Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
sankey interview
Author Message
OneSockUp Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 264
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 29
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #61
RE: sankey interview
(08-04-2022 01:43 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  The PAC's new TV contract(s) will require a GOR, and likey exit fees will be added too. So it probably will be much harder for PAC teams to be taken. Which is why some of us, with unfortunate experiences to guide us, are quite sure talks are progressing behind the scenes now.
If you were Oregon, why would you ever grant your rights to the Pac-12 in this climate?
08-05-2022 10:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 45,153
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1767
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #62
RE: sankey interview
(08-05-2022 10:44 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 01:43 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  The PAC's new TV contract(s) will require a GOR, and likey exit fees will be added too. So it probably will be much harder for PAC teams to be taken. Which is why some of us, with unfortunate experiences to guide us, are quite sure talks are progressing behind the scenes now.
If you were Oregon, why would you ever grant your rights to the Pac-12 in this climate?

If I was Oregon, Washington, Cal or Stanford I would not sign a TV deal longer than six years, nor a GOR or exit fee that extends beyond six years.
(This post was last modified: 08-05-2022 11:53 AM by quo vadis.)
08-05-2022 11:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goodknightfl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,448
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 375
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #63
RE: sankey interview
(08-05-2022 10:44 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 01:43 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  The PAC's new TV contract(s) will require a GOR, and likey exit fees will be added too. So it probably will be much harder for PAC teams to be taken. Which is why some of us, with unfortunate experiences to guide us, are quite sure talks are progressing behind the scenes now.
If you were Oregon, why would you ever grant your rights to the Pac-12 in this climate?

If Oregon, Stanford, and WA do a GOR the deal will be very very short term. 3 years or less.
08-05-2022 11:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kyle Mack Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,010
Joined: Apr 2021
Reputation: 117
I Root For: Your momma
Location:
Post: #64
RE: sankey interview
(08-02-2022 06:12 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  SO if ND says no right now to the B1G, do they still even go to 18 to get more of a western wing and then take a final shot at ND towards the end of the ACC GOR along w/ 1 more? ND says yes do they still go to 20 or just 18 to maximize $$.

SEC sits until the end of the ACC gor and matches the B1G 18 or 20 w/ the same number.

I think the Big 10 adds 2 more to the West, if ND doesn't join in the near term.
08-05-2022 12:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 88
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #65
RE: sankey interview
(08-05-2022 11:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 10:44 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 01:43 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  The PAC's new TV contract(s) will require a GOR, and likey exit fees will be added too. So it probably will be much harder for PAC teams to be taken. Which is why some of us, with unfortunate experiences to guide us, are quite sure talks are progressing behind the scenes now.
If you were Oregon, why would you ever grant your rights to the Pac-12 in this climate?

If I was Oregon, Washington, Cal or Stanford I would not sign a TV deal longer than six years, nor a GOR or exit fee that extends beyond six years.

I was generally opposed to GoRs but also favored limits of conference sizes to 16 each maximum. My thinking has changed on that. Given that GoRs have become hand-in-hand with TV contracts, it is instrumental with negotiations.
Agree Quo, shorter-term GoRs may be the way to go.
The ACC’s GoR was defensively and punitively conceived and way, way too long in duration. At a minimum, their contract negotiations, while maintaining the base distribution, needed to have a window every 3 to 5 years, to discuss and pitch for revenue enhancements and other pertinent modifications sought.
08-05-2022 01:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big 12 fan too Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 862
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 85
I Root For: NIU
Location:
Post: #66
RE: sankey interview
(08-05-2022 01:38 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 11:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 10:44 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 01:43 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  The PAC's new TV contract(s) will require a GOR, and likey exit fees will be added too. So it probably will be much harder for PAC teams to be taken. Which is why some of us, with unfortunate experiences to guide us, are quite sure talks are progressing behind the scenes now.
If you were Oregon, why would you ever grant your rights to the Pac-12 in this climate?

If I was Oregon, Washington, Cal or Stanford I would not sign a TV deal longer than six years, nor a GOR or exit fee that extends beyond six years.

