Ok, so first, here's my understanding of what a "Grant of Rights" (GoR) is:

The individual schools in the conference sign an agreement to "grant" their media rights to the conference. The conference as an entity of its own, can then make deals with media companies in relation to those rights.

So, for example, if a school were to want to leave the conference, it's merely a matter of one or more successful votes inside the conference.

Any deal(s) with the media companies only come into play if it's perceived that the loss of content will affect the value of the deal.

So for example, the B12 is losing TX and OK. They replaced them with 4 schools and presumably that content was enough for the conference and the media people to retain their agreements.

So imagine this.

Espn did not get any part of the Big10 deal.

But they want content.

They also presumably do not want the big10 raiding any of their current content, especially ones they want.

FSU and clemson are clearly not happy where they are.

ND is likely going to need a bigger paycheck to stay where they are.

Soo even though they have a GoR til 2036, the ACC has some stability issues to resolve.

The conventional wisdom is that, if things do not change, the GoR is not likely to last til 2036.

And that the media deal is then likely to break at some point, as well.

So it's in Espn's interest to a.) restore stability b.) keep everyone in-house (no B10 poaching) c.) add a few more to increase value d.) pay as little as possible to do this.

One way to do this would be to facilitate a trade between the SEC and the ACC.

The ACC trades Clemson and FSU and Miami to the SEC

The ACC then adds Cin, WV, UCF, USF, and Memphis - all to happen 2024/25

To get an even 20, SEC adds Kansas.

The PAC apparently has targeted a minimum of 40M per school. That sets as good a starting target value as any.

Espn facilitates this trade, then, by offering to do an early increase on the payouts to roughly 40M per school (ND is of course a special situation)

So to sum up:

FSU, Clemson, and Miami to SEC
Kansas to SEC (total 20)
Cin, WV, UCF, USF, and Memphis to ACC (total 16+ND)
ACC goes to roughly 40M per school
ND, getting a pay bump per year, is more likely to keep their olympic sports in the ACC.

The GoR is still in place.

ACC stabilizes - Gets them to 16 plus ND. This gets their realignment done in one swoop. And gets the payout settled. So espn and acc are basically stable. And the SEC is strengthened as well.

And this takes most of the old big east schools off the realignment board.

So the ACC would look like this:

ACC
Boston College
Syracuse
Pittsburgh
West Virginia
Cincinnati
Louisville
Memphis

Virginia
Virginia Tech
Duke
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Wake Forest
Georgia Tech

UCF
USF

(Notre Dame)

This actually looks pretty good.

B12 lost 4 and with all those eastern options gone, will maybe grab SMU before the PAC does, and likely look west for the rest:

B12
BYU

Iowa state
Kansas state
Oklahoma State

Baylor
Houston
TCU
Texas Tech

And to get back to 12, could add:

Boise state
SMU

Rice
Tulane

The latter two added to improve conference academic appearance - PAC teams may be possible in the future, it would be a good idea to work towards helping them get to a "yes".

(Intentionally not adding Colorado state while Colorado may yet be an option in the future.)

So this scenario is definitely possible. All that stands in the way is the ACC being willing to vote to lose and gain members, and espn willing to spend the money.

I think the fans would like it too.

And so all eyes look west for the next realignment steps.

[edited to merge in one of my follow-up posts in which the idea of trading South Carolina was removed and adding Miami was substituted.]

(08-09-2022 09:15 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  So to sum up:
FSU and Clemson to SEC
South Carolina to ACC

/thread

NC State for Vandy

If ESPN facilitated a trade between the ACC and the SEC, then some schools from the ACC would go to the SEC and in return some schools from the SEC would go to the ACC.

(08-09-2022 09:26 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  NC State for Vandy

I looked at Vanderbilt. And Kentucky too. Possibly doing a larger trade.

But even if we set aside the poaching by the B10 of Vanderbilt, the optics for trading a founding member of the SEC... not great.

And I'm not sure that espn could get enough votes in the SEC to do that.

Clemson for Kentucky. Strengthen SEC football and ACC men's basketball.

