2022 NCAAF OFF-SEASON

[Robert C]

I guess it might come down to how badly ESPN wants Clemson, FSU, etc in the SEC.  And maybe what they can get out of Fox to let part of the remainder go to the B1G.  

[supremebve]

9 hours ago, Robert C said:

I guess it might come down to how badly ESPN wants Clemson, FSU, etc in the SEC.  And maybe what they can get out of Fox to let part of the remainder go to the B1G.  

This seems to be against ESPN's interests being that they already paid over a billion dollars for the exclusive rights to the ACC. That money is already spent and has proven to be a huge value already, why would they dilute a product they've already paid for? Why would they favor the SEC, who they have a significantly shorter, but less profitable commitment? Why would the SEC want to add 4 schools who they'd have to share revenue with,  without those schools adding to their revenue? It doesn't add up. All of these moves are based on making more money from TV,  letting those 4 teams walk for a cent less than $200 million a piece would be irresponsible for both REASON and the remaining ACC schools. 

With that said, if the SEC actually gets those 4 teams the B1G needs to go hard after Duke and Miami. They need a team in Florida,  and Duke can make them the best basketball conference in the country. 

[RIPPA]

Well again - I don't think any legit sources are saying ESPN is trying to get out of the ACC deal. In fact the most recent "legit" sources reports around the ESPN/ACC TV deal are that one from a few days ago where the ACC and Pac 12 are discussing a TV partnership

The ones saying ESPN IS TRYING TO VOID THEIR ACC DEAL~! are the swim coach blue check mark types

[EVA]

I think it’s important to keep in mind that ESPN owns the SEC’s rights in total beginning in 2024, meaning they’re in a good position to act as an intermediary between the SEC and ACC to negotiate a deal that makes everybody feel okay in the end. Just shuffling money between pockets.

The grant of rights buyout will be negotiated down for the same reason that all these CFB contracts get negotiated down in the end: because if somebody REALLY doesn’t want to be around anymore, you don’t really want them around anymore either, and nobody wants this shit to end up in court. You figure out a more realistic number that still lets people save face.

[EVA]

Yeah, the idea that the ACC would outright void the deal and let ALL those other teams walk just so they could shuffle 4 teams around was pure nonsense. Should’ve been a dead giveaway that story was BS.

[EVA]

I apologize for all the posts in a row, but I just got back in the country and I have a lot to catch up on.

As far as all the “reporting” running rampant right now, let me just say this:

I love to talk out rumored scenarios and speculate on this stuff as much as anybody, but it’s important to keep in mind that most of what is being reported right now falls into one of two categories: 1)thirsty reporters desperate to not miss out on the next big move running with thinly sourced rumors and 2) schools/conferences deliberately planting stories with their preferred media waterboys.

The real deals are not being leaked to the press. Think about Texas and OU to the SEC or USC/UCLA to the B1G. Both of those deals were in the works for a loooong time before word got out just as those deals were imminent. And this is still all too new for anybody to be anywhere close to finalizing deals. Honestly, with maybe a key exception (Oregon/UW finding a landing place), it wouldn’t totally surprise me if we don’t see any other moves until next offseason. I think most parties involved understand with hindsight that Big 12 leadership really hurt that conference by reacting too quickly with the additions of the AAC schools last year. There’s benefit to being patient and observing how the landscape settles.

Edited July 8, 2022 by EVA

[supremebve]

36 minutes ago, EVA said:

I think it’s important to keep in mind that ESPN owns the SEC’s rights in total beginning in 2024, meaning they’re in a good position to act as an intermediary between the SEC and ACC to negotiate a deal that makes everybody feel okay in the end. Just shuffling money between pockets

ESPN paid the SEC 3 billion dollars for 10 years,  they paid the ACC 1.8 for 20. They will have to renegotiate the SEC deal before the ACC one ends. The ACC deal is essentially free money until 2036, why would th get fuck that up? John Skipper (who negotiate the ACC deal) was on the LeBatard show taking about the MLS/Apple deal and the point he made was that the rights deals are actually really cheap for the networks,  and get cheaper year after year. Sporting events get super high ratings and you only have to pay a few people to broadcast a game. They've already made a huge profit on that deal and it's only going to be more profitable going forward. If they let teams out of that deal they are seeing money on fire to appease a less profitable product who could leave for greener pastures before the more profitable deal ends. It's not shuffling money between pockets. It's taking 2 dollars out of 1 pocket setting one on fire and then making change and putting 75 cents in the other pocket, then repeating this process about a billion times. The ACC,  who could cease to exist if this happens,  has no motivation to do anything that will help teams leave. Their deal kind of sucks,  but at this point that deal is the only thing standing in the way of the SEC and B1G from stealing all of their teams. My price would be $200 million per team for the remainder of the contract minimum if they want to get out of that contract,  because you're losing at least that much money if that deal goes away. It costs 93 million per year to show ACC games. It costs 300 million to show SEC games every year. That's way too much money to walk away from. 

