Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Grudges, Laws, and "Rules" of Realignment
Author Message
BePcr07 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,076
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 105
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #1
Grudges, Laws, and "Rules" of Realignment
When it comes to realignment, relationships are very, very important. Who schools and conferences will and won't align with brings reality into check. It may be good to keep a running list of these. Please provide additions, modifications, and corrections to these lists.

Grudges

To qualify here, a school will need to have said "we refuse to play this other school." Recently, I read on here that Notre Dame *refuses* to play at Morgantown. This would all but guarantee that at least until 2036 (the end of the ACC GoR), West Virginia will not be a member of the ACC. Another example: after the bleacher debacle when Texas visited Houston last, the Longhorns have refused to schedule the Cougars. Anything else come to mind? Are these wrong?

- Notre Dame refuses to play West Virginia; West Virginia not an ACC candidate
- Texas refuses to play Houston; Houston not a XII candidate

Laws

To qualify here, a state law or university system requirement must say that two or more schools must be in the same conference or must all be in power conferences if not together. I've heard rumors about Oklahoma/Oklahoma St, Kansas/Kansas St, and Virginia/Virginia Tech - but haven't heard anything definitive. I've also heard that North Carolina St cannot move, for example, to the SEC without North Carolina's blessing. Are these true? What else is out there?

- Oklahoma / Oklahoma St must both be in the same conference or both in separate power conferences
- Kansas/ Kansas St must both be in the same conference or both in separate power conferences
- Virginia / Virginia Tech must both be in the same conference or both in separate power conferences
- North Carolina St moving conferences is at the approval of North Carolina

"Rules"

These would be conference requirements, written or unwritten, for a school to join as a member. Some examples: the PAC will not accept an actively religious institution (sorry, BYU) and the B1G strongly prefers (borderline requires) AAU status and the school to be in a state within or contiguous with the current geography. Any changes or additions?

- PAC: no actively religious institutions
- B1G: AAU status; within or contiguous to current geography
07-30-2020 01:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 16,920
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 744
I Root For: California
Location: TROS
Post: #2
RE: Grudges, Laws, and "Rules" of Realignment
The schools that founded the Pac-12 -- UW, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC -- were going to be in a conference with Notre Dame (and the service academies, and Pitt, Penn State, and Syracuse) until the service academies nixed the idea. Read this 1959 Sports Illustrated article.

So, no, they don't object to religiously-affiliated schools. Some of the presidents object to schools whose faculty don't have academic freedom.
07-30-2020 02:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,486
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 617
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #3
RE: Grudges, Laws, and "Rules" of Realignment
It would be more appropriate to change your "Laws" category to "Politics". There aren't really explicit laws preventing conference realignment, but political pressure is critical.

Also, I disagree with the inclusion of the Big Ten rules - those have ALWAYS been urban legends and I've been trying to dispel those since I started writing about conference realignment over a decade ago. The Big Ten would clearly take Notre Dame (a non-AAU school) and Texas (a non-contiguous school) as their top 2 draft picks if they could take anyone in conference realignment, so those two examples alone would blow up those rules. Now, if you want to state that the Big Ten has a de facto academic threshold (whether that's explicitly recognized by AAU status or being a widely acknowledged "elite" academic school in the way that Notre Dame is), then that's certainly fair to state. I legitimately don't think the Big Ten cares about geographic continuity at all as long as the money is right and the "right" type of academic institution is involved - they'd gladly take, say, Georgia Tech or UCLA over a whole host of contiguous schools.
07-30-2020 03:19 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
texoma Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 279
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Collegefootball
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Grudges, Laws, and "Rules" of Realignment
(07-30-2020 01:54 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  When it comes to realignment, relationships are very, very important. Who schools and conferences will and won't align with brings reality into check. It may be good to keep a running list of these. Please provide additions, modifications, and corrections to these lists.

Grudges

To qualify here, a school will need to have said "we refuse to play this other school." Recently, I read on here that Notre Dame *refuses* to play at Morgantown. This would all but guarantee that at least until 2036 (the end of the ACC GoR), West Virginia will not be a member of the ACC. Another example: after the bleacher debacle when Texas visited Houston last, the Longhorns have refused to schedule the Cougars. Anything else come to mind? Are these wrong?