Not going to happen. Raids will like always, be raids.

The networks do not have the kind of power people imagine here. They indirectly very much effect things since they pay the bills, but they pay what they do because the properties are valuable and because there is competion for them.

If a trade ever occured (and that is very unlikely), it would be inciated by the schools themselves most likely, then move to the conference level who would see how the networks would respond with pay. It wouldn't start at the networks and work down.

Remember the networks only have these school contracts for a set number of years and then can lose them. Their goals are actually far more limited than the conferences/schools themselves which is why structural changes tend to start with the conferences who have the most long term at stake.

(08-09-2022 10:05 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The networks do not have the kind of power people imagine here. They indirectly very much effect things since they pay the bills, but they pay what they do because the properties are valuable and because there is competion for them.

If a trade ever occured (and that is very unlikely), it would be inciated by the schools themselves most likely, then move to the conference level who would see how the networks would respond with pay. It wouldn't start at the networks and work down.

Remember the networks only have these school contracts for a set number of years and then can lose them. Their goals are actually far more limited than the conferences/schools themselves which is why structural changes tend to start with the conferences who have the most long term at stake.

This post should be pinned at the top of the OP.

Trading makes no sense at this point for ESPN.

The priority should be acquiring the PAC10, possibly bolstering the ACC by a continued relationship with ND and possible expansion of both the PAC10/ACC.

There may be a need to move certain schools to the SEC from the ACC to accommodate additional ACC schools as a sort of step up.

(08-09-2022 10:08 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 10:05 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The networks do not have the kind of power people imagine here. They indirectly very much effect things since they pay the bills, but they pay what they do because the properties are valuable and because there is competion for them.

If a trade ever occured (and that is very unlikely), it would be inciated by the schools themselves most likely, then move to the conference level who would see how the networks would respond with pay. It wouldn't start at the networks and work down.

Remember the networks only have these school contracts for a set number of years and then can lose them. Their goals are actually far more limited than the conferences/schools themselves which is why structural changes tend to start with the conferences who have the most long term at stake.

This post should be pinned at the top of the OP.

chuckle.

Go watch the start of Kenneth Branaugh's Henry V. You know the part where the Bishops are "advising" the King about going after France.

It's his decision. Yet, who fomented and facilitated?

Yeah ok.

At some point, people on this board, maybe, just maybe, will realize that this is business.

and we are talking billions of dollars.

coming from media companies watching cord cutting, losses of subscribers, ota ratings dropping, etc. all across the board.

And if you think they aren't going to look for ways to minimize costs and maximize assets? you're out of your minds.

The schools know they have content, and do what they can to maximize that.

But there's a lot of product. and as espn showed with the big10 rights. they don't always have to try to buy it all.

Anyway.

I'm like the rest of you, and like to theorize on the possible and plausible.

this is very possible.

Will it happen?

dunno, it could.

but I think it's more likely the ACC loses a chunk of its members, if not the whole conference at some point.

ACC seems to prefer to act reactively than proactively. And when you do that, is anyone surprised when you're left with the leftovers?

c'est la vie. I guess.

(08-09-2022 10:12 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Trading makes no sense at this point for ESPN.

The priority should be acquiring the PAC10, possibly bolstering the ACC by a continued relationship with ND and possible expansion of both the PAC10/ACC.

There may be a need to move certain schools to the SEC from the ACC to accommodate additional ACC schools as a sort of step up.

if the pac, as is, was offered less than the ACC is making now - why would the acc want any of them?

more is not always better.

(08-09-2022 10:37 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 10:08 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 10:05 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The networks do not have the kind of power people imagine here. They indirectly very much effect things since they pay the bills, but they pay what they do because the properties are valuable and because there is competion for them.

If a trade ever occured (and that is very unlikely), it would be inciated by the schools themselves most likely, then move to the conference level who would see how the networks would respond with pay. It wouldn't start at the networks and work down.

Remember the networks only have these school contracts for a set number of years and then can lose them. Their goals are actually far more limited than the conferences/schools themselves which is why structural changes tend to start with the conferences who have the most long term at stake.

