It seems like a common theme at CSNBBS is the ACC's demise is inevitable and that schools are on their way out, either once their Grant of Rights expires or even earlier. There's even an active thread about North Carolina and Florida State to the SEC next year.

There was talk about the ACC collapsing and multiple schools leaving way back in the early 2010's, depending on who you ask. I've heard Florida State and Clemson to the Big 12 (and the ACC taking Louisville over Connecticut to keep them) as well as North Carolina among others to the Big Ten in addition to Maryland (who was the only school to leave the ACC this millennium).

The rumor was that once the Big Ten did add Maryland they were thinking South with North Carolina and Virginia the prime targets. Jim Delany is an alum of UNC and had the ACC schools not decided on the GOR I think he might have helped the Big Ten secure Carolina over the SEC (before they had Texas and Oklahoma) and Delany was a more respected commissioner than Kevin Warren or Tony Petitti, especially among the academic circle.

There are two ways I'd want to go with this:

1) The Big Ten adds Virginia and North Carolina, with Duke being left behind. We'll assume Texas and Oklahoma and any other Big 12 schools are off the table for the SEC because I'd have to believe they wouldn't have settled for Missouri to go along with Texas A&M otherwise. Would they then go for Florida State and Clemson to keep up with the Big Ten in numbers and in strength or would they try to match the Big Ten in Virginia and North Carolina and add Virginia Tech and NC State in the era when cable subscriptions and ESPN were still relevant? If Florida State and Clemson are left out of the SEC, I'll assume they go to the Big 12. Then UConn, Cincinnati, South Florida and/or Central Florida, maybe Temple, maybe West Virginia wind up in the ACC as they backfill. Maybe the AAC never gets formed as all of the former Big East schools just go to the ACC or don't make it and have to settle for C-USA.

I have a feeling that the 2020's SEC and Big Ten adds still happen but Cincinnati and UCF are in the ACC. What happens to Clemson and Florida State though? Are they stuck in the Big 12 or can they get into a now ginormous SEC? Maybe the Big Ten wants them and they already have Virginia and North Carolina to help attract them.

2) Carolina insists on Duke coming along for the ride and the Big Ten agrees. Georgia Tech is the 18th member to even the numbers up and to get into Atlanta. Is there more pressure for the SEC to add Florida State/Clemson? Would they accept just 14 or 16 (with Virginia Tech/NC State)?

If the Big Ten loses UNC to the SEC, I think they should have pushed to get them before the GOR, while Delany was still commissioner, and before the SEC added Texas/Oklahoma.

(07-09-2023 08:21 AM)schmolik Wrote:  It seems like a common theme at CSNBBS is the ACC's demise is inevitable and that schools are on their way out, either once their Grant of Rights expires or even earlier. There's even an active thread about North Carolina and Florida State to the SEC next year.

There was talk about the ACC collapsing and multiple schools leaving way back in the early 2010's, depending on who you ask. I've heard Florida State and Clemson to the Big 12 (and the ACC taking Louisville over Connecticut to keep them) as well as North Carolina among others to the Big Ten in addition to Maryland (who was the only school to leave the ACC this millennium).

The rumor was that once the Big Ten did add Maryland they were thinking South with North Carolina and Virginia the prime targets. Jim Delany is an alum of UNC and had the ACC schools not decided on the GOR I think he might have helped the Big Ten secure Carolina over the SEC (before they had Texas and Oklahoma) and Delany was a more respected commissioner than Kevin Warren or Tony Petitti, especially among the academic circle.

There are two ways I'd want to go with this:

1) The Big Ten adds Virginia and North Carolina, with Duke being left behind. We'll assume Texas and Oklahoma and any other Big 12 schools are off the table for the SEC because I'd have to believe they wouldn't have settled for Missouri to go along with Texas A&M otherwise. Would they then go for Florida State and Clemson to keep up with the Big Ten in numbers and in strength or would they try to match the Big Ten in Virginia and North Carolina and add Virginia Tech and NC State in the era when cable subscriptions and ESPN were still relevant? If Florida State and Clemson are left out of the SEC, I'll assume they go to the Big 12. Then UConn, Cincinnati, South Florida and/or Central Florida, maybe Temple, maybe West Virginia wind up in the ACC as they backfill. Maybe the AAC never gets formed as all of the former Big East schools just go to the ACC or don't make it and have to settle for C-USA.

I have a feeling that the 2020's SEC and Big Ten adds still happen but Cincinnati and UCF are in the ACC. What happens to Clemson and Florida State though? Are they stuck in the Big 12 or can they get into a now ginormous SEC? Maybe the Big Ten wants them and they already have Virginia and North Carolina to help attract them.

2) Carolina insists on Duke coming along for the ride and the Big Ten agrees. Georgia Tech is the 18th member to even the numbers up and to get into Atlanta. Is there more pressure for the SEC to add Florida State/Clemson? Would they accept just 14 or 16 (with Virginia Tech/NC State)?

If the Big Ten loses UNC to the SEC, I think they should have pushed to get them before the GOR, while Delany was still commissioner, and before the SEC added Texas/Oklahoma.

If this is supposed to go down before ESPN agreed to launch the SECN, I think the SEC is obliged to take a new cable market (but just one, due to Texas A&M), so maybe the add Mizzou anyway, or maybe they grab NC State. (There's a slim chance they'd both of those plus VT, but typically that's not how the SEC operates).

So in that scenario you could have Miami, FSU, Clemson, and VT all still in the ACC, in which case maybe they jump to the Big XII - but maybe ESPN does a deal like they did for the Big XII when Nebraska and Colorado jumped ship - same total pay divided 2 fewer ways? That might be enough to keep the band together until ACCN time (no reason they couldn't still launch it), but the odds of the ACC poaching the post-OUT Big XII goes WAY up with UVA and UNC gone, IMO.

It’s hard for a rewrite because the fact of the matter is that if the Big Ten could have added UVA, UNC and/or Duke at the same time as Maryland, they *definitely* would have done so at the time. This wasn’t a matter of the Big Ten solely wanting Maryland and then everyone else in the ACC was an afterthought by comparison. If UNC and other top ACC schools had actually been willing to move at that time, the Big Ten and/or SEC would have invited them immediately. Heck, they would have been invited *instead* of Maryland and Rutgers. It’s sort of like saying that the SEC could have taken Oklahoma instead of Missouri in the 2010s, but the problem is that OU couldn’t/wouldn’t move at that time. The option want there at all.

So, it’s an Occam’s Razor situation. The whole reason why the GOR was signed in the first place was because UNC, Duke, UVA, FSU and Clemson did NOT want the situation that you just described. They legitimately wanted to all stay in the ACC. If they had actually been willing to move in the first place, the Big Ten and/or SEC would have taken them all. Neither Delany nor Mike Slive would have needed to be convinced at all on that front.

Further to my last point, it wasn’t the Big Ten and SEC that would have needed to be convinced to expand with UNC and other ACC schools. It’s unquestioned that both the Big Ten and SEC would have taken UNC just as fast as they would have taken Notre Dame or Texas if UNC was willing to move.

