Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Poll: How many SEC teams will there be in 2030? (YOU MAY VOTE FOR MORE THAN ONE OPTION)
There will be 16 SEC members (no change)
SEC will have 17 members
SEC will have 18 members
SEC will have 19 members
SEC will have 20 members
The SEC won't raid any conference.
SEC will raid the ACC
SEC will raid the Big Ten
SEC will raid the Big 12
SEC will raid the PAC 12
SEC will raid the G5
The SEC will merge with another conference.
There will be a P2, not a P5
Something else will happen.
[Show Results]
 
Post Reply 
Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
Author Message
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,116
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 938
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #61
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 02:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Oh, but there are other reasons besides money. They both likely desire to remain competitively viable in their sport of notoriety. Money is involved in that but the motivation is to keep their brand power at or near the top of their respective sports.

And unless you are in the board room there is no way to know the actual motives of the networks. Exposure, association with a brand, a defensive move to deny a rival a key acquisition, or any number of extraneous reasons could be involved, and have been. Why the LHN? It wasn't a smart money play. ESPN wanted that brand association and dominance in that market. Now they have it. They chose to lose now in order to control a move later.

It's not just a money analysis, whether in theory or in practice. Where is UNC & Duke worth more? Where can FSU and Clemson be worth more to ESPN? What is essential to keep? It all comes into play and then some, as with the LHN.

Actually, the LHN was very much a smart money play when looking at ESPN's expenditures in totality. It goes to the first part of your bolded paragraph: a defensive move to deny a rival a key acquisition.

The importance of the LHN was what it *prevented* from happening: the Pac-16. That would have created a third monster monolith superconference after the SEC and Big Ten that would have driven up the college football TV market rights fees even further than what we see now.

The thing is that we can look at it from the flip side for ESPN: you're looking at it as if though they *want* to have schools like UNC, Duke, FSU and Clemson be where they would be worth more. That's not how they looked at the Pac-16. Instead, I think it's more in ESPN's interest to have UNC, Duke, FSU and Clemson exactly where they are now at a discount price. The FSU-Clemson football and UNC-Duke basketball games are still on ESPN and they're paying a fraction of the price compared to what they'd be paying if those were Big Ten or SEC games.

Sure, ESPN would always like better SEC games. The distinction is that they're not in the business of unilaterally paying *more* for those SEC games. (Hence the hemming and hawing over whether the SEC will have 8 or 9 conference games going forward since ESPN isn't willing to pay for the additional conference games). ESPN still looks at things in totality: are those newly-minted Clemson-Alabama games worth it if it means having to increase the SEC rights deal by much more than what it might be saving on the ACC rights deal? That's where I'm skeptical.

ESPN isn't a charity - it will ALWAYS want to pay lower rights fees. Now, they may not be *able* to pay lower rights fees because the market dictates otherwise. However, this notion that ESPN will just start trading SEC and ACC schools because they're both under contract there has a lot of faulty reasoning to me. They have the ACC locked into a super cheap contract for the next decade and a half: why the heck they would want to move any of the top ACC brands out of that super cheap contract makes very little sense. It's in ESPN's interests to ensure that the top ACC brands don't go *anywhere* (even to a fellow SEC contract).

Ah, but that utilizes their value once a year in football and twice, maybe 3 times in hoops. Would they not be worth much more vs Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee, A&M, or in the case of hoops against most of the same, and Kentucky? Big UNC, Duke, Clemson, and FSU games weekly yields a much higher valued total inventory which could be worth much more than the 140 million in payout difference for the moves. And having multiple platforms means there is ample use for such an inventory.

I grant that it's possible. Similarly, though, it could be that it's simply not worth more to ESPN if they're not yielding savings on the ACC contract to compensate to whatever more they would have to pay to the SEC.

That's what ESPN feared back in 2010 when they offered the LHN: it was better to send $15 million per year to Texas than deal with a Pac-16 that included Texas and would have as much negotiating power as any sports entity outside of the NFL and would have cost much, much more.

Note that you've pointed out another reason why the UT/OU expansion is so singularly efficient for the SEC in a way that isn't really possible for many (or any) expansion combinations. Not only are Texas and Oklahoma top tier football brands, but they're also top tier basketball brands, too. They're achieving in an expansion with just 2 schools what it would take all 4 of Clemson, FSU, UNC and Duke to do here... and that's with the bar to actually make expansion more profitable to the SEC going sky high with this UT/OU move in the first place.

In any event, my point is that thinking that the SEC and Big Ten can really add anyone besides Notre Dame to make more on a media money basis is pretty much impossible now.

If we want to say that there are global factors like a total restructuring of college football administration or the elimination of the NCAA that could spur those leagues to expand further, then sure, I can buy that. I just don't think it's going to be based on how much more money ESPN, FOX or anyone else is going to pay at this point. We've reached the maximum per school revenue size for the Big Ten and SEC under the current environment just as the NFL has reached its maximum per franchise size. The NFL reached the point where their current members would make more money by staying the same size as opposed to expanding and that's simply where I see the Big Ten and SEC now.

I suspect the SEC might be more interested in North Carolina, Duke, Virginia and Kansas. 4 AAUs, 3 national brands, 3 new states, and oodles of hoops branding (which is insurance for the future). FSU and Clemson could be used by ESPN to anchor a better football conference (rebuilt from B12 and ACC brands). To me the accretive value to the SEC is in hoops (especially if basketball is monetized outside of the NCAA), and yet they would also be picking up 3 stellar baseball programs and an improving one at Kansas. The conference would never run short on any of the Big 3's post seasons. And it adds (as did OU and UT) to softball and women's hoops.

It also puts a bow on the entire region.

We'll simply see what ESPN is thinking soon enough.

Well, I think the Big Ten would be interested in all of those exact same schools in a vacuum, too. This is sort of the opposite of the UT/OU situation, though. It was probably hard envisioning OU ending up in the Big Ten while it was very easy to see them fit into the SEC. UT could really fit into any conference geographically and academically (which is why they were such a valuable commodity for realignment - they made sense for EVERY conference coast-to-coast). In contrast, I just see no way that Duke would ever choose the SEC over the Big Ten and I'd likely say the same for UVA and Kansas. UNC is different in the sense that they're in a more UT-like position. The thing is that UT's rivals preferred the SEC while UNC's rivals very likely prefer the Big Ten.

I think it's all water under the bridge because of the ACC Grant of Rights agreement, though. We can talk about all of these scenarios of the ACC getting poached all day, but from a legal perspective, the GOR is truly a hammer to prevent schools from getting poached. Like I've said before, UT and OU are having a hard time simply paying an extra year or two of damages in order to be released from the Big 12 GOR agreement... and these are super rich schools going to the super rich SEC. It's not reasonable for any ACC school to be paying a dozen years of those same types of damages in order for the ACC to agree to release them from the GOR. (The term of art to "break the GOR" is NOT a very good way of phrasing it for anyone that wants to discuss this issue. It implies that a school can unilaterally figure out a way to break the contract, which simply isn't true. Instead, it's the conference getting enough money that it's satisfied to agree to release the defecting school from its GOR obligations. ALL of the power is with the conference in GOR agreements.)
06-17-2022 04:24 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,295
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 808
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #62
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 04:13 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 01:56 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 10:18 AM)ken d Wrote:  So if I'm reading this right, 62.5% (15/24) of voters think the SEC will stay at 16. I wonder how many of us think the other P5 conferences will stand pat?

I think the SEC, B1G, ACC and Pac12 will stand pat. The Pac12 has no options that will add to their average media value and the ACC and B1G will stay at 14 until ND finds a conference home for football. So, forever. Even with removing divisions, 16 teams is more than enough.

The Big 12 could stay at 12, expand to 14 or 16. Personally I'd like to see them soak up all the remaining 2 major G5 schools that have played in the access bowl plus 2 more that hold big markets or competitive NIL advantages. So, Boise State, Memphis, San Diego State, and SMU. Go to a 3-6-6 scheduling format and let the 2 best teams play in the B12CCG.

I could certainly picture that B16. It starts with the lowest value of the P5 and actually increases that value a little by going coast to coast. It would occupy 11 different states in every time zone, with representation in the high population, talent rich states of California, Texas, Florida and Ohio. And it leaves the G5 with very little meat on the bone. So little, the P5 could justifiably IMO exclude them from an automatic seat at the CFP table in the next contract.

Just my opinion but I feel that if the BigXII went this route it would actually spur the few universities (KU, TTech, OSU, WVU) left in the conference with at least a little value to want to find greener pastures. Bowlsby did all he could to save the conference, adding anyone else might be a recipe for disaster.

The problem for those schools is that the pasture they would be in is greener than any other that would have them. Maybe Kansas could find a home (see JR's suggestion above) but if the other three were to try the conference transfer portal they could find themselves in the G5.
06-17-2022 04:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,116
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 938
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #63
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 04:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Oh, but there are other reasons besides money. They both likely desire to remain competitively viable in their sport of notoriety. Money is involved in that but the motivation is to keep their brand power at or near the top of their respective sports.

And unless you are in the board room there is no way to know the actual motives of the networks. Exposure, association with a brand, a defensive move to deny a rival a key acquisition, or any number of extraneous reasons could be involved, and have been. Why the LHN? It wasn't a smart money play. ESPN wanted that brand association and dominance in that market. Now they have it. They chose to lose now in order to control a move later.

