(03-03-2025 12:23 AM)The Beaver Wrote: (03-02-2025 11:21 PM)JRsec Wrote: (03-02-2025 11:11 PM)The Beaver Wrote: A gutting of the ACC would require either their own consent or an ending to those court cases. And we'd definitely hear that leak out early. And even if it does, there's always going to be the next one up, arguing that the leagues should actually have 22 teams, etc.
AND the teams at the top are going to discuss break-aways, league mergers, leagues eating eachother, addition by subtraction, government intervention against an NCAA breakaway, et. AND TV could "die" to be fully replaced by streaming in the next decade or so, reshuffling priorities again.
Wings of a butterfly, no way to really say whats gonna happen, but it isn't gonna be quick and it isn't gonna be silent.
It can be handled internally by ESPN, and I'll take "Things which happen out of Consent for $500 please Alex?" They are in a position to honor contracts, move schools, transfer exit fees, and eliminate any real monetary damages which are what GORs are for. No punitive damages can be tagged to a GOR. And you bet if it was handled in house among executives, the commissioners involved, and the presidents it can be done and simply announced without all the talk. Say hello to Texas and Oklahoma. The story broke but the deal was done except for formalities, so it was simply announced. How the news broke to the Chronicle was a set of loose lips at one school. Hard, but not impossible, and not if the parties involved reaches consensus in a secured setting. The deal will be done and then the news will hit. We'll know in the next year or two.
The GoR is between the ACC schools themselves, it requires a majority of ACC schools to agree to changing or ditching it, maybe even a supermajority. And with only 6 spots open they aren't getting that. You want them to, your source wants them to, maybe even people in ESPN want them to, but long-term doing so is deleterious to their interests and they know it, so they aren't doing it. Now if FSU and Clemson break the deal open in court then yeah, they don't actually have to negotiate with ACC leaders (who would, of course, be the ones leaking it just like A&M were the ones to leak the Texas move that they hated.)
I don't want anything. And a sober assessment of one's situation is all any administrator can give. Therefore, they will make each for themselves the best deals they can make. They know their value. If they lose no current value that's as good as it gets with a promise to fill the slots of any departing with new members at the same rate of pay. Who it is up to is indeed ESPN. Product placement is the sorting of products offered by brand value with the intent of gaining greater notice for the whole line of product by placing the most popular products in proximity. And those products will come grouped as premium, reliable, and cost point. In our new world it will be premium and reliable, cost point will be streamed.
Did you ever work contracts, move different tiers of product, or negotiate compromises? There are win, win situations. Now you make some big assumptions about what ESPN will and won't do. Where's your evidence aside from your opinion. ESPN has followed a very definite pattern for nearly 25 years in how they assemble property. Do your homework instead of bothering me. Look at their total market area for their contracted conferences, examine how they have attained market dominance in that rather large quarter of the U.S.
Then try to grasp some understanding of how each of the SEC and ACC were used to acquire that product, not to mention half of the Big 12 rights. ESPN had no problem shuffling top brands from their half owned Big 12 to the SEC. They got what they wanted from the leased rights in the PAC 12 when the 4 corners joined the Big 12.
You also know little of the events surrounding the inner workings in 2010-1 and problems that were created for ESPN by the refusal of one of the conferences to cooperate with what they wanted at the time.
If ESPN can control all of their major markets with the movement of 4 to 6 ACC properties, raise the viewership of all involved with those moves, and grow their must-see inventory improving ratings at all time slots, why would they not do this? Especially when they still keep the rest at the same lower price point.
Want to know why most of the Big 10 pundits have whiffed on these moves? It's because everything is judged by the Big 10 means of operation. This is and has been a different animal, a Mickey Mouse.
The "want" here is from those outside of the SEC who don't want to believe it is possible, who cherished the idea of landing Texas, and now North Carolina and Virginia.
I like my track record Beaver. PAC 12 schools to the Big 10, the end of amateurism, the acquisition of Texas and Oklahoma, and perhaps soon the breakaway of the upper tier, and a new hoops tournament. I would love to claim that they were my thought creations, but instead they are a compilation of things that people in the know have talked about for 50 years.
When there is more money to made, and if nobody has to lose, even though all will not gain, there is always a way. It is the nature of business. And those controlling the future of the game are in business.
What I wanted was to keep the 10 team SEC. I was around for Georgia Tech and Tulane, but aside from missing one of Auburn's annual rivals, I understood why each left and was good at 10. What I've been doing for almost 2 decades has been pointing out how the game was suffering a hostile corporate takeover, which it has and then what was spoken of by folks I knew in the process has slowly, but virtually fully emerged over the last 25 years.
In the early 70s there was talk about a super league. The TV money couldn't justify the travel as the NCAA limited the payouts to about 2 million a school per year. OU/UGa vs NCAA in 1983 changed that outlook, but nobody was sure how it would pay out, not the schools, the conferences, or the networks. So, initial contracts were a little better than double and grew quickly. Turning into officially a business and hiring TV contract lawyers as commissioners instead of former ADs became the tipping point to larger and larger payouts. With the playoff now expanding there's plenty of money on the table for the moves (210 million to move 6) and if they monetize the hoops tournament that improves payouts to the schools x 6 for the tourney as the proceeds would be fully split and paid out in one year instead of 6.
Now pump the court cases into the mix and you get those who truly want to compete at the highest level begging for the opportunity. Do you think for a second ESPN wants to lose FSU and Clemson? I don't. If they force them to take stay put until 2031 it will hurt their position with regard to recruiting and NIL. Wait until 2036 and it's lethal. My point is that where there is great need and the desire of a network to keep those schools in the fold, things can happen. Time is compressed now. I don't think it will take more than 2 years. We'll see.
But "want" paisan has nothing to do with it. Watching it rankle so many who want to believe anything but the truth and who have vehemently denied the nature of what has and is happening and denying who it is that is determining it all, is a little sociology project of mine. I wondered how much change people could take if it hit what they believed in (faith), or what they cherished as an identity icon (schools). I think faith suffered because of societal pressure which caused divisions. I was disappointed over that decline because society needs places in which they can galvanize mores and set standards for behavior and relationship formation. But with the important institutions as another societal touchstone and point of common reference all I've seen thus far is denial. It's changed to be sure, but the cohesiveness of the fan bases at least has remained. It's as if they collectively ignore the change, which is actually hopeful. What they do which is destructive is to blame the other conferences for what has happened when in reality it has mostly been change encouraged by the networks through the promise of....more money. But alas, you can't find a CEO to vent upon. It's much easier hating the other conference even though in their own way they are victims as well and their core identity has been altered. It will take Oklahoma longer to graft into the SEC than Texas. Texas is united again with all of its old SWC foes plus OU. OU has only Texas. But both will assimilate quicker than Arkansas did because it was a complete overhaul for the Hogs. South Carolina had been an orphan so they willingly bonded sooner.
If the networks have learned anything it is that it is more profitable to keep rivals together. Clemson and FSU would be uniting with their biggest rivals. The reason I've spoken of 24 is because UNC, N.C. State, Duke, Virginia, and Virginia Tech are a unit. I would toss in Georgia Tech if Georgia didn't carry the super majority of the state on their own. No part of them will be happy in the SEC or Big 10. In the end ESPN will have to decide that one. That's where inventory required enters the picture. 24 can almost cover it for either ESPN or FOX & partners.
/
Could Realignment, As We Have Known It, End In A Silent Set Of Consolidations?