Instead, the question is what would have convinced UNC and those other schools to leave the ACC *at that time*. I don’t know if any argument would have existed - UNC was still more focused on having effective control over the ACC just as Texas was more more focused on having effective control over the Big 12 during that time period as opposed to getting a larger equal TV revenue share elsewhere.

(07-09-2023 10:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It’s hard for a rewrite because the fact of the matter is that if the Big Ten could have added UVA, UNC and/or Duke at the same time as Maryland, they *definitely* would have done so at the time. This wasn’t a matter of the Big Ten solely wanting Maryland and then everyone else in the ACC was an afterthought by comparison. If UNC and other top ACC schools had actually been willing to move at that time, the Big Ten and/or SEC would have invited them immediately. Heck, they would have been invited *instead* of Maryland and Rutgers. It’s sort of like saying that the SEC could have taken Oklahoma instead of Missouri in the 2010s, but the problem is that OU couldn’t/wouldn’t move at that time. The option want there at all.

So, it’s an Occam’s Razor situation. The whole reason why the GOR was signed in the first place was because UNC, Duke, UVA, FSU and Clemson did NOT want the situation that you just described. They legitimately wanted to all stay in the ACC. If they had actually been willing to move in the first place, the Big Ten and/or SEC would have taken them all. Neither Delany nor Mike Slive would have needed to be convinced at all on that front.

His premises are wrong anyway. Florida State and Clemson were announced by ESPN to the SEC after a larger ESPN worked deal fell through in 2011. The interest of those two was first the SEC, and the Big 12 was only considered because they wanted out and the SEC was bound to first add two new markets.

And this supposition doesn't account for the fact that Cunningham, the brand new AD at UNC polled his donors and only 1 wanted the Big 10. He polled them because the Big 10 had approached UNC as well. Cunningham then approached Mike Slive with concerns over what UNC would and could do should Virginia and or Georgia Tech head to the Big 10 as both were allegedly offered the chance to go with Maryland and UNC knew it. Cunningham specifically wanted to know if North Carolina could come with Duke (no mention of N.C. State) to the SEC. Slive reportedly agreed that they could. Also not accounted for in the supposition of the OP is that David Boren approached the SEC and asked if both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State could come to the SEC in 2011. The SEC could easily have satisfied the 2 new market approach, taken Duke, North Carolina, and Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, and had ESPN's blessing in doing so and then gone ahead and taken Clemson and Florida State, a move which ESPN had agreed to in the wake of the failed deal. This would have jumped the SEC to 18.

Another miss of reality in the OP was that Nebraska and Colorado had gone and everyone, including Texas was weighing option in 2011. The Big 12 was not a place to head with all the brands trying to evacuate. And if Maryland and Virginia had departed the ACC along with Georgia Tech, Notre Dame was at its closest point ever to aligning with the Big 10 when they approached ESPN about the partial move. Why? Because they could get into recruiting areas with Georgia Tech and Florida State. If Tech heads with UVa to the Big 10 Notre Dame has some concerns addressed.

Does anyone believe that Texas was going to stay put with that much happening around them? And the SEC presidents as in 1991 had created an expansion plan to 20 should the Big 10 ever attempt a raid on the ACC. That plan was for the defense of prime targets in the Southeast. It is still philosophically operational.

Also unaccounted for is that in 2011 GORs did not exist in the ACC and Big 12. Virginia would have been free to leave, as would Georgia Tech, so this wasn't just an idle threat to the ACC, but it was an active threat in the eyes of ESPN and UNC which would never have held the SEC to a 2 new state requirement for renegotiation, a requirement which by the way had no ceiling on additions above the two new states.

Furthermore, A&M had made up its mind to head to the SEC without Texas in 2011. I don't think that changes at all.

So let's say Delany's raid is on and Virginia and Georgia Tech join Maryland in leaving. The SEC accepts Duke and North Carolina's pointed overture, ESPN relents on Clemson and FSU which mostly fulfills the SEC's defensive strategy, and Texas A&M joins along with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State which under those conditions the SEC would have taken though David Boren would have preferred the Big 10 and the Big 10 would not have taken Oklahoma State which at that time was R2 instead of R1 in research and Oklahoma was not AAU.

The SEC is at 19. There's one school now left on the SEC's original defense list, Miami (a list talked about openly by Jackie Sherrill when he was at Mississippi State).

I think the operative question at that time would be does Texas reconsider its 1987 to 1991 talks with the SEC since Oklahoma (with OSU), Arkansas and A&M are now all headed to the SEC? Or do they bail and head to the PAC behind Colorado? I say they still follow their business model of playing as many games in Texas as possible (A&M and OU are played in Texas annually) and they take the 20th slot from Miami.

Also, another flaw in the premise is that once Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M and Missouri left the Big 12, there's no way in hell that FSU and Clemson's presidents move as filler for a depleted Big 12.

The Big 10's viable option if they have secured Maryland, Virginia, Georgia Tech and Notre Dame is to take Kansas and Missouri and use Notre Dame to make a push for Texas. Dodds and Swarbrick were tight and both were involved in the failed attempt by ESPN to pump up the ACC as a product and an in house rival for the SEC. The SEC didn't want N.C. State and Virginia Tech in 2011, it was just to be part of the bigger plan. The SEC wanted A&M, and took Missouri as the second market.

I could easily see in the milieu which is presented in the OP that the SEC and ESPN would have mutually collected the brands most coveted by ESPN. An SEC at 20 with or without Texas and with or without Miami, would have been the result and it absolutely would have included Duke, North Carolina, Clemson and Florida State along with Oklahoma, Ok State, and Texas A&M and would have mandated a move to at least 18 by the Big 10 and I think #17 and #18 could easily have been Missouri and Kansas keeping the Big 10's door open to the West with contiguity. Of course if the Big 10 has taken Georgia Tech without a school in North Carolina that would have been broken anyway.

(07-09-2023 11:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 10:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It’s hard for a rewrite because the fact of the matter is that if the Big Ten could have added UVA, UNC and/or Duke at the same time as Maryland, they *definitely* would have done so at the time. This wasn’t a matter of the Big Ten solely wanting Maryland and then everyone else in the ACC was an afterthought by comparison. If UNC and other top ACC schools had actually been willing to move at that time, the Big Ten and/or SEC would have invited them immediately. Heck, they would have been invited *instead* of Maryland and Rutgers. It’s sort of like saying that the SEC could have taken Oklahoma instead of Missouri in the 2010s, but the problem is that OU couldn’t/wouldn’t move at that time. The option want there at all.

So, it’s an Occam’s Razor situation. The whole reason why the GOR was signed in the first place was because UNC, Duke, UVA, FSU and Clemson did NOT want the situation that you just described. They legitimately wanted to all stay in the ACC. If they had actually been willing to move in the first place, the Big Ten and/or SEC would have taken them all. Neither Delany nor Mike Slive would have needed to be convinced at all on that front.

