Realignment Update

[EastStang]

I haven't read the GOR agreement for the ACC, but unless there is some out that Clemson and FSU are privvy to, then the ACC gets all their TV money. That said, the only stick Clemson and FSU have is that after the GOR period is over, they're gone unless a more suitable split of profits is agreed to. FSU has been independent before. Clemson is a founding ACC member.

[birddogger]

Bankruptcy will be ESPN's out. It can reorganize, kill off the ACC contract or any other contract it doesn't want and pay nominally for the breach, then cut a new deal with ACC or a few select members.

If SMU is a "have not", we will be in good company.

[Topper]

"Tortious." And that is my point. ESPN can manipulate Clemson and Fla St over to the SEC, continue the payout to the remaining ACC teams or re-negotiate based on ESPN's financial situation, and be rid of them in a few years. Maybe they do interfere with the league but there would be little in the way of monetary damages if they continue the payout.

I would disagree

1. What financial incentive is there for ESPN to pay more for Clemson and FSU vs. what they pay for them now. They own 100% of the rights to them what do they want to pay more for?

2. In addition to the above there are only so many premium spots to go around on ABC, ESPN, and ESPN II so trying to argue "better match ups" for a conference that already has more quality match ups than ESPN can currently handle is not really a great argument relative to the cost. This is even more true with Texas and OU joining.

3. There is the issue of the ACCn. I have argued other places that the purpose of the ACCn for ESPN was to remove the OBLIGATION for ESPN to show a particular number of ACC games on ABC, ESPN, and ESPN II and instead shift them over to the ACCn. Yes the ACC shares in the profits, but in reality they also now share in the COST of producing those games as well. It just so happens that as of now the money generated from the ACCn covers those cost, delivers some profit to ESPN and to the ACC. But as a just our report said for the first time ever FS1 has more subscribers than ESPN and cord cutting is still happening and is a reason for that chance in subscriber numbers for ESPN in particular. So at some point when the ACCn is only break even well ESPN is still money ahead because they are still covering the cost of producing ACCn content instead of paying that cost AND having to place that content on ABC, ESPN, or ESPN II instead of something that would be more preferable to show on those channels at any particular time.

ESPN had to start doing that because they are out of air time for showing football when anyone will watch. Which is the same issue the PAC 12 is facing. ESPN being out of places to put PAC 12 content and in addition the less desirable times that some PAC 12 content is shown.

4. With #3 in mind above there is the issue of "in market" and "out of market" rates for subscribers. I am not as big of a believer as some are that ESPN with the ACCn or even the SECn can just add a team to a conference and BAM! cable companies now have to start paying in market rates for 100% of the subscribers in that state. But many ACC fans argue this is in fact the case. So with Clemson in particular taking them from the ACC now means that cable companies, if it is true, can now start paying out of market rates for all the ACCn subs in SC. That hurts the ACC. In addition I think there would be a push from cable companies to reduce rates in Florida if FSU was gone. Even if there was not immediately then the next time that cable/content negotiations happen between ESPN and the cable and sat companies, which will surely be before the end of the ACC TV contract, there will be a push to reduce ACCn subscriber rates in Florida and probably across the entire spectrum of cable companies and subscribers because of the loss of two top teams. And that hurts the ACC.

5. I do not think it is a stretch for ACC members to go back several years or even a decade or more and look at ticket sales and ticket prices for individual home games that have FSU or Clemson as the visiting program for that game vs. those that do not and to be able to show that Clemson and FSU as conference members makes them money on ticket sales and concessions. In fact I think that would be quite easy to show or at least to convince a court.

6. There is still the issue that FSU and Clemson are also breaking the contract, GOR, with the ACC and they are definitely going to be doing so to enrich themselves. That will be pretty much impossible to argue against and thus that is something that would most likely be able to be collected on by the ACC and the members.

