A few questions for the experts here on the board:

1. Now that the smoke has cleared a bit, why did Clemson, FSU and UNC vote no?

2. Are the three schools aligned with one another on their conference future(s)?

3. Internally, how does ESPN feel about the ACC's most valuable brands seemingly eyeing the exit ramp and what, if anything, will the network do to assist or prevent any such moves?

4. Greg Sankey has publicly acknowledged he's been approached by schools from outside the SEC. Do you think all or some of those schools were given a good idea of where they stand wrt future SEC expansion?

5. More than once Sankey has mentioned the contiguous nature of the SEC. Do you think that philosophy will remain intact with any future expansion?

6. How likely is it some or all of Clemson, FSU and UNC already have an SEC membership verbal agreement in place with Sankey?

None of these questions matter.

The only things that matter are whether a school that wants to leave the ACC either has several hundred million dollars to buy out its GOR obligations or is willing to risk several hundred million dollars in a lawsuit.

If people want to talk about actual ways to raise that money, such as a private equity firm or sovereign wealth fund like FSU has supposedly explored or bringing in donors a la SMU to the ACC, then at least we’re addressing the actual issue of how to actually pay the requisite amounts to get out of the GOR. Otherwise, it’s just whining and/or empty threats with no leverage or wishing for a magic silver bullet that doesn’t exist until the 2030s.

This is what you think about when your team is undefeated and in the top 25?

(09-12-2023 09:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  None of these questions matter.

The only things that matter are whether a school that wants to leave the ACC either has several hundred million dollars to buy out its GOR obligations or is willing to risk several hundred million dollars in a lawsuit.

If people want to talk about actual ways to raise that money, such as a private equity firm or sovereign wealth fund like FSU has supposedly explored or bringing in donors a la SMU to the ACC, then at least we’re addressing the actual issue of how to actually pay the requisite amounts to get out of the GOR. Otherwise, it’s just whining and/or empty threats with no leverage or wishing for a magic silver bullet that doesn’t exist until the 2030s.

What I find interesting is that if schools are able to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to leave a conference, then they obviously have enough money to fund their programs at the same level as members of the SEC and B1G for the next 12 year without actually joining those conferences.

1. Maintaining consistency in their stance about the conference.

2. Aligned only in that they will do what's best for them.

3. ESPN will be ready for whatever scenario occurs, but I don't see them doing anymore than they have to. I believe their thinking is they prefer the schools to stay under their ACC deal as long as possible. And will only move if someone can actually get out the ACC.

4. Four and six seem to tie together. They've likely talked to enough presidents to have an idea of where they stand, but not to the point of their being some type of verbal agreement. At best right now it would be like UO, UW, and the B1G. Vetted and just waiting on them to get out to get the yes votes.

5. I think they will try to stay that way as much as possible. Sankey has talked about rebranding the SEC in that it would just be SEC and not Southeastern Conference. So that helps open the door for a non-contiguous addition.

The three have a play where they negotiate as a group to get out of the GOR, which ESPN tacitly signing off so that the SEC adds them and the ACC maintains its 15 school minimum and a seat at the CFP table.

(09-12-2023 09:49 AM)Alanda Wrote:  2. Aligned only in that they will do what's best for them.

(09-12-2023 09:59 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  The three have a play where they negotiate as a group to get out of the GOR, which ESPN tacitly signing off so that the SEC adds them and the ACC maintains its 15 school minimum and a seat at the CFP table.

From past experience alone, ESPN is well aware when the top brands depart, uneasiness, instability and self-preservation are sure to follow

We saw it when Oklahoma and Texas announced they were leaving the Big XII.

Ssme goes for USC and UCLA's upcoming departure from the Pac-12.

Let word leak out among the "Magnificent 7" that FSU, Clemson and UNC are destined for the SEC and see what follows

1. Now that the smoke has cleared a bit, why did Clemson, FSU and UNC vote no?

Money.

2. Are the three schools aligned with one another on their conference future(s)?

Not necessarily - Clemson and FSU are much more likely in the SEC, UNC could go SEC/Big 10.

