IMHO, “Alliance” is a strategy to push CFB expansion until the current deal expires and/or to limit the number of SEC teams per year. We’ve heard the ACC is talking with the PAC-12 and B1G, but could it be a ruse to gain back some leverage with ESPN? We know ESPN owns the ACC media rights thru 2036 and that they are already behind the SEC and B1G in per team payouts. If the ACC’s dalliance with the other two leagues can jam up ESPN’s ability to implement the 12 team CFP and extend the deal without it hitting the open market, then the ACC may be able to either reduce the length of the current deal, negotiate a bump in annual media payouts, and/or obtain firm assurances from ESPN that it won’t facilitate movement of Clemson or FSU to the SEC, or all all 3, in exchange for abandoning this “Alliance.” The ACC-SEC junta would outnumber a B1G-PAC alliance 30 (31 if you count ND) schools to 26, and, more importantly, would cover every power school in the South. Jim Phillips seems shrewd, I wouldn’t put this past him.

It doesn't seem likely they can get a "contract contraction", and a promise from ESPN to not facilitate a raid by the SEC that the SEC is in a position to make is as good as the hot air it is written on ...

... but a strategy one way or another to trigger a look-in and raise would be a reasonable thing for the ACC to aim for.

Reduce the length of the current deal, so that Clemson and Florida State can be free to move in 5 years instead of waiting 15 years?

ESPN might like that -- -- but the vast majority of the ACC would prefer the status quo.

(08-16-2021 07:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Reduce the length of the current deal, so that Clemson and Florida State can be free to move in 5 years instead of waiting 15 years?

ESPN might like that -- -- but the vast majority of the ACC would prefer the status quo.

If I’m mistaken please let me know, but isn’t the Grant of Rights separate from the length of the current TV deal, even if they both expire in 2036? The GOR was voted on when Maryland was still in the league, prior to the current TV deal that got the ACC Network finalized. My understanding was that unless either pays the massive exit fee, and that’s assuming they had anywhere to go, that the ACC owns the rights to FSU and Clemson even if one leaves before 2036; reducing the current length of the ESPN contract, or even extending it for more money, wouldn’t in and of itself alter the length that the Noles and Tigers have signed over their media rights to the folks in Greensboro.

(08-16-2021 07:25 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 07:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Reduce the length of the current deal, so that Clemson and Florida State can be free to move in 5 years instead of waiting 15 years?

ESPN might like that -- -- but the vast majority of the ACC would prefer the status quo.

If I’m mistaken please let me know, but isn’t the Grant of Rights separate from the length of the current TV deal, even if they both expire in 2036?

It may be a separate written agreement, but the benefit of the GOR, to teams that might have other options, is that it guarantees the money stream by assuring the TV network(s) that they will have those rights for the entirety of the contract. AFAIK, the last time ESPN extended the length of the ACC TV deal, the GOR was extended to match, so the ACC has always thought of it as something that coincides with the length of the TV deal.

I'm not aware of anything legally that *requires* those two agreements to have the same length, but I don't see why Clemson, FSU, or any other ACC team that might want to test its individual market would agree to stay tied down through 2036 if the TV money guarantee only lasts to 2026. So I would think that a GOR lasting longer than the TV contract would be a non-starter for any of those schools.

(08-16-2021 07:34 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 07:25 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 07:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Reduce the length of the current deal, so that Clemson and Florida State can be free to move in 5 years instead of waiting 15 years?

ESPN might like that -- -- but the vast majority of the ACC would prefer the status quo.

If I’m mistaken please let me know, but isn’t the Grant of Rights separate from the length of the current TV deal, even if they both expire in 2036?

It may be a separate written agreement, but the benefit of the GOR, to teams that might have other options, is that it guarantees the money stream by assuring the TV network(s) that they will have those rights for the entirety of the contract. AFAIK, the last time ESPN extended the length of the ACC TV deal, the GOR was extended to match, so the ACC has always thought of it as something that coincides with the length of the TV deal.

I'm not aware of anything legally that *requires* those two agreements to have the same length, but I don't see why Clemson, FSU, or any other ACC team that might want to test its individual market would agree to stay tied down through 2036 if the TV money guarantee only lasts to 2026. So I would think that a GOR lasting longer than the TV contract would be a non-starter for any of those schools.

Fair enough, shortening the TV deal may not be a viable or even intelligent option, but if the ACC could extract more money from ESPN for the length of the current deal by pulling a heel turn on this Alliance with the B1G and PAC-12 it would be wise. The B1G and PAC-12 aren’t as beholden to ESPN and increasing distributions in exchange for going along with the SEC and rapid playoff expansion would help keep Clemson, FSU and the rest of the schools who could possibly be poached content.

(08-16-2021 07:51 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  ... Fair enough, shortening the TV deal may not be a viable or even intelligent option, but if the ACC could extract more money from ESPN for the length of the current deal by pulling a heel turn on this Alliance with the B1G and PAC-12 it would be wise. ...

If an OOC scheduling agreement is pulled off, which can be spun out as a separate TV package by the PAC-12 and Big Ten due to their contracts expiring in successive years, the leverage the ACC has with ESPN is "we will participate on a home/away rights basis and you will own the home rights ... if you give us an offer to make it worth our while to increase our P5 quota from 9 to 10."

(08-16-2021 08:16 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 07:51 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  ... Fair enough, shortening the TV deal may not be a viable or even intelligent option, but if the ACC could extract more money from ESPN for the length of the current deal by pulling a heel turn on this Alliance with the B1G and PAC-12 it would be wise. ...