This post should be pinned at the top of the OP.

I'm like the rest of you, and like to theorize on the possible and plausible.

Are these the "plausible" threads over the past 2 months you’re referring to?

- ESPN facilitating trades between ACC/SEC schools
- Pitt/Syracuse/BC being voted our or released from the ACC
- SEC/B1G each dropping 2 schools
- SEC expanding to 32
- Florida and Georgia heading to the Big Ten
- ACC/SEC merging
- Big Ten renaming itself the "Big Athletic Conference (BAC)"
- A second thread on the ACC/SEC merging
- Missouri rejoining the Big XII

(08-09-2022 11:11 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 10:37 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 10:08 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 10:05 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The networks do not have the kind of power people imagine here. They indirectly very much effect things since they pay the bills, but they pay what they do because the properties are valuable and because there is competion for them.

If a trade ever occured (and that is very unlikely), it would be inciated by the schools themselves most likely, then move to the conference level who would see how the networks would respond with pay. It wouldn't start at the networks and work down.

Remember the networks only have these school contracts for a set number of years and then can lose them. Their goals are actually far more limited than the conferences/schools themselves which is why structural changes tend to start with the conferences who have the most long term at stake.

This post should be pinned at the top of the OP.

I'm like the rest of you, and like to theorize on the possible and plausible.

Are these the "plausible" threads over the past 2 months you’re referring to?

- ESPN facilitating trades between ACC/SEC schools
- Pitt/Syracuse/BC being voted our or released from the ACC
- SEC/B1G each dropping 2 schools
- SEC expanding to 32
- Florida and Georgia heading to the Big Ten
- ACC/SEC merging
- Big Ten renaming itself the "Big Athletic Conference (BAC)"
- A second thread on the ACC/SEC merging
- Missouri rejoining the Big XII

interesting choices of wording. For example, the pitt one is them asking for a vote.

and funny that you picked that sentence out of a thought that ran for several lines.

But whatever, sure, those are threads I've started.

but there's a difference between plausible, possible, and likely. and for that matter, asking "what if".

And a few were more "what if x was more proactive than reactive".

But then, this is a realignment board/forum. Such things and ideas live in such places - yours, mine, and everyone's : )

Here's the thing: the ACC was actually "proactive" in getting the GOR and long-term ESPN contract into place.

They're serving their intended purpose: keeping the conference together!

Remember that the ACC feared that there were going to be more defectors from the league after Maryland went to the Big Ten, so that's why the league signed the GOR and entered into such a long-term deal with ESPN. Schools like FSU, UNC and Clemson signed off on the GOR and long-term ESPN deal because they cared more about the security of the league than flexibility in seeking other conference options as free agents. The fact that it's now a disadvantage to those schools a few years later doesn't mean that the GOR and ESPN contract aren't doing *exactly* what they're supposed to do.

I'm constantly perplexed by people's surprise that conferences are set up to protect the "screwed" (e.g. Wake Forest and similarly situated schools at the bottom of the ACC totem pole) as opposed to advantaging the "screwers". Bylaws and contracts are create to *protect* the conference in virtually every way possible as opposed to finding loopholes or easy ways to destroy them. Schools like FSU, UNC and Clemson can't turn around and get mad at the ACC for not being "proactive" when the league took the exact steps that it needed to in order to preserve the league after the Maryland defection.

(08-09-2022 11:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Here's the thing: the ACC was actually "proactive" in getting the GOR and long-term ESPN contract into place.

They're serving their intended purpose: keeping the conference together!

Remember that the ACC feared that there were going to be more defectors from the league after Maryland went to the Big Ten, so that's why the league signed the GOR and entered into such a long-term deal with ESPN. Schools like FSU, UNC and Clemson signed off on the GOR and long-term ESPN deal because they cared more about the security of the league than flexibility in seeking other conference options as free agents. The fact that it's now a disadvantage to those schools a few years later doesn't mean that the GOR and ESPN contract aren't doing *exactly* what they're supposed to do.