- Notre Dame refuses to play West Virginia; West Virginia not an ACC candidate
- Texas refuses to play Houston; Houston not a XII candidate

Laws

To qualify here, a state law or university system requirement must say that two or more schools must be in the same conference or must all be in power conferences if not together. I've heard rumors about Oklahoma/Oklahoma St, Kansas/Kansas St, and Virginia/Virginia Tech - but haven't heard anything definitive. I've also heard that North Carolina St cannot move, for example, to the SEC without North Carolina's blessing. Are these true? What else is out there?

- Oklahoma / Oklahoma St must both be in the same conference or both in separate power conferences
- Kansas/ Kansas St must both be in the same conference or both in separate power conferences
- Virginia / Virginia Tech must both be in the same conference or both in separate power conferences
- North Carolina St moving conferences is at the approval of North Carolina

"Rules"

These would be conference requirements, written or unwritten, for a school to join as a member. Some examples: the PAC will not accept an actively religious institution (sorry, BYU) and the B1G strongly prefers (borderline requires) AAU status and the school to be in a state within or contiguous with the current geography. Any changes or additions?

- PAC: no actively religious institutions
- B1G: AAU status; within or contiguous to current geography

This definitely does NOT apply to Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Neither by laws or politics.
07-30-2020 03:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,076
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 105
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Grudges, Laws, and "Rules" of Realignment
(07-30-2020 03:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It would be more appropriate to change your "Laws" category to "Politics". There aren't really explicit laws preventing conference realignment, but political pressure is critical.

Also, I disagree with the inclusion of the Big Ten rules - those have ALWAYS been urban legends and I've been trying to dispel those since I started writing about conference realignment over a decade ago. The Big Ten would clearly take Notre Dame (a non-AAU school) and Texas (a non-contiguous school) as their top 2 draft picks if they could take anyone in conference realignment, so those two examples alone would blow up those rules. Now, if you want to state that the Big Ten has a de facto academic threshold (whether that's explicitly recognized by AAU status or being a widely acknowledged "elite" academic school in the way that Notre Dame is), then that's certainly fair to state. I legitimately don't think the Big Ten cares about geographic continuity at all as long as the money is right and the "right" type of academic institution is involved - they'd gladly take, say, Georgia Tech or UCLA over a whole host of contiguous schools.

There’s always exceptions (re: non-AAU Notre Dame) and politics is probably better title.
07-30-2020 06:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,209
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 240
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #6
RE: Grudges, Laws, and "Rules" of Realignment
Rules are written after the fact. At least for the NCAA.

The biggest rule is money rules.
07-31-2020 02:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


HawaiiMongoose Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,689
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 148
I Root For: Hawaii
Location: Honolulu
Post: #7
RE: Grudges, Laws, and "Rules" of Realignment
(07-31-2020 02:22 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Rules are written after the fact. At least for the NCAA.

The biggest rule is money rules.

Agreed. And the second biggest rule is, the only factor that rivals money is ego.
07-31-2020 02:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wahoowa84 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 223
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 41
I Root For: UVa
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Grudges, Laws, and "Rules" of Realignment
(07-30-2020 01:54 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  When it comes to realignment, relationships are very, very important. Who schools and conferences will and won't align with brings reality into check. It may be good to keep a running list of these. Please provide additions, modifications, and corrections to these lists.

Grudges

To qualify here, a school will need to have said "we refuse to play this other school." Recently, I read on here that Notre Dame *refuses* to play at Morgantown. This would all but guarantee that at least until 2036 (the end of the ACC GoR), West Virginia will not be a member of the ACC. Another example: after the bleacher debacle when Texas visited Houston last, the Longhorns have refused to schedule the Cougars. Anything else come to mind? Are these wrong?

- Notre Dame refuses to play West Virginia; West Virginia not an ACC candidate
- Texas refuses to play Houston; Houston not a XII candidate

Laws

To qualify here, a state law or university system requirement must say that two or more schools must be in the same conference or must all be in power conferences if not together. I've heard rumors about Oklahoma/Oklahoma St, Kansas/Kansas St, and Virginia/Virginia Tech - but haven't heard anything definitive. I've also heard that North Carolina St cannot move, for example, to the SEC without North Carolina's blessing. Are these true? What else is out there?