It's not just a money analysis, whether in theory or in practice. Where is UNC & Duke worth more? Where can FSU and Clemson be worth more to ESPN? What is essential to keep? It all comes into play and then some, as with the LHN.

Actually, the LHN was very much a smart money play when looking at ESPN's expenditures in totality. It goes to the first part of your bolded paragraph: a defensive move to deny a rival a key acquisition.

The importance of the LHN was what it *prevented* from happening: the Pac-16. That would have created a third monster monolith superconference after the SEC and Big Ten that would have driven up the college football TV market rights fees even further than what we see now.

The thing is that we can look at it from the flip side for ESPN: you're looking at it as if though they *want* to have schools like UNC, Duke, FSU and Clemson be where they would be worth more. That's not how they looked at the Pac-16. Instead, I think it's more in ESPN's interest to have UNC, Duke, FSU and Clemson exactly where they are now at a discount price. The FSU-Clemson football and UNC-Duke basketball games are still on ESPN and they're paying a fraction of the price compared to what they'd be paying if those were Big Ten or SEC games.

Sure, ESPN would always like better SEC games. The distinction is that they're not in the business of unilaterally paying *more* for those SEC games. (Hence the hemming and hawing over whether the SEC will have 8 or 9 conference games going forward since ESPN isn't willing to pay for the additional conference games). ESPN still looks at things in totality: are those newly-minted Clemson-Alabama games worth it if it means having to increase the SEC rights deal by much more than what it might be saving on the ACC rights deal? That's where I'm skeptical.

ESPN isn't a charity - it will ALWAYS want to pay lower rights fees. Now, they may not be *able* to pay lower rights fees because the market dictates otherwise. However, this notion that ESPN will just start trading SEC and ACC schools because they're both under contract there has a lot of faulty reasoning to me. They have the ACC locked into a super cheap contract for the next decade and a half: why the heck they would want to move any of the top ACC brands out of that super cheap contract makes very little sense. It's in ESPN's interests to ensure that the top ACC brands don't go *anywhere* (even to a fellow SEC contract).

Ah, but that utilizes their value once a year in football and twice, maybe 3 times in hoops. Would they not be worth much more vs Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee, A&M, or in the case of hoops against most of the same, and Kentucky? Big UNC, Duke, Clemson, and FSU games weekly yields a much higher valued total inventory which could be worth much more than the 140 million in payout difference for the moves. And having multiple platforms means there is ample use for such an inventory.

I grant that it's possible. Similarly, though, it could be that it's simply not worth more to ESPN if they're not yielding savings on the ACC contract to compensate to whatever more they would have to pay to the SEC.

That's what ESPN feared back in 2010 when they offered the LHN: it was better to send $15 million per year to Texas than deal with a Pac-16 that included Texas and would have as much negotiating power as any sports entity outside of the NFL and would have cost much, much more.

Note that you've pointed out another reason why the UT/OU expansion is so singularly efficient for the SEC in a way that isn't really possible for many (or any) expansion combinations. Not only are Texas and Oklahoma top tier football brands, but they're also top tier basketball brands, too. They're achieving in an expansion with just 2 schools what it would take all 4 of Clemson, FSU, UNC and Duke to do here... and that's with the bar to actually make expansion more profitable to the SEC going sky high with this UT/OU move in the first place.

In any event, my point is that thinking that the SEC and Big Ten can really add anyone besides Notre Dame to make more on a media money basis is pretty much impossible now.

If we want to say that there are global factors like a total restructuring of college football administration or the elimination of the NCAA that could spur those leagues to expand further, then sure, I can buy that. I just don't think it's going to be based on how much more money ESPN, FOX or anyone else is going to pay at this point. We've reached the maximum per school revenue size for the Big Ten and SEC under the current environment just as the NFL has reached its maximum per franchise size. The NFL reached the point where their current members would make more money by staying the same size as opposed to expanding and that's simply where I see the Big Ten and SEC now.

Frank you are 100% wrong. I'm disappointed in you. Lots of people post that fake information, but I thought you were better than that.

Facts:

Texas decides to stay in the Big 12 June 14, 2010.
Reasons are that Fox and ESPN didn't want the Pac 16 to happen and promised the Big 12 would get comparable money in their new deal to what the Pac 16 would get. In the press conference on that day President Powers said they figured they would get similar money and similar schedules and could stay in the Big 12.

LHN deal up until late October 2010 was expected to yield only about $3 million and Fox was expected to get it. ESPN made their big bid October 25, 2010, 4 months after the Pac 16 deal fell apart.

The money on the LHN deal had absolutely zero to do with the Pac 16 deal falling apart.

There are a lot of claims that having a LHN was what caused UT to make the decision it did. President Powers and Deloss Dodds never mentioned it in that press conference. And the claim makes no sense. The Pac has their 2 team subnetworks. Texas originally proposed to Texas A&M to do a 2 team network. So Texas would have the exposure in either place. And as I pointed out above, the money was expected to be minor.

I don't believe that it's fake information at all. I understand you appear to be presenting the UT view on the situation, which is fine. However, there have been several reports over the years that stated directly that the LHN was the poison pill to the Pac-16 negotiations. Make no mistake about this: the Pac-16 was a DONE deal. As in Larry Scott visited multiple Big 12 campuses directly and got the actual paperwork signed being a DONE deal. Texas, truly at the last minute, stated that it didn't want to participate in a conference network with the Pac-16. This was obviously a huge issue for the then-Pac-10. While the LHN contract may not have been finalized for a few months, we can't pretend that Texas suddenly saying that it didn't want to be a part of a conference network and the announcement of the formation of the LHN happened at the exact same time that the Pac-16 proposal fell apart wasn't the primary reason for the Pac-16 proposal falling apart.

Like I've said, other schools *signed* the Pac-16 paperwork. You can go back to Larry Scott's plane records and it shows that he arrived at those places during the applicable days in question. That's not fake. The last stop was Austin, which is when UT killed the entire deal.

I don't blame UT for doing it. The school was (and still is) the single most valuable school in conference realignment, so they had the leverage to get whatever they wanted to make them happy. The school trying to argue that the LHN deal wasn't technically finalized until October 2010 is totally disingenuous for the school's reasoning, though: the LHN formation news absolutely came out at the exact same time that the Pac-16 deal fell apart.

To be sure, I sort of agree with you that UT didn't stay in the Big 12 for the LHN *money* itself. I don't think it was about the money so much as it was about being the only school that could get its very own network from ESPN. The platform in and of itself was what was special to UT beyond the money.
06-17-2022 04:41 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,185
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 162
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #64
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
I heard in line at the hot bagel shop that following Disney money is like rats following the pied pipper, could this be true ?, just asking for somebody i am gonna meet for the first time on Tuesday…
06-17-2022 05:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 29,730
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 3903
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #65
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 04:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Actually, the LHN was very much a smart money play when looking at ESPN's expenditures in totality. It goes to the first part of your bolded paragraph: a defensive move to deny a rival a key acquisition.

The importance of the LHN was what it *prevented* from happening: the Pac-16. That would have created a third monster monolith superconference after the SEC and Big Ten that would have driven up the college football TV market rights fees even further than what we see now.

The thing is that we can look at it from the flip side for ESPN: you're looking at it as if though they *want* to have schools like UNC, Duke, FSU and Clemson be where they would be worth more. That's not how they looked at the Pac-16. Instead, I think it's more in ESPN's interest to have UNC, Duke, FSU and Clemson exactly where they are now at a discount price. The FSU-Clemson football and UNC-Duke basketball games are still on ESPN and they're paying a fraction of the price compared to what they'd be paying if those were Big Ten or SEC games.

Sure, ESPN would always like better SEC games. The distinction is that they're not in the business of unilaterally paying *more* for those SEC games. (Hence the hemming and hawing over whether the SEC will have 8 or 9 conference games going forward since ESPN isn't willing to pay for the additional conference games). ESPN still looks at things in totality: are those newly-minted Clemson-Alabama games worth it if it means having to increase the SEC rights deal by much more than what it might be saving on the ACC rights deal? That's where I'm skeptical.

ESPN isn't a charity - it will ALWAYS want to pay lower rights fees. Now, they may not be *able* to pay lower rights fees because the market dictates otherwise. However, this notion that ESPN will just start trading SEC and ACC schools because they're both under contract there has a lot of faulty reasoning to me. They have the ACC locked into a super cheap contract for the next decade and a half: why the heck they would want to move any of the top ACC brands out of that super cheap contract makes very little sense. It's in ESPN's interests to ensure that the top ACC brands don't go *anywhere* (even to a fellow SEC contract).

Ah, but that utilizes their value once a year in football and twice, maybe 3 times in hoops. Would they not be worth much more vs Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee, A&M, or in the case of hoops against most of the same, and Kentucky? Big UNC, Duke, Clemson, and FSU games weekly yields a much higher valued total inventory which could be worth much more than the 140 million in payout difference for the moves. And having multiple platforms means there is ample use for such an inventory.