3. Internally, how does ESPN feel about the ACC's most valuable brands seemingly eyeing the exit ramp and what, if anything, will the network do to assist or prevent any such moves?

When the time comes, yes.

4. Greg Sankey has publicly acknowledged he's been approached by schools from outside the SEC. Do you think all or some of those schools were given a good idea of where they stand wrt future SEC expansion?

Yes.

5. More than once Sankey has mentioned the contiguous nature of the SEC. Do you think that philosophy will remain intact with any future expansion?

Yes.

6. How likely is it some or all of Clemson, FSU and UNC already have an SEC membership verbal agreement in place with Sankey?

60%.

Well at least FSU, Clemson and UNC are making fairly clear that their intent is to blow up the conference.

That's more than Pitt and Syracuse can say.

(09-12-2023 09:37 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 09:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  None of these questions matter.

The only things that matter are whether a school that wants to leave the ACC either has several hundred million dollars to buy out its GOR obligations or is willing to risk several hundred million dollars in a lawsuit.

If people want to talk about actual ways to raise that money, such as a private equity firm or sovereign wealth fund like FSU has supposedly explored or bringing in donors a la SMU to the ACC, then at least we’re addressing the actual issue of how to actually pay the requisite amounts to get out of the GOR. Otherwise, it’s just whining and/or empty threats with no leverage or wishing for a magic silver bullet that doesn’t exist until the 2030s.

What I find interesting is that if schools are able to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to leave a conference, then they obviously have enough money to fund their programs at the same level as members of the SEC and B1G for the next 12 year without actually joining those conferences.

Conference realignment is based on big schools outside the Big 12 being sacred that if they are not in the SEC/Big 10 they going to be "left behind" and the networks taking advantage of that to keep costs low.

(09-12-2023 10:25 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  6. How likely is it some or all of Clemson, FSU and UNC already have an SEC membership verbal agreement in place with Sankey?

60%.

Let's say your intuition is correct.

Would that lead to quite a scramble for the SEC's 20th spot?

And, if so, who gets it? NC State? UVA? Duke? Miami (FL)? Some other school?

Answer to all your questions from the rest of the ACC:

We don't care about your complaints. Pay up to leave the GOR or shut up.

(09-12-2023 10:35 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  Well at least FSU, Clemson and UNC are making fairly clear that their intent is to blow up the conference.

That's more than Pitt and Syracuse can say.

I think you're reading to much into UNC's no vote. Once the new schools are officially in I'm positive the unequal proposal will resurface. Since Cal/Stan could have been left out & SMU has been out for decades, I think they would lean yes, the 3 no's are yes,ND will lean yes since it won't effect them & Miami will lean yes because they will benefit. So you only need to find 2 votes from among Duke,Wake,Uva to pass it

(09-12-2023 10:23 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 09:49 AM)Alanda Wrote:  2. Aligned only in that they will do what's best for them.

(09-12-2023 09:59 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  The three have a play where they negotiate as a group to get out of the GOR, which ESPN tacitly signing off so that the SEC adds them and the ACC maintains its 15 school minimum and a seat at the CFP table.

From past experience alone, ESPN is well aware when the top brands depart, uneasiness, instability and self-preservation are sure to follow

We saw it when Oklahoma and Texas announced they were leaving the Big XII.

Ssme goes for USC and UCLA's upcoming departure from the Pac-12.

Let word leak out among the "Magnificent 7" that FSU, Clemson and UNC are destined for the SEC and see what follows

None of UT, OU, USC or UCLA were breaking *any* GOR obligations.

UT and OU had a settlement of getting out of the Big 12 GOR a grand total of one year early, which took well over a year to negotiate.

The Pac-12 GOR is expiring prior to any of the Pac-12 schools leaving.

This is completely different than ACC schools attempting to (a) breach the GOR obligations and/or (b) get out of those GOR obligations 13 years early.