- Oklahoma / Oklahoma St must both be in the same conference or both in separate power conferences
- Kansas/ Kansas St must both be in the same conference or both in separate power conferences
- Virginia / Virginia Tech must both be in the same conference or both in separate power conferences
- North Carolina St moving conferences is at the approval of North Carolina

"Rules"

These would be conference requirements, written or unwritten, for a school to join as a member. Some examples: the PAC will not accept an actively religious institution (sorry, BYU) and the B1G strongly prefers (borderline requires) AAU status and the school to be in a state within or contiguous with the current geography. Any changes or additions?

- PAC: no actively religious institutions
- B1G: AAU status; within or contiguous to current geography

FWIW - I would rename your three criteria as:
1) Relationships
2) Politics
3) Biases

Each conference and individual schools have them. The broader category is intangible selection factors.
07-31-2020 07:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chess Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,115
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 156
I Root For: ECU & Nebraska
Location: Chicagoland
Post: #9
RE: Grudges, Laws, and "Rules" of Realignment
The assertion that West Virginia is not a candidate for ACC membership because Notre Dame refuses to play in Morgantown is incorrect.

West Virginia is not a member of the ACC because the ACC does not want West Virginia as a member. The ACC was founded and chose not to include WVU.

Maryland, Duke, North Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, and South Carolina formed the conference. Virginia was added a year later. The conference lost South Carolina, gained Georgia Tech, and, then, Florida State. For expansion, the ACC targeted Syracuse, Boston College, and Miami. When that fell through, the ACC gained Boston College, Miami, and Virginia Tech. Pittsburgh and Syracuse joined at a later time. Maryland left. Louisville joined. If the ACC wished to add West Virginia at any time, the school would be a member.
07-31-2020 08:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,514
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 590
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Mouth of Wilson, VA
Post: #10
RE: Grudges, Laws, and "Rules" of Realignment
(07-31-2020 08:10 AM)chess Wrote:  The assertion that West Virginia is not a candidate for ACC membership because Notre Dame refuses to play in Morgantown is incorrect.

West Virginia is not a member of the ACC because the ACC does not want West Virginia as a member. The ACC was founded and chose not to include WVU.

Maryland, Duke, North Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, and South Carolina formed the conference. Virginia was added a year later. The conference lost South Carolina, gained Georgia Tech, and, then, Florida State. For expansion, the ACC targeted Syracuse, Boston College, and Miami. When that fell through, the ACC gained Boston College, Miami, and Virginia Tech. Pittsburgh and Syracuse joined at a later time. Maryland left. Louisville joined. If the ACC wished to add West Virginia at any time, the school would be a member.

I don't think anyone is making that assertion, just pointing out a fact.

ND has not played football in Morgantown since 2000 and vowed to never do so.

I agree with you. The ACC has rejected WVU for decades.
07-31-2020 09:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CardinalJim Offline
Welcome to The New Age
*

Posts: 9,396
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 999
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Planet Red
Post: #11
RE: Grudges, Laws, and "Rules" of Realignment
SEC “Gentleman’s agreement” to not approve membership of Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Louisville Georgia Tech or any other program in a state where they already have a school.
07-31-2020 09:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


CardinalJim Offline
Welcome to The New Age
*

Posts: 9,396
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 999
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Planet Red
Post: #12
RE: Grudges, Laws, and "Rules" of Realignment
(07-31-2020 09:05 AM)TerryD Wrote:  
(07-31-2020 08:10 AM)chess Wrote:  The assertion that West Virginia is not a candidate for ACC membership because Notre Dame refuses to play in Morgantown is incorrect.

West Virginia is not a member of the ACC because the ACC does not want West Virginia as a member. The ACC was founded and chose not to include WVU.

Maryland, Duke, North Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, and South Carolina formed the conference. Virginia was added a year later. The conference lost South Carolina, gained Georgia Tech, and, then, Florida State. For expansion, the ACC targeted Syracuse, Boston College, and Miami. When that fell through, the ACC gained Boston College, Miami, and Virginia Tech. Pittsburgh and Syracuse joined at a later time. Maryland left. Louisville joined. If the ACC wished to add West Virginia at any time, the school would be a member.