[EVA]

On 7/6/2022 at 8:13 AM, RIPPA said:

In a move that probably should have been done before USC and UCLA left - the Pac 12 has pushed up its negotiations for it's media rights.

 

Just like all the experts will tell you: Always start negotiations from a position of weakness.

[EVA]

14 minutes ago, supremebve said:

ESPN paid the SEC 3 billion dollars for 10 years,  they paid the ACC 1.8 for 20. They will have to renegotiate the SEC deal before the ACC one ends. The ACC deal is essentially free money until 2036, why would th get fuck that up? John Skipper (who negotiate the ACC deal) was on the LeBatard show taking about the MLS/Apple deal and the point he made was that the rights deals are actually really cheap for the networks,  and get cheaper year after year. Sporting events get super high ratings and you only have to pay a few people to broadcast a game. They've already made a huge profit on that deal and it's only going to be more profitable going forward. If they let teams out of that deal they are seeing money on fire to appease a less profitable product who could leave for greener pastures before the more profitable deal ends. It's not shuffling money between pockets. It's taking 2 dollars out of 1 pocket setting one on fire and then making change and putting 75 cents in the other pocket, then repeating this process about a billion times. The ACC,  who could cease to exist if this happens,  has no motivation to do anything that will help teams leave. Their deal kind of sucks,  but at this point that deal is the only thing standing in the way of the SEC and B1G from stealing all of their teams. My price would be $200 million per team for the remainder of the contract minimum if they want to get out of that contract,  because you're losing at least that much money if that deal goes away. It costs 93 million per year to show ACC games. It costs 300 million to show SEC games every year. That's way too much money to walk away from. 

You’re making some good observations here but missing the bigger picture:

Yes, ESPN pays the SEC a lot more than the ACC. Which is *why* it benefits ESPN to shuffle some of the ACC’s strongest brands to the SEC—to get more value out of the bigger investment. The ACC/ESPN deal is indeed very favorable to ESPN, and that’s why they can afford to facilitate that transaction—because at the current terms, even an ACC minus some constellation of those 2-4 brands is still a bargain value to them.

Of course, none of this benefits the ACC in any way, but it’s important to keep in mind that CFB has always been founded on a lie agreed upon. And the nature of the lie can change at any time, as it has many times before. For the last little while, the lie was that there was a “Power 5” of equal members. But it’s clear that has changed, and now it’s the B1G/Fox and SEC/ESPN who control the future of the sport (for now). And once that has changed there’s really nothing you can do but accept it and figure out how you fit into the new paradigm.

[supremebve]

1 minute ago, EVA said:

You’re making some good observations here but missing the bigger picture:

Yes, ESPN pays the SEC a lot more than the ACC. Which is *why* it benefits ESPN to shuffle some of the ACC’s strongest brands to the SEC—to get more value out of the bigger investment. The ACC/ESPN deal is indeed very favorable to ESPN, and that’s why they can afford to facilitate that transaction—because at the current terms, even an ACC minus some constellation of those 2-4 brands is still a bargain value to them.

Of course, none of this benefits the ACC in any way, but it’s important to keep in mind that CFB has always been founded on a lie agreed upon. And the nature of the lie can change at any time, as it has many times before. For the last little while, the lie was that there was a “Power 5” of equal members. But it’s clear that has changed, and now it’s the B1G/Fox and SEC/ESPN who control the future of the sport (for now). And once that has changed there’s really nothing you can do but accept it and figure out how you fit into the new paradigm.

