Expansion Rumors…

Yes

5db1ff4981963.image.jpg
Oh, for F’s sake- can we get on the same page for five minutes? We are discussing the future of college football and all you want to talk about is chicken strips from hormone infused, antibiotic laced chicken from Puerto Rico?
 
ESPN Article on GOR

" While there's no known legal precedent in college sports for going to court to break a grant of rights, the only variable seemingly is time before someone in the ACC begins a risky game of financial roulette that comes after an exit fee that is projected to be nearly $120 million per school. "

If the SEC or Big10 payout difference is actually $50 million per year, this seems to be an easy decision.
 
Sounds like the ACC got to them first.
The B12 is trying to poach from the PAC12 so it's in the league's best interest to reject any networking that a partnership sets up. It's inviting wolves in for dinner
 
How is the Big 12 in a better position than the PAC 12 or ACC? There is a reason the PAC 12 doesn't want to join the Big 12, nor the four corner teams want to bolt there just yet. I think that is the fallback plan.
 
How is the Big 12 in a better position than the PAC 12 or ACC? There is a reason the PAC 12 doesn't want to join the Big 12, nor the four corner teams want to bolt there just yet. I think that is the fall back option.
No one wants any more teams from the B12 so a year after OUT bolting it ironically happens to be the most stable second tier conference now. The rest have teams ready to jump ship. That and the PAC12 will get a garbage media deal without the LA schools
 
1. I have heard it is all pink slime.

2. Everything the Little Girl touched turned to crap. Every example used to defend him is some issue he mismanaged. He was the opposite of a good commissioner.
 
I feel like what is somewhat lost in the B1G/SEC super conferences is, what about the schools that are already in these conferences but aren't carrying their own weight? SEC added Texas and OU. Would they add Ole Miss or Mississippi State today? Vanderbilt? Even Mizzou, would the SEC choose to add them today? B1G has Northwestern, Rutgers, even Maryland would they choose to add them if they had a do-over today?

In the age of super conferences it's easy to look at the big programs on the outside looking in. But what about the little programs that are on the inside already, any chance that these conferences in seeking 16-20 team super conferences somehow part ways with the schools that essentially bring no value in the only sport that matters?
 
Why would espn dissolve their amazing deal with the ACC where they are essentially going to pay below market values for ACC TV rights for a decade? And they would dissolve the ACC GOR resulting in several teams going to a competing network of the B1G just to get Clemson or Miami or FSU? It doesn't compute.

Maybe they know they will be paying over market rates for the ACC if the conference fails. I mean, the ACC could settle out of court for $50 mil per school. Then ESPN has to choose between opening the door on negotiation and risk the GOR going away, or keeping the contract. Plus, if ESPN causes Clemson and FSU to fall too far back, they will be paying being money for MAC level interest.

The ACC has some leverage. Every school that leaves increases the payout to the remaining schools.
 
I feel like what is somewhat lost in the B1G/SEC super conferences is, what about the schools that are already in these conferences but aren't carrying their own weight? SEC added Texas and OU. Would they add Ole Miss or Mississippi State today? Vanderbilt? Even Mizzou, would the SEC choose to add them today? B1G has Northwestern, Rutgers, even Maryland would they choose to add them if they had a do-over today?

In the age of super conferences it's easy to look at the big programs on the outside looking in. But what about the little programs that are on the inside already, any chance that these conferences in seeking 16-20 team super conferences somehow part ways with the schools that essentially bring no value in the only sport that matters?
No. Kicking members out would be a bitch move. They’d take their ball elsewhere and form a premier league with likeminded teams first. Every conference needs a few punching bags anyways to increase the odds of getting multiple teams into the CFP
 
No. Kicking members out would be a bitch move. They’d take their ball elsewhere and form a premier league with likeminded teams first. Every conference needs a few punching bags anyways to increase the odds of getting multiple teams into the CFP
Conferences have kicked out members before. Temple in the big east and a couple others. Obviously not in the same ballpark as vandy or Mizzou. Conferences need punching bags, but as this slowly turns to more of a professional model, it may not matter compared to the increase in money the rest of the conference gets cutting the fat. I agree it's a bitch move, but conferences and schools have shown they are not above bitch moves. I could see a tier system or alternate vesting schedule for lower tier teams that wouldn't pay out as much or as quickly. Rutgers being somewhat of an example in how they started in the B1G
 
I feel like what is somewhat lost in the B1G/SEC super conferences is, what about the schools that are already in these conferences but aren't carrying their own weight? SEC added Texas and OU. Would they add Ole Miss or Mississippi State today? Vanderbilt? Even Mizzou, would the SEC choose to add them today? B1G has Northwestern, Rutgers, even Maryland would they choose to add them if they had a do-over today?

In the age of super conferences it's easy to look at the big programs on the outside looking in. But what about the little programs that are on the inside already, any chance that these conferences in seeking 16-20 team super conferences somehow part ways with the schools that essentially bring no value in the only sport that matters?
the Chicago,NYC and DC media markets value may need to be considered.
 
the Chicago,NYC and DC media markets value may need to be considered.
The DC media market, much like the entire Northeast, is primarily a pro-sports market.

Virginia is 2 hours from DC and VT is practically in Tennessee. And DC doesn’t seem that interested in MD or Navy (45 minutes away).