I'm constantly perplexed by people's surprise that conferences are set up to protect the "screwed" (e.g. Wake Forest and similarly situated schools at the bottom of the ACC totem pole) as opposed to advantaging the "screwers". Bylaws and contracts are create to *protect* the conference in virtually every way possible as opposed to finding loopholes or easy ways to destroy them. Schools like FSU, UNC and Clemson can't turn around and get mad at the ACC for not being "proactive" when the league took the exact steps that it needed to in order to preserve the league after the Maryland defection.

In that situation, at the time, it appeared to be a little of both.

just from what I read and watched on the news, I had the impression that FSU and clemson wanted the SEC, and behind-the-scenes were declined/not invited.

While people were nervous that the AAU schools might go to the big10.

Delaney seems to be asking every AAU school out there whether they were interested, even vanderbilt (who apparently declined). And NC was his alma mater.

So there were concerns.

ND didn't want to join a conference that was about to implode.

And espn was helping them set up a network.

so I think it was a little of both. but it felt a lot like desperation.

The proactive one was Delaney, reaching out to find out about interest. and apparently not doing in quietly - which is a choice, to be sure.

And so here we are, in a similar situation. Everyone wondering what the B10 and the SEC will do. this time because media money dwarfs other conferences, and no one wants to be left behind.

What do you do as a school to be proactive?

What do you do as a conference to be proactive?

Each has raw materials and options. So what do they do with them?

When talking about realignment poaching, we all seem to be talking about the PAC/B12/ACC conferences, the schools in them, and a few other schools from the old big east.

But that's because we're nice.

The big10's deal is now over a billion dollars.

At what point do they look at the SEC and say "I want one of those, and one of those..."

So in the meantime, we'll all talk about the possible - That the Big ten could go after KS, or maybe the NC/VA cluster, or maybe the other AAU or florida schools in the AAC, or maybe the PAC schools - slooowly.

But in the meantime, the business people are going to look at the whole board. including the professional sports, and weigh options.

As for holding together - I think you're right that the ACC GoR has been very effective - so far. The length of it (and of the media deal) may be its eventual undoing, and could lead to ACC dissolution. But for now, it's seeming to be effective.

And I agree, it's not the conferences that will be looking at WF and other such schools in big conferences, it's the media companies. "Why are we paying this much for that? We should be paying less..."

(08-09-2022 09:15 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Ok, so first, here's my understanding of what a "Grant of Rights" (GoR) is:

The individual schools in the conference sign an agreement to "grant" their media rights to the conference. The conference as an entity of its own, can then make deals with media companies in relation to those rights.

So, for example, if a school were to want to leave the conference, it's merely a matter of one or more successful votes inside the conference.

Any deal(s) with the media companies only come into play if it's perceived that the loss of content will affect the value of the deal.

So for example, the B12 is losing TX and OK. They replaced them with 4 schools and presumably that content was enough for the conference and the media people to retain their agreements.

So imagine this.

Espn did not get any part of the Big10 deal.

But they want content.

They also presumably do not want the big10 raiding any of their current content, especially ones they want.

FSU and clemson are clearly not happy where they are.

ND is likely going to need a bigger paycheck to stay where they are.

Soo even though they have a GoR til 2036, the ACC has some stability issues to resolve.

The conventional wisdom is that, if things do not change, the GoR is not likely to last til 2036.

And that the media deal is then likely to break at some point, as well.

So it's in Espn's interest to a.) restore stability b.) keep everyone in-house (no B10 poaching) c.) add a few more to increase value d.) pay as little as possible to do this.

One way to do this would be to facilitate a trade between the SEC and the ACC.

The ACC trades Clemson and FSU to the SEC, for South Carolina to the ACC.

The ACC also adds Cin, WV, UCF, and Memphis - all to happen 2024/25

To get an even 18, SEC adds Kansas.

The PAC apparently has targeted 40M per school, as their target. That sets a target.