I grant that it's possible. Similarly, though, it could be that it's simply not worth more to ESPN if they're not yielding savings on the ACC contract to compensate to whatever more they would have to pay to the SEC.

That's what ESPN feared back in 2010 when they offered the LHN: it was better to send $15 million per year to Texas than deal with a Pac-16 that included Texas and would have as much negotiating power as any sports entity outside of the NFL and would have cost much, much more.

Note that you've pointed out another reason why the UT/OU expansion is so singularly efficient for the SEC in a way that isn't really possible for many (or any) expansion combinations. Not only are Texas and Oklahoma top tier football brands, but they're also top tier basketball brands, too. They're achieving in an expansion with just 2 schools what it would take all 4 of Clemson, FSU, UNC and Duke to do here... and that's with the bar to actually make expansion more profitable to the SEC going sky high with this UT/OU move in the first place.

In any event, my point is that thinking that the SEC and Big Ten can really add anyone besides Notre Dame to make more on a media money basis is pretty much impossible now.

If we want to say that there are global factors like a total restructuring of college football administration or the elimination of the NCAA that could spur those leagues to expand further, then sure, I can buy that. I just don't think it's going to be based on how much more money ESPN, FOX or anyone else is going to pay at this point. We've reached the maximum per school revenue size for the Big Ten and SEC under the current environment just as the NFL has reached its maximum per franchise size. The NFL reached the point where their current members would make more money by staying the same size as opposed to expanding and that's simply where I see the Big Ten and SEC now.

I suspect the SEC might be more interested in North Carolina, Duke, Virginia and Kansas. 4 AAUs, 3 national brands, 3 new states, and oodles of hoops branding (which is insurance for the future). FSU and Clemson could be used by ESPN to anchor a better football conference (rebuilt from B12 and ACC brands). To me the accretive value to the SEC is in hoops (especially if basketball is monetized outside of the NCAA), and yet they would also be picking up 3 stellar baseball programs and an improving one at Kansas. The conference would never run short on any of the Big 3's post seasons. And it adds (as did OU and UT) to softball and women's hoops.

It also puts a bow on the entire region.

We'll simply see what ESPN is thinking soon enough.

Well, I think the Big Ten would be interested in all of those exact same schools in a vacuum, too. This is sort of the opposite of the UT/OU situation, though. It was probably hard envisioning OU ending up in the Big Ten while it was very easy to see them fit into the SEC. UT could really fit into any conference geographically and academically (which is why they were such a valuable commodity for realignment - they made sense for EVERY conference coast-to-coast). In contrast, I just see no way that Duke would ever choose the SEC over the Big Ten and I'd likely say the same for UVA and Kansas. UNC is different in the sense that they're in a more UT-like position. The thing is that UT's rivals preferred the SEC while UNC's rivals very likely prefer the Big Ten.

I think it's all water under the bridge because of the ACC Grant of Rights agreement, though. We can talk about all of these scenarios of the ACC getting poached all day, but from a legal perspective, the GOR is truly a hammer to prevent schools from getting poached. Like I've said before, UT and OU are having a hard time simply paying an extra year or two of damages in order to be released from the Big 12 GOR agreement... and these are super rich schools going to the super rich SEC. It's not reasonable for any ACC school to be paying a dozen years of those same types of damages in order for the ACC to agree to release them from the GOR. (The term of art to "break the GOR" is NOT a very good way of phrasing it for anyone that wants to discuss this issue. It implies that a school can unilaterally figure out a way to break the contract, which simply isn't true. Instead, it's the conference getting enough money that it's satisfied to agree to release the defecting school from its GOR obligations. ALL of the power is with the conference in GOR agreements.)

Well Frank you are likely to be as shocked as you were with the Texas decision. They've been in talks twice now. UVa I'm inclined to believe could go either way. Kansas will merely take the first firm offer from either. Northern certitude, ain't nothin' like it for entertainment!
06-17-2022 05:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lurker Above Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 958
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation: 62
I Root For: UGA
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 04:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Ah, but that utilizes their value once a year in football and twice, maybe 3 times in hoops. Would they not be worth much more vs Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee, A&M, or in the case of hoops against most of the same, and Kentucky? Big UNC, Duke, Clemson, and FSU games weekly yields a much higher valued total inventory which could be worth much more than the 140 million in payout difference for the moves. And having multiple platforms means there is ample use for such an inventory.

I grant that it's possible. Similarly, though, it could be that it's simply not worth more to ESPN if they're not yielding savings on the ACC contract to compensate to whatever more they would have to pay to the SEC.

That's what ESPN feared back in 2010 when they offered the LHN: it was better to send $15 million per year to Texas than deal with a Pac-16 that included Texas and would have as much negotiating power as any sports entity outside of the NFL and would have cost much, much more.

Note that you've pointed out another reason why the UT/OU expansion is so singularly efficient for the SEC in a way that isn't really possible for many (or any) expansion combinations. Not only are Texas and Oklahoma top tier football brands, but they're also top tier basketball brands, too. They're achieving in an expansion with just 2 schools what it would take all 4 of Clemson, FSU, UNC and Duke to do here... and that's with the bar to actually make expansion more profitable to the SEC going sky high with this UT/OU move in the first place.

In any event, my point is that thinking that the SEC and Big Ten can really add anyone besides Notre Dame to make more on a media money basis is pretty much impossible now.

If we want to say that there are global factors like a total restructuring of college football administration or the elimination of the NCAA that could spur those leagues to expand further, then sure, I can buy that. I just don't think it's going to be based on how much more money ESPN, FOX or anyone else is going to pay at this point. We've reached the maximum per school revenue size for the Big Ten and SEC under the current environment just as the NFL has reached its maximum per franchise size. The NFL reached the point where their current members would make more money by staying the same size as opposed to expanding and that's simply where I see the Big Ten and SEC now.

I suspect the SEC might be more interested in North Carolina, Duke, Virginia and Kansas. 4 AAUs, 3 national brands, 3 new states, and oodles of hoops branding (which is insurance for the future). FSU and Clemson could be used by ESPN to anchor a better football conference (rebuilt from B12 and ACC brands). To me the accretive value to the SEC is in hoops (especially if basketball is monetized outside of the NCAA), and yet they would also be picking up 3 stellar baseball programs and an improving one at Kansas. The conference would never run short on any of the Big 3's post seasons. And it adds (as did OU and UT) to softball and women's hoops.

It also puts a bow on the entire region.

We'll simply see what ESPN is thinking soon enough.

Well, I think the Big Ten would be interested in all of those exact same schools in a vacuum, too. This is sort of the opposite of the UT/OU situation, though. It was probably hard envisioning OU ending up in the Big Ten while it was very easy to see them fit into the SEC. UT could really fit into any conference geographically and academically (which is why they were such a valuable commodity for realignment - they made sense for EVERY conference coast-to-coast). In contrast, I just see no way that Duke would ever choose the SEC over the Big Ten and I'd likely say the same for UVA and Kansas. UNC is different in the sense that they're in a more UT-like position. The thing is that UT's rivals preferred the SEC while UNC's rivals very likely prefer the Big Ten.

I think it's all water under the bridge because of the ACC Grant of Rights agreement, though. We can talk about all of these scenarios of the ACC getting poached all day, but from a legal perspective, the GOR is truly a hammer to prevent schools from getting poached. Like I've said before, UT and OU are having a hard time simply paying an extra year or two of damages in order to be released from the Big 12 GOR agreement... and these are super rich schools going to the super rich SEC. It's not reasonable for any ACC school to be paying a dozen years of those same types of damages in order for the ACC to agree to release them from the GOR. (The term of art to "break the GOR" is NOT a very good way of phrasing it for anyone that wants to discuss this issue. It implies that a school can unilaterally figure out a way to break the contract, which simply isn't true. Instead, it's the conference getting enough money that it's satisfied to agree to release the defecting school from its GOR obligations. ALL of the power is with the conference in GOR agreements.)

Well Frank you are likely to be as shocked as you were with the Texas decision. They've been in talks twice now. UVa I'm inclined to believe could go either way. Kansas will merely take the first firm offer from either. Northern certitude, ain't nothin' like it for entertainment!

Frank's point regarding additions must make more money for current members is legit, but college football and basketball is still under valued compared to what it could be worth that it would be smart to acquire the most valuable pieces on the board when you can. For example, if there is going to be a breakaway of the top 48, 56 or 64 schools, and the SEC could expand it's membership to one half that total so it would be one of the two conferencs remaiing, then the SEC would be wise to take the best 8, 14 or even 16 schools. And leave the B1G aligned with the PAC and a few others outside the SEC's territory.

When Frank says conferences hold the power in the Grant of Rights negotiations he was referring to a school's ability to leave the conference. But the network has power too because the school cannot go to another conference the network does not own.the rights to another conference. That means there is zero chance any school goes to the B1G as long as there is an ACC until the ACC's grant of rights has expired. It might be unlikely that any ACC school can go the SEC during the ACC's grant of rights but the chances are not zero.

I think UNC has decided if the are going to leave the ACC it will be to go to the SEC. All of the tea leaves say Tar Heels to the SEC. FSU definitely has.
06-17-2022 08:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,295
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 808
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #67
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 08:47 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 04:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I grant that it's possible. Similarly, though, it could be that it's simply not worth more to ESPN if they're not yielding savings on the ACC contract to compensate to whatever more they would have to pay to the SEC.