So I wouldn’t put a lot of chips on that square.
 
Just remember there has to be $100 million reasons a year to add a team to a conference. The B1G and the SEC teams are set to make that in the next few years. The teams in those leagues will not be in favor of adding teams if their payout goes down. So the question you need to ask is….What is GT worth to either conference on a yearly basis? If it is above $100 million then we are good.

I don’t pretend to know how the conferences are doing the calculation, but $100 million per year additive is the neighborhood of where we would need to be.
 
Canzano: Pac-12 + Big 12 doesn't fit... onto the ACC

The Big 12 reportedly informed the Pac-12 on Monday evening that it’s not interested in merging.

A few quick thoughts…

• I’m not shocked. I felt like a Big 12 + Pac-12 merger was wishful thinking. There’s strength in numbers, sure. But ultimately this is about fit and I struggled to see how those two conferences would mesh in a way that worked for both entities.

• The Pac-12 (minus USC and UCLA) will have 12.5 million television households in its remaining markets. The Big 12 currently has only 10.2 million TV homes, but will expand to about 15 million after the additions of BYU, Central Florida, Cincinnati, and Houston. Keep those numbers in mind.

• The ACC has 28.2 million households. It’s TV markets are superior to the Big 12 and its not close. Also, the ACC already has a partnership with ESPN, which covets inventory in the Pacific Time Zone.

• I’ve wondered for a while how the Big 12 might fit in a new deal between ESPN and the Pac-12. Answer: It really doesn’t.

• The Big 12 and Pac-12 university presidents and chancellors didn’t feel like a seamless fit. Those who lead the Pac-12 campuses fashion themselves academics and lined up with the Big Ten over the years because of that.

• I’ve been writing and talking about a “loose partnership” between the Pac-12 and the ACC for a couple of weeks. I still believe this is headed in that direction.

• The Big 12’s television contract isn’t up until 2025. The Pac-12’s expires in 2024, but it has opened negotiations early. Those in the industry tell me this difference shouldn’t have been a deal breaker but it’s being cited as one of the reasons.

Bob Thompson, the former president of Fox Sports Networks, told me on Monday night, “If the Big 12 TV partners agreed to open negotiations early, that could easily happen before 2024. Nothing precludes an early negotiation as long as parties agree.”

So it just sounds like a merger wasn’t a good fit.

Added Thompson: “So now we see if somebody plays ‘Let’s poach some teams.’”

• There was early speculation that the Big 12 might chase Arizona State, Arizona, Utah and Colorado. But media reports about that were shot down by my Pac-12 sources. I won’t speak for all four of those schools, but the prevailing sentiment from athletic directors within the Pac-12 is that the remaining 10 universities will stick together and ride out the current media rights negotiations together. I’ll make some calls and report back with updates.

• Phoenix’s TV market has 2.1 million households. I’ve wondered for a while if ASU might try to leverage the Pac-12 for a larger share of the next media rights deal. That said, I have a difficult time actually seeing ASU bolt for the Big 12.

• The Big 12 programs that I think the Pac-12 (and ESPN) would be most interested in are: Kansas, Baylor, TCU and Houston. If the Pac-12 goes hunting, I expect those universities to be primary targets. This is 100-percent about potential television revenue.

• I included Kansas because I think ESPN would covet men’s basketball matchups featuring the ACC’s Duke and North Carolina and the Pac-12’s Arizona and Oregon. Kansas would be an interesting addition.

• The Pac-12 is in an exclusive negotiating period with ESPN and Fox. That window expires on Aug. 4, but I’m told the parties could come to an agreement before then.

• ESPN is the likely bidder here. Think about what that network needs. It has to think about the restless members in the ACC and how it might get them some additional revenue right now. A partnership with the Pac-12 makes sense to me. Sharing revenue with the Big 12 (Read: more mouths to feed) doesn’t.

• Pac-12 Media Day is July 29 in Los Angeles. Commissioner George Kliavkoff needs something to sell to the public during that event. I expect he’ll have something of substance. I don’t think we’re going to have to wait until Aug. 4.



 
Of the remaining teams in the little three conferences, you have enough teams/ market to offer a decent early, midday, prime time, and late schedule.

I would hold to 1 team per state, unless it is a populous state.

20 teams (/ for or)
FSU
Miami
GT
Clemson
UNC/NCST
UVa/VT
BC
Pitt
Cuse
UL/Cinn/WV
OkSt
TCU/Baylor
Houston/TT
Kansas
CO
Utah
ASU/AU
Stan/Cal
UW/WSU
OU/OSU

B12, PAC, and ACC over saturate to many markets.
This still would not match the $ of the top two, but it would be better than what any of the little 3 could do.
 
ESPN Article on GOR

" While there's no known legal precedent in college sports for going to court to break a grant of rights, the only variable seemingly is time before someone in the ACC begins a risky game of financial roulette that comes after an exit fee that is projected to be nearly $120 million per school. "

If the SEC or Big10 payout difference is actually $50 million per year, this seems to be an easy decision.

So if the payout per school $40M in the ACC and $70M in the SEC, and the buyout is $120M, then you break even after four years when you jump ship to the SEC, right? Two years if the SEC offers to split the buyout with you. What am I missing?
 
Back
Top