Just saying that certain ACC schools have discontent is completely irrelevant to the rest of the ACC schools that can hang several hundred million dollars of liability over the heads of each school that attempts to leave the GOR early.

Can deals be made in theory? Of course!

Can deals be realistically made when the parties are SEVERAL HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS apart and one side (the left behind ACC schools) has all of the leverage? That’s a totally different matter.

1. Now that the smoke has cleared a bit, why did Clemson, FSU and UNC vote no?

Travel is a nightmare for non-revenue sports. Stanford and Cal stink at FB and BB. A larger western expansion would have been much more palatable, but the ACC leadership was, as usual, incompetent and allowed the Big12 to get ahead of them.

2. Are the three schools aligned with one another on their conference future(s)?

No clue.

3. Internally, how does ESPN feel about the ACC's most valuable brands seemingly eyeing the exit ramp and what, if anything, will the network do to assist or prevent any such moves?

Ask ESPN. I'd think they would want to keep a profitable ACCN, provide a viable home for ND non-football sports, and have a 3rd power conference while owning the rights to two of those three. However, most folks think we're heading towards a two power conferences. I just don't know how big they are willing to go.

4. Greg Sankey has publicly acknowledged he's been approached by schools from outside the SEC. Do you think all or some of those schools were given a good idea of where they stand wrt future SEC expansion?

Definitely maybe.

5. More than once Sankey has mentioned the contiguous nature of the SEC. Do you think that philosophy will remain intact with any future expansion?

Yes.

6. How likely is it some or all of Clemson, FSU and UNC already have an SEC membership verbal agreement in place with Sankey?

No idea, but they would all accept.

(09-12-2023 09:37 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 09:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  None of these questions matter.

The only things that matter are whether a school that wants to leave the ACC either has several hundred million dollars to buy out its GOR obligations or is willing to risk several hundred million dollars in a lawsuit.

If people want to talk about actual ways to raise that money, such as a private equity firm or sovereign wealth fund like FSU has supposedly explored or bringing in donors a la SMU to the ACC, then at least we’re addressing the actual issue of how to actually pay the requisite amounts to get out of the GOR. Otherwise, it’s just whining and/or empty threats with no leverage or wishing for a magic silver bullet that doesn’t exist until the 2030s.

What I find interesting is that if schools are able to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to leave a conference, then they obviously have enough money to fund their programs at the same level as members of the SEC and B1G for the next 12 year without actually joining those conferences.

None of the schools who want to leave have any plans to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to leave.

(09-12-2023 09:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  None of these questions matter.

The only things that matter are whether a school that wants to leave the ACC either has several hundred million dollars to buy out its GOR obligations or is willing to risk several hundred million dollars in a lawsuit.

If people want to talk about actual ways to raise that money, such as a private equity firm or sovereign wealth fund like FSU has supposedly explored or bringing in donors a la SMU to the ACC, then at least we’re addressing the actual issue of how to actually pay the requisite amounts to get out of the GOR. Otherwise, it’s just whining and/or empty threats with no leverage or wishing for a magic silver bullet that doesn’t exist until the 2030s.

I think the main reason UNC, Clemson, and FSU were against expansion was the simple fact that ever getting a majority of members to vote to dissolve the conference just became practically impossible by adding these 3 new schools.

(09-12-2023 12:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 10:23 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 09:49 AM)Alanda Wrote:  2. Aligned only in that they will do what's best for them.

(09-12-2023 09:59 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  The three have a play where they negotiate as a group to get out of the GOR, which ESPN tacitly signing off so that the SEC adds them and the ACC maintains its 15 school minimum and a seat at the CFP table.

From past experience alone, ESPN is well aware when the top brands depart, uneasiness, instability and self-preservation are sure to follow

We saw it when Oklahoma and Texas announced they were leaving the Big XII.

Ssme goes for USC and UCLA's upcoming departure from the Pac-12.

Let word leak out among the "Magnificent 7" that FSU, Clemson and UNC are destined for the SEC and see what follows

None of UT, OU, USC or UCLA were breaking *any* GOR obligations.