His premises are wrong anyway. Florida State and Clemson were announced by ESPN to the SEC after a larger ESPN worked deal fell through in 2011. The interest of those two was first the SEC, and the Big 12 was only considered because they wanted out and the SEC was bound to first add two new markets.

And this supposition doesn't account for the fact that Cunningham, the brand new AD at UNC polled his donors and only 1 wanted the Big 10. Cunningham then approached Mike Slive with concerns of about what UNC would and could do should Virginia and or Georgia Tech head to the Big 10 as both were allegedly offered the chance to go with Maryland. Cunningham specifically wanted to know if North Carolina could come with Duke (no mention of N.C. State) to the SEC. Slive reportedly agreed that they could. Also not accounted for in the supposition of the OP is that David Boren approached the SEC and asked if both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State could come to the SEC in 2011. The SEC could easily have satisfied the 2 new market approach, taken Duke, North Carolina, and Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, and ESPN's blessing in doing so and gone ahead and taken Clemson and Florida State, which ESPN had agreed to move in the wake of the failed deal, and jumped to 18.

Another miss of reality in the OP was that Nebraska and Colorado had gone and everyone, including Texas was weighing option in 2011. And if Maryland and Virginia had departed the ACC along with Georgia Tech, Notre Dame was at its closest point ever to aligning with the Big 10 when they approached ESPN about the partial move. Why? Because they could get into recruiting areas with Georgia Tech and Florida State.

Does anyone believe that Texas was going to stay put with that much happening around them? And the SEC presidents as in 1991 had created an expansion plan to 20 should the Big 10 ever attempt a raid on the ACC. That plan was for the defense of prime targets in the Southeast. It is still philosophically operational.

Also unaccounted for is that in 2011 GORs did not exist in the ACC and Big 12. Virginia would have been free to leave, as would Georgia Tech, so this wasn't just an idle threat to the ACC, but it was an active threat in the eyes of ESPN which would never have held the SEC to a 2 new state requirement for renegotiation, a requirement which by the way had no ceiling on additions above the two new states.

Furthermore, A&M had made up its mind to head to the SEC without Texas in 2011. I don't think that changes at all.

So let's say Delany's raid is on and Virginia and Georgia Tech join Maryland in leaving. The SEC accepts Duke and North Carolina's pointed overture, ESPN relents on Clemson and FSU which mostly fulfills the SEC's defensive strategy, and Texas A&M joins along with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State which under those conditions the SEC would have taken though David Boren would have preferred the Big 10 and the Big 10 would not have taken Oklahoma State which at that time was R2 instead of R1 in research and Oklahoma was not AAU.

The SEC is at 19. There's one school now left on the SEC's original defense list, Miami (a list talked about openly by Jackie Sherrill when he was at Mississippi State).

I think the operative question at that time would be does Texas reconsider its 1987 to 1991 talks with the SEC since Oklahoma (with OSU), Arkansas and A&M are now all headed to the SEC? Or do they bail and head to the PAC behind Colorado? I say they still follow their business model of playing as many games in Texas as possible (A&M and OU are played in Texas annually) and they take the 20th slot from Miami.

Also another flaw in the premise is that once Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M and Missouri left the Big 12, there's no way in hell that FSU and Clemson's presidents move as filler for a depleted Big 12.

The Big 10's viable option if they have secured Maryland, Virginia, Georgia Tech and Notre Dame is to take Kansas and Missouri and use Notre Dame to make a push for Texas. Dodds and Swarbrick were tight and both were involved in the failed attempt by ESPN to pump up the ACC as a product and an in house rival for the SEC. The SEC didn't want N.C. State and Virginia Tech in 2011, it was part of the bigger plan. The SEC wanted A&M, and took Missouri as the second market.

I could easily see in the milieu which is presented in the OP that the SEC and ESPN would have mutually collected the brands most coveted by ESPN. An SEC at 20 with or without Texas and with or without Miami, would have been the result and it absolutely would have included Duke, North Carolina, Clemson and Florida State along with Texas A&M would have mandated a move to at least 18 by the Big 10 and I think #17 and #18 could easily have been Missouri and Kansas keeping the Big 10's door open to the West with contiguity. Of course if the Big 10 has taken Georgia Tech without a school in North Carolina that would have been broken anyway.

Even if Cunningham had been on the job for years, he would not have polled "donors". That job would have fallen to John Montgomery who is the Executive Director of the Rams Club and the person that would have been in regular contact with "the Big Hitters".

(07-09-2023 11:44 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 11:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 10:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It’s hard for a rewrite because the fact of the matter is that if the Big Ten could have added UVA, UNC and/or Duke at the same time as Maryland, they *definitely* would have done so at the time. This wasn’t a matter of the Big Ten solely wanting Maryland and then everyone else in the ACC was an afterthought by comparison. If UNC and other top ACC schools had actually been willing to move at that time, the Big Ten and/or SEC would have invited them immediately. Heck, they would have been invited *instead* of Maryland and Rutgers. It’s sort of like saying that the SEC could have taken Oklahoma instead of Missouri in the 2010s, but the problem is that OU couldn’t/wouldn’t move at that time. The option want there at all.

So, it’s an Occam’s Razor situation. The whole reason why the GOR was signed in the first place was because UNC, Duke, UVA, FSU and Clemson did NOT want the situation that you just described. They legitimately wanted to all stay in the ACC. If they had actually been willing to move in the first place, the Big Ten and/or SEC would have taken them all. Neither Delany nor Mike Slive would have needed to be convinced at all on that front.

His premises are wrong anyway. Florida State and Clemson were announced by ESPN to the SEC after a larger ESPN worked deal fell through in 2011. The interest of those two was first the SEC, and the Big 12 was only considered because they wanted out and the SEC was bound to first add two new markets.

And this supposition doesn't account for the fact that Cunningham, the brand new AD at UNC polled his donors and only 1 wanted the Big 10. Cunningham then approached Mike Slive with concerns of about what UNC would and could do should Virginia and or Georgia Tech head to the Big 10 as both were allegedly offered the chance to go with Maryland. Cunningham specifically wanted to know if North Carolina could come with Duke (no mention of N.C. State) to the SEC. Slive reportedly agreed that they could. Also not accounted for in the supposition of the OP is that David Boren approached the SEC and asked if both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State could come to the SEC in 2011. The SEC could easily have satisfied the 2 new market approach, taken Duke, North Carolina, and Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, and ESPN's blessing in doing so and gone ahead and taken Clemson and Florida State, which ESPN had agreed to move in the wake of the failed deal, and jumped to 18.

Another miss of reality in the OP was that Nebraska and Colorado had gone and everyone, including Texas was weighing option in 2011. And if Maryland and Virginia had departed the ACC along with Georgia Tech, Notre Dame was at its closest point ever to aligning with the Big 10 when they approached ESPN about the partial move. Why? Because they could get into recruiting areas with Georgia Tech and Florida State.