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

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

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

Particular schools may not like it, but the conference wisely sought security. The ACC was never going to compete with the coterminous P2s in revenue, so without GOR length, it was dead. It still could be, but at least schools will get some utility in it being killed off now.
(This post was last modified: 08-05-2022 01:55 PM by Big 12 fan too.)
08-05-2022 01:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hootyhoo Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 283
Joined: Aug 2021
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Kennesaw State
Location: ATL
Post: #67
RE: sankey interview
(08-05-2022 10:44 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 01:43 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  The PAC's new TV contract(s) will require a GOR, and likey exit fees will be added too. So it probably will be much harder for PAC teams to be taken. Which is why some of us, with unfortunate experiences to guide us, are quite sure talks are progressing behind the scenes now.
If you were Oregon, why would you ever grant your rights to the Pac-12 in this climate?

If the other members of the PAC want to do it, what's Oregon gonna do? Go independent? Join the goofy big 12 stretching from Florida to Oregon? Join the mountain west?

If the b1g or SEC wanted them they'd be gone already. Their only real choice is to go along with the PAC right now.
08-05-2022 01:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big 12 fan too Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 862
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 85
I Root For: NIU
Location:
Post: #68
RE: sankey interview
(08-05-2022 01:55 PM)Hootyhoo Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 10:44 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 01:43 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  The PAC's new TV contract(s) will require a GOR, and likey exit fees will be added too. So it probably will be much harder for PAC teams to be taken. Which is why some of us, with unfortunate experiences to guide us, are quite sure talks are progressing behind the scenes now.
If you were Oregon, why would you ever grant your rights to the Pac-12 in this climate?

If the other members of the PAC want to do it, what's Oregon gonna do? Go independent? Join the goofy big 12 stretching from Florida to Oregon? Join the mountain west?

If the b1g or SEC wanted them they'd be gone already. Their only real choice is to go along with the PAC right now.


What is the PAC going to do with 9 schools of modest value? Add Cal St schools? Oregon leaving would kill the conference.

Oregon leaves for the Big 12 with a GOR that lets them go to a P2, and UW is right behind them, before leveraged into signing a GOR they don't like in PAC. Those two leave, and it is a race to the exit.

The 4 corners can dictate their future right now, but not in the PAC. Stay, and give in to Oregon and UW, and then hope for the best when schools leave for BIG. Or they can jump to Big 12, and Oregon and UW would be forced to follow.

And all 6-8 schools should leverage the jump to Big 12 for a P2 promotion friendly GOR, along with KU, in the Big 12. As if the P2 goes to 48, some of the 4 corners or KU likely are on the list too. Good luck getting anyone to leave for the college athletics wasteland that will be the west for such a GOR. You don't want to be in a west coast based conference if the P2 expands. The surviving leftover P5, Big 12 or ACC, will have a promotion friendly GOR, as a mechanism to make certain the programs of most value don't think about starting a peer middle class conference. And leftovers of less value are not leaving to start their own- as i would inherently make less
(This post was last modified: 08-05-2022 02:37 PM by Big 12 fan too.)
08-05-2022 02:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OneSockUp Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 264
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 29
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #69
RE: sankey interview
(08-05-2022 01:55 PM)Hootyhoo Wrote:  If the other members of the PAC want to do it, what's Oregon gonna do? Go independent? Join the goofy big 12 stretching from Florida to Oregon? Join the mountain west?

If the b1g or SEC wanted them they'd be gone already. Their only real choice is to go along with the PAC right now.

Florida State, Clemson, and UNC are mired in the ACC for a generation because they had that mentality.
(This post was last modified: 08-06-2022 10:08 AM by OneSockUp.)
08-05-2022 03:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,683
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 94
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #70
RE: sankey interview
If the B1G wants you, the B1G wants you. In the grand scheme of things, joining in 2 years or 4 or 6 is mostly irrelevant. Especially once you give notice of departure and can still recruit to your future P2 status and Phil Knight can bankroll you for a few.

Oregon really has nothing to lose. All of these dire outcomes don’t recognize the reality that most of these schools can just wait. There is a certain slow inexorable progression to this P2 state that has been happening for the past 10+ years. I’m not sure that any school has done anything to change their inclusion/exclusion status in that time and I doubt there are any that really control their own futures prospectively (barring major scandal). What will be will be.