That's what ESPN feared back in 2010 when they offered the LHN: it was better to send $15 million per year to Texas than deal with a Pac-16 that included Texas and would have as much negotiating power as any sports entity outside of the NFL and would have cost much, much more.

Note that you've pointed out another reason why the UT/OU expansion is so singularly efficient for the SEC in a way that isn't really possible for many (or any) expansion combinations. Not only are Texas and Oklahoma top tier football brands, but they're also top tier basketball brands, too. They're achieving in an expansion with just 2 schools what it would take all 4 of Clemson, FSU, UNC and Duke to do here... and that's with the bar to actually make expansion more profitable to the SEC going sky high with this UT/OU move in the first place.

In any event, my point is that thinking that the SEC and Big Ten can really add anyone besides Notre Dame to make more on a media money basis is pretty much impossible now.

If we want to say that there are global factors like a total restructuring of college football administration or the elimination of the NCAA that could spur those leagues to expand further, then sure, I can buy that. I just don't think it's going to be based on how much more money ESPN, FOX or anyone else is going to pay at this point. We've reached the maximum per school revenue size for the Big Ten and SEC under the current environment just as the NFL has reached its maximum per franchise size. The NFL reached the point where their current members would make more money by staying the same size as opposed to expanding and that's simply where I see the Big Ten and SEC now.

I suspect the SEC might be more interested in North Carolina, Duke, Virginia and Kansas. 4 AAUs, 3 national brands, 3 new states, and oodles of hoops branding (which is insurance for the future). FSU and Clemson could be used by ESPN to anchor a better football conference (rebuilt from B12 and ACC brands). To me the accretive value to the SEC is in hoops (especially if basketball is monetized outside of the NCAA), and yet they would also be picking up 3 stellar baseball programs and an improving one at Kansas. The conference would never run short on any of the Big 3's post seasons. And it adds (as did OU and UT) to softball and women's hoops.

It also puts a bow on the entire region.

We'll simply see what ESPN is thinking soon enough.

Well, I think the Big Ten would be interested in all of those exact same schools in a vacuum, too. This is sort of the opposite of the UT/OU situation, though. It was probably hard envisioning OU ending up in the Big Ten while it was very easy to see them fit into the SEC. UT could really fit into any conference geographically and academically (which is why they were such a valuable commodity for realignment - they made sense for EVERY conference coast-to-coast). In contrast, I just see no way that Duke would ever choose the SEC over the Big Ten and I'd likely say the same for UVA and Kansas. UNC is different in the sense that they're in a more UT-like position. The thing is that UT's rivals preferred the SEC while UNC's rivals very likely prefer the Big Ten.

I think it's all water under the bridge because of the ACC Grant of Rights agreement, though. We can talk about all of these scenarios of the ACC getting poached all day, but from a legal perspective, the GOR is truly a hammer to prevent schools from getting poached. Like I've said before, UT and OU are having a hard time simply paying an extra year or two of damages in order to be released from the Big 12 GOR agreement... and these are super rich schools going to the super rich SEC. It's not reasonable for any ACC school to be paying a dozen years of those same types of damages in order for the ACC to agree to release them from the GOR. (The term of art to "break the GOR" is NOT a very good way of phrasing it for anyone that wants to discuss this issue. It implies that a school can unilaterally figure out a way to break the contract, which simply isn't true. Instead, it's the conference getting enough money that it's satisfied to agree to release the defecting school from its GOR obligations. ALL of the power is with the conference in GOR agreements.)

Well Frank you are likely to be as shocked as you were with the Texas decision. They've been in talks twice now. UVa I'm inclined to believe could go either way. Kansas will merely take the first firm offer from either. Northern certitude, ain't nothin' like it for entertainment!

Frank's point regarding additions must make more money for current members is legit, but college football and basketball is still under valued compared to what it could be worth that it would be smart to acquire the most valuable pieces on the board when you can. For example, if there is going to be a breakaway of the top 48, 56 or 64 schools, and the SEC could expand it's membership to one half that total so it would be one of the two conferencs remaiing, then the SEC would be wise to take the best 8, 14 or even 16 schools. And leave the B1G aligned with the PAC and a few others outside the SEC's territory.

When Frank says conferences hold the power in the Grant of Rights negotiations he was referring to a school's ability to leave the conference. But the network has power too because the school cannot go to another conference the network does not own. the rights to another conference. That means there is zero chance any school goes to the B1G as long as there is an ACC until the ACC's grant of rights has expired. It might be unlikely that any ACC school can go the SEC during the ACC's grant of rights but the chances are not zero.

I think UNC has decided if the are going to leave the ACC it will be to go to the SEC. All of the tea leaves say Tar Heels to the SEC. FSU definitely has.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe that bolded statement is technically true. Whether UNC wanted to go to the B1G or to the SEC they would still have to negotiate their release from the GoR with the ACC and whatever schools remain in it, just like OUT have to do to leave the Big 12 early.
06-17-2022 11:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 29,730
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 3903
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #68
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 08:47 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 04:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I grant that it's possible. Similarly, though, it could be that it's simply not worth more to ESPN if they're not yielding savings on the ACC contract to compensate to whatever more they would have to pay to the SEC.

That's what ESPN feared back in 2010 when they offered the LHN: it was better to send $15 million per year to Texas than deal with a Pac-16 that included Texas and would have as much negotiating power as any sports entity outside of the NFL and would have cost much, much more.

Note that you've pointed out another reason why the UT/OU expansion is so singularly efficient for the SEC in a way that isn't really possible for many (or any) expansion combinations. Not only are Texas and Oklahoma top tier football brands, but they're also top tier basketball brands, too. They're achieving in an expansion with just 2 schools what it would take all 4 of Clemson, FSU, UNC and Duke to do here... and that's with the bar to actually make expansion more profitable to the SEC going sky high with this UT/OU move in the first place.

In any event, my point is that thinking that the SEC and Big Ten can really add anyone besides Notre Dame to make more on a media money basis is pretty much impossible now.

If we want to say that there are global factors like a total restructuring of college football administration or the elimination of the NCAA that could spur those leagues to expand further, then sure, I can buy that. I just don't think it's going to be based on how much more money ESPN, FOX or anyone else is going to pay at this point. We've reached the maximum per school revenue size for the Big Ten and SEC under the current environment just as the NFL has reached its maximum per franchise size. The NFL reached the point where their current members would make more money by staying the same size as opposed to expanding and that's simply where I see the Big Ten and SEC now.

I suspect the SEC might be more interested in North Carolina, Duke, Virginia and Kansas. 4 AAUs, 3 national brands, 3 new states, and oodles of hoops branding (which is insurance for the future). FSU and Clemson could be used by ESPN to anchor a better football conference (rebuilt from B12 and ACC brands). To me the accretive value to the SEC is in hoops (especially if basketball is monetized outside of the NCAA), and yet they would also be picking up 3 stellar baseball programs and an improving one at Kansas. The conference would never run short on any of the Big 3's post seasons. And it adds (as did OU and UT) to softball and women's hoops.

It also puts a bow on the entire region.

We'll simply see what ESPN is thinking soon enough.

Well, I think the Big Ten would be interested in all of those exact same schools in a vacuum, too. This is sort of the opposite of the UT/OU situation, though. It was probably hard envisioning OU ending up in the Big Ten while it was very easy to see them fit into the SEC. UT could really fit into any conference geographically and academically (which is why they were such a valuable commodity for realignment - they made sense for EVERY conference coast-to-coast). In contrast, I just see no way that Duke would ever choose the SEC over the Big Ten and I'd likely say the same for UVA and Kansas. UNC is different in the sense that they're in a more UT-like position. The thing is that UT's rivals preferred the SEC while UNC's rivals very likely prefer the Big Ten.

I think it's all water under the bridge because of the ACC Grant of Rights agreement, though. We can talk about all of these scenarios of the ACC getting poached all day, but from a legal perspective, the GOR is truly a hammer to prevent schools from getting poached. Like I've said before, UT and OU are having a hard time simply paying an extra year or two of damages in order to be released from the Big 12 GOR agreement... and these are super rich schools going to the super rich SEC. It's not reasonable for any ACC school to be paying a dozen years of those same types of damages in order for the ACC to agree to release them from the GOR. (The term of art to "break the GOR" is NOT a very good way of phrasing it for anyone that wants to discuss this issue. It implies that a school can unilaterally figure out a way to break the contract, which simply isn't true. Instead, it's the conference getting enough money that it's satisfied to agree to release the defecting school from its GOR obligations. ALL of the power is with the conference in GOR agreements.)

Well Frank you are likely to be as shocked as you were with the Texas decision. They've been in talks twice now. UVa I'm inclined to believe could go either way. Kansas will merely take the first firm offer from either. Northern certitude, ain't nothin' like it for entertainment!

Frank's point regarding additions must make more money for current members is legit, but college football and basketball is still under valued compared to what it could be worth that it would be smart to acquire the most valuable pieces on the board when you can. For example, if there is going to be a breakaway of the top 48, 56 or 64 schools, and the SEC could expand it's membership to one half that total so it would be one of the two conferencs remaiing, then the SEC would be wise to take the best 8, 14 or even 16 schools. And leave the B1G aligned with the PAC and a few others outside the SEC's territory.