If an OOC scheduling agreement is pulled off, which can be spun out as a separate TV package by the PAC-12 and Big Ten due to their contracts expiring in successive years, the leverage the ACC has with ESPN is "we will participate on a home/away rights basis and you will own the home rights ... if you give us an offer to make it worth our while to increase our P5 quota from 9 to 10."

So, basically, nice little conference network you gave us, it’d be a shame if you had to keep airing Wake-UNC out of conference games on it. Pay us more or we’ll refuse to schedule OOC games with the B1G and PAC-12, some of which you could air.

(08-16-2021 08:37 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 08:16 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 07:51 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  ... Fair enough, shortening the TV deal may not be a viable or even intelligent option, but if the ACC could extract more money from ESPN for the length of the current deal by pulling a heel turn on this Alliance with the B1G and PAC-12 it would be wise. ...

If an OOC scheduling agreement is pulled off, which can be spun out as a separate TV package by the PAC-12 and Big Ten due to their contracts expiring in successive years, the leverage the ACC has with ESPN is "we will participate on a home/away rights basis and you will own the home rights ... if you give us an offer to make it worth our while to increase our P5 quota from 9 to 10."

So, basically, nice little conference network you gave us, it’d be a shame if you had to keep airing Wake-UNC out of conference games on it. Pay us more or we’ll refuse to schedule OOC games with the B1G and PAC-12, some of which you could air.

Though Wake-UNC OOC is far from the typical Tier 3 ACC game, and if the ACC increases the Power Conference quota to 10, the Wake - UNC OOC game could still go ahead. More like Pitt - New Hampshire, Virginia Tech - Richmond Spiders, Syracuse - Albany Great Danes, Clemson - SC State.

"Now, you might get to pick Clemson hosting Wisconsin, but bear in mind you lose both Clemson against SC State and Syracuse against the Great Danes, so choose wisely."

(08-16-2021 07:34 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 07:25 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 07:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Reduce the length of the current deal, so that Clemson and Florida State can be free to move in 5 years instead of waiting 15 years?

ESPN might like that -- -- but the vast majority of the ACC would prefer the status quo.

If I’m mistaken please let me know, but isn’t the Grant of Rights separate from the length of the current TV deal, even if they both expire in 2036?

It may be a separate written agreement, but the benefit of the GOR, to teams that might have other options, is that it guarantees the money stream by assuring the TV network(s) that they will have those rights for the entirety of the contract. AFAIK, the last time ESPN extended the length of the ACC TV deal, the GOR was extended to match, so the ACC has always thought of it as something that coincides with the length of the TV deal.

I'm not aware of anything legally that *requires* those two agreements to have the same length, but I don't see why Clemson, FSU, or any other ACC team that might want to test its individual market would agree to stay tied down through 2036 if the TV money guarantee only lasts to 2026. So I would think that a GOR lasting longer than the TV contract would be a non-starter for any of those schools.

The grant of rights is already in place. An improved or different TV deal wouldn’t affect that at all. The individual schools have forfeited their right to independently negotiate a TV deal. It will be collectively negotiated as a conference at large. It does not need to coincide with the TV deal, although extending it can be used as a bargaining chip for the TV deal.

(08-16-2021 10:41 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 08:37 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 08:16 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 07:51 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  ... Fair enough, shortening the TV deal may not be a viable or even intelligent option, but if the ACC could extract more money from ESPN for the length of the current deal by pulling a heel turn on this Alliance with the B1G and PAC-12 it would be wise. ...

If an OOC scheduling agreement is pulled off, which can be spun out as a separate TV package by the PAC-12 and Big Ten due to their contracts expiring in successive years, the leverage the ACC has with ESPN is "we will participate on a home/away rights basis and you will own the home rights ... if you give us an offer to make it worth our while to increase our P5 quota from 9 to 10."

So, basically, nice little conference network you gave us, it’d be a shame if you had to keep airing Wake-UNC out of conference games on it. Pay us more or we’ll refuse to schedule OOC games with the B1G and PAC-12, some of which you could air.

Though Wake-UNC OOC is far from the typical Tier 3 ACC game, and if the ACC increases the Power Conference quota to 10, the Wake - UNC OOC game could still go ahead. More like Pitt - New Hampshire, Virginia Tech - Richmond Spiders, Syracuse - Albany Great Danes, Clemson - SC State.

"Now, you might get to pick Clemson hosting Wisconsin, but bear in mind you lose both Clemson against SC State and Syracuse against the Great Danes, so choose wisely."

Clemson already plays 10 P5 games just about every year. This season it's 8 ACC + Georgia + SC. In fact, about half of all ACC teams play 10 (VT plays WVU + Notre Dame this season).

Pitt and Syracuse do not have a 10th P-5
BC and NC State are playing Temple and South Florida, respectively.

The ACC is in a tough spot. The only thing it has going for it is, thanks to Clemson in football and UNC/Duke/Virginia in hoops, it wins national titles in football and basketball more regularly than anyone. Even the SEC has gone 8 years since its last hoops title. Nobody wins each of them more frequently than the ACC.

But that's basically good for Twitter bragging. On the things that matter, the ACC has little territory of its own, the states of North Carolina and Virginia. Everywhere else, it is surrounded by the two most powerful conferences, the SEC and B1G. It knows there are members of its league that would leave for either of them in a minute if invited and if the Holy GOR did not exist.

Most crucially, the ACC is in a money trap. It makes a lot less than those schools, and has seemingly no way out of that money trap. It fired its last bullet, the launching of the ACC Network, a couple years ago, and that barely made a blip on the money chain. And begging Notre Dame to join isn't doing much good.

So sure, the ACC will talk with anyone about an alliance as who knows, maybe that can lead to non-apparent solutions to its problems.