People keep wanting to play 4D chess with all these labarynthine possibilities, but what will be will be.
08-05-2022 03:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hootyhoo Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 283
Joined: Aug 2021
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Kennesaw State
Location: ATL
Post: #71
RE: sankey interview
(08-05-2022 02:34 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 01:55 PM)Hootyhoo Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 10:44 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 01:43 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  The PAC's new TV contract(s) will require a GOR, and likey exit fees will be added too. So it probably will be much harder for PAC teams to be taken. Which is why some of us, with unfortunate experiences to guide us, are quite sure talks are progressing behind the scenes now.
If you were Oregon, why would you ever grant your rights to the Pac-12 in this climate?

If the other members of the PAC want to do it, what's Oregon gonna do? Go independent? Join the goofy big 12 stretching from Florida to Oregon? Join the mountain west?

If the b1g or SEC wanted them they'd be gone already. Their only real choice is to go along with the PAC right now.


What is the PAC going to do with 9 schools of modest value? Add Cal St schools? Oregon leaving would kill the conference.

Oregon leaves for the Big 12 with a GOR that lets them go to a P2, and UW is right behind them, before leveraged into signing a GOR they don't like in PAC. Those two leave, and it is a race to the exit.

The 4 corners can dictate their future right now, but not in the PAC. Stay, and give in to Oregon and UW, and then hope for the best when schools leave for BIG. Or they can jump to Big 12, and Oregon and UW would be forced to follow.

And all 6-8 schools should leverage the jump to Big 12 for a P2 promotion friendly GOR, along with KU, in the Big 12. As if the P2 goes to 48, some of the 4 corners or KU likely are on the list too. Good luck getting anyone to leave for the college athletics wasteland that will be the west for such a GOR. You don't want to be in a west coast based conference if the P2 expands. The surviving leftover P5, Big 12 or ACC, will have a promotion friendly GOR, as a mechanism to make certain the programs of most value don't think about starting a peer middle class conference. And leftovers of less value are not leaving to start their own- as i would inherently make less

An 18 team Big12 stretching from Florida up to West Virginia and as far west as Arizona up to Oregon sounds like a miserable existence for these schools. I also wouldn't be confident the B12 doesn't want a GOR because none of their current members have a real shot at getting to P2.

I agree that Oregon and Washington are the most valuable programs outside the P2 and trapped acc schools. But I don't know how much leverage that actually gives them. I don't think they are a Texas/Oklahoma level program that is so much bigger they can make demands of the other remaining schools. I could be wrong but I think we're overestimating them.

I also don't understand why there is an assumption the P2 will want them later. If they added value at that level, they'd want them now.
08-05-2022 03:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 45,153
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1767
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #72
RE: sankey interview
(08-05-2022 01:54 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 01:38 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 11:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 10:44 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 01:43 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  The PAC's new TV contract(s) will require a GOR, and likey exit fees will be added too. So it probably will be much harder for PAC teams to be taken. Which is why some of us, with unfortunate experiences to guide us, are quite sure talks are progressing behind the scenes now.
If you were Oregon, why would you ever grant your rights to the Pac-12 in this climate?

If I was Oregon, Washington, Cal or Stanford I would not sign a TV deal longer than six years, nor a GOR or exit fee that extends beyond six years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So IMO if the question is, "is the ACC GOR too long?" The answer is yes for some schools, no for other schools.
08-05-2022 04:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big 12 fan too Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 862
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 85
I Root For: NIU
Location:
Post: #73
RE: sankey interview
(08-05-2022 03:44 PM)Hootyhoo Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 02:34 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 01:55 PM)Hootyhoo Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 10:44 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  
(08-04-2022 01:43 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  The PAC's new TV contract(s) will require a GOR, and likey exit fees will be added too. So it probably will be much harder for PAC teams to be taken. Which is why some of us, with unfortunate experiences to guide us, are quite sure talks are progressing behind the scenes now.
If you were Oregon, why would you ever grant your rights to the Pac-12 in this climate?

If the other members of the PAC want to do it, what's Oregon gonna do? Go independent? Join the goofy big 12 stretching from Florida to Oregon? Join the mountain west?

If the b1g or SEC wanted them they'd be gone already. Their only real choice is to go along with the PAC right now.


What is the PAC going to do with 9 schools of modest value? Add Cal St schools? Oregon leaving would kill the conference.

Oregon leaves for the Big 12 with a GOR that lets them go to a P2, and UW is right behind them, before leveraged into signing a GOR they don't like in PAC. Those two leave, and it is a race to the exit.

The 4 corners can dictate their future right now, but not in the PAC. Stay, and give in to Oregon and UW, and then hope for the best when schools leave for BIG. Or they can jump to Big 12, and Oregon and UW would be forced to follow.