Does anyone believe that Texas was going to stay put with that much happening around them? And the SEC presidents as in 1991 had created an expansion plan to 20 should the Big 10 ever attempt a raid on the ACC. That plan was for the defense of prime targets in the Southeast. It is still philosophically operational.

Also unaccounted for is that in 2011 GORs did not exist in the ACC and Big 12. Virginia would have been free to leave, as would Georgia Tech, so this wasn't just an idle threat to the ACC, but it was an active threat in the eyes of ESPN which would never have held the SEC to a 2 new state requirement for renegotiation, a requirement which by the way had no ceiling on additions above the two new states.

Furthermore, A&M had made up its mind to head to the SEC without Texas in 2011. I don't think that changes at all.

So let's say Delany's raid is on and Virginia and Georgia Tech join Maryland in leaving. The SEC accepts Duke and North Carolina's pointed overture, ESPN relents on Clemson and FSU which mostly fulfills the SEC's defensive strategy, and Texas A&M joins along with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State which under those conditions the SEC would have taken though David Boren would have preferred the Big 10 and the Big 10 would not have taken Oklahoma State which at that time was R2 instead of R1 in research and Oklahoma was not AAU.

The SEC is at 19. There's one school now left on the SEC's original defense list, Miami (a list talked about openly by Jackie Sherrill when he was at Mississippi State).

I think the operative question at that time would be does Texas reconsider its 1987 to 1991 talks with the SEC since Oklahoma (with OSU), Arkansas and A&M are now all headed to the SEC? Or do they bail and head to the PAC behind Colorado? I say they still follow their business model of playing as many games in Texas as possible (A&M and OU are played in Texas annually) and they take the 20th slot from Miami.

Also another flaw in the premise is that once Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M and Missouri left the Big 12, there's no way in hell that FSU and Clemson's presidents move as filler for a depleted Big 12.

The Big 10's viable option if they have secured Maryland, Virginia, Georgia Tech and Notre Dame is to take Kansas and Missouri and use Notre Dame to make a push for Texas. Dodds and Swarbrick were tight and both were involved in the failed attempt by ESPN to pump up the ACC as a product and an in house rival for the SEC. The SEC didn't want N.C. State and Virginia Tech in 2011, it was part of the bigger plan. The SEC wanted A&M, and took Missouri as the second market.

I could easily see in the milieu which is presented in the OP that the SEC and ESPN would have mutually collected the brands most coveted by ESPN. An SEC at 20 with or without Texas and with or without Miami, would have been the result and it absolutely would have included Duke, North Carolina, Clemson and Florida State along with Texas A&M would have mandated a move to at least 18 by the Big 10 and I think #17 and #18 could easily have been Missouri and Kansas keeping the Big 10's door open to the West with contiguity. Of course if the Big 10 has taken Georgia Tech without a school in North Carolina that would have been broken anyway.

Even if Cunningham had been on the job for years, he would not have polled "donors". That job would have fallen to John Montgomery who is the Executive Director of the Rams Club and the person that would have been in regular contact with "the Big Hitters".

Attribution of who actually did the polling is not really important, the contact with Slive is what was important, and it happened. I readily concede someone in the Athletic Department at UNC could have done the actual polling.

What Schmolik importantly gets correct in his OP, is that the ACC, without a GOR in 2011, was in much more jeopardy behind the scenes than most people ever realized publicly. The GOR tamped that down but did not eliminate the anxiety. For the purposes of what he proposes the better supposition would be, what if in 1990 at the time the Big 10 was securing Penn State, they had made a greater move down the Eastern Seaboard? There were no GOR's then. The SEC was just formalizing its offensive and defensive plans with regard to realignment, the ACC had not raided the Big East and it only consisted of 8 members: The 4 North Carolina schools, Virginia, Maryland, Clemson and Georgia Tech (which had joined in 1978). A hyper successful Big 10 raid could have transpired taking Virginia, Maryland, Duke, and possibly North Carolina in a move to 15 possibly taking Nebraska to the West early to make it 16 or taking then AAU Syracuse to the East to make it 16. The SEC would likely have responded but after the damage was done by welcoming back Georgia Tech which at that time was a consideration and they had just won a part of a national title and had solid basketball, added Clemson in 1990 prior to South Carolina, picked up N.C. State to get into the North Carolina market and finished out with Florida State. What transpired to the West would then have been much more open to all if it happened before A&M made a decision. Arkansas would not have been on board in the SEC yet and the SEC, freshly at 16, wouldn't have been as likely to add them. This is especially true if the Big 12 forms and includes them, as it was the fear of exclusion which drove Broyles to the SEC. Lost in timelines is the fact that discussions about the possibility of the Big 12's formation were happening by 1991, and probably before. Now you have a sufficiently altered new reality to make things speculatively play out in a different fashion. Oh, and ESPN wasn't a significant factor to contend with regarding the ACC in 1990.

(07-09-2023 10:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It’s hard for a rewrite because the fact of the matter is that if the Big Ten could have added UVA, UNC and/or Duke at the same time as Maryland, they *definitely* would have done so at the time. This wasn’t a matter of the Big Ten solely wanting Maryland and then everyone else in the ACC was an afterthought by comparison. If UNC and other top ACC schools had actually been willing to move at that time, the Big Ten and/or SEC would have invited them immediately. Heck, they would have been invited *instead* of Maryland and Rutgers. It’s sort of like saying that the SEC could have taken Oklahoma instead of Missouri in the 2010s, but the problem is that OU couldn’t/wouldn’t move at that time. The option want there at all.

So, it’s an Occam’s Razor situation. The whole reason why the GOR was signed in the first place was because UNC, Duke, UVA, FSU and Clemson did NOT want the situation that you just described. They legitimately wanted to all stay in the ACC. If they had actually been willing to move in the first place, the Big Ten and/or SEC would have taken them all. Neither Delany nor Mike Slive would have needed to be convinced at all on that front.

Well...now that you mention OU, the SEC definitely did want them with A&M, but OU was only willing to move if OSU was also invited. President Boren was Governor then a US Senator for a combined 19 years from 75 to 94, then he was President of OU from 94 to 2018, and he refused to move OU anywhere without OSU in tow. He would have joined the Pac if that meant OSU got to come along back in 2010, then again in 2011 with just the 2 of them, but the Pac, being the Pac, wasn't interested. He also talked to the SEC, but we didn't want OSU. So, the option to take OU was there, but only if the SEC was also willing to accept OSU. A big reason that I'm skeptical of NC St to the SEC is that even more than a decade ago, we were unwilling to add OSU, which is very similar in Brand/tv ratings/attendance/overall Athletics enthusiasm to NC St, and OU brings more $$ than UNC. So, if OU c. 2010s couldn't get a very strong M3 school attached as a tagalong, then it stands to reason that UNC c. 2023 couldn't also get a very strong M3 attached as a tagalong unless that other school strong enough to stand on its own. UVA might be strong enough. Duke might be strong enough. NC St? Not strong enough.

