(08-09-2022 11:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Here's the thing: the ACC was actually "proactive" in getting the GOR and long-term ESPN contract into place.

They're serving their intended purpose: keeping the conference together!

Remember that the ACC feared that there were going to be more defectors from the league after Maryland went to the Big Ten, so that's why the league signed the GOR and entered into such a long-term deal with ESPN. Schools like FSU, UNC and Clemson signed off on the GOR and long-term ESPN deal because they cared more about the security of the league than flexibility in seeking other conference options as free agents. The fact that it's now a disadvantage to those schools a few years later doesn't mean that the GOR and ESPN contract aren't doing *exactly* what they're supposed to do.

I'm constantly perplexed by people's surprise that conferences are set up to protect the "screwed" (e.g. Wake Forest and similarly situated schools at the bottom of the ACC totem pole) as opposed to advantaging the "screwers". Bylaws and contracts are create to *protect* the conference in virtually every way possible as opposed to finding loopholes or easy ways to destroy them. Schools like FSU, UNC and Clemson can't turn around and get mad at the ACC for not being "proactive" when the league took the exact steps that it needed to in order to preserve the league after the Maryland defection.

Sometimes I believe it's the fans more than the actual schools that are mad They have a GOR. I don't recall any administration complaign the SEC,B1G are having huge payouts when it was Themselves that signed it.

(08-09-2022 09:31 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 09:26 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  NC State for Vandy

I looked at Vanderbilt. And Kentucky too. Possibly doing a larger trade.

But even if we set aside the poaching by the B10 of Vanderbilt, the optics for trading a founding member of the SEC... not great.

And I'm not sure that espn could get enough votes in the SEC to do that.

I could honestly tell You there would be the biggest couch burning protest ever if Kentucky was forced out of the SEC

(08-10-2022 03:32 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 12:19 AM)JRsec Wrote:  [...]

If something happened ESPN would make assurances to the ACC that if Clemson, Miami, and FSU departed that with the backfill, say USF, UCF, and WVU or Cincy the contract would be reworked, and a decent raise given. ESPN would promise the SEC pro rata and encourage them to add Kansas and stop at 20. All remaining ACC schools get a 10-million-dollar bump, maybe 15 million, 2 Florida schools replace 2 Florida schools and Cincy would provide a larger state than South Carolina, or while WVU jazzes up all sports.

The ACC loses the discontented which find a better fit in the SEC and UNC is replaced on the wish list by Kansas.

I suggested 40M, sounds like you're suggesting up to 50M.

Either way, I agree that this would be a very good move for both conferences.

For that deal, though, ACC should take all 4, plus Memphis.

Gets them to 16 plus ND. This gets their realignment done in one swoop, They'll be unlikely to add anyone else on the short term (Uconn or Temple? probably not.) And gets the payout settled. So espn and acc are basically stable. And the SEC is strengthened as well.

And this takes most of the old big east schools off the realignment board.

And with the Florida schools in the SEC, the Big10 is now unlikely to raid the ACC. And with KS off the table as well, they would probably invite 2-4 more PAC schools, and call it a day.

B12 lost 4 and with all those eastern options gone, will maybe grab SMU before the PAC does, and likely look west for the rest.

So this scenario is definitely possible. All that stands in the way is the ACC being willing to vote to lose and gain members, and espn willing to spend the money.

I think the fans would like it too.

Thinking more about this, the ACC would look like this:

Boston College
Syracuse
Pittsburgh
West Virginia
Cincinnati
Louisville
Memphis

Virginia
Virginia Tech
Duke
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Wake Forest
Georgia Tech

UCF
USF

(Notre Dame)

This actually looks pretty good.

B12 is left with:

BYU

Iowa state
Kansas state
Oklahoma State

Baylor
Houston
TCU
Texas Tech

And to get back to 12, could add:

Boise state
SMU

Rice
Tulane

The latter two added to improve conference academic appearance - PAC teams may be possible in the future, it would be a good idea to work towards helping them get to a "yes".

And not adding Colorado state, while Colorado may yet be an option in the future.

"Clemson and FSU were not declined. They were blocked to make ND's partial possible. ND wouldn't consider a partial if Clemson and FSU left. The move had been announced on ESPN's crawler and was pulled."

I wish FSU and Clemson could prove this...and have a BIG yellow flag thrown at ESPN for interference. $$$

I don't think anything happens soon with ACC.

(08-10-2022 08:01 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I don't think anything happens soon with ACC.