Espn facilitates this trade, then, by offering to do an early increase on the payouts to roughly 40M per school (ND is of course a special situation)

Even though the SEC could vote south carolina out regardless; to keep everyone amicable, Espn'll likely need to do some sort of payoff - like a monetary bonus/fee, and some guaranteed scheduling.

Why not trade Vanderbilt as well? Because they're AAU, and no payout likely would prevent them from going to the B10 instead. And one of the goals is to keep everyone in-house

So to sum up:

FSU and Clemson to SEC
Kansas to SEC (total 18)
South Carolina to ACC
Cin, WV, UCF, and Memphis to ACC (total 18)
ACC goes to roughly 40M per school
ND, getting a pay bump per year, is more likely to keep their olympic sports in-house.

The GoR is still in place.

ACC stabilizes.

And ESPN, though ACC and SEC, has most of the east coast and the south. And all without needing a conference to go to 20 or 24.

And with the 4 schools removed from B12, it's now more likely to look west for back fill.

And so all eyes look west for the next realignment steps.

There is no universe in which South Carolina would return to the ACC. The idea that the Gamecocks would be expelled by the other SEC schools simply to make room for Clemson is beyond risible. Moreover, if ESPN attempted to even try to orchestrate that, South Carolina would be able to annihilate ESPN in court for breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act, since the net impact of trying to force an SEC school into the ACC would be to decrease that school’s contractually-secured, annual SEC membership media share, which would be on the order of $40m or more per annum than the ACC’s payout.

(08-09-2022 12:09 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 11:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Here's the thing: the ACC was actually "proactive" in getting the GOR and long-term ESPN contract into place.

They're serving their intended purpose: keeping the conference together!

Remember that the ACC feared that there were going to be more defectors from the league after Maryland went to the Big Ten, so that's why the league signed the GOR and entered into such a long-term deal with ESPN. Schools like FSU, UNC and Clemson signed off on the GOR and long-term ESPN deal because they cared more about the security of the league than flexibility in seeking other conference options as free agents. The fact that it's now a disadvantage to those schools a few years later doesn't mean that the GOR and ESPN contract aren't doing *exactly* what they're supposed to do.

I'm constantly perplexed by people's surprise that conferences are set up to protect the "screwed" (e.g. Wake Forest and similarly situated schools at the bottom of the ACC totem pole) as opposed to advantaging the "screwers". Bylaws and contracts are create to *protect* the conference in virtually every way possible as opposed to finding loopholes or easy ways to destroy them. Schools like FSU, UNC and Clemson can't turn around and get mad at the ACC for not being "proactive" when the league took the exact steps that it needed to in order to preserve the league after the Maryland defection.

In that situation, at the time, it appeared to be a little of both.

just from what I read and watched on the news, I had the impression that FSU and clemson wanted the SEC, and behind-the-scenes were declined/not invited.

While people were nervous that the AAU schools might go to the big10.

Delaney seems to be asking every AAU school out there whether they were interested, even vanderbilt (who apparently declined). And NC was his alma mater.

So there were concerns.

ND didn't want to join a conference that was about to implode.

And espn was helping them set up a network.

so I think it was a little of both. but it felt a lot like desperation.

The proactive one was Delaney, reaching out to find out about interest. and apparently not doing in quietly - which is a choice, to be sure.

And so here we are, in a similar situation. Everyone wondering what the B10 and the SEC will do. this time because media money dwarfs other conferences, and no one wants to be left behind.

What do you do as a school to be proactive?

What do you do as a conference to be proactive?

Each has raw materials and options. So what do they do with them?

When talking about realignment poaching, we all seem to be talking about the PAC/B12/ACC conferences, the schools in them, and a few other schools from the old big east.

But that's because we're nice.

The big10's deal is now over a billion dollars.

At what point do they look at the SEC and say "I want one of those, and one of those..."

So in the meantime, we'll all talk about the possible - That the Big ten could go after KS, or maybe the NC/VA cluster, or maybe the other AAU or florida schools in the AAC, or maybe the PAC schools - slooowly.