(07-09-2023 11:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Further to my last point, it wasn’t the Big Ten and SEC that would have needed to be convinced to expand with UNC and other ACC schools. It’s unquestioned that both the Big Ten and SEC would have taken UNC just as fast as they would have taken Notre Dame or Texas if UNC was willing to move.

Instead, the question is what would have convinced UNC and those other schools to leave the ACC *at that time*. I don’t know if any argument would have existed - UNC was still more focused on having effective control over the ACC just as Texas was more more focused on having effective control over the Big 12 during that time period as opposed to getting a larger equal TV revenue share elsewhere.

I've read that ESPN/Fox's unwillingness to extend/negotiate new terms with the big 12 as their old contract was nearing completion was what pushed OUT over the edge. Perhaps it was the new SEC contract, too? Maybe Bowlsby pushed hard for an SEC-like deal and was rebuffed, though that's just speculation. Regardless, the rapidly increasing revenues in the SEC and B1G were always going to have a destabilizing influence on the other Conferences. Back when the ACC renegotiated their deal and Swarbrick got the ACCN done, there was optimism in the conference that they'd be able to keep up in revenues. Fast forward 4 years later and it became abundantly clear that they could NOT keep up, but by then it was too late and they were all stuck under that GoR until 2036.

(07-09-2023 11:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 10:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It’s hard for a rewrite because the fact of the matter is that if the Big Ten could have added UVA, UNC and/or Duke at the same time as Maryland, they *definitely* would have done so at the time. This wasn’t a matter of the Big Ten solely wanting Maryland and then everyone else in the ACC was an afterthought by comparison. If UNC and other top ACC schools had actually been willing to move at that time, the Big Ten and/or SEC would have invited them immediately. Heck, they would have been invited *instead* of Maryland and Rutgers. It’s sort of like saying that the SEC could have taken Oklahoma instead of Missouri in the 2010s, but the problem is that OU couldn’t/wouldn’t move at that time. The option want there at all.

So, it’s an Occam’s Razor situation. The whole reason why the GOR was signed in the first place was because UNC, Duke, UVA, FSU and Clemson did NOT want the situation that you just described. They legitimately wanted to all stay in the ACC. If they had actually been willing to move in the first place, the Big Ten and/or SEC would have taken them all. Neither Delany nor Mike Slive would have needed to be convinced at all on that front.

His premises are wrong anyway. Florida State and Clemson were announced by ESPN to the SEC after a larger ESPN worked deal fell through in 2011. The interest of those two was first the SEC, and the Big 12 was only considered because they wanted out and the SEC was bound to first add two new markets.

And this supposition doesn't account for the fact that Cunningham, the brand new AD at UNC polled his donors and only 1 wanted the Big 10. He polled them because the Big 10 had approached UNC as well. Cunningham then approached Mike Slive with concerns over what UNC would and could do should Virginia and or Georgia Tech head to the Big 10 as both were allegedly offered the chance to go with Maryland and UNC knew it. Cunningham specifically wanted to know if North Carolina could come with Duke (no mention of N.C. State) to the SEC. Slive reportedly agreed that they could. Also not accounted for in the supposition of the OP is that David Boren approached the SEC and asked if both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State could come to the SEC in 2011. The SEC could easily have satisfied the 2 new market approach, taken Duke, North Carolina, and Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, and had ESPN's blessing in doing so and then gone ahead and taken Clemson and Florida State, a move which ESPN had agreed to in the wake of the failed deal. This would have jumped the SEC to 18.

Another miss of reality in the OP was that Nebraska and Colorado had gone and everyone, including Texas was weighing option in 2011. The Big 12 was not a place to head with all the brands trying to evacuate. And if Maryland and Virginia had departed the ACC along with Georgia Tech, Notre Dame was at its closest point ever to aligning with the Big 10 when they approached ESPN about the partial move. Why? Because they could get into recruiting areas with Georgia Tech and Florida State. If Tech heads with UVa to the Big 10 Notre Dame has some concerns addressed.

Does anyone believe that Texas was going to stay put with that much happening around them? And the SEC presidents as in 1991 had created an expansion plan to 20 should the Big 10 ever attempt a raid on the ACC. That plan was for the defense of prime targets in the Southeast. It is still philosophically operational.

Also unaccounted for is that in 2011 GORs did not exist in the ACC and Big 12. Virginia would have been free to leave, as would Georgia Tech, so this wasn't just an idle threat to the ACC, but it was an active threat in the eyes of ESPN and UNC which would never have held the SEC to a 2 new state requirement for renegotiation, a requirement which by the way had no ceiling on additions above the two new states.

Furthermore, A&M had made up its mind to head to the SEC without Texas in 2011. I don't think that changes at all.

So let's say Delany's raid is on and Virginia and Georgia Tech join Maryland in leaving. The SEC accepts Duke and North Carolina's pointed overture, ESPN relents on Clemson and FSU which mostly fulfills the SEC's defensive strategy, and Texas A&M joins along with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State which under those conditions the SEC would have taken though David Boren would have preferred the Big 10 and the Big 10 would not have taken Oklahoma State which at that time was R2 instead of R1 in research and Oklahoma was not AAU.

The SEC is at 19. There's one school now left on the SEC's original defense list, Miami (a list talked about openly by Jackie Sherrill when he was at Mississippi State).

I think the operative question at that time would be does Texas reconsider its 1987 to 1991 talks with the SEC since Oklahoma (with OSU), Arkansas and A&M are now all headed to the SEC? Or do they bail and head to the PAC behind Colorado? I say they still follow their business model of playing as many games in Texas as possible (A&M and OU are played in Texas annually) and they take the 20th slot from Miami.

Also, another flaw in the premise is that once Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M and Missouri left the Big 12, there's no way in hell that FSU and Clemson's presidents move as filler for a depleted Big 12.

The Big 10's viable option if they have secured Maryland, Virginia, Georgia Tech and Notre Dame is to take Kansas and Missouri and use Notre Dame to make a push for Texas. Dodds and Swarbrick were tight and both were involved in the failed attempt by ESPN to pump up the ACC as a product and an in house rival for the SEC. The SEC didn't want N.C. State and Virginia Tech in 2011, it was just to be part of the bigger plan. The SEC wanted A&M, and took Missouri as the second market.

I could easily see in the milieu which is presented in the OP that the SEC and ESPN would have mutually collected the brands most coveted by ESPN. An SEC at 20 with or without Texas and with or without Miami, would have been the result and it absolutely would have included Duke, North Carolina, Clemson and Florida State along with Oklahoma, Ok State, and Texas A&M and would have mandated a move to at least 18 by the Big 10 and I think #17 and #18 could easily have been Missouri and Kansas keeping the Big 10's door open to the West with contiguity. Of course if the Big 10 has taken Georgia Tech without a school in North Carolina that would have been broken anyway.

Ok, so, in that scenario, the SEC does not add Missouri, but still adds TAMU. And adds the double pair of NC and Duke, and OK and OK State. And goes to 20 with Texas.

And the Big10, also adds VA and GT.