ESPN may want to mitigate the level of resentment from UNC/FSU/etc so that when the GoR no longer stands in the way...the B1G isn't the preferred choice of the coveted schools. If the stance from ESPN is basically "you're stuck with the contract YOU signed until '36...deal with it" and conversely there are friendly ongoing conversations with the B1G over the next ~14 years...

(08-10-2022 08:22 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 08:01 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I don't think anything happens soon with ACC.

ESPN may want to mitigate the level of resentment from UNC/FSU/etc so that when the GoR no longer stands in the way...the B1G isn't the preferred choice. If the stance from ESPN is basically "you're stuck with the contract YOU signed until '36...deal with it" and conversely there are friendly ongoing conversations with the B1G over the next ~14 years...

right

it's a business. So you don't burn bridges if you can help it. you may continue to want the product being offered.

So amicability should be the order of the day.

(08-10-2022 08:01 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I don't think anything happens soon with ACC.

Now that ND's Swarbrick suggested P2 expansion to 20, and I don't think that happens for the SEC except through the ACC.

Having espn as the media deal for both conferences just makes it easier.

And with all the rumours and leaks, I think "something's" going on with Florida state behind-the-scenes.

(08-09-2022 09:15 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Ok, so first, here's my understanding of what a "Grant of Rights" (GoR) is:

The individual schools in the conference sign an agreement to "grant" their media rights to the conference. The conference as an entity of its own, can then make deals with media companies in relation to those rights.

So, for example, if a school were to want to leave the conference, it's merely a matter of one or more successful votes inside the conference.

Any deal(s) with the media companies only come into play if it's perceived that the loss of content will affect the value of the deal.

So for example, the B12 is losing TX and OK. They replaced them with 4 schools and presumably that content was enough for the conference and the media people to retain their agreements.

So imagine this.

Espn did not get any part of the Big10 deal.

But they want content.

They also presumably do not want the big10 raiding any of their current content, especially ones they want.

FSU and clemson are clearly not happy where they are.

ND is likely going to need a bigger paycheck to stay where they are.

Soo even though they have a GoR til 2036, the ACC has some stability issues to resolve.

The conventional wisdom is that, if things do not change, the GoR is not likely to last til 2036.

And that the media deal is then likely to break at some point, as well.

So it's in Espn's interest to a.) restore stability b.) keep everyone in-house (no B10 poaching) c.) add a few more to increase value d.) pay as little as possible to do this.

One way to do this would be to facilitate a trade between the SEC and the ACC.

The ACC trades Clemson and FSU to the SEC, for South Carolina to the ACC.

The ACC also adds Cin, WV, UCF, and Memphis - all to happen 2024/25

To get an even 18, SEC adds Kansas.

The PAC apparently has targeted 40M per school, as their target. That sets a target.

Espn facilitates this trade, then, by offering to do an early increase on the payouts to roughly 40M per school (ND is of course a special situation)

Even though the SEC could vote south carolina out regardless; to keep everyone amicable, Espn'll likely need to do some sort of payoff - like a monetary bonus/fee, and some guaranteed scheduling.

Why not trade Vanderbilt as well? Because they're AAU, and no payout likely would prevent them from going to the B10 instead. And one of the goals is to keep everyone in-house

So to sum up:

FSU and Clemson to SEC
Kansas to SEC (total 18)
South Carolina to ACC
Cin, WV, UCF, and Memphis to ACC (total 18)
ACC goes to roughly 40M per school
ND, getting a pay bump per year, is more likely to keep their olympic sports in-house.

The GoR is still in place.

ACC stabilizes.

And ESPN, though ACC and SEC, has most of the east coast and the south. And all without needing a conference to go to 20 or 24.

And with the 4 schools removed from B12, it's now more likely to look west for back fill.

And so all eyes look west for the next realignment steps.

Why would SC agree to that. They lose 30 mil per year.

(08-09-2022 09:26 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  NC State for Vandy

The SEC likes Vanderbilt and the Nashville area is more important than ever to the SEC. besides, where do SEC fan bases want to party at, Nashville or Starkville?

(08-12-2022 08:59 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 09:26 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  NC State for Vandy

The SEC likes Vanderbilt and the Nashville area is more important than ever to the SEC. besides, where do SEC fan bases want to party at, Nashville or Starkville?

My favorite SEC town? Athens, GA.

My experience in Starkville was very positive. Of course I enjoy fishing. Very friendly campus and town. They are the most centralized location of the greater SEC. It’s not all about barrooms and strip malls.