When Frank says conferences hold the power in the Grant of Rights negotiations he was referring to a school's ability to leave the conference. But the network has power too because the school cannot go to another conference the network does not own.the rights to another conference. That means there is zero chance any school goes to the B1G as long as there is an ACC until the ACC's grant of rights has expired. It might be unlikely that any ACC school can go the SEC during the ACC's grant of rights but the chances are not zero.

I think UNC has decided if the are going to leave the ACC it will be to go to the SEC. All of the tea leaves say Tar Heels to the SEC. FSU definitely has.

UNC and Duke will move as a pair. Like they discussed in 2011, and allegedly last July. They prefer to keep the ACC as is, but if that isn't in the cards they'll keep things close to home and remain part of Southern culture. Virginia likely opts to stay with them. ESPN will have a lot of influence because they are in position to line things up before anyone knows of formal plans, like they did with Oklahoma's T3 package and with Texas. This won't be a wait until 2035 issue especially if the NCAA is left behind and pay for play becomes a reality.
06-17-2022 11:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CarlSmithCenter Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 843
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 84
I Root For: Ball So Hard U
Location:
Post: #69
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-16-2022 11:30 PM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 11:25 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  .

For every person who expects the SEC to stop expanding, there seems to be someone who expect either a continuing expansion or a merger resulting in fewer than 5 power conferences.

Question: Why do so many people seem to expect further SEC expansion of some kind (either adding members or merging/absorbing other conferences)?

I don't understand it either I feel that the SEC is done expanding for the foreseeable future. The only other expansion I could think of is if the Big10, Pac12 and ACC all decide to gang up on the B12 and destroy it creating 4 "Power" Conferences

Florida State and Clemson are more valuable to ESPN in the ACC by orders of magnitude. Conversely, those two would add no additional TV markets, nor would either come anywhere close to increasing the SEC’s media total media payout commensurate with what Texas and OU are going to bring. Outside of adding Ohio State and Notre Dame no one outside the SEC could move the money needle in a sufficient manner. The only way I could see any ACC schools end up in the SEC is if the B1G swoops in and takes Virginia, Duke, North Carolina, and Georgia Tech from the ACC. Even then, I think, to the extent the SEC then took any of the remaining schools, they’d snag Virginia Tech and NC State for geographic reasons. However IMHO in that scenario it’s more likely that the ACC would backfill with West Virginia, UCF, Cincinnati, and either USF, Navy (FB-only), or, holding it’s nose, UConn. I’ll go with Navy as that might keep ND from breaking its 5 games/year contract.

New ACC North: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, WVU, Navy, Cincinnati, Louisville.

New ACC South: Virginia Tech, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, Florida State, UCF, Miami.
06-18-2022 07:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,276
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 421
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #70
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 08:47 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 04:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I grant that it's possible. Similarly, though, it could be that it's simply not worth more to ESPN if they're not yielding savings on the ACC contract to compensate to whatever more they would have to pay to the SEC.

That's what ESPN feared back in 2010 when they offered the LHN: it was better to send $15 million per year to Texas than deal with a Pac-16 that included Texas and would have as much negotiating power as any sports entity outside of the NFL and would have cost much, much more.

Note that you've pointed out another reason why the UT/OU expansion is so singularly efficient for the SEC in a way that isn't really possible for many (or any) expansion combinations. Not only are Texas and Oklahoma top tier football brands, but they're also top tier basketball brands, too. They're achieving in an expansion with just 2 schools what it would take all 4 of Clemson, FSU, UNC and Duke to do here... and that's with the bar to actually make expansion more profitable to the SEC going sky high with this UT/OU move in the first place.

In any event, my point is that thinking that the SEC and Big Ten can really add anyone besides Notre Dame to make more on a media money basis is pretty much impossible now.

If we want to say that there are global factors like a total restructuring of college football administration or the elimination of the NCAA that could spur those leagues to expand further, then sure, I can buy that. I just don't think it's going to be based on how much more money ESPN, FOX or anyone else is going to pay at this point. We've reached the maximum per school revenue size for the Big Ten and SEC under the current environment just as the NFL has reached its maximum per franchise size. The NFL reached the point where their current members would make more money by staying the same size as opposed to expanding and that's simply where I see the Big Ten and SEC now.

I suspect the SEC might be more interested in North Carolina, Duke, Virginia and Kansas. 4 AAUs, 3 national brands, 3 new states, and oodles of hoops branding (which is insurance for the future). FSU and Clemson could be used by ESPN to anchor a better football conference (rebuilt from B12 and ACC brands). To me the accretive value to the SEC is in hoops (especially if basketball is monetized outside of the NCAA), and yet they would also be picking up 3 stellar baseball programs and an improving one at Kansas. The conference would never run short on any of the Big 3's post seasons. And it adds (as did OU and UT) to softball and women's hoops.

It also puts a bow on the entire region.

We'll simply see what ESPN is thinking soon enough.

Well, I think the Big Ten would be interested in all of those exact same schools in a vacuum, too. This is sort of the opposite of the UT/OU situation, though. It was probably hard envisioning OU ending up in the Big Ten while it was very easy to see them fit into the SEC. UT could really fit into any conference geographically and academically (which is why they were such a valuable commodity for realignment - they made sense for EVERY conference coast-to-coast). In contrast, I just see no way that Duke would ever choose the SEC over the Big Ten and I'd likely say the same for UVA and Kansas. UNC is different in the sense that they're in a more UT-like position. The thing is that UT's rivals preferred the SEC while UNC's rivals very likely prefer the Big Ten.

I think it's all water under the bridge because of the ACC Grant of Rights agreement, though. We can talk about all of these scenarios of the ACC getting poached all day, but from a legal perspective, the GOR is truly a hammer to prevent schools from getting poached. Like I've said before, UT and OU are having a hard time simply paying an extra year or two of damages in order to be released from the Big 12 GOR agreement... and these are super rich schools going to the super rich SEC. It's not reasonable for any ACC school to be paying a dozen years of those same types of damages in order for the ACC to agree to release them from the GOR. (The term of art to "break the GOR" is NOT a very good way of phrasing it for anyone that wants to discuss this issue. It implies that a school can unilaterally figure out a way to break the contract, which simply isn't true. Instead, it's the conference getting enough money that it's satisfied to agree to release the defecting school from its GOR obligations. ALL of the power is with the conference in GOR agreements.)

Well Frank you are likely to be as shocked as you were with the Texas decision. They've been in talks twice now. UVa I'm inclined to believe could go either way. Kansas will merely take the first firm offer from either. Northern certitude, ain't nothin' like it for entertainment!

Frank's point regarding additions must make more money for current members is legit, but college football and basketball is still under valued compared to what it could be worth that it would be smart to acquire the most valuable pieces on the board when you can. For example, if there is going to be a breakaway of the top 48, 56 or 64 schools, and the SEC could expand it's membership to one half that total so it would be one of the two conferencs remaiing, then the SEC would be wise to take the best 8, 14 or even 16 schools. And leave the B1G aligned with the PAC and a few others outside the SEC's territory.

When Frank says conferences hold the power in the Grant of Rights negotiations he was referring to a school's ability to leave the conference. But the network has power too because the school cannot go to another conference the network does not own.the rights to another conference. That means there is zero chance any school goes to the B1G as long as there is an ACC until the ACC's grant of rights has expired. It might be unlikely that any ACC school can go the SEC during the ACC's grant of rights but the chances are not zero.

I think UNC has decided if the are going to leave the ACC it will be to go to the SEC Big Ten All of the tea leaves say Tar Heels to the SEC B1G. FSU definitely has.
06-18-2022 08:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 8,831
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 411
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #71
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
I’ve heard a lot of people say that Clemson and Florida St are more valuable to ESPN in the ACC than the SEC. This is only true if ESPN controls them both and is getting a discount rate on ACC content. If The ACC moves to another network and suddenly FOX/NBC/CBS have advertising access to southern college football fans, ruining the ESPN monopoly, then that’s not such a good deal for the mouse.

In order to maintain control of the south I think ESPN is going to have to facilitate the move of the ACC’s top brands to the SEC.

At that point it won’t matter who has the rights to the ACC—it will be so stripped of market share that ESPN won’t care if they retain it on the cheap or if someone else does.
06-18-2022 08:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wahoowa84 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,848
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 190
I Root For: UVa
Location:
Post: #72
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
My rationale for the SEC remaining at 16 members in 2030…

The next ideal expansion scenario for the SEC is to diversify into basketball/all-sports, as well as grow into North Carolina and Virginia. So long as there is a reasonable shot at UNC, the SEC can afford to wait until the opportunity presents itself. UNC is currently unwilling (mainly due to relationships with ACC brethren, especially Duke and UVa) and unable (via GOR financial commitments through 2036) to fully explore this option.