I don't think anyone is making that assertion, just pointing out a fact.

ND has not played football in Morgantown since 2000 and vowed to never do so.

I agree with you. The ACC has rejected WVU for decades.

If WVU doesn’t have the support of Notre Dame, I doubt The ACC would ever consider them. Tom Jurich used to say that Notre Dame’s support was critical in Louisville’s invite to The Big East and later to The ACC.
07-31-2020 09:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DFW HOYA Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,129
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 88
I Root For: The Hoyas
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #13
RE: Grudges, Laws, and "Rules" of Realignment
Grudge: Georgetown played Boston College in basketball dating back to BC restarting its program in 1946 and consecutively from 1958-59 to 2004-05. The schools have not scheduled regular season play in any sport since. Similarly, BC's last game with Seton Hall was in 2005, and Villanova in 2006.

Liars will not be rewarded for their actions.
(This post was last modified: 07-31-2020 10:02 AM by DFW HOYA.)
07-31-2020 10:01 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 24,935
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 2606
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Grudges, Laws, and "Rules" of Realignment
(07-31-2020 07:01 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  
(07-30-2020 01:54 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  When it comes to realignment, relationships are very, very important. Who schools and conferences will and won't align with brings reality into check. It may be good to keep a running list of these. Please provide additions, modifications, and corrections to these lists.

Grudges

To qualify here, a school will need to have said "we refuse to play this other school." Recently, I read on here that Notre Dame *refuses* to play at Morgantown. This would all but guarantee that at least until 2036 (the end of the ACC GoR), West Virginia will not be a member of the ACC. Another example: after the bleacher debacle when Texas visited Houston last, the Longhorns have refused to schedule the Cougars. Anything else come to mind? Are these wrong?

- Notre Dame refuses to play West Virginia; West Virginia not an ACC candidate
- Texas refuses to play Houston; Houston not a XII candidate

Laws

To qualify here, a state law or university system requirement must say that two or more schools must be in the same conference or must all be in power conferences if not together. I've heard rumors about Oklahoma/Oklahoma St, Kansas/Kansas St, and Virginia/Virginia Tech - but haven't heard anything definitive. I've also heard that North Carolina St cannot move, for example, to the SEC without North Carolina's blessing. Are these true? What else is out there?

- Oklahoma / Oklahoma St must both be in the same conference or both in separate power conferences
- Kansas/ Kansas St must both be in the same conference or both in separate power conferences
- Virginia / Virginia Tech must both be in the same conference or both in separate power conferences
- North Carolina St moving conferences is at the approval of North Carolina

"Rules"

These would be conference requirements, written or unwritten, for a school to join as a member. Some examples: the PAC will not accept an actively religious institution (sorry, BYU) and the B1G strongly prefers (borderline requires) AAU status and the school to be in a state within or contiguous with the current geography. Any changes or additions?

- PAC: no actively religious institutions
- B1G: AAU status; within or contiguous to current geography

FWIW - I would rename your three criteria as:
1) Relationships
2) Politics
3) Biases

Each conference and individual schools have them. The broader category is intangible selection factors.

I would add the caveat that none of those are set in stone.

For enough money WVU's past sins would be overlooked. WVU's issue is whether they would earn the ACC enough money to be included. No doubt they are competitive. And I do think they would earn enough, but more than enough? enough? or barely enough? or more than the other candidates? would be the more likely determining factors.

The Big 10 would ignore AAU status to get Notre Dame. They would ignore contiguity to get Texas.

What are listed as rules are merely preferences. What are listed as grudges are really past hard relationships for which bias has been created.

And what are listed as laws actually aren't, at least in Oklahoma and Kansas. They are preferences as well but ones expressed by the state legislatures, but they are not law and both Kansas and Oklahoma can move alone if they choose. But both will try to leverage the other state school.