Here's the issue with them allowing the SEC to cut the ACC.  The Power 5 is outdated,  but it's going to be a few years before there is a Power 2. Odds are is going to be a Power 4 for at least a few years, and the ACC has a better chance to be one of the 4 than the Pac12 or Big12 because of this deal. No one has been able to jump, because of how that contract is written. Texas, Oklahoma,  USC,  and UCLA leaving puts their former conferences in terrible spots sure they have to scramble to add teams. ESPN can mortally have half of the meaningful college football and basketball on their network for the next 10 years at a price that is favorable to them. They have control of two of the three conferences that still matter.  Neither the Pac12 or the Big12 have tv contracts after 2025, and it looks like they'll have to combine to be viable. ESPN's goal should be to get those combined rights, but even if they don't they already have 2 of the 4 locked up for a decade. Destroying one of those conferences,  which is what would happen if they let those 4 teams leave,  makes no sense.

[EVA]

10 minutes ago, supremebve said:

Destroying one of those conferences,  which is what would happen if they let those 4 teams leave,  makes no sense.

Well, that’s why you’re not going to see 4 jump at once and one of the many reasons why that report saying they would was dumb. All 4 moving would be too destabilizing to the system.

What you’re going to see is two teams move in the next year or two. And then  a couple more will move some years after that. And so on. It’s going to be a slow, controlled bleed. 

[supremebve]

2 minutes ago, EVA said:

Well, that’s why you’re not going to see 4 jump at once and one of the many reasons why that report saying they would was dumb. All 4 moving would be too destabilizing to the system.

What you’re going to see is two teams move in the next year or two. And then  a couple more will move some years after that. And so on. It’s going to be a slow, controlled bleed. 

If any of these people are smart,  they will try to keep 4 for the foreseeable future. Keep 2 to 3 blue bloods at the top, 2 to 3 occasional contenders underneath, and the scrubs at the bottom of each conference. They can have 4 final 4 conference championships, that lead to the combined final 4 playoff, that leads to a national championship.  It gives them more rights to sell, gives more hope to the teams underneath the elite teams,  and expands the playoffs in a way that makes sense. 

[Mister TV]

34 minutes ago, EVA said:

You’re making some good observations here but missing the bigger picture:

Yes, ESPN pays the SEC a lot more than the ACC. Which is *why* it benefits ESPN to shuffle some of the ACC’s strongest brands to the SEC—to get more value out of the bigger investment. The ACC/ESPN deal is indeed very favorable to ESPN, and that’s why they can afford to facilitate that transaction—because at the current terms, even an ACC minus some constellation of those 2-4 brands is still a bargain value to them.

Of course, none of this benefits the ACC in any way, but it’s important to keep in mind that CFB has always been founded on a lie agreed upon. And the nature of the lie can change at any time, as it has many times before. For the last little while, the lie was that there was a “Power 5” of equal members. But it’s clear that has changed, and now it’s the B1G/Fox and SEC/ESPN who control the future of the sport (for now). And once that has changed there’s really nothing you can do but accept it and figure out how you fit into the new paradigm.

What value does the ACC's strongest brands(Clemson football, and Duke & UNC basketball) really add for the SEC? Sure Clemson is on a great run but how long will that last? A school with much deeper pockets will snatch up Dabo within the next 10 years, can Clemson keep things rolling with whoever replaces him? Plus the school is in South Carolina which isn't a needle mover when it comes to adding more tv viewers. Sure Duke and UNC would upgrade the basketball side of things but all of these moves are about football, the SEC would be adding another Vanderbilt and Kentucky on the football side. The biggest reason the SEC would add any ACC schools is to keep the B1G out of the south. 

[EVA]

2 minutes ago, Mister TV said:

What value does the ACC's strongest brands(Clemson football, and Duke & UNC basketball) really add for the SEC? Sure Clemson is on a great run but how long will that last? A school with much deeper pockets will snatch up Dabo within the next 10 years, can Clemson keep things rolling with whoever replaces him? Plus the school is in South Carolina which isn't a needle mover when it comes to adding more tv viewers. Sure Duke and UNC would upgrade the basketball side of things but all of these moves are about football, the SEC would be adding another Vanderbilt and Kentucky on the football side. The biggest reason the SEC would add any ACC schools is to keep the B1G out of the south. 

This is a complicated question with a lot more layers to it than I can adequately get into at the present moment. However I would say the #1 thing you’re getting out of it is increased quality TV inventory, which is what all these networks care about (and, again, why it’s more important to think about brands rather than markets for future expansion). At this point in time, a run of the mill Clemson game is a much more attractive TV property than over half the current SEC, to say nothing of getting yearly marquee matchups (e.g. Clemson vs. Bama, UGA, etc.) that didn’t exist before.

