(08-06-2022 08:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 04:43 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 04:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 01:54 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 01:38 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I was generally opposed to GoRs but also favored limits of conference sizes to 16 each maximum. My thinking has changed on that. Given that GoRs have become hand-in-hand with TV contracts, it is instrumental with negotiations.
Agree Quo, shorter-term GoRs may be the way to go.
The ACC’s GoR was defensively and punitively conceived and way, way too long in duration. At a minimum, their contract negotiations, while maintaining the base distribution, needed to have a window every 3 to 5 years, to discuss and pitch for revenue enhancements and other pertinent modifications sought.

The conferences would need leverage to get that. The ACC didn't have it.

The ACC GOR wasn't too long. It is what is saving the conference, or at least going to get schools accommodations. If the ACC GOR was up soon, it would have already crumbled. It was a win-win as far as the network and conference survival (delayed death) are concerned.

Particular schools may not like it, but the conference wisely sought security. The ACC was never going to compete with the coterminous P2s in revenue, so without GOR length, it was dead. It still could be, but at least schools will get some utility in it being killed off now.

The way I see it, "the conference" is just the schools that comprise it. So a conference surviving is not necessarily a good thing. It is imo bad if its continued existence is holding members back from doing better.

In 2016, we can assume all ACC schools thought the GOR was a good idea, because they all signed it.

Today, the ACC GOR is good for the low value schools with no place else of equal value to go. Bad for the schools that could go to the SEC or B1G.

So IMO if the question is, "is the ACC GOR too long?" The answer is yes for some schools, no for other schools.

I think leftover realignment right now has a lot of divergence between what is best for some schools in the conference, and what is best for conference HQ. That is happening now in PAC, to a degree in the Big 12, and certainly in ACC.

The Big 12, a corporate marriage of two conferences, battled that since its founding, and why it was poached first. NU, A&M, CU, UT and OU were just members of the club. They weren't THE club. HQ is the club. They certainly had other advantages too, but the SEC and BIG, the least corporate in lineage and culture, are the P2.

The P5 era is dead. PAC/Big12/ACC, only really matters to the few schools that would be culled in the consolidation of leftovers that is needed:

-In PAC, 6-8 schools benefit going east. They would make more, reduce chance they are left out, be more relevant to more population, and facilitate getting to a P3 setup. The 3 conferences backfilling and fading closer to G5 (the SI article had the quote it is already Big 2, ACC, and G7) is fatal wounded pride.

-In Big 12, getting bigger and to 3 super conference is also the only tenable path in P2 era for all schools. Adding some PAC, to make Big 16/18/20, is by far the easiest next move to execute towards this objective, and thus HQ and schools mostly sharing common interests. But the 4 corners may not see that this is the only time they can so certainly dictate their future risk free. If they pass, some Big 12 schools (not HQ) should be working to leverage the PAC to BIG uncertainty and the ACC GOR length against each other, seeking to move 8-10 Big 12 peers to current ACC. 8-10 will be harder to come by the more there is certainty is PAC. If this were enough to keep all/most of current ACC together, an easy call by schools. If even 8 ACC depart, it is likely Big 12 in nearly its entirety is in the ACC, same conference as waiting to add ACC, just different name and HQ staff. The only downside is being ESPN's 2nd conference rather than waiting and being a Big 24 with an OTA like CBS or NBC (we'll find out soon of those two will need inventory).

-ACC the divergence in interests has come to fruition. Without HQ locking in its own future with super long GOR, enough schools have already been poached by P2 that there may not be ACC. And now, the ACC is likely actively obstructing ACC schools from leaving, taking utility from those potential P2 schools in any settlement that allows them to go to P2

About the bolded, I like that you mention "Conference HQ", as this is an often-overlooked aspect of the discussion.

When we consider a situation like the ACC, and whether the GOR and its length are "good or bad" for the ACC, there are the members schools and what we might call the "conference administrative apparatus", the commissioner and permanent staff who work at HQ.

Right now, it is IMO likely the case that the schools are divided in to two blocs - the higher value schools like UNC, Clemson and FSU that IMO likely wish the GOR didn't exist or at least expires much sooner, and the lower value schools like Wake and BC that are very glad that the GOR exists and extends out to 2036.

And then I think the ACC HQ, the administrative staff, is on the side of the low value bloc, glad that the high value schools are locked in by the long GOR. Because their jobs depend on the continued existence of the ACC. And also not just any ACC, but a power-level one. Because if somehow the high value schools left and the ACC had to backfill with G5 schools, then money would go down and perhaps HQ layoffs might occur and salaries might be cut. An ACC that falls from the power ranks is not just bad for the left behind low value schools, it is likely bad for the conference apparatus as well.

This is IMO true of all conferences - the nPAC, the nB12, etc. as well. IMO we can assume that the "Staff at HQ" from the commissioner on down, want long GORs and high exit fees that make leaving difficult, as that protects their jobs and salaries. So the staff HQ is IMO not likely "neutral", it will not be helping the high value schools who want to leave, rather it will be on the side of the low value schools that want the gang to stay together.

Its always felt like the conference office served the schools in the Big 12 who ran things. In the ACC the schools served the conference office. While in the Big 10 and SEC, the conference office with a strong commissioner ran everything, but to the benefit of the schools, not the conference office. Under Scott, the Pac 12 seemed more like the ACC, but otherwise they have been more like the Big 12.