Money is the prime motivator, but fan desires, maintenance of school business models, ease and safety of travel more now than before, and academic associations are still factors. But none of these are set in stone.
(This post was last modified: 07-31-2020 12:44 PM by JRsec.)
07-31-2020 12:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DFW HOYA Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,129
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 88
I Root For: The Hoyas
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #15
RE: Grudges, Laws, and "Rules" of Realignment
(07-31-2020 09:16 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  SEC “Gentleman’s agreement” to not approve membership of Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Louisville Georgia Tech or any other program in a state where they already have a school.

Of course, the SEC was built on two teams per state:

LA: LSU, Tulane
MS: Ole Miss, Miss. St.
AL: Alabama. Auburn
GA: Georgia, Georgia Tech
TN: Tennessee, Vanderbilt
(This post was last modified: 07-31-2020 01:20 PM by DFW HOYA.)
07-31-2020 01:20 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 24,935
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 2606
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Grudges, Laws, and "Rules" of Realignment
(07-31-2020 01:20 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  
(07-31-2020 09:16 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  SEC “Gentleman’s agreement” to not approve membership of Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Louisville Georgia Tech or any other program in a state where they already have a school.

Of course, the SEC was built on two teams per state:

LA: LSU, Tulane
MS: Ole Miss, Miss. St.
AL: Alabama. Auburn
GA: Georgia, Georgia Tech
TN: Tennessee, Vanderbilt

There was no damned Gentlemen's agreement, at least not as was purported by internet fan boys. The agreement was asked for by Mike Slive in 2011 when discussing additions. And was clearly stated by Slive to only be operative for that set of additions and no other. The SEC had to fulfill a renegotiation clause within its contract to ESPN in order to get a revaluation on the whole deal. The stipulation required the addition of two new markets. So if the SEC was to receive a big boost in pay they had to add from outside their current footprint.

What Slive actually asked was that South Carolina and Florida hold off on nominating Florida State and Clemson as expansion candidates until the stipulation was satisfied and then he promised that no such restrictions would exist in future considerations and that the only remaining criteria would be cultural fit and most importantly profit.

There was never a blackball by South Carolina against Clemson nor was there one by Florida against FSU for precisely the fear of the circumstances we currently find ourselves under. Florida sponsored FSU as a member in -'91 and wanted to do so again in 2011. South Carolina which was added in '92 wanted to sponsor Clemson in 2011. Georgia didn't want to sponsor tech but was willing to do so to accommodate pressure politically within the state. Only Kentucky didn't want another state school in the conference.

The stipulation complicated things when Boren approached the SEC about adding Oklahoma but Oklahoma State had to accompany them. The SEC couldn't consider the offer because ESPN was only willing to pay for 2 additions and adding both Oklahoma schools would not have satisfied the renegotiation clause.

We knew ahead of time that long term candidate A&M wanted in so that one new market slot was filled already. When Oklahoma refused without OSU, Missouri was offered upon recommendation of the network and because Missouri was willing since the Big 10 didn't seem interested.

Clay Travis is the one who got a piece of the information of what transpired and cooked up the "Gentlemen's Agreement canard that claimed the schools were blackballing in state members. Pure fiction!

Florida's and South Carolina's state interest in sponsoring was their concern that with more realignment scheduling their in state rivals would only become more difficult. Both also stated that their athletic fund donations were predicated upon giving at a level to secure tickets for those games and that they preferred to have them protected by having them as members of the SEC because of it.

And to further add to the B.S. meter about the blackballing business, how well would a blackball keeping Clemson or F.S.U. from making more money in the SEC come across to state legislators who write the appropriations for Florida and South Carolina? Not well at all. We are talking state schools which are funded by their states. Hamper another state school's ability to make revenue and you piss off a lot of people that you have to answer to.

This is one myth that simply needs to die because it has no basis in reality other than Clay Travis's need to get attention, which was his business at that time.