Could Clemson be bad again some day? Sure. But if Alabama makes the wrong post-Saban hire, they could be bad again too. You can’t make decisions based on that. Clemson has done the work to make themselves a valuable chip right now.

As for UNC, while football is driving the bus, UNC’s basketball brand is so elite, you definitely want it. (And the SEC has invested a LOT of money in basketball over the last 10 years, so don’t think they don’t care about it.) However what separates UNC from Kansas, who has struggled to get much traction, in these discussions is population growth. If you look at what’s going on in that state, they’re basically on their way to being Georgia 2. Charlotte is Atlanta 2 already. That’s why it’s the one piece of realignment real estate that actually matters from this point onward. And if you get the right coach into UNC, you’re waking a sleeping giant in modern CFB. They can be so much more in football, if they want it bad enough. And how badly they want it will determine where they end up IMO.

[supremebve]

16 minutes ago, Mister TV said:

What value does the ACC's strongest brands(Clemson football, and Duke & UNC basketball) really add for the SEC? Sure Clemson is on a great run but how long will that last? A school with much deeper pockets will snatch up Dabo within the next 10 years, can Clemson keep things rolling with whoever replaces him? Plus the school is in South Carolina which isn't a needle mover when it comes to adding more tv viewers. Sure Duke and UNC would upgrade the basketball side of things but all of these moves are about football, the SEC would be adding another Vanderbilt and Kentucky on the football side. The biggest reason the SEC would add any ACC schools is to keep the B1G out of the south. 

Exactly. If you keep them separate, Clemson, Florida State,  and Miami have a chance to beat up on the little brother schools. A good ACC team looks like a great team against the ACC,  but it's going to take an exceptional team to compete with Alabama, Georgia,  and LSU year in and year out. Adding more teams to a conference makes everyone look a little but worse. More conferences make everyone look a little bit better. 

[cwoy2j]

On 7/7/2022 at 4:04 PM, hammerva said:

I mean does the SEC think that Charlottesville is close to DC?   I mean the idea of Blacksburg being in the DMV is such a joke 

I live in C'Ville and it isn't super far from DC. It's only about 100 miles.

[RIPPA]

2 hours ago, cwoy2j said:

I live in C'Ville and it isn't super far from DC. It's only about 100 miles.

And you can get there (DC) in the same time it takes me to get there from only 25 miles away 

[cwoy2j]

6 hours ago, RIPPA said:

And you can get there (DC) in the same time it takes me to get there from only 25 miles away 

Haha, this is true. My wife used to have to travel to DC from Charlottesville for work pretty regularly. And the time of day she was able to leave DC was the difference between a 90 minute drive and a 5 hour drive due to the traffic. If she was able to get done by about 3pm, she could get home by 5. If she wasn't done by 4 or 5, she wasn't getting home until 8 or 9pm.

Edited July 10, 2022 by cwoy2j

[RIPPA]

Former Michigan and Illinois (and Detroit Lions) HC Gary Moeller passed away at the age of 81

[EVA]

If I can press pause on realignment talk for a second…

I’ve started doing my research for this coming season, and wooooooow the ACC Coastal looks like an even bigger flaming shitshow than usual. We’ve got 4 teams in year 1 of a transition to a new coach (three of those being tear-the-guts-out rebuilding jobs), another team that’s cratering towards the same situation, and the two stable programs are having to figure out their identity after the loss of superstar QBs. Talk about wide open.

I mean, if Mario has the new Miami staff clicking and there isn’t a culture war with the players, the Canes seem well situated to steamroll through that division. Feels like Pitt hitting the lottery on Kedon Slovis regaining his 2019 form is about the only other thing that could get in their way.

[Log]

This made me chuckle:

The Onion on Realignment

[Pete]

21 minutes ago, Log said:

This made me chuckle:

The Onion on Realignment

Poor Yale...

[Dolfan in NYC]

39 minutes ago, Pete said:

Poor Yale...

Eh.  Yale to the ACC makes sense geographically.  

[supremebve]

The NCAA is finally telling the truth about what they're all about.

 

[Log]

14 hours ago, supremebve said:

The NCAA is finally telling the truth about what they're all about.

 

Given recent years, I should no longer be surprised by idiots "saying the quiet part out loud", but Jesus.