IMO - if the GOR were not a factor and UNC was actually interested in leaving the ACC, UNC loses a lot of value if it separates itself from Duke. There are wonderful value-creation media synergies from having elite universities battling in truly competitive rivalry games (and this formula has worked for decades). Duke’s athletics success and potential is underrated in this forum because of the overwhelming focus on football.
06-18-2022 08:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lurker Above Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 958
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation: 62
I Root For: UGA
Location:
Post: #73
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-18-2022 08:40 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  My rationale for the SEC remaining at 16 members in 2030…

The next ideal expansion scenario for the SEC is to diversify into basketball/all-sports, as well as grow into North Carolina and Virginia. So long as there is a reasonable shot at UNC, the SEC can afford to wait until the opportunity presents itself. UNC is currently unwilling (mainly due to relationships with ACC brethren, especially Duke and UVa) and unable (via GOR financial commitments through 2036) to fully explore this option.

IMO - if the GOR were not a factor and UNC was actually interested in leaving the ACC, UNC loses a lot of value if it separates itself from Duke. There are wonderful value-creation media synergies from having elite universities battling in truly competitive rivalry games (and this formula has worked for decades). Duke’s athletics success and potential is underrated in this forum because of the overwhelming focus on football.

What some seem to not understand is that every school except ND presently wants to be in the SEC or B1G, or if they do not it's because they think it's geographically unworkable due to geography. The difference between conference payouts to these two conferences' schools now dwarfs every other school, ND included. The question is which schools do the SEC and B1G, if any.

Imo, any talk of expansion by the SEC or B1G must include at least an expansion of the playoffs and an expansion of regular season games, which is more feasible now that players are getting paid, both in conjunction of either an acutual separation by this two conferences or a de facto separation that includes a payoff that is more inclusive to other conferences. With the presnt money disparity and so much more that can be realized it is hard not to think this isn't the future.
06-18-2022 10:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,276
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 421
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #74
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-18-2022 10:07 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  
(06-18-2022 08:40 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  My rationale for the SEC remaining at 16 members in 2030…

The next ideal expansion scenario for the SEC is to diversify into basketball/all-sports, as well as grow into North Carolina and Virginia. So long as there is a reasonable shot at UNC, the SEC can afford to wait until the opportunity presents itself. UNC is currently unwilling (mainly due to relationships with ACC brethren, especially Duke and UVa) and unable (via GOR financial commitments through 2036) to fully explore this option.

IMO - if the GOR were not a factor and UNC was actually interested in leaving the ACC, UNC loses a lot of value if it separates itself from Duke. There are wonderful value-creation media synergies from having elite universities battling in truly competitive rivalry games (and this formula has worked for decades). Duke’s athletics success and potential is underrated in this forum because of the overwhelming focus on football.

What some seem to not understand is that every school except ND presently wants to be in the SEC or B1G, or if they do not it's because they think it's geographically unworkable due to geography. The difference between conference payouts to these two conferences' schools now dwarfs every other school, ND included. The question is which schools do the SEC and B1G, if any.

Imo, any talk of expansion by the SEC or B1G must include at least an expansion of the playoffs and an expansion of regular season games, which is more feasible now that players are getting paid, both in conjunction of either an acutual separation by this two conferences or a de facto separation that includes a payoff that is more inclusive to other conferences. With the presnt money disparity and so much more that can be realized it is hard not to think this isn't the future.

Untrue.
These schools might want B1G money (or the projected SEC money) but I seriously doubt that many if any of the schools in the ACC or PAC actually want to be in the B1G or the SEC.
06-18-2022 10:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 54,036
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2242
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #75
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 04:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 04:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Actually, the LHN was very much a smart money play when looking at ESPN's expenditures in totality. It goes to the first part of your bolded paragraph: a defensive move to deny a rival a key acquisition.

The importance of the LHN was what it *prevented* from happening: the Pac-16. That would have created a third monster monolith superconference after the SEC and Big Ten that would have driven up the college football TV market rights fees even further than what we see now.

The thing is that we can look at it from the flip side for ESPN: you're looking at it as if though they *want* to have schools like UNC, Duke, FSU and Clemson be where they would be worth more. That's not how they looked at the Pac-16. Instead, I think it's more in ESPN's interest to have UNC, Duke, FSU and Clemson exactly where they are now at a discount price. The FSU-Clemson football and UNC-Duke basketball games are still on ESPN and they're paying a fraction of the price compared to what they'd be paying if those were Big Ten or SEC games.

Sure, ESPN would always like better SEC games. The distinction is that they're not in the business of unilaterally paying *more* for those SEC games. (Hence the hemming and hawing over whether the SEC will have 8 or 9 conference games going forward since ESPN isn't willing to pay for the additional conference games). ESPN still looks at things in totality: are those newly-minted Clemson-Alabama games worth it if it means having to increase the SEC rights deal by much more than what it might be saving on the ACC rights deal? That's where I'm skeptical.

ESPN isn't a charity - it will ALWAYS want to pay lower rights fees. Now, they may not be *able* to pay lower rights fees because the market dictates otherwise. However, this notion that ESPN will just start trading SEC and ACC schools because they're both under contract there has a lot of faulty reasoning to me. They have the ACC locked into a super cheap contract for the next decade and a half: why the heck they would want to move any of the top ACC brands out of that super cheap contract makes very little sense. It's in ESPN's interests to ensure that the top ACC brands don't go *anywhere* (even to a fellow SEC contract).

Ah, but that utilizes their value once a year in football and twice, maybe 3 times in hoops. Would they not be worth much more vs Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee, A&M, or in the case of hoops against most of the same, and Kentucky? Big UNC, Duke, Clemson, and FSU games weekly yields a much higher valued total inventory which could be worth much more than the 140 million in payout difference for the moves. And having multiple platforms means there is ample use for such an inventory.

I grant that it's possible. Similarly, though, it could be that it's simply not worth more to ESPN if they're not yielding savings on the ACC contract to compensate to whatever more they would have to pay to the SEC.

That's what ESPN feared back in 2010 when they offered the LHN: it was better to send $15 million per year to Texas than deal with a Pac-16 that included Texas and would have as much negotiating power as any sports entity outside of the NFL and would have cost much, much more.

Note that you've pointed out another reason why the UT/OU expansion is so singularly efficient for the SEC in a way that isn't really possible for many (or any) expansion combinations. Not only are Texas and Oklahoma top tier football brands, but they're also top tier basketball brands, too. They're achieving in an expansion with just 2 schools what it would take all 4 of Clemson, FSU, UNC and Duke to do here... and that's with the bar to actually make expansion more profitable to the SEC going sky high with this UT/OU move in the first place.

In any event, my point is that thinking that the SEC and Big Ten can really add anyone besides Notre Dame to make more on a media money basis is pretty much impossible now.

If we want to say that there are global factors like a total restructuring of college football administration or the elimination of the NCAA that could spur those leagues to expand further, then sure, I can buy that. I just don't think it's going to be based on how much more money ESPN, FOX or anyone else is going to pay at this point. We've reached the maximum per school revenue size for the Big Ten and SEC under the current environment just as the NFL has reached its maximum per franchise size. The NFL reached the point where their current members would make more money by staying the same size as opposed to expanding and that's simply where I see the Big Ten and SEC now.

Frank you are 100% wrong. I'm disappointed in you. Lots of people post that fake information, but I thought you were better than that.

Facts:

Texas decides to stay in the Big 12 June 14, 2010.
Reasons are that Fox and ESPN didn't want the Pac 16 to happen and promised the Big 12 would get comparable money in their new deal to what the Pac 16 would get. In the press conference on that day President Powers said they figured they would get similar money and similar schedules and could stay in the Big 12.

LHN deal up until late October 2010 was expected to yield only about $3 million and Fox was expected to get it. ESPN made their big bid October 25, 2010, 4 months after the Pac 16 deal fell apart.

The money on the LHN deal had absolutely zero to do with the Pac 16 deal falling apart.

There are a lot of claims that having a LHN was what caused UT to make the decision it did. President Powers and Deloss Dodds never mentioned it in that press conference. And the claim makes no sense. The Pac has their 2 team subnetworks. Texas originally proposed to Texas A&M to do a 2 team network. So Texas would have the exposure in either place. And as I pointed out above, the money was expected to be minor.

I don't believe that it's fake information at all. I understand you appear to be presenting the UT view on the situation, which is fine. However, there have been several reports over the years that stated directly that the LHN was the poison pill to the Pac-16 negotiations. Make no mistake about this: the Pac-16 was a DONE deal. As in Larry Scott visited multiple Big 12 campuses directly and got the actual paperwork signed being a DONE deal. Texas, truly at the last minute, stated that it didn't want to participate in a conference network with the Pac-16. This was obviously a huge issue for the then-Pac-10. While the LHN contract may not have been finalized for a few months, we can't pretend that Texas suddenly saying that it didn't want to be a part of a conference network and the announcement of the formation of the LHN happened at the exact same time that the Pac-16 proposal fell apart wasn't the primary reason for the Pac-16 proposal falling apart.

Like I've said, other schools *signed* the Pac-16 paperwork. You can go back to Larry Scott's plane records and it shows that he arrived at those places during the applicable days in question. That's not fake. The last stop was Austin, which is when UT killed the entire deal.

I don't blame UT for doing it. The school was (and still is) the single most valuable school in conference realignment, so they had the leverage to get whatever they wanted to make them happy. The school trying to argue that the LHN deal wasn't technically finalized until October 2010 is totally disingenuous for the school's reasoning, though: the LHN formation news absolutely came out at the exact same time that the Pac-16 deal fell apart.