The interesting question is whether the Big10 decides to add more to match the SEC, or stays at 16.

I wonder - if faced with a 20-school SEC back then, would the Big10 feel the need to continue to expand?

The PAC schools were not on the menu back then.

So besides Miami, do Missouri and Kansas get invites? Does Iowa State?

All interesting questions...

The real misstep for the top ACC schools was agreeing to the GOR extension that came with the ACCN. Had that extension not occurred, Florida St, Clemson, UNC, ND, etc would all be free to move somewhere around 2024-2026.

(07-09-2023 02:20 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The real misstep for the top ACC schools was agreeing to the GOR extension that came with the ACCN. Had that extension not occurred, Florida St, Clemson, UNC, ND, etc would all be free to move somewhere around 2024-2026.

The problem is that this view is from a 2023 lens where flexibility in changing conferences is supposed to be the most important thing for everyone outside of the Big Ten and SEC.

That wasn’t the case in the early-2010s. For UNC in particular, the Big Ten was too Northern and the SEC was the “wrong” kind of Southern (not the genteel wine and cheese type of Southern that they seem themselves as). Their goal was straight up to preserve the ACC, which is what the GOR has accomplished (and maybe accomplished too well in a new world where flexibility is now prized).

(07-09-2023 03:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 02:20 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The real misstep for the top ACC schools was agreeing to the GOR extension that came with the ACCN. Had that extension not occurred, Florida St, Clemson, UNC, ND, etc would all be free to move somewhere around 2024-2026.

The problem is that this view is from a 2023 lens where flexibility in changing conferences is supposed to be the most important thing for everyone outside of the Big Ten and SEC.

That wasn’t the case in the early-2010s. For UNC in particular, the Big Ten was too Northern and the SEC was the “wrong” kind of Southern (not the genteel wine and cheese type of Southern that they seem themselves as). Their goal was straight up to preserve the ACC, which is what the GOR has accomplished (and maybe accomplished too well in a new world where flexibility is now prized).

To a degree Frank. But they came to us then, and again in 2022. And the SEC is now a little more like their kind of Southern than it was in 2011. But be careful of projecting your view of Southern into any situation down here. They were our old conference mates in the Southern Conference. They are family, just more like uppity cousins than brothers.

(07-09-2023 03:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 02:20 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The real misstep for the top ACC schools was agreeing to the GOR extension that came with the ACCN. Had that extension not occurred, Florida St, Clemson, UNC, ND, etc would all be free to move somewhere around 2024-2026.

The problem is that this view is from a 2023 lens where flexibility in changing conferences is supposed to be the most important thing for everyone outside of the Big Ten and SEC.

That wasn’t the case in the early-2010s. For UNC in particular, the Big Ten was too Northern and the SEC was the “wrong” kind of Southern (not the genteel wine and cheese type of Southern that they seem themselves as). Their goal was straight up to preserve the ACC, which is what the GOR has accomplished (and maybe accomplished too well in a new world where flexibility is now prized).

Truth. A key reason people gave then for regarding the ACC as 'unstable' was 'The ACC is the only major conference without a grant of rights. Exit fees mean nothing. If your schools were serious about staying together, they would sign a grant of rights.'

Ta da.

(07-09-2023 05:19 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 03:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 02:20 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The real misstep for the top ACC schools was agreeing to the GOR extension that came with the ACCN. Had that extension not occurred, Florida St, Clemson, UNC, ND, etc would all be free to move somewhere around 2024-2026.

The problem is that this view is from a 2023 lens where flexibility in changing conferences is supposed to be the most important thing for everyone outside of the Big Ten and SEC.

That wasn’t the case in the early-2010s. For UNC in particular, the Big Ten was too Northern and the SEC was the “wrong” kind of Southern (not the genteel wine and cheese type of Southern that they seem themselves as). Their goal was straight up to preserve the ACC, which is what the GOR has accomplished (and maybe accomplished too well in a new world where flexibility is now prized).

Truth. A key reason people gave then for regarding the ACC as 'unstable' was 'The ACC is the only major conference without a grant of rights. Exit fees mean nothing. If your schools were serious about staying together, they would sign a grant of rights.'

Ta da.

The Big 12 had no grant of rights in 2010. The ACC had no grant of rights in 2010. The SEC had no grant of rights in 2010. The attempted coup of the Big 12's top properties by ESPN and the ACC, the alleged one which failed, led to the GORs. Exit fees didn't get slapped into place until the Big 12 raid failed and they got one, and Maryland's exit prompted the ones in the ACC. The SEC finally had one when the SECN launched. The ACC was unstable because Florida State and Clemson wanted to leave until a proposed move which would have brought in Texas, Notre Dame, and a couple of other key Big 12 brands held them in place.
More football clout was on the way. When that was rejected by the Tobacco Road crowd it all went boom.

That's when Maryland bolted because they needed the money and the Big 10 was offering a nice package.

Following that failed deal ESPN released the crawler announcing Clemson and FSU to the SEC. That had been cleared to happen. I have a bud who had a family member that was an ACC official and he told his family the ACC was about to be toast because that pair was moving to the SEC, and that was a day before the crawler. That was pulled when Notre Dame offered ESPN the partial deal but only if the football schools stayed.

My point is the ACC was not considered to be in peril because it had no GOR, nobody had them. The ACC was imperiled because the deal offered didn't suit your ruling class. They realized they may lose voting control with the planned moves. They nixed it, and when Maryland actually acted there was a short period of uncertainty where trust was low and the intentions of other ACC schools unclear.

I remember it well. The SEC had been letting Clay Travis and Mr. SEC talk up and pre-sell to a skeptical SEC fan base the notion of adding N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC with Texas A&M and Missouri. All of it was to jack up territory for the opening of the SECN. The ACCN was to follow a year after, and the moves were going to put both the SECN and ACCN in Texas, North Carolina and Virginia with the ACCN keeping the NE states and the SEC getting into 3 new medium to large states and keeping part of the Deep South to itself. Rival conferences were to be born. ESPN would be at the apex of it all, this is alleged as with all things that fail in the business of realignment.

The GORs went into place because of the colossal screw up among the ACC's old schools. Carolina got scared when Virginia and Georgia Tech were approached with them, by the Big 10, and Maryland left and they were not yet sure how the other two would respond. That's when Slive was asked about accepting UNC and Duke as a pair and contingency if the ACC suffered more departures.

While Frank is absolutely correct that the lens of 2023 are quite different than those in 2010, and also correct that Carolina's objective was to hold it together, what most didn't know was the need to hold it together was created by a rejected deal which could have put the ACC on equal footing with the SEC. That's when UNC wanted to keep control and keep the gang together.

They weren't weak because of no GOR, they suddenly found they were vulnerable to being raided when Maryland left, instead of the one planning to do the raiding. There was no threat from the SEC because the SEC was part of the larger deal that the Network was allegedly working.