(08-12-2022 08:51 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Why would SC agree to that. They lose 30 mil per year.

Based on the follow-up discussions in this thread, I updated the OP by merging in one of my subsequent posts, specifically removing the "trade South Carolina" part.

So trading SC is no longer part of this idea.

The main difference is that it takes SEC to 20 schools instead of 18, by adding Miami, instead of losing SC.

(08-10-2022 07:08 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 11:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Here's the thing: the ACC was actually "proactive" in getting the GOR and long-term ESPN contract into place.

They're serving their intended purpose: keeping the conference together!

Remember that the ACC feared that there were going to be more defectors from the league after Maryland went to the Big Ten, so that's why the league signed the GOR and entered into such a long-term deal with ESPN. Schools like FSU, UNC and Clemson signed off on the GOR and long-term ESPN deal because they cared more about the security of the league than flexibility in seeking other conference options as free agents. The fact that it's now a disadvantage to those schools a few years later doesn't mean that the GOR and ESPN contract aren't doing *exactly* what they're supposed to do.

I'm constantly perplexed by people's surprise that conferences are set up to protect the "screwed" (e.g. Wake Forest and similarly situated schools at the bottom of the ACC totem pole) as opposed to advantaging the "screwers". Bylaws and contracts are create to *protect* the conference in virtually every way possible as opposed to finding loopholes or easy ways to destroy them. Schools like FSU, UNC and Clemson can't turn around and get mad at the ACC for not being "proactive" when the league took the exact steps that it needed to in order to preserve the league after the Maryland defection.

Sometimes I believe it's the fans more than the actual schools that are mad They have a GOR. I don't recall any administration complaign the SEC,B1G are having huge payouts when it was Themselves that signed it.

ACC fans being very disappointed is only natural given the results. Past leaders made some bad bets. Looking back (my perspective), they should have been all-in on enticing a program like Penn State to the conference. Then go from there. It's easy to look at the SEC and B1G as behemoths from the present position...20 years ago they didn't hold such a huge advantage. Perhaps the end result would have been the same but the ACC obviously should have been more bold/creative in landing a big brand or two.

(08-12-2022 09:45 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 07:08 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 11:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Here's the thing: the ACC was actually "proactive" in getting the GOR and long-term ESPN contract into place.

They're serving their intended purpose: keeping the conference together!

Remember that the ACC feared that there were going to be more defectors from the league after Maryland went to the Big Ten, so that's why the league signed the GOR and entered into such a long-term deal with ESPN. Schools like FSU, UNC and Clemson signed off on the GOR and long-term ESPN deal because they cared more about the security of the league than flexibility in seeking other conference options as free agents. The fact that it's now a disadvantage to those schools a few years later doesn't mean that the GOR and ESPN contract aren't doing *exactly* what they're supposed to do.

I'm constantly perplexed by people's surprise that conferences are set up to protect the "screwed" (e.g. Wake Forest and similarly situated schools at the bottom of the ACC totem pole) as opposed to advantaging the "screwers". Bylaws and contracts are create to *protect* the conference in virtually every way possible as opposed to finding loopholes or easy ways to destroy them. Schools like FSU, UNC and Clemson can't turn around and get mad at the ACC for not being "proactive" when the league took the exact steps that it needed to in order to preserve the league after the Maryland defection.

Sometimes I believe it's the fans more than the actual schools that are mad They have a GOR. I don't recall any administration complaign the SEC,B1G are having huge payouts when it was Themselves that signed it.

ACC fans being very disappointed is only natural given the results. Past leaders made some bad bets. Looking back (my perspective), they should have been all-in on enticing a program like Penn State to the conference. Then go from there. It's easy to look at the SEC and B1G as behemoths from the present position...20 years ago they didn't hold such a huge advantage. Perhaps the end result would have been the same but the ACC obviously should have been more bold/creative in landing a big brand or two.

An insular nature around the core leaders has been resistant to many opportunities which less threatened conferences would have been open. If you only add that which does not challenge the status quo, what are your chances at real growth. FSU has been the exception to this rule. It was a large State school in a large State. IMO, this is why FSU has been the whipping boy for a core which can't overcome its own fears, or its need to rule in what is supposed to be a confederation of equals.

(08-10-2022 07:59 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  "Clemson and FSU were not declined. They were blocked to make ND's partial possible. ND wouldn't consider a partial if Clemson and FSU left. The move had been announced on ESPN's crawler and was pulled."