And all 6-8 schools should leverage the jump to Big 12 for a P2 promotion friendly GOR, along with KU, in the Big 12. As if the P2 goes to 48, some of the 4 corners or KU likely are on the list too. Good luck getting anyone to leave for the college athletics wasteland that will be the west for such a GOR. You don't want to be in a west coast based conference if the P2 expands. The surviving leftover P5, Big 12 or ACC, will have a promotion friendly GOR, as a mechanism to make certain the programs of most value don't think about starting a peer middle class conference. And leftovers of less value are not leaving to start their own- as i would inherently make less

An 18 team Big12 stretching from Florida up to West Virginia and as far west as Arizona up to Oregon sounds like a miserable existence for these schools. I also wouldn't be confident the B12 doesn't want a GOR because none of their current members have a real shot at getting to P2.

I agree that Oregon and Washington are the most valuable programs outside the P2 and trapped acc schools. But I don't know how much leverage that actually gives them. I don't think they are a Texas/Oklahoma level program that is so much bigger they can make demands of the other remaining schools. I could be wrong but I think we're overestimating them.

I also don't understand why there is an assumption the P2 will want them later. If they added value at that level, they'd want them now.


Welcome to the P2 era. It will be not as ideal for some as the P5.

And functionally, it is not as different as you make it out. They ALREADY are AZ to Washington. The east-west may be larger in footprint, which is desperately needed by the PAC schools, but not much extra in travel. A Big 18 is likely 3 division of 6, in which Oregon and UW may never actually go to UCF or WVU. Schedules are easily favored to schools like UW and Oregon. How many times as Iowa played Ohio St since the Big 10 expanded?

Those two have near complete leverage in terms of if they left, the PAC is dead. Just 8 schools means you have to add two schools, lowering the revenue. Even unequal revenue sharing is not saving that Pac 8, and there would still be flight risk with stanford. There would be very little chance the 4 corners stay.

There are only so many spots in the BIG. The wait is because they need to first know what schools in the ACC they can get, in their pursuit of ND, which is easier if many spots can be used. If they don't get an ACC, you could see all 4 PAC targets. If they need 5 to get the targets they want, and ended up FSU, Miami, UNC, UVa, and Duke, which could help with ND, they don't have room for all PAC targets. With 2 spots, and with ND, they likely go with Stanford and Cal, and shut the rest of the PAC out of CA. But it could be any combo of the 4.

Unlikely it occurs, as ESPN would make counter-offers to keep most, but that is the "market" deciding alluded to by Warren.
08-05-2022 04:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big 12 fan too Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 862
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 85
I Root For: NIU
Location:
Post: #74
RE: sankey interview
(08-05-2022 04:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 01:54 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 01:38 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 11:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 10:44 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  If you were Oregon, why would you ever grant your rights to the Pac-12 in this climate?

If I was Oregon, Washington, Cal or Stanford I would not sign a TV deal longer than six years, nor a GOR or exit fee that extends beyond six years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

-ACC the divergence in interests has come to fruition. Without HQ locking in its own future with super long GOR, enough schools have already been poached by P2 that there may not be ACC. And now, the ACC is likely actively obstructing ACC schools from leaving, taking utility from those potential P2 schools in any settlement that allows them to go to P2
08-05-2022 04:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 45,153
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1767
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #75
RE: sankey interview
(08-05-2022 04:43 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 04:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 01:54 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 01:38 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 11:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  If I was Oregon, Washington, Cal or Stanford I would not sign a TV deal longer than six years, nor a GOR or exit fee that extends beyond six years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is IMO true of all conferences - the nPAC, the nB12, etc. as well. IMO we can assume that the "Staff at HQ" from the commissioner on down, want long GORs and high exit fees that make leaving difficult, as that protects their jobs and salaries. So the staff HQ is IMO not likely "neutral", it will not be helping the high value schools who want to leave, rather it will be on the side of the low value schools that want the gang to stay together.
(This post was last modified: 08-06-2022 08:08 AM by quo vadis.)
08-06-2022 08:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 88
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #76
RE: sankey interview
(08-05-2022 04:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 01:54 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 01:38 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 11:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 10:44 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  If you were Oregon, why would you ever grant your rights to the Pac-12 in this climate?