Everything from that time period both leading up to the building of the deal, to its falling through, to what ultimately happened had one locus. The absence of GORs made the setting up of the deal possible. The GORs were the glue put into place to hold the properties static in the aftermath of the failure. I mean once it blew up it was highly possible that the Big 10 could have moved in.

So, ND offered the partial, FSU and Clemson were put on hold, and the GOR was done.

And none of it "supposedly" ever happened because there could always be liability.

Dodds told the Dallas boosters club that Texas was looking East. It was.
Boren shopped Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC because he wasn't happy with the leaving OSU out of the deal. The Dude of WV thought the SEC was about to take WVU when he tracked the SEC jet to a location in West Virginia, when in reality they were meeting with Va Tech at the Greenbriar. Mizzou2SEC which was started around 2010 was part of the buildup as well. Clay Travis and Mr. SEC didn't come up with N.C. State and Va Tech on their own and were pushing the dollars the new network would make if in those states.

None of this was an accident, and there was one locus, the plan.

I firmly believe that Oklahoma and Texas would not be in the SEC today if "the plan" had gone down. I think the change of heart on building a rival ACC went by the boards with the failure of this to launch, meaning ESPN was likely pissed. And I also believe that ESPN then concentrated its efforts on building the SEC up mostly because the SEC was compliant with things that matched its own plans and Texas, Oklahoma, and A&M matched those plans. And dealing with a commissioner empowered by presidents rather than one controlled by them was easier to do.

But we'll see. Texas and Oklahoma are now in the SEC. Notre Dame is still not completely affiliated, Kansas is hanging around, and if something happens to the ACC again, it will be interesting to see if Clemson and FSU are greenlighted again, and if UNC prefers Duke, or N.C. State, as their travel mate.

If anything can be said of the 2010 time period, it was one of missed opportunities and its mess is being cleaned up this time around.

In 2010 the Big 10 missed out on a bigger grab in the ACC (Rutgers likely being a fallback when UVa stayed put). ESPN missed out on establishing two solid rival conferences in the Southeast/Southwest/Atlantic Coast regions. The SEC missed out on getting into North Carolina and Virginia, but still have that before them. And perhaps, conjecture in looking at the Big 10 side of things, perhaps the possible play to the East set up the snubbing of Missouri and Kansas enabling ESPN more so than the SEC to impede that as a future access way to Oklahoma and Texas.

Now that's a lot to speculate about. But the reason prior to all that unfolded in 2010-2 was not impeded by GORs is because they didn't exist, nor did they need to exist. The difference in payouts to what we call the P5 conferences was under 5 million in media payouts prior to the additions in 2012. Moving meant somebody had to be making a lot more money than 5 million, and after 2012 they would.

(07-09-2023 06:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ....
Exit fees didn't get slapped into place until the Big 12 raid failed and they got one, and Maryland's exit prompted the ones in the ACC.
....

No, the ACC had exit fees already. By the time Maryland left, the fees were the highest of any conference in college athletics. The ACC had recently voted to hike its exit fees. That vote was taken IIRC just after Notre Dame signed on. (The two schools voting no on the fee hike were Maryland and Florida State.)

The new thing Maryland's exit prompted for ACC schools was insistence by ESPN that they sign a grant of rights agreement to get the maximum revenue. This GoR was extended in 2016 to the year 2036 as a condition of starting the conference network.

The Terrapins had to pay ACC exit fees when they left. Their exit was not cheap. Maryland argued the fee payment down in court from around 50M to around 30M by saying the amount exceeded what was needed to cover compensation for actual damage done to the conference, and was actually punitive.

https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/m...g-the-acc/

FWIW, Florida State's then-president Eric Barron told a student reporter that his school was studying Maryland's exit arguments 'with great interest.'

(07-09-2023 07:11 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 06:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ....
Exit fees didn't get slapped into place until the Big 12 raid failed and they got one, and Maryland's exit prompted the ones in the ACC.
....

No, the ACC had exit fees already. By the time Maryland left, the fees were the highest of any conference in college athletics. The ACC had recently voted to hike its exit fees. That vote was taken IIRC just after Notre Dame signed on. (The two schools voting no on the fee hike were Maryland and Florida State.)

What Maryland's exit 'prompted' was insistence by ESPN that schools sign a grant of rights agreement to get the maximum revenue. The GoR was extended in 2016 to 2036 as a condition of starting the conference network.

The Terrapins had to pay ACC exit fees when they left. They weren't cheap. Maryland argued them down in court from around 50M to around 30M by saying the fees exceeded compensation for actual damage done to the conference, and were actually punitive.

https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/m...g-the-acc/

FWIW, Florida State's then-president Eric Barron told a student reporter that his school was studying Maryland's exit arguments 'with great interest.'

Yes, I had GORs in mind and typed exit fees because I was thinking about discussing Maryland and FSU's objection to the raising of them. I believe both voted against. Maryland got reduced fees because precedent at that time was 1 year of media disbursements withheld by a conference. And if pressed Maryland knew a lot which some parties likely didn't want coming out. I'm not so sure that exit fees would be collectable beyond a year's distribution. It's hard to collect them from another state. The GOR however is a different matter, though precedent there says actual damages only. The liability would be any realized reduction in value by remaining members. You do know that essentially Texas and Oklahoma got out for about 1 year's worth of media revenue. It's just that close to 38 million of it was media revenue actually withheld, and their T3 rights are held separately, and OU brought in over 7 million and Texas more through the LHN.

I'm not sure at all that the current ACC exit fees would stand up to a court case.

(07-09-2023 07:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 07:11 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 06:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ....
Exit fees didn't get slapped into place until the Big 12 raid failed and they got one, and Maryland's exit prompted the ones in the ACC.
....

No, the ACC had exit fees already. By the time Maryland left, the fees were the highest of any conference in college athletics. The ACC had recently voted to hike its exit fees. That vote was taken IIRC just after Notre Dame signed on. (The two schools voting no on the fee hike were Maryland and Florida State.)

What Maryland's exit 'prompted' was insistence by ESPN that schools sign a grant of rights agreement to get the maximum revenue. The GoR was extended in 2016 to 2036 as a condition of starting the conference network.

The Terrapins had to pay ACC exit fees when they left. They weren't cheap. Maryland argued them down in court from around 50M to around 30M by saying the fees exceeded compensation for actual damage done to the conference, and were actually punitive.

https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/m...g-the-acc/

FWIW, Florida State's then-president Eric Barron told a student reporter that his school was studying Maryland's exit arguments 'with great interest.'

Yes, I had GORs in mind and typed exit fees because I was thinking about discussing Maryland and FSU's objection to the raising of them. I believe both voted against. Maryland got reduced fees because precedent at that time was 1 year of media disbursements withheld by a conference. And if pressed Maryland knew a lot which some parties likely didn't want coming out. I'm not so sure that exit fees would be collectable beyond a year's distribution. It's hard to collect them from another state. The GOR however is a different matter, though precedent there says actual damages only. The liability would be any realized reduction in value by remaining members. You do know that essentially Texas and Oklahoma got out for about 1 year's worth of media revenue. It's just that close to 38 million of it was media revenue actually withheld, and their T3 rights are held separately, and OU brought in over 7 million and Texas more through the LHN.