The same thing is true of Texas and A&M should that ever arise. A&M fans won't like it a bit if it ever happens but its still two state schools, albeit ones with very large egos as donors.
07-31-2020 01:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,515
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 164
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Grudges, Laws, and "Rules" of Realignment
I was radically opposed to it for a long time but I could live with Clemson as an SEC member at this point. It would knock them down a peg and perhaps with them in the fold the powers that be would actually start caring about that game and South Carolina
07-31-2020 02:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 24,935
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 2606
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Grudges, Laws, and "Rules" of Realignment
(07-31-2020 02:19 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  I was radically opposed to it for a long time but I could live with Clemson as an SEC member at this point. It would knock them down a peg and perhaps with them in the fold the powers that be would actually start caring about that game and South Carolina

Gamecock, ESPN put that clause in the SEC's media contract because they feared the luring away of Clemson and F.S.U. from the ACC, a league that ESPN created for a low cost high profit control of schools that they could use as leverage with the Big 10 and SEC. And I'm not talking about realignment leverage, I'm talking about other ways into the SEC's and Big 10's footprints for advertising. As long as F.S.U. was not in the SEC then the SEC couldn't make full rates for advertising in the Sunshine state, although ESPN could owning rights to FSU and Miami from the ACC and then South Florida and Central Florida from the AAC.

This is why I cautioned some against pandering to the networks wishes for the Footprint Subscription Fee model which was destined to be replaced by the only factor that ever mattered in broadcasting, actual viewers.

The footprint model was designed to break up large population states between various conferences so that the networks didn't have to pay premium advertising profits to the conferences. It is why Notre Dame is so very important to ESPN. Notre Dame is the back door into a majority of Northern Midwestern Cities otherwise controlled by the Big 10. It is why Florida State was crucial for ESPN to land in the ACC (a property they were eyeballing at the time) and to keep them out of the SEC. It is why Texas was so pissed off at A&M leaving for the SEC. It screwed up the Big 12's leverage in Texas with regard to monopolizing ad rates.
And it is why Chapel Hill was so adamantly opposed to N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC. Had ESPN pulled off that ploy then all of the large Southeastern and Southwestern states where football is a religion would have been split between various conferences, ad rates would not have been expected to bolster contract values, but ESPN would still have owned the rights to everyone giving them the lock on the ad rates.

The renegotiation clause was in the SEC contract to keep the SEC from gaining total leverage over Florida and South Carolina. It wasn't needed in Georgia where the Dawgs hold about an 85-15 advantage over Tech in state viewership.

There was never an institutional blackball of anyone. There was only network manipulations to try to keep conferences from gaining leverage, and trying to break up the leverage that some had already.

Taking the Big East schools of note into the ACC was withholding presence in New England from the Big 10 who was already there with Penn State. The SEC was encouraged to grow Westward because ESPN wanted some of those properties and didn't want the SEC's eyes on the East and the ACC.

Way too many people think this is all about conferences and their desires. It's not. The conferences merely seek to acquire the schools the networks tell them they will pay them more to get.

We have long needed commissioners who worked for the conferences more than the networks. But most of the early conference commissioners of the post '92 era have been contract lawyers who worked in sports contracts for the networks before they were hired by the conferences. While that may seem wise to some it does question whether they see themselves as arbitrators for the conference and networks combined, or see themselves as advocates for the conference. It's been a very mixed bag.

With the advent of streaming and the conference network structure requiring production facilities at each school, the germane question is why do network deals at all when we can produce and market our own product and keep all of the ad revenue? Conservative estimates put the per school payout with that kind of system in 300 million range per year for the top schools. Right now we are letting them rent our product, make us pay for onsite production and let them give us 50% of the so called profits after their accountants discount everything under the sun to get the profit ledger down and the bring it down a lot. One example would be the cost of your play by play guys at S.C. is baked into our budget. If we produced and sold our own games each school would use their own play by play people. ESPN wouldn't get to deduct the high dollar salaries of their play by play people (who seldom know the teams and chronically talk over the plays about crap that has nothing to do with the game we are watching) and deduct that cost from our shared profit totals.