To be sure, I sort of agree with you that UT didn't stay in the Big 12 for the LHN *money* itself. I don't think it was about the money so much as it was about being the only school that could get its very own network from ESPN. The platform in and of itself was what was special to UT beyond the money.

I've read those reports that came out years later. But those reports sound like Pac 12 trying to make themselves look better. Just like you got all kinds of conflicting reports between OU and the Pac 12 when that fell apart a year later, both claiming they were the ones that pulled the plug.

Those reports don't pass the smell test.
1. Money wasn't significant.
2. Exposure was essentially the same with the Pac 2 school subnetworks.
3. Everyone thought Fox was going to get the deal until that October 25 bid by ESPN.
4. Texas didn't say a word about it in the press conference or any time since then.

Contemporaneous public reports by the people making the decision are vastly more credible than stuff coming out from "reliable sources" years later. Powers and Dodds were too exhausted in that press conference to be making things up. Powers talked about how they worked out scheduling to minimize travel. And then when they looked at those schedules and the money Fox and ESPN promised the Big 12, they realized they could get essentially the same schedules for the same dollars and not leave the conference.

You can't have watched that press conference with Powers, Dodds and Plonsky and believe that the LHN was any significant factor.
06-18-2022 10:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 54,036
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2242
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #76
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 11:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 08:47 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 04:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I suspect the SEC might be more interested in North Carolina, Duke, Virginia and Kansas. 4 AAUs, 3 national brands, 3 new states, and oodles of hoops branding (which is insurance for the future). FSU and Clemson could be used by ESPN to anchor a better football conference (rebuilt from B12 and ACC brands). To me the accretive value to the SEC is in hoops (especially if basketball is monetized outside of the NCAA), and yet they would also be picking up 3 stellar baseball programs and an improving one at Kansas. The conference would never run short on any of the Big 3's post seasons. And it adds (as did OU and UT) to softball and women's hoops.

It also puts a bow on the entire region.

We'll simply see what ESPN is thinking soon enough.

Well, I think the Big Ten would be interested in all of those exact same schools in a vacuum, too. This is sort of the opposite of the UT/OU situation, though. It was probably hard envisioning OU ending up in the Big Ten while it was very easy to see them fit into the SEC. UT could really fit into any conference geographically and academically (which is why they were such a valuable commodity for realignment - they made sense for EVERY conference coast-to-coast). In contrast, I just see no way that Duke would ever choose the SEC over the Big Ten and I'd likely say the same for UVA and Kansas. UNC is different in the sense that they're in a more UT-like position. The thing is that UT's rivals preferred the SEC while UNC's rivals very likely prefer the Big Ten.

I think it's all water under the bridge because of the ACC Grant of Rights agreement, though. We can talk about all of these scenarios of the ACC getting poached all day, but from a legal perspective, the GOR is truly a hammer to prevent schools from getting poached. Like I've said before, UT and OU are having a hard time simply paying an extra year or two of damages in order to be released from the Big 12 GOR agreement... and these are super rich schools going to the super rich SEC. It's not reasonable for any ACC school to be paying a dozen years of those same types of damages in order for the ACC to agree to release them from the GOR. (The term of art to "break the GOR" is NOT a very good way of phrasing it for anyone that wants to discuss this issue. It implies that a school can unilaterally figure out a way to break the contract, which simply isn't true. Instead, it's the conference getting enough money that it's satisfied to agree to release the defecting school from its GOR obligations. ALL of the power is with the conference in GOR agreements.)

Well Frank you are likely to be as shocked as you were with the Texas decision. They've been in talks twice now. UVa I'm inclined to believe could go either way. Kansas will merely take the first firm offer from either. Northern certitude, ain't nothin' like it for entertainment!

Frank's point regarding additions must make more money for current members is legit, but college football and basketball is still under valued compared to what it could be worth that it would be smart to acquire the most valuable pieces on the board when you can. For example, if there is going to be a breakaway of the top 48, 56 or 64 schools, and the SEC could expand it's membership to one half that total so it would be one of the two conferencs remaiing, then the SEC would be wise to take the best 8, 14 or even 16 schools. And leave the B1G aligned with the PAC and a few others outside the SEC's territory.

When Frank says conferences hold the power in the Grant of Rights negotiations he was referring to a school's ability to leave the conference. But the network has power too because the school cannot go to another conference the network does not own.the rights to another conference. That means there is zero chance any school goes to the B1G as long as there is an ACC until the ACC's grant of rights has expired. It might be unlikely that any ACC school can go the SEC during the ACC's grant of rights but the chances are not zero.

I think UNC has decided if the are going to leave the ACC it will be to go to the SEC. All of the tea leaves say Tar Heels to the SEC. FSU definitely has.

UNC and Duke will move as a pair. Like they discussed in 2011, and allegedly last July. They prefer to keep the ACC as is, but if that isn't in the cards they'll keep things close to home and remain part of Southern culture. Virginia likely opts to stay with them. ESPN will have a lot of influence because they are in position to line things up before anyone knows of formal plans, like they did with Oklahoma's T3 package and with Texas. This won't be a wait until 2035 issue especially if the NCAA is left behind and pay for play becomes a reality.

20 makes it a LOT harder to do reasonable scheduling. There are too many rivalries that would no longer be annual affairs. You just can't split the conference to keep them with only a 9 game schedule. (Alabama-Auburn-Georgia-Florida-Tennessee are the most problematic) And i don't see the schools tying themselves up with a 10 game conference schedule. And I don't see them splitting into two 10 team divisions and essentially kicking LSU and the Mississippi schools out of the SEC division.

24 might work, but its a lot more difficult with Texas and Oklahoma than if they added everyone from the ACC. You would have to have some odd geography, kind of a donut hole with the old SEC schools together.
06-18-2022 10:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lurker Above Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 958
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation: 62
I Root For: UGA
Location:
Post: #77
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-18-2022 08:38 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’ve heard a lot of people say that Clemson and Florida St are more valuable to ESPN in the ACC than the SEC. This is only true if ESPN controls them both and is getting a discount rate on ACC content. If The ACC moves to another network and suddenly FOX/NBC/CBS have advertising access to southern college football fans, ruining the ESPN monopoly, then that’s not such a good deal for the mouse.

In order to maintain control of the south I think ESPN is going to have to facilitate the move of the ACC’s top brands to the SEC.

At that point it won’t matter who has the rights to the ACC—it will be so stripped of market share that ESPN won’t care if they retain it on the cheap or if someone else does.

The value of Clemson and FSU playing their SEC neighbors cannot be underestimated and would dwarf whatever value ESPN still had to pay the ACC. Those two schools playing any of the top half or more of the current SEC16 would be bank. That would be 5 games per year against the historical better SEC teams every year. Half of those games would be against schools that have been rivals, or at least geographical adversaries in recruiting, for generations. Look at the map. Fans would certainly travel and not only fill stadiums but parking lots around stadiums for generations to come. It would be must see tv.

Sankey would be a damn fool to let the B1G inside the SEC footprint. If anyone inside the SEC headquarters thinks it's a good idea to allow the B1G to get UNC or UVA they should be shown the door yesterday. Creating a lawful monopoly across the South must be the prime directive. Claim the value pieces while such are affordable. The end game is not Texas and OU. The end game is owning one half of a NFL lite league.
06-18-2022 11:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,276
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 421
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #78
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-18-2022 11:12 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  
(06-18-2022 08:38 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’ve heard a lot of people say that Clemson and Florida St are more valuable to ESPN in the ACC than the SEC. This is only true if ESPN controls them both and is getting a discount rate on ACC content. If The ACC moves to another network and suddenly FOX/NBC/CBS have advertising access to southern college football fans, ruining the ESPN monopoly, then that’s not such a good deal for the mouse.

In order to maintain control of the south I think ESPN is going to have to facilitate the move of the ACC’s top brands to the SEC.

At that point it won’t matter who has the rights to the ACC—it will be so stripped of market share that ESPN won’t care if they retain it on the cheap or if someone else does.

The value of Clemson and FSU playing their SEC neighbors cannot be underestimated and would dwarf whatever value ESPN still had to pay the ACC. Those two schools playing any of the top half or more of the current SEC16 would be bank. That would be 5 games per year against the historical better SEC teams every year. Half of those games would be against schools that have been rivals, or at least geographical adversaries in recruiting, for generations. Look at the map. Fans would certainly travel and not only fill stadiums but parking lots around stadiums for generations to come. It would be must see tv.

Sankey would be a damn fool to let the B1G inside the SEC footprint. If anyone inside the SEC headquarters thinks it's a good idea to allow the B1G to get UNC or UVA they should be shown the door yesterday. Creating a lawful monopoly across the South must be the prime directive. Claim the value pieces while such are affordable. The end game is not Texas and OU. The end game is owning one half of a NFL lite league.

As of right now ESPN does own 30/64th of the P5 plus 5/12th of Notre Dame football and all of the rest of the Irish Athletic department (except Ice Hockey).