I wish FSU and Clemson could prove this...and have a BIG yellow flag thrown at ESPN for interference. $$$

FSU and Clemson were blocked from going to the SEC??? That doesn't seem to make sense unless I'm missing something. Was the GOR forced on them?

(08-12-2022 10:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 09:45 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 07:08 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 11:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Here's the thing: the ACC was actually "proactive" in getting the GOR and long-term ESPN contract into place.

They're serving their intended purpose: keeping the conference together!

Remember that the ACC feared that there were going to be more defectors from the league after Maryland went to the Big Ten, so that's why the league signed the GOR and entered into such a long-term deal with ESPN. Schools like FSU, UNC and Clemson signed off on the GOR and long-term ESPN deal because they cared more about the security of the league than flexibility in seeking other conference options as free agents. The fact that it's now a disadvantage to those schools a few years later doesn't mean that the GOR and ESPN contract aren't doing *exactly* what they're supposed to do.

I'm constantly perplexed by people's surprise that conferences are set up to protect the "screwed" (e.g. Wake Forest and similarly situated schools at the bottom of the ACC totem pole) as opposed to advantaging the "screwers". Bylaws and contracts are create to *protect* the conference in virtually every way possible as opposed to finding loopholes or easy ways to destroy them. Schools like FSU, UNC and Clemson can't turn around and get mad at the ACC for not being "proactive" when the league took the exact steps that it needed to in order to preserve the league after the Maryland defection.

Sometimes I believe it's the fans more than the actual schools that are mad They have a GOR. I don't recall any administration complaign the SEC,B1G are having huge payouts when it was Themselves that signed it.

ACC fans being very disappointed is only natural given the results. Past leaders made some bad bets. Looking back (my perspective), they should have been all-in on enticing a program like Penn State to the conference. Then go from there. It's easy to look at the SEC and B1G as behemoths from the present position...20 years ago they didn't hold such a huge advantage. Perhaps the end result would have been the same but the ACC obviously should have been more bold/creative in landing a big brand or two.

An insular nature around the core leaders has been resistant to many opportunities which less threatened conferences would have been open. If you only add that which does not challenge the status quo, what are your chances at real growth. FSU has been the exception to this rule. It was a large State school in a large State. IMO, this is why FSU has been the whipping boy for a core which can't overcome its own fears, or its need to rule in what is supposed to be a confederation of equals.

No doubt about it. On a related note (for those who say FSU was fortunate to be in the ACC vs the SEC): The notion that FSU would have struggled in the SEC back in its heyday is laughable. FSU beat UF 2/3 times in their respective golden eras the 90's and played Miami every single year back when it was da U. The old ball coach Steve Spurrier never won in Tallahassee. And the SEC of that era was nowhere near as good as the SEC of today. FSU may have not racked up the same win count...but they would have but the dominant program. That's not to say that it won't be a challenging uphill climb if the Noles join now.

(08-10-2022 03:21 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 10:46 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  There is no universe in which South Carolina would return to the ACC. The idea that the Gamecocks would be expelled by the other SEC schools simply to make room for Clemson is beyond risible. Moreover, if ESPN attempted to even try to orchestrate that, South Carolina would be able to annihilate ESPN in court for breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act, since the net impact of trying to force an SEC school into the ACC would be to decrease that school’s contractually-secured, annual SEC membership media share, which would be on the order of $40m or more per annum than the ACC’s payout.

The "trade" idea was intended as a way to try to avoid certain precedents.

And yes, as I said, for it to work, SC would have needed some sort of significant pay off.

And, once voted out, they could potentially choose to accept the invite of any conference.

But the SEC can vote out a member if they so choose.

As I noted at the top, the espn contract is presumably with the sec, not with the individual member schools.

So while it could of of course be argued that the sec wouldn't vote to remove the non-founding member SC, I don't think your other assertions apply.

Can you provide a link to an article that says the SEC can kick someone out?

This read like a fantasy sports trade you send to some newbie. Sure, I'll trade you *insert name of crappy player that somehow got hot for two weeks at the beginning of the season ** for Shohei Ohtani and Mike Trout. Except the people running major conferences aren't that stupid.

(08-12-2022 05:57 PM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 03:21 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 10:46 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  There is no universe in which South Carolina would return to the ACC. The idea that the Gamecocks would be expelled by the other SEC schools simply to make room for Clemson is beyond risible. Moreover, if ESPN attempted to even try to orchestrate that, South Carolina would be able to annihilate ESPN in court for breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act, since the net impact of trying to force an SEC school into the ACC would be to decrease that school’s contractually-secured, annual SEC membership media share, which would be on the order of $40m or more per annum than the ACC’s payout.

