma State? If Oklahoma State gets left behind then it is much harder for Oklahoma to move. The same goes for Texas and the other Texas schools who will put up every political barrier to jump over even if some are private schools.
Truthfully, I think the ACC is their 4th best option. I think all 3 of the other Power leagues could give them a better set up.
I'm not counting on the ACC ever getting this option, but if they did they'd be stupid not to take it (IMO).
Why would Oklahoma and Texas want to do this?
Tier 3 would be an issue no matter where they go. The ACC, B1G, SEC and P12 will need/want those tier 3 games for their networks. Are Texas and Oklahoma ready to give up/share those rights?
Of course they wouldn't. We are talking about the conference that tried to sell Syracuse as a football add based on the 1950's.
(07-23-2017 09:08 AM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]Tier 3 would be an issue no matter where they go. The ACC, B1G, SEC and P12 will need/want those tier 3 games for their networks. Are Texas and Oklahoma ready to give up/share those rights?
OU's T3 is up in 2024-5. The buyout on it is only 7 million per year so even now it wouldn't be that big of an issue.
The LHN is the bigger issue at 15 million per year (averaged for the duration of the contract). So if they moved to a conference where the total TV payout is 15 million more than that of the Big 12 (think 51 million range) then it becomes possible. If that conference belongs in the ESPN family there are many more ways to work around it.
(07-23-2017 12:02 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (07-23-2017 09:08 AM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]Tier 3 would be an issue no matter where they go. The ACC, B1G, SEC and P12 will need/want those tier 3 games for their networks. Are Texas and Oklahoma ready to give up/share those rights?
OU's T3 is up in 2024-5. The buyout on it is only 7 million per year so even now it wouldn't be that big of an issue.
The LHN is the bigger issue at 15 million per year (averaged for the duration of the contract). So if they moved to a conference where the total TV payout is 15 million more than that of the Big 12 (think 51 million range) then it becomes possible. If that conference belongs in the ESPN family there are many more ways to work around it.
If you apply the same logic to OU the break even number is $43 million. Less than UT but still a significant issue. And right now they don't have to share that $7 million.
(07-23-2017 12:02 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]OU's T3 is up in 2024-5. The buyout on it is only 7 million per year so even now it wouldn't be that big of an issue.
The LHN is the bigger issue at 15 million per year (averaged for the duration of the contract). So if they moved to a conference where the total TV payout is 15 million more than that of the Big 12 (think 51 million range) then it becomes possible. If that conference belongs in the ESPN family there are many more ways to work around it.
I think they're greedy/egotistical enough to say "No, we demand the $51M
AND you have to give us $15/$7M on top of that, which is ours to keep and no other school shares in", respectively.
Texas would want more than A+M. That won't fly in the SEC, and the only way to get that in the ACC is as a partial with the LHN. Who knows what the Big XII will offer. The Big Ten could offer enough money, but I can't see Texas waiting years for a full share...
(07-23-2017 03:12 PM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ] (07-23-2017 12:02 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (07-23-2017 09:08 AM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]Tier 3 would be an issue no matter where they go. The ACC, B1G, SEC and P12 will need/want those tier 3 games for their networks. Are Texas and Oklahoma ready to give up/share those rights?
OU's T3 is up in 2024-5. The buyout on it is only 7 million per year so even now it wouldn't be that big of an issue.
The LHN is the bigger issue at 15 million per year (averaged for the duration of the contract). So if they moved to a conference where the total TV payout is 15 million more than that of the Big 12 (think 51 million range) then it becomes possible. If that conference belongs in the ESPN family there are many more ways to work around it.
If you apply the same logic to OU the break even number is $43 million. Less than UT but still a significant issue. And right now they don't have to share that $7 million.