This, of course does not include the Big 12 rights that ESPN shares with FOX until 2025.
(This post was last modified: 06-18-2022 11:58 AM by XLance.)
06-18-2022 11:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lurker Above Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 958
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation: 62
I Root For: UGA
Location:
Post: #79
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 11:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 08:47 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 04:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 02:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I suspect the SEC might be more interested in North Carolina, Duke, Virginia and Kansas. 4 AAUs, 3 national brands, 3 new states, and oodles of hoops branding (which is insurance for the future). FSU and Clemson could be used by ESPN to anchor a better football conference (rebuilt from B12 and ACC brands). To me the accretive value to the SEC is in hoops (especially if basketball is monetized outside of the NCAA), and yet they would also be picking up 3 stellar baseball programs and an improving one at Kansas. The conference would never run short on any of the Big 3's post seasons. And it adds (as did OU and UT) to softball and women's hoops.

It also puts a bow on the entire region.

We'll simply see what ESPN is thinking soon enough.

Well, I think the Big Ten would be interested in all of those exact same schools in a vacuum, too. This is sort of the opposite of the UT/OU situation, though. It was probably hard envisioning OU ending up in the Big Ten while it was very easy to see them fit into the SEC. UT could really fit into any conference geographically and academically (which is why they were such a valuable commodity for realignment - they made sense for EVERY conference coast-to-coast). In contrast, I just see no way that Duke would ever choose the SEC over the Big Ten and I'd likely say the same for UVA and Kansas. UNC is different in the sense that they're in a more UT-like position. The thing is that UT's rivals preferred the SEC while UNC's rivals very likely prefer the Big Ten.

I think it's all water under the bridge because of the ACC Grant of Rights agreement, though. We can talk about all of these scenarios of the ACC getting poached all day, but from a legal perspective, the GOR is truly a hammer to prevent schools from getting poached. Like I've said before, UT and OU are having a hard time simply paying an extra year or two of damages in order to be released from the Big 12 GOR agreement... and these are super rich schools going to the super rich SEC. It's not reasonable for any ACC school to be paying a dozen years of those same types of damages in order for the ACC to agree to release them from the GOR. (The term of art to "break the GOR" is NOT a very good way of phrasing it for anyone that wants to discuss this issue. It implies that a school can unilaterally figure out a way to break the contract, which simply isn't true. Instead, it's the conference getting enough money that it's satisfied to agree to release the defecting school from its GOR obligations. ALL of the power is with the conference in GOR agreements.)

Well Frank you are likely to be as shocked as you were with the Texas decision. They've been in talks twice now. UVa I'm inclined to believe could go either way. Kansas will merely take the first firm offer from either. Northern certitude, ain't nothin' like it for entertainment!

Frank's point regarding additions must make more money for current members is legit, but college football and basketball is still under valued compared to what it could be worth that it would be smart to acquire the most valuable pieces on the board when you can. For example, if there is going to be a breakaway of the top 48, 56 or 64 schools, and the SEC could expand it's membership to one half that total so it would be one of the two conferencs remaiing, then the SEC would be wise to take the best 8, 14 or even 16 schools. And leave the B1G aligned with the PAC and a few others outside the SEC's territory.

When Frank says conferences hold the power in the Grant of Rights negotiations he was referring to a school's ability to leave the conference. But the network has power too because the school cannot go to another conference the network does not own. the rights to another conference. That means there is zero chance any school goes to the B1G as long as there is an ACC until the ACC's grant of rights has expired. It might be unlikely that any ACC school can go the SEC during the ACC's grant of rights but the chances are not zero.

I think UNC has decided if the are going to leave the ACC it will be to go to the SEC. All of the tea leaves say Tar Heels to the SEC. FSU definitely has.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe that bolded statement is technically true. Whether UNC wanted to go to the B1G or to the SEC they would still have to negotiate their release from the GoR with the ACC and whatever schools remain in it, just like OUT have to do to leave the Big 12 early.

If UT and OU were to leave the Big12 early they would certainly would have to negotiate wirh FOX and ESPN to compensate FOX, not necessarily to pay FOX but to maintain the content FOX has already paid, ot ESPN would have to pay FOX. This is because FOX owns about half the Big12's media rights under it's current deal.

Let's be clear; ESPN did not pay to lock up the ACC schools where it owns all of their rights halfway to eternity so a school could go to any other conference it does not presently have all of the media rights. If an ACC school wanted to take the hit by breaking the ACC GOR, which likely is financial impossible, not only would they have to pay the ACC the school would have to get ESPN and the new conference's media partner, which would most likely be FOX, to negotiate broadcast rights or accept compensation.
06-18-2022 11:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lurker Above Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 958
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation: 62
I Root For: UGA
Location:
Post: #80
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-18-2022 10:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 11:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 08:47 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 04:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Well, I think the Big Ten would be interested in all of those exact same schools in a vacuum, too. This is sort of the opposite of the UT/OU situation, though. It was probably hard envisioning OU ending up in the Big Ten while it was very easy to see them fit into the SEC. UT could really fit into any conference geographically and academically (which is why they were such a valuable commodity for realignment - they made sense for EVERY conference coast-to-coast). In contrast, I just see no way that Duke would ever choose the SEC over the Big Ten and I'd likely say the same for UVA and Kansas. UNC is different in the sense that they're in a more UT-like position. The thing is that UT's rivals preferred the SEC while UNC's rivals very likely prefer the Big Ten.

I think it's all water under the bridge because of the ACC Grant of Rights agreement, though. We can talk about all of these scenarios of the ACC getting poached all day, but from a legal perspective, the GOR is truly a hammer to prevent schools from getting poached. Like I've said before, UT and OU are having a hard time simply paying an extra year or two of damages in order to be released from the Big 12 GOR agreement... and these are super rich schools going to the super rich SEC. It's not reasonable for any ACC school to be paying a dozen years of those same types of damages in order for the ACC to agree to release them from the GOR. (The term of art to "break the GOR" is NOT a very good way of phrasing it for anyone that wants to discuss this issue. It implies that a school can unilaterally figure out a way to break the contract, which simply isn't true. Instead, it's the conference getting enough money that it's satisfied to agree to release the defecting school from its GOR obligations. ALL of the power is with the conference in GOR agreements.)

Well Frank you are likely to be as shocked as you were with the Texas decision. They've been in talks twice now. UVa I'm inclined to believe could go either way. Kansas will merely take the first firm offer from either. Northern certitude, ain't nothin' like it for entertainment!

Frank's point regarding additions must make more money for current members is legit, but college football and basketball is still under valued compared to what it could be worth that it would be smart to acquire the most valuable pieces on the board when you can. For example, if there is going to be a breakaway of the top 48, 56 or 64 schools, and the SEC could expand it's membership to one half that total so it would be one of the two conferencs remaiing, then the SEC would be wise to take the best 8, 14 or even 16 schools. And leave the B1G aligned with the PAC and a few others outside the SEC's territory.

When Frank says conferences hold the power in the Grant of Rights negotiations he was referring to a school's ability to leave the conference. But the network has power too because the school cannot go to another conference the network does not own.the rights to another conference. That means there is zero chance any school goes to the B1G as long as there is an ACC until the ACC's grant of rights has expired. It might be unlikely that any ACC school can go the SEC during the ACC's grant of rights but the chances are not zero.

I think UNC has decided if the are going to leave the ACC it will be to go to the SEC. All of the tea leaves say Tar Heels to the SEC. FSU definitely has.

UNC and Duke will move as a pair. Like they discussed in 2011, and allegedly last July. They prefer to keep the ACC as is, but if that isn't in the cards they'll keep things close to home and remain part of Southern culture. Virginia likely opts to stay with them. ESPN will have a lot of influence because they are in position to line things up before anyone knows of formal plans, like they did with Oklahoma's T3 package and with Texas. This won't be a wait until 2035 issue especially if the NCAA is left behind and pay for play becomes a reality.

20 makes it a LOT harder to do reasonable scheduling. There are too many rivalries that would no longer be annual affairs. You just can't split the conference to keep them with only a 9 game schedule. (Alabama-Auburn-Georgia-Florida-Tennessee are the most problematic) And i don't see the schools tying themselves up with a 10 game conference schedule. And I don't see them splitting into two 10 team divisions and essentially kicking LSU and the Mississippi schools out of the SEC division.

24 might work, but its a lot more difficult with Texas and Oklahoma than if they added everyone from the ACC. You would have to have some odd geography, kind of a donut hole with the old SEC schools together.

The future will not be 8, 9 or probably not even 10 season conference games. The money would be too great for it not to happen, and now that players are getting paid, and will be getting paid more in the future somehow, that obstacle to more games is gone. What is really holding this up is the ucertainty of the playoffs and its format. The networks will not offer more money for regular season games until they know the playoff format. Conferences will not expand until there is a playoff format. Conferences are even having trouble aligning there present conference football structures, divisions or no divisions, pods or divisions, how many pods or divisions, conference semifinals, even the number of conference games, all because we do not have a college football playoff that is large enough to address these choices.

College football better wise up real quick. With UT and OU joining in 2025 or sooner, and the current CFP contract ending about the same time, it will not be much longer before Sankey unilaterally announces that his conference had to solve all of those problems and more for the betterment of the SEC.
06-18-2022 12:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2022 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, © 2002-2022 MyBB Group.