I'm not sure at all that the current ACC exit fees would stand up to a court case.

The ACC exit fee, I understand, is equal to twice the amount of the annual operating budget. The annual operating budget amount is equal to one conference revenue share.

Wording it that way has made it unnecessary for members to revisit the amount since that last vote on fees was taken. Exit fees are indexed to conference revenue and automatically rise (or fall) with those revenues.

--

The Terp argument 'This amount exceeds compensation for actual damage and is actually intended to be punitive'... That might have some applications beyond exit fees. The argument could have some relevance in challenging a grant of rights as well.

(07-09-2023 07:37 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 07:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 07:11 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 06:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ....
Exit fees didn't get slapped into place until the Big 12 raid failed and they got one, and Maryland's exit prompted the ones in the ACC.
....

No, the ACC had exit fees already. By the time Maryland left, the fees were the highest of any conference in college athletics. The ACC had recently voted to hike its exit fees. That vote was taken IIRC just after Notre Dame signed on. (The two schools voting no on the fee hike were Maryland and Florida State.)

What Maryland's exit 'prompted' was insistence by ESPN that schools sign a grant of rights agreement to get the maximum revenue. The GoR was extended in 2016 to 2036 as a condition of starting the conference network.

The Terrapins had to pay ACC exit fees when they left. They weren't cheap. Maryland argued them down in court from around 50M to around 30M by saying the fees exceeded compensation for actual damage done to the conference, and were actually punitive.

https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/m...g-the-acc/

FWIW, Florida State's then-president Eric Barron told a student reporter that his school was studying Maryland's exit arguments 'with great interest.'

Yes, I had GORs in mind and typed exit fees because I was thinking about discussing Maryland and FSU's objection to the raising of them. I believe both voted against. Maryland got reduced fees because precedent at that time was 1 year of media disbursements withheld by a conference. And if pressed Maryland knew a lot which some parties likely didn't want coming out. I'm not so sure that exit fees would be collectable beyond a year's distribution. It's hard to collect them from another state. The GOR however is a different matter, though precedent there says actual damages only. The liability would be any realized reduction in value by remaining members. You do know that essentially Texas and Oklahoma got out for about 1 year's worth of media revenue. It's just that close to 38 million of it was media revenue actually withheld, and their T3 rights are held separately, and OU brought in over 7 million and Texas more through the LHN.

I'm not sure at all that the current ACC exit fees would stand up to a court case.

The ACC exit fee, I understand, is equal to twice the amount of the annual operating budget. The annual operating budget amount is equal to one conference revenue share.

Wording it that way has made it unnecessary for members to revisit the amount since that last vote on fees was taken. Exit fees are indexed to conference revenue and automatically rise (or fall) with those revenues.

You miss the point. The courts have in the past allowed and limited fees equal to withheld funds that are distributed annually. They did this because resolving the method of collection of revenue from a state school gets dicey. One state entity simply can't easily go into another state to seize funds from an entity of that state. A fee has been limited to unpaid revenue withheld by the conference.

GOR damages are a different matter but limited to an actual amount of damages and not permitted to be punitive. Texas and Oklahoma essentially bargained theirs down to 50 million, very close to the 38 million undistributed and a portion of the increased amount going to FOX to offset their lost inventory.

I don't see how the ACC can demand an exit fee greater than what is withheld because collecting the difference would be potentially expensive and perhaps fruitless. If the departing schools were headed to another ESPN entity the damages to the network could be waived. If not, and they left ESPN for another network, there would be damages payable to ESPN. And if ESPN diminished the value of the remaining ACC schools damages would be applicable there as well. This is why ESPN has so much leverage in this matter. What they do or don't do weighs directly upon how much it could cost.

It really comes down to ESPN signing off on the move to another ESPN held property, whether the SEC or Big 12. A move to the Big 12 however would entail FOX buying in, or ESPN covering the full amount.

But if ESPN signs off, waives damages to itself because it really suffers nothing more than the raise in payout, and if ESPN continues to pay the rest of the conference the schools are leaving the contracted amount, so there is no actual damage, I still believe it can be done. In that world maybe you do pay the full exit fee asked just to keep from making unnecessary waves.

(07-09-2023 07:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 07:37 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 07:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 07:11 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(07-09-2023 06:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ....
Exit fees didn't get slapped into place until the Big 12 raid failed and they got one, and Maryland's exit prompted the ones in the ACC.
....

No, the ACC had exit fees already. By the time Maryland left, the fees were the highest of any conference in college athletics. The ACC had recently voted to hike its exit fees. That vote was taken IIRC just after Notre Dame signed on. (The two schools voting no on the fee hike were Maryland and Florida State.)

What Maryland's exit 'prompted' was insistence by ESPN that schools sign a grant of rights agreement to get the maximum revenue. The GoR was extended in 2016 to 2036 as a condition of starting the conference network.

The Terrapins had to pay ACC exit fees when they left. They weren't cheap. Maryland argued them down in court from around 50M to around 30M by saying the fees exceeded compensation for actual damage done to the conference, and were actually punitive.

https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/m...g-the-acc/

FWIW, Florida State's then-president Eric Barron told a student reporter that his school was studying Maryland's exit arguments 'with great interest.'

Yes, I had GORs in mind and typed exit fees because I was thinking about discussing Maryland and FSU's objection to the raising of them. I believe both voted against. Maryland got reduced fees because precedent at that time was 1 year of media disbursements withheld by a conference. And if pressed Maryland knew a lot which some parties likely didn't want coming out. I'm not so sure that exit fees would be collectable beyond a year's distribution. It's hard to collect them from another state. The GOR however is a different matter, though precedent there says actual damages only. The liability would be any realized reduction in value by remaining members. You do know that essentially Texas and Oklahoma got out for about 1 year's worth of media revenue. It's just that close to 38 million of it was media revenue actually withheld, and their T3 rights are held separately, and OU brought in over 7 million and Texas more through the LHN.

I'm not sure at all that the current ACC exit fees would stand up to a court case.

The ACC exit fee, I understand, is equal to twice the amount of the annual operating budget. The annual operating budget amount is equal to one conference revenue share.

Wording it that way has made it unnecessary for members to revisit the amount since that last vote on fees was taken. Exit fees are indexed to conference revenue and automatically rise (or fall) with those revenues.

You miss the point.
....

I missed a detail. CBS reported that the exit fee when Maryland left was three times the league's operating budget.

Fourth paragraph from the bottom:

https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/m...g-the-acc/

The conference regulation is worded as it is, of course, for the reason I stated. That point stands.

Whether it's exit fees or rights fees or other costs, the amount actually paid by a departing school depends on a variety of factors, as we all know. The larger picture is complex.In the case of exit fees, the Maryland settlement was instructive on a few matters. In the case of rights fees, the Texas/Oklahoma settlement is.