USC/UCLA to B1G

[SoCal_Pony]

The main difference between TCU and SMU is that TCU recognizes that this is a public, media driven battle. They invest in that. SMU tries to keep it on the down low, which is a completely outdated approach and we see what the results are.

SMU should be working with the DMN to produce a daily article about how awesome SMU is and their relationships with the PAC 12 and BIG 10.

lol, maybe they keep it one the ‘down low’ to avoid the spotlight shining on all their incompetency.

[Dukie]

The per-school media rights in the ACC are right now falling below half of the per-school media rights of the new P2. Clemson can leave all that behind, get paid by the SEC for some “non-media” benefits, and Clemson and the SEC come out ahead. That’s before you even get to whether Texas and OU can shoot holes in the whole GOR concept between now and 2025, and also whether the ACC falls apart (or at least faces a severe renegotiation of its Clemson-less media contracts).

1. there is still a $50 million dollar exit fee from the ACC that Maryland paid $36 million of after being in the position to claim that they were against the exit fee being raised from $25 million to $50 million and that it was done specifically because the ACC knew more things were in the works

so Clemson is looking at paying at least $36 million in exit fees to the ACC no matter what happens with the GOR

2. I am not sure why on earth members of the SEC would want to give up money to pay Clemson to come be a part of the conference when Clemson does not bring their media rights with them....just paying them some cash equal to their current AAC payout (about $36 million a year) plus breaking even on the exit fees even if spread over 9 years (so another $4 million per year for a total of $40 million per year over the next nine years just to have Clemson hang around and break even while still having 5 years left on the GOR) makes about zero sense for the SEC at all

3. news flash.....if Texas and OU were going after the GOR they would have already been in court for the last year, but they have not been.....because they know it is a major issue and it is also a major issue for ESPN and their almost certain interference in the whole deal.....there are very specific issues that are present for UT and OU as well

4. your first point was that the SEC could just pay Clemson to hang around and not bring their media rights....then you try and make the point that "wait until the ACC loses Clemson and their media rights"......which of course makes no sense if you are trying to also argue that it would make any sense for the SEC to just pay Clemson to come over without their media rights

5. ESPN owns 100% of the ACC and 100% of the SEC.....there are major legal and financial issues for ESPN if it is proven that ESPN enticed Clemson to move for their financial gain or the financial gain of ESPN or both

not to mention that ESPN is very happy owning 100% of the content of the ACC for a very very low price and there is ZERO need for them to start tossing money at Clemson (or anyone else in the ACC) to move them to the SEC when they already own the rights to 100% of the ACC and not to mention the above legal and financial issues if ESPN entices that to happen

So I had a great, long Fourth of July break and came back and just read this. So much in here, not all of it bad (actually, a lot I agree with), but you have a certainty that is not warranted on a few fronts: about some things not happening because they haven't yet (UT-OU wriggling out of the Big XII GOR before 2025), where we'll just have to see; about others being risks when they really are not (ESPN worrying about a suit for interfering among the ACC-SEC when the Big XII flat-out stated that ESPN interfered in helping UT-OU move, and yet gee, somehow the Big XII hasn't sued yet--ESPN knows how to avoid leaving fingerprints); others where you misunderstood my point (the SEC finding some "basis" for paying Clemson that isn't nominally based on media rights would certainly be creative, and face lawsuit risk, but any such lawsuit would be far from a slam-dunk for those left behind); and then in general, your view that networks hold all the cards and call all the shots. We're not even a decade removed from the B1G adding Maryland and Rutgers just to capture Comcast/Spectrum media rights, and there's zero chance that the B1G would repeat that move today. Lots of deep-pocket bidders for media rights (Apple+) didn't exist then either. The P2 have more separation from everybody else than has ever existed in college sports in terms of attractiveness--so at some point they start to resemble a pro league in their ability to offer content, rather than one taker among many at the traditional college conference level. Yes, ESPN does better if the ACC survives, but I'm not nearly as convinced as you are that ESPN will always call the shots. Or that ESPN is unhappy with Clemson leaving the ACC and ESPN still being able to scoop up remaining schools at a bigger discount to fill their Friday night and Saturday 11 AM schedule.

PS The Raleigh paper also does not share your certainty that the ACC is rock-solid:

https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/col ... 09858.html

[EastStang]

According to that Article in order to blow up the ACC, 6 members would need to vote to terminate broadcast rights. This leads to a game of chicken. The SEC would want Clemson, Florida State and Miami that's probably it. That's only three. Do three others, UNC, Duke and UVA think the Big Ten will come calling and vote to terminate? What about their state governments. The ACC had to take VT because Governor Warner forced UVA to accept them. So, what happens to NC State and VT and would UNC and UVA be allowed to vote to blow up the ACC? In Virginia there is also a possible SMU curveball. Governor Youngkin graduated from Rice and his wife and son graduated from SMU. So, blowing up the ACC might be a good thing for SMU. I wouldn't mind being in a conference with the old Big East, (add in USF and you've reincarnated the Big East) plus GA Tech and Wake.

[Dukie]

According to that Article in order to blow up the ACC, 6 members would need to vote to terminate broadcast rights. This leads to a game of chicken. The SEC would want Clemson, Florida State and Miami that's probably it. That's only three. Do three others, UNC, Duke and UVA think the Big Ten will come calling and vote to terminate? What about their state governments. The ACC had to take VT because Governor Warner forced UVA to accept them. So, what happens to NC State and VT and would UNC and UVA be allowed to vote to blow up the ACC? In Virginia there is also a possible SMU curveball. Governor Youngkin graduated from Rice and his wife and son graduated from SMU. So, blowing up the ACC might be a good thing for SMU. I wouldn't mind being in a conference with the old Big East, (add in USF and you've reincarnated the Big East) plus GA Tech and Wake.

The N&O does refer to six schools as a sort of "magic number," but that's not because there is some agreement that states six schools can vote to end the GOR or something. They're just speculating that that number is a tipping point at which point the whole thing would crumble.

I don't think state politics protecting left-behind schools is as powerful as it once was. Just since 2021, it didn't stop Texas from leaving Tech and TCU and Baylor, or OU from leaving Okie State, or UCLA from leaving Cal.

[EastStang]

I don't disagree about the politics except that in Virginia, Tech is the larger school and has more alums who are more Republican and Youngkin is Republican. Of course, Virginia is a one term state for Governors, so they can tick off whomever they want (FYI Governor Wilder paid back lots of old scores). So, no telling what will happen if a conference comes calling to UVA.