This practice allows them to keep way more than just 50% of the NET profits. Now I ask you how stupid is that of the ACC and SEC?
07-31-2020 02:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,515
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 164
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #19
RE: Grudges, Laws, and "Rules" of Realignment
(07-31-2020 02:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-31-2020 02:19 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  I was radically opposed to it for a long time but I could live with Clemson as an SEC member at this point. It would knock them down a peg and perhaps with them in the fold the powers that be would actually start caring about that game and South Carolina

Gamecock, ESPN put that clause in the SEC's media contract because they feared the luring away of Clemson and F.S.U. from the ACC, a league that ESPN created for a low cost high profit control of schools that they could use as leverage with the Big 10 and SEC. And I'm not talking about realignment leverage, I'm talking about other ways into the SEC's and Big 10's footprints for advertising. As long as F.S.U. was not in the SEC then the SEC couldn't make full rates for advertising in the Sunshine state, although ESPN could owning rights to FSU and Miami from the ACC and then South Florida and Central Florida from the AAC.

This is why I cautioned some against pandering to the networks wishes for the Footprint Subscription Fee model which was destined to be replaced by the only factor that ever mattered in broadcasting, actual viewers.

The footprint model was designed to break up large population states between various conferences so that the networks didn't have to pay premium advertising profits to the conferences. It is why Notre Dame is so very important to ESPN. Notre Dame is the back door into a majority of Northern Midwestern Cities otherwise controlled by the Big 10. It is why Florida State was crucial for ESPN to land in the ACC (a property they were eyeballing at the time) and to keep them out of the SEC. It is why Texas was so pissed off at A&M leaving for the SEC. It screwed up the Big 12's leverage in Texas with regard to monopolizing ad rates.
And it is why Chapel Hill was so adamantly opposed to N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC. Had ESPN pulled off that ploy then all of the large Southeastern and Southwestern states where football is a religion would have been split between various conferences, ad rates would not have been expected to bolster contract values, but ESPN would still have owned the rights to everyone giving them the lock on the ad rates.

The renegotiation clause was in the SEC contract to keep the SEC from gaining total leverage over Florida and South Carolina. It wasn't needed in Georgia where the Dawgs hold about an 85-15 advantage over Tech in state viewership.

There was never an institutional blackball of anyone. There was only network manipulations to try to keep conferences from gaining leverage, and trying to break up the leverage that some had already.

Taking the Big East schools of note into the ACC was withholding presence in New England from the Big 10 who was already there with Penn State. The SEC was encouraged to grow Westward because ESPN wanted some of those properties and didn't want the SEC's eyes on the East and the ACC.

Way too many people think this is all about conferences and their desires. It's not. The conferences merely seek to acquire the schools the networks tell them they will pay them more to get.

We have long needed commissioners who worked for the conferences more than the networks. But most of the early conference commissioners of the post '92 era have been contract lawyers who worked in sports contracts for the networks before they were hired by the conferences. While that may seem wise to some it does question whether they see themselves as arbitrators for the conference and networks combined, or see themselves as advocates for the conference. It's been a very mixed bag.

With the advent of streaming and the conference network structure requiring production facilities at each school, the germane question is why do network deals at all when we can produce and market our own product and keep all of the ad revenue? Conservative estimates put the per school payout with that kind of system in 300 million range per year for the top schools. Right now we are letting them rent our product, make us pay for onsite production and let them give us 50% of the so called profits after their accountants discount everything under the sun to get the profit ledger down and the bring it down a lot. One example would be the cost of your play by play guys at S.C. is baked into our budget. If we produced and sold our own games each school would use their own play by play people. ESPN wouldn't get to deduct the high dollar salaries of their play by play people (who seldom know the teams and chronically talk over the plays about crap that has nothing to do with the game we are watching) and deduct that cost from our shared profit totals.

This practice allows them to keep way more than just 50% of the NET profits. Now I ask you how stupid is that of the ACC and SEC?

I agree that we need more athletics focused and conference focused commissioners. It's been pretty bad on the leadership front and Sankey is significantly worse that Slive.
07-31-2020 03:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
usffan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,889
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 463
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #20
RE: Grudges, Laws, and "Rules" of Realignment
(07-31-2020 10:01 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Liars will not be rewarded for their actions.

Edited to remove potentially over the top way of calling out the hypocrisy of Catholic school complaining about an institution being less than forthcoming in the face of the church's longstanding unwillingness to own up to some of their own shortcomings...

USFFan
(This post was last modified: 07-31-2020 04:04 PM by usffan.)
07-31-2020 03:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.