But in the meantime, the business people are going to look at the whole board. including the professional sports, and weigh options.

As for holding together - I think you're right that the ACC GoR has been very effective - so far. The length of it (and of the media deal) may be its eventual undoing, and could lead to ACC dissolution. But for now, it's seeming to be effective.

And I agree, it's not the conferences that will be looking at WF and other such schools in big conferences, it's the media companies. "Why are we paying this much for that? We should be paying less..."

Clemson and FSU were not declined. They were blocked to make ND's partial possible. ND wouldn't consider a partial if Clemson and FSU left. The move had been announced on ESPN's crawler and was pulled. Now tell me the network has no power in these matters. I know the rest of the story as well. The SECN was promised and got full carriage essentially as a mea culpa for two separate but related screw ups, one created by Tobacco Road and the other by ND. It worked out fabulously for the SEC as it helped assure the eventual trajectory of Texas and Oklahoma.

The fiction here is the trade concept. That's romper room thinking. If something happened ESPN would make assurances to the ACC that if Clemson, Miami, and FSU departed that with the backfill, say USF, UCF, and WVU or Cincy the contract would be reworked, and a decent raise given. ESPN would promise the SEC pro rata and encourage them to add Kansas and stop at 20. All remaining ACC schools get a 10-million-dollar bump, maybe 15 million, 2 Florida schools replace 2 Florida schools and Cincy would provide a larger state than South Carolina, or while WVU jazzes up all sports.

The ACC loses the discontented which find a better fit in the SEC and UNC is replaced on the wish list by Kansas.

(08-09-2022 10:46 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  There is no universe in which South Carolina would return to the ACC. The idea that the Gamecocks would be expelled by the other SEC schools simply to make room for Clemson is beyond risible. Moreover, if ESPN attempted to even try to orchestrate that, South Carolina would be able to annihilate ESPN in court for breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act, since the net impact of trying to force an SEC school into the ACC would be to decrease that school’s contractually-secured, annual SEC membership media share, which would be on the order of $40m or more per annum than the ACC’s payout.

The "trade" idea was intended as a way to try to avoid certain precedents.

And yes, as I said, for it to work, SC would have needed some sort of significant pay off.

And, once voted out, they could potentially choose to accept the invite of any conference.

But the SEC can vote out a member if they so choose.

As I noted at the top, the espn contract is presumably with the sec, not with the individual member schools.

So while it could of of course be argued that the sec wouldn't vote to remove the non-founding member SC, I don't think your other assertions apply.

(08-10-2022 12:19 AM)JRsec Wrote:  [...]

If something happened ESPN would make assurances to the ACC that if Clemson, Miami, and FSU departed that with the backfill, say USF, UCF, and WVU or Cincy the contract would be reworked, and a decent raise given. ESPN would promise the SEC pro rata and encourage them to add Kansas and stop at 20. All remaining ACC schools get a 10-million-dollar bump, maybe 15 million, 2 Florida schools replace 2 Florida schools and Cincy would provide a larger state than South Carolina, or while WVU jazzes up all sports.

The ACC loses the discontented which find a better fit in the SEC and UNC is replaced on the wish list by Kansas.

I suggested 40M, sounds like you're suggesting up to 50M.

Either way, I agree that this would be a very good move for both conferences.

For that deal, though, ACC should take all 4, plus Memphis.

Gets them to 16 plus ND. This gets their realignment done in one swoop, They'll be unlikely to add anyone else on the short term (Uconn or Temple? probably not.) And gets the payout settled. So espn and acc are basically stable. And the SEC is strengthened as well.

And this takes most of the old big east schools off the realignment board.

And with the Florida schools in the SEC, the Big10 is now unlikely to raid the ACC. And with KS off the table as well, they would probably invite 2-4 more PAC schools, and call it a day.

B12 lost 4 and with all those eastern options gone, will maybe grab SMU before the PAC does, and likely look west for the rest.

So this scenario is definitely possible. All that stands in the way is the ACC being willing to vote to lose and gain members, and espn willing to spend the money.

I think the fans would like it too.