If I was Oregon, Washington, Cal or Stanford I would not sign a TV deal longer than six years, nor a GOR or exit fee that extends beyond six years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s the basic essence of it all. FSU was opposed, and Maryland didn’t want it on their way out the door.
Swofford sold this to ACC members, that several now regret doing so.
Locked-in financial figures for a 20+ year or so period is a fiscal risk and such is not limited to inflationary costs. There’s no outlet to adjust in proportionality of what competitor conferences are negotiating and receiving during the contract duration.
(This post was last modified: 08-06-2022 09:05 AM by OdinFrigg.)
08-06-2022 09:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 55,081
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2310
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #77
RE: sankey interview
(08-06-2022 08:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 04:43 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 04:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 01:54 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 01:38 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I was generally opposed to GoRs but also favored limits of conference sizes to 16 each maximum. My thinking has changed on that. Given that GoRs have become hand-in-hand with TV contracts, it is instrumental with negotiations.
Agree Quo, shorter-term GoRs may be the way to go.
The ACC’s GoR was defensively and punitively conceived and way, way too long in duration. At a minimum, their contract negotiations, while maintaining the base distribution, needed to have a window every 3 to 5 years, to discuss and pitch for revenue enhancements and other pertinent modifications sought.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its always felt like the conference office served the schools in the Big 12 who ran things. In the ACC the schools served the conference office. While in the Big 10 and SEC, the conference office with a strong commissioner ran everything, but to the benefit of the schools, not the conference office. Under Scott, the Pac 12 seemed more like the ACC, but otherwise they have been more like the Big 12.
08-06-2022 10:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big 12 fan too Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 862
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 85
I Root For: NIU
Location:
Post: #78
RE: sankey interview
(08-06-2022 08:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 04:43 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 04:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 01:54 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 01:38 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I was generally opposed to GoRs but also favored limits of conference sizes to 16 each maximum. My thinking has changed on that. Given that GoRs have become hand-in-hand with TV contracts, it is instrumental with negotiations.
Agree Quo, shorter-term GoRs may be the way to go.
The ACC’s GoR was defensively and punitively conceived and way, way too long in duration. At a minimum, their contract negotiations, while maintaining the base distribution, needed to have a window every 3 to 5 years, to discuss and pitch for revenue enhancements and other pertinent modifications sought.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree on ACC.


The ex-Utah AD comments are dangerous delusion. There is revenue boost in PAC schools becoming less PAC, but the biggest thing he misses is killing conferences is a good thing. The P5 era is dead. The best that can be hoped for is P3. And it just cannot be the PAC- aggregating schools to the west disastrous

Call it the PAC 16 if that help sooth the feelings, but the best leftover survival path is exporting PAC name schools eastward. 6 to Big 12. Then Big 12 adds leftover ACC. Or 4 PAC and 6 Big 12 to ACC, but the transaction costs higher without dissolution, a harder deal to execute, and I don’t think it keeps schools from P2.
(This post was last modified: 08-06-2022 11:55 AM by Big 12 fan too.)
08-06-2022 11:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 88
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #79
RE: sankey interview
With the P2 conferences saying essentially: “maybe we will, maybe we won’t” while we know “they will”, but not sure with all “who” and “when”.

That makes it difficult in creating a P3. Perhaps that is a little bit intentional.
08-06-2022 02:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GarnetAndBlue Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 318
Joined: Aug 2021
Reputation: 79
I Root For: FSU & Michigan
Location:
Post: #80
RE: sankey interview
(08-06-2022 09:01 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 04:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 01:54 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 01:38 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(08-05-2022 11:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  If I was Oregon, Washington, Cal or Stanford I would not sign a TV deal longer than six years, nor a GOR or exit fee that extends beyond six years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s the basic essence of it all. FSU was opposed, and Maryland didn’t want it on their way out the door.
Swofford sold this to ACC members, that several now regret doing so.
Locked-in financial figures for a 20+ year or so period is a fiscal risk and such is not limited to inflationary costs. There’s no outlet to adjust in proportionality of what competitor conferences are negotiating and receiving during the contract duration.

Can Swofford be personally sued? I jest. No not really.

Anyway, interesting & ironic that the way-too-long-term-GoR may ultimately cause the destruction of the ACC due to it not being able to adapt/evolve during all of the ongoing changes.
08-06-2022 04:23 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.