The "trade" idea was intended as a way to try to avoid certain precedents.

And yes, as I said, for it to work, SC would have needed some sort of significant pay off.

And, once voted out, they could potentially choose to accept the invite of any conference.

But the SEC can vote out a member if they so choose.

As I noted at the top, the espn contract is presumably with the sec, not with the individual member schools.

So while it could of of course be argued that the sec wouldn't vote to remove the non-founding member SC, I don't think your other assertions apply.

Can you provide a link to an article that says the SEC can kick someone out?

It's a standard in most organizations.

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2017/0822/201...Bylaws.pdf

Quote:*3.1.4 Termination of Membership. Membership may be terminated voluntarily by the resignation of a member or involuntarily
at a meeting of the Chief Executive Officers. A vote of at least two -thirds of the members is required to terminate membership.
Any motion to terminate membership shall specify the effective date of the proposed termination. [Clarified/Conformed 6/1/11]

And while we're at it:

Quote:*3.1.2 Granting of Membership. Membership may be granted by invitation of the Conference at a meeting of the Chief Executive
Officers. A vote of at least three-fourths of the members is required to extend an invitation for membership. [Revised: 5/30/91]
[Clarified/Conformed 6/1/11]

Quote:*4.1.1 Chief Executive Officers. The President or Chancellor of each member shall be a Chief Executive Officer of the
Conference. Accordingly, there shall be one Chief Executive Officer for each member. The Chief Executive Officers shall act at
the regular annual meeting of the Conference or at specially called meetings of the Conference, as set forth in Article 5.
[Clarified/Conformed/Renumbered 6/1/11]

(08-12-2022 10:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 09:45 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 07:08 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 11:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Here's the thing: the ACC was actually "proactive" in getting the GOR and long-term ESPN contract into place.

They're serving their intended purpose: keeping the conference together!

Remember that the ACC feared that there were going to be more defectors from the league after Maryland went to the Big Ten, so that's why the league signed the GOR and entered into such a long-term deal with ESPN. Schools like FSU, UNC and Clemson signed off on the GOR and long-term ESPN deal because they cared more about the security of the league than flexibility in seeking other conference options as free agents. The fact that it's now a disadvantage to those schools a few years later doesn't mean that the GOR and ESPN contract aren't doing *exactly* what they're supposed to do.

I'm constantly perplexed by people's surprise that conferences are set up to protect the "screwed" (e.g. Wake Forest and similarly situated schools at the bottom of the ACC totem pole) as opposed to advantaging the "screwers". Bylaws and contracts are create to *protect* the conference in virtually every way possible as opposed to finding loopholes or easy ways to destroy them. Schools like FSU, UNC and Clemson can't turn around and get mad at the ACC for not being "proactive" when the league took the exact steps that it needed to in order to preserve the league after the Maryland defection.

Sometimes I believe it's the fans more than the actual schools that are mad They have a GOR. I don't recall any administration complaign the SEC,B1G are having huge payouts when it was Themselves that signed it.

ACC fans being very disappointed is only natural given the results. Past leaders made some bad bets. Looking back (my perspective), they should have been all-in on enticing a program like Penn State to the conference. Then go from there. It's easy to look at the SEC and B1G as behemoths from the present position...20 years ago they didn't hold such a huge advantage. Perhaps the end result would have been the same but the ACC obviously should have been more bold/creative in landing a big brand or two.

An insular nature around the core leaders has been resistant to many opportunities which less threatened conferences would have been open. If you only add that which does not challenge the status quo, what are your chances at real growth. FSU has been the exception to this rule. It was a large State school in a large State. IMO, this is why FSU has been the whipping boy for a core which can't overcome its own fears, or its need to rule in what is supposed to be a confederation of equals.

This is just spin. It’s the value of Tier 1 media content that is driving the explosion of payouts. The B1G has Ohio State and Michigan anchoring its offering; the SEC has Alabama and Georgia (plus Florida & LSU). The B12 had Texas and Oklahoma as foundational pieces, and couldn’t keep-up in this round of realignment. The PAC had the Rocky Mountains protecting its turf, and couldn’t retain its two best brands.

You can criticize the country club nature of the ACC core for many things, but you’re missing the forrest for the trees. Schools can extract more money from media by consolidating brands. The B1G and SEC have always had the best football foundations to consolidate these brands.