Uh.....no they wouldn't have to share that 7 million, but the issue is the bottom line. If they could make more elsewhere it is still more. And as to that 7 million of theirs, they have to cover expenses of production out of it and they net around 3-4 million. The SECN accounts for more than that. The SEC distribution that will be made in the late Fall is supposed to be around 43 million per school. OU got 35.4 for T1 & T2 so if they NET 3.5 million from their T3 they will be at 39. So even if they added no value to the SEC they would make 4 million more based on this year's figures. Then add the value that they add and it would be closer to 7 million more per year and that's a conservative estimate.
Texas is the tough one to overcome. They earned almost 51 million this year.
(07-23-2017 03:49 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]Texas would want more than A+M. That won't fly in the SEC, and the only way to get that in the ACC is as a partial with the LHN. Who knows what the Big XII will offer. The Big Ten could offer enough money, but I can't see Texas waiting years for a full share...
Do your homework on revenue Mark. The SEC's MEAN Gross Revenue was 16 million more than the Big 10's this past year. Their new deal accounts for 29.8 million from all sources. Then they get profit sharing from the BTN. Only as of late the BTN distributions have been exceeding profit sharing. That's why last year the value of the BTN fell 39.2% year over year. Michigan's much ballyhooed estimate of 51.1 million in 2018 is based on 12 million more in BTN distributions.
I'll be interested to see how much of decline in total value the BTN continues to see year over year. If they continue these distributions for the next 5 years they will have divested the money paid in by the oldest 11 member institutions. I suspect they will be changing their business model for several reasons. But, I'll have to wait and watch to see if that is indeed the case.
But should Texas move to either the Big 10 or SEC as a full member they will do no worse than break even, and would likely make a little bit more than they do now. As a partial in the ACC it depends upon what ESPN agrees to pay just Texas for T1 & T2 and in 2024-5 those rights will be on the market.
So there are options that could work for any of those 3 conferences. I imagine it will come down to who Texas wants as an entourage and how big of an entourage they want.
(07-23-2017 03:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ] (07-23-2017 12:02 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]OU's T3 is up in 2024-5. The buyout on it is only 7 million per year so even now it wouldn't be that big of an issue.
The LHN is the bigger issue at 15 million per year (averaged for the duration of the contract). So if they moved to a conference where the total TV payout is 15 million more than that of the Big 12 (think 51 million range) then it becomes possible. If that conference belongs in the ESPN family there are many more ways to work around it.
I think they're greedy/egotistical enough to say "No, we demand the $51M AND you have to give us $15/$7M on top of that, which is ours to keep and no other school shares in", respectively.
Texas might well say something stupid like that. Oklahoma I think just wants a safe landing spot and whatever bump they would get. The question for the Sooners is over whether OSU really has to be part of it or not.
(07-22-2017 08:56 AM)chargeradio Wrote: [ -> ]UNC, Clem, UVa, BC
NCSU, GT, VPI, Tex
Duke, FSU, Lou, Okla
Wake, Mia, Pitt, Syr
I call these divisions "let's make everybody really unhappy."
(07-23-2017 03:49 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]Texas would want more than A+M. That won't fly in the SEC, and the only way to get that in the ACC is as a partial with the LHN. Who knows what the Big XII will offer. The Big Ten could offer enough money, but I can't see Texas waiting years for a full share...
In my mind, I see a partial with the ACC (like ND) means the LHN has to go away entirely. What would replace the LHN is a stand-alone football-only contract like ND has (with NBC).
The question is under that scenario, would that stand-alone TV contract (likely at least $25 million a year), plus the Longhorns ACCN share (with the state of Texas now included) be enough? I doubt it. So the last chance to raise that figure would be an imbalanced payout of the ACCN monies perhaps based upon state subscription fees. But that is a rabbit hole I don't believe the ACC would be willing to go down unless their future stability as a conference is at stake.
If Texas (or ND and even FSU) ever wanted to join the B1G fully, I imagine they might get a full share, including an equity piece of the BTN, from the get go.
Cheers,
Neil