In addition I think it would be hard to argue that ESPN is not enticing FSU and Clemson to go to the SEC and to make more money and be paid more money by ESPN because ESPN is not going to profit from that. What other reason would ESPN have to spend that money when they already control 100% of the content of FSU and Clemson and the ACC. I think one can go right back to #4. Will ESPN be getting some additional "in market" revenue for the SECn? If so that is going to be a major issue.

7. I think there are a number of other "stability", "brand damage", and on and on claims that may or may not be really true in a real dollars ans cents way, but that the ACC will be able to trot out dozens of "experts" to testify about. and sure ESPN will have their that will say that is not true or laughably probably try and argue that somehow the ACC is being helped or enhanced, but again that will drag on forever and ever. What reason does ESPN have to drag themselves into that mess when the end result is paying more for content they already own 100% of for the next 9 years. Along with that if things go really sideways for ESPN or the SEC or both in court who knows what other conference or what other entities might head to court to start dragging ESPN through the coals. Worse yet "congress". It is not like ESPN is running around with clean hands or that they have not been exerting a lot of influence on college sports. sports in general, and cable TV rates and subscriber fees. And when there is talk again about ESPN possibly being spun off from Disney or there being some equity partnerships and with cable subs still dropping like a rock I don't think ESPN is in the mood for a long court fight that will be a drag on Disney stock, make any partners weary, and invite some "oversight". Especially simply to pay a lot more to move Clemson and FSU from the ACC to the SEC for really no good reason.

Of course ESPN would be paying Clemsona and FSU more but their is more value to those teams playing an SEC schedule every week against teams with similar brand power. More advertiser dollars. And as others here have mentioned, ESPN has the legitimate threat of bankruptcy which would send everyone to the barber anyway.

[rodrod5]

Of course ESPN would be paying Clemsona and FSU more but their is more value to those teams playing an SEC schedule every week against teams with similar brand power. More advertiser dollars. And as others here have mentioned, ESPN has the legitimate threat of bankruptcy which would send everyone to the barber anyway.

That brand value decreases dramatically as you fill all of your available major network slots during remotely desirable time periods. ESPN is well beyond that point already. That same decline happens when you add more and more programs to a conference even if you pretend you are adding the best of the best. Eventually you either run down some of those programs or you further run down the weaker programs already in the conference which has a ripple effect on the conference. This is further true when you are really not gaining new content you are just switching some from one place to another.

ESPN is getting well past the point of diminishing returns for paying lots of money to move conference members from one conference to another especially when they already own the content and that will increase as traditional cable and "channel cramming" declines further. The known cost much less the unknown cost are just too great to make it anything other than stupid for ESPN.

I do agree that BK is a potential outcome for ESPN down the road, but that will still come at some dramatic cost to Disney overall. I do not see a full on buyer for ESPN now at a price that makes sense and when the price makes sense anyone with sense will know that ESPN is hurting.

As of now Disney theme park traffic is down pretty hard, they are releasing poor performing movies, they have a lot invested in cruise lines, but summer cruise season is about to end and that is a big season for DISNEY, they have a ton of new money to pay the SEC and they have a lot of new money to pay the Big 12 as well in the future. They have a new CEO, same as the old CEO, and ESPN is cutting cost yet again while cable subs continue to drop. This is a horrible time for ESPN to enter into massive litigation especially if they remotely think they can dump ESPN on someone or if they think they can sell a meaningful equity stake to monetize some of ESPN and separate it from Disney to possibly prepare for a future BK.

To be clear Disney is a horribly run company and ESPN is even worse so they might go out tomorrow and tell the world that they think it is OK for FSU and Clemson to leave the ACC and they want to pay them a lot if they are in the SEC and they are offering the SEC money to make it happen. But they will be hit with massive lawsuits and more than likely a lot of congressional investigations and things will get ugly for them very quickly. And Disney stock will take a massive hit in the process.

[Red Dragon Coog]

More nails in the Pac 12 coffin.



https://twitter.com/rossdellenger/statu ... VOFwqBKG5Q

[fan]

More nails in the Pac 12 coffin.



https://twitter.com/rossdellenger/statu ... VOFwqBKG5Q

Whatevs - why do you care about this and post on an SMU fan board?