UT and OU had a settlement of getting out of the Big 12 GOR a grand total of one year early, which took well over a year to negotiate.

The Pac-12 GOR is expiring prior to any of the Pac-12 schools leaving.

This is completely different than ACC schools attempting to (a) breach the GOR obligations and/or (b) get out of those GOR obligations 13 years early.

Just saying that certain ACC schools have discontent is completely irrelevant to the rest of the ACC schools that can hang several hundred million dollars of liability over the heads of each school that attempts to leave the GOR early.

Can deals be made in theory? Of course!

Can deals be realistically made when the parties are SEVERAL HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS apart and one side (the left behind ACC schools) has all of the leverage? That’s a totally different matter.

If the non-3 have all the leverage, then I absolutely agree. And it's going to be an ugly ride to end of contract. Again, if that's the case and we're missing a key piece of information..

1. Now that the smoke has cleared a bit, why did Clemson, FSU and UNC vote no?
Similar to the Magnificent 7 announcement, it’s a not too subtle message regarding who generates disproportionate value to the conference finances…and these schools want greater shares of the distributions. They want to design distributions with the largest payouts to their programs.

2. Are the three schools aligned with one another on their conference future(s)?
It doesn’t make a difference. They all signed the GOR to the ACC. Movement to another P4 conference won’t be discussed until after they address their current obligations. These schools don’t control what’s in the best interest of another conference.

3. Internally, how does ESPN feel about the ACC's most valuable brands seemingly eyeing the exit ramp and what, if anything, will the network do to assist or prevent any such moves?
ESPN has a lot of bigger issues than the ACC contract. There are existential issues regarding the future of the cable industry. The entire business model is being transformed. Their parent company is analyzing whether to divest or partner with other businesses on sports television. Even in terms of programming content, ESPN needs to prioritize the CFP and NBA rights. ESPN leaders are probably just amused that UNC/FSU/Clemson don’t realize what’s occurring in ESPN’s orbit, nor that UNC grad John Skipper is no longer running ESPN.

4. Greg Sankey has publicly acknowledged he's been approached by schools from outside the SEC. Do you think all or some of those schools were given a good idea of where they stand wrt future SEC expansion?
Chatter about back room dialogue won’t help UNC/FSU/Clemson. Sankey and the SEC are 100% committed to ESPN for their media rights revenues through 2034. Sankey is managing the transition of OUT (much bigger brands than UNC/FSU/Clemson, which ESPN gained vis-a-vis their competitors at Fox). It would be foolish for Sankey to conspire in a venture that potentially harms ESPN…in fact, Sankey has wisely stayed clear of any B12 v OUT disputes (even though SEC and ESPN were fully aligned).

5. More than once Sankey has mentioned the contiguous nature of the SEC. Do you think that philosophy will remain intact with any future expansion?
Every other major conference has programs in non-contiguous states. All conferences have expanded and grown in a manner that helps create leverage in media rights negotiations. Kudos to the SEC for having a more geographically coherent footprint.

6. How likely is it some or all of Clemson, FSU and UNC already have an SEC membership verbal agreement in place with Sankey?
I imagine that SDSU and SMU hard stronger assurances from Kliavkoff that PAC invitations were imminent…yet those verbal discussions didn’t result in invitations. I bet that Bowlsby had verbal agreements with Texas and Oklahoma on how to best position the B12 for the next round of media rights. Infamously, Warren-Phillips-Kliavkoff had a verbal scheduling agreement (publicly called an Alliance) amongst the three conferences…before the B1G destroyed the PAC.

(09-12-2023 10:48 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 10:25 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  6. How likely is it some or all of Clemson, FSU and UNC already have an SEC membership verbal agreement in place with Sankey?

60%.

Let's say your intuition is correct.

Would that lead to quite a scramble for the SEC's 20th spot?

And, if so, who gets it? NC State? UVA? Duke? Miami (FL)? Some other school?

VT is the most likely I think, unless NC brings NC State along.