Regardless, I actually have faith that our current leadership - both University (if we leave) and AAC - (if we stay), will get us in a better place.

[mtrout]

More nails in the Pac 12 coffin.
https://twitter.com/rossdellenger/statu ... VOFwqBKG5Q

We need Arizona to leave to make room for us. Then everyone else will stay because Phil Knight is Top G. lfg

[Charleston Pony]

and then there is this:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footb ... -programs/

[Drum Major]

This is what I am waiting to see. A LIV-like group that cherry-picks the SEC and Big 10 in order to get rid of Northwestern, Vanderbilt, etc., and then institutes a whole new set of rules. It's wild to think about but really sad at the same time.

[EastStang]

Now that UT is in the SEC, they're going to complain that they aren getting the same payout as Vandy and South Carolina. They'll want more. Alabama, Florida, LSU and the Aggies will say similar things. Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan will complain that they're getting the same payout as Maryland and Rutgers. And suddenly you have a meeting at the Nashville Airport and they bolt and form a new conference with like 20 teams. Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Arkansas, UT, OU, LSU, A&M, Florida, Georgia with OSU, PSU, MI, WI, IA, USC, UCLA, NE, Clemson, ND.

That leaves NWU, MN, IL, Vandy, MO, TN, KY, SC, MD, Rutgers and the rest of the ACC and PAC 12 on the outside looking in.
So, the Big XII reinvites MO, invites IL, MN and OR, WA, ACC invites SC, TN, KY, MD. It may jettison some of its new arrivals as well.


That leaves Vandy, NWU, and Rutgers going to the AAC along with UT, WSU, OSU, Stanford and CA (unless they go to the MWC). The ACC may jettison some of its new arrivals, too.

I'm not Kreskin, but that looks like where its going to go.

[Topper]

I'm not sure how they will pull it off but I get the feeling that Clemson and Florida State will be out of the ACC by 2024 or 2025. We need to hope that the rest of the ACC sticks together and present ourselves and Tulane as a package replacement deal. I keep thinking that the Big 10 would gobble up UVA and UNC, but if they pick up Washington and Oregon how many more members can they reasonably handle? My unrealistic dream scenario: Clemson and Florida State go Big 10. SEC would need to expand to keep pace: SMU is available.

[Charleston Pony]

I'm not sure how they will pull it off but I get the feeling that Clemson and Florida State will be out of the ACC by 2024 or 2025. We need to hope that the rest of the ACC sticks together and present ourselves and Tulane as a package replacement deal. I keep thinking that the Big 10 would gobble up UVA and UNC, but if they pick up Washington and Oregon how many more members can they reasonably handle? My unrealistic dream scenario: Clemson and Florida State go Big 10. SEC would need to expand to keep pace: SMU is available.

You can just wake up from that dream

[Topper]

I'm not sure how they will pull it off but I get the feeling that Clemson and Florida State will be out of the ACC by 2024 or 2025. We need to hope that the rest of the ACC sticks together and present ourselves and Tulane as a package replacement deal. I keep thinking that the Big 10 would gobble up UVA and UNC, but if they pick up Washington and Oregon how many more members can they reasonably handle? My unrealistic dream scenario: Clemson and Florida State go Big 10. SEC would need to expand to keep pace: SMU is available.

You can just wake up from that dream

As a lifelong SMU fan I have learned that it is important to take an occassional break from cruel reality. Someone said that in a story that is a trajedy hope is cruel.

[35straight II]

With no conference upgrade in the immediate future, what does the mean for SMU football? Donors, alums, and recruits have all been banking on the next chapter in SMU’s history that will never come. How much longer will the NIL money keep flowing, when there is no light at the end of the tunnel? I don’t know Mr. Weber personally, but I can guarantee you that he didn’t chip in 100mil to watch Charlotte and FAU. This is bad and will only get worse.

[redpony]

RIP- PAC12

Meanwhile we are stranded in a cess-pool conference. SMU- always a bridesmaid, never a bride.