-
Posts
2294 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by Hurtlocker
-
-
22 minutes ago, gatormarc said:
It's a separate thing, as far as I understand. The August 15th requirement is in the membership bylaws, not the GoR or the TV Contract.
What I've read this morning on FSU boards is that FSU will ask that the date of withdrawal be backdated to when this challenge started if they are successful in the other portions.
Yeah this gets missed a lot. There are the agreements that bind you to the conference and there are the agreements that bind you to the media rights deal. They overlap, but they are not the same.
The rumor mill piece that has me intrigued is this extension in 2027. IF this actually wasn't signed yet, then it does provide a hole in the grant of rights, as the conference partners would need to agree to it as they agree to the extension, like they would any term sheet. That would give FSU/Clemson an actual window should ESPN's extension numbers not improve to their liking. (Though where they would go to get what they want is a topic for at least another 300 pages)
If the ACC signed a grant of rights through 2036, but a media rights deal through 2027, then I can see why the courts would allow this to continue because that would be a very non-standard use of a GoR, which are generally always tied directly to a payment sheet, that's their entire intent.
ACC teams getting out by August 15th would be too soon. When the Texas/OU left, they announced leaving at the end of the media deal, they gave three years notice. When the Pac teams left, UCLA/USC announced they were leaving at the end of the current media deal, the others left because they had no deal so they were leaving when the current one ended. (The Pac had no conference agreement binding them together which was more than a little odd, all things considered). The ACC schools would need to do the same. Otherwise they'd leave and their rights would still belong to the ACC until whatever date that contract states and no one would take them until its final.
-
I mean I seriously thought this dude died a while back.
-
Athletic's Mandel's Mailbag -
QuoteHey Stewart: With the Big Ten and SEC both stating they have no interest in adding any more teams, where does that leave Florida State and Clemson, considering the current “scorched earth” approach they have taken towards the ACC? Would they even be interested in joining the Big 12? — Conor O., Houston
That’s the million dollar — er, $130 million dollar — question these days.
Before anything else can happen, FSU and Clemson have to resolve their lawsuits with the ACC. That could take years, if they go to trial, or months, if the sides reach a settlement.
Meanwhile, an important date is looming for the entire ACC: February 2025. That’s when ESPN has a “look-in” to decide whether it wants to continue with its ACC contract for another 10 years (2027-2036). Were things completely stable, it would be a no-brainer for the network to keep things as is, given the locked-in price, especially with the revenue it makes from the ACC Network. But if the network opts out … chaos in the streets.
In terms of the Big Ten and SEC — of course, they’re going to say, as commissioner Greg Sankey did at SEC media days this week, “Our focus is on our 16 members.” Expect something similar from the Big Ten’s Tony Petitti next week. Their focus is not on realignment, because there’s no one of value that’s realistically available. That could change in an instant if the ACC implodes.
The Big Ten in particular will likely do whatever Fox tells it to do, and it may well covet a powerhouse program that gets it into a hugely populous state. That seems a more viable option than the SEC, which already has schools in Florida and South Carolina and whose partner, ESPN, has no incentive to pay more money to show Florida State and Clemson than it does now.
The Big 12 presents an interesting, if less plausible, alternative. On the one hand, that conference makes no more than the ACC does now, so, what’s the point, right? But if Brett Yormark gets his wish and gets his presidents to sign off on a private equity deal, it may be able to pay Florida State and Clemson a lot more than they make now, even before negotiating a new TV deal. In that scenario, those schools might be able to make Big Ten/SEC money without having to play a Big Ten/SEC schedule.
I just find it hard to imagine those schools want to join a less-glamorous conference. Perhaps they could use an invite as leverage to gain more favorable terms from the ACC.
It seems we're following a little bit of last year's math though after USC left the Pac 12. If the B12 makes the same as the ACC now, and FSU/Clemson are 40% of the ACC, how is the ACC as strong?
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, gatormarc said:
NM... he's legit but he posted it as a joke. I guess he's a bit buttsore due to the other stuff going around today and wanted to stir things up.
Since you can't see full threads on Twitter anymore, it kinda falls flat.I mean, it's not out of the realm of possibilities
-
16 hours ago, gatormarc said:
SEC added an exit fee in early 2021 as a result of supplemental distributions related to COVID.
It's $30-45M depending on different factors.
Thanks for the update, I missed that one. The pandemic is where the B1G made their changes to BTN too
-
2 minutes ago, 'stache said:
Makes sense, hadn’t realized they were broader than when they became popular during realignment.
Yeah they are used all over the media rights world, at their essence they say I'll give you money for your piece of creative work and I get to do something with it for you for that money. The artist doesn't lose the ownership whatever work it is, they'll get it back at the end of the contract (be it publishing, recording, broadcasting, gallery, etc.) and they're paid for that aspect, so they're pretty standard for that use.
-
Just now, 'stache said:
OK, that makes some sense.
On another note, do Grants of Rights even matter anymore outside of locking the ACC in and causing shit for FSU and Clemson? BIG and SEC never needed them because nobody is leaving. Big 12's didn't exactly do much except when OU and Texas agreed to stay for an extra decade. Nor did it matter to the PAC which is now dead. Nobody in the Big 12 is a threat to leave anymore because BIG and SEC aren't interested and there is no alternative league (PAC is dead, ACC is on life support and making less).
They matter, a lot, and everyone uses them and always have. They've existed in this industry since radio broadcasts. Usually they were rolling one year deals so that broadcasters knew they had exclusivity or that a team couldn't pull out at the last minute and go with someone else. You have to give the rights to the game if you sell it, you can't sell it twice, that's basically what a GoR states. So no matter what anyone on boards tell you, every conference had a GoR if they broadcast their games, even the old CFA had one. What they didn't have was locked in multi-year ones. Much like how banks give better rates to lower risk clients, having a locked in GoR gave you less risk, which meant you could get a better deal. Stability sells. As poaching started GoRs were required to keep things the same so broadcasters knew what they were buying.
Now, to clarify something else, the B1G and SEC DO have these multi-year GoRs now because of conference networks. Matter a fact, BTN owns the rights to all the B1G's games and it is 60% owned by Fox. Even though the Big Ten's contract is up for bid in 2030, their GoR with BTN extends out further. What the SEC doesn't have is a penalty to leave the conference, that's a different thing. Long term media rights agreements for the SEC Network with the Mouse includes an extended grant of rights. You just can't make this massive investment without some protection.
-
3
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, 'stache said:
How long do Oregon and Washington get half shares? Surely they'll get full shares after a few years. I never understood how a short term discount makes sense. If they don't add long term I don't see how a short term deduction makes much sense. It feels more like taking a few extra bucks off the top short term due to their desperation.
Until the next media deal
-
6 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:
If Florida State isn't moving the SEC's financial needle, I can't see VA Tech or NCSU doing it.
Pardon, i meant like the previous...at a greatly reduced in. If that starts to crumble there will be a fire sale. If you offer what they're making to just have a stable residence, people will jump.
-
24 minutes ago, gatormarc said:
To me, the key takeaway is:
- FSU and/or Clemson are not enough to do the expansion thing again right now.
unless...
- The ACC blows up and then SEC/B1G/Big 12 may take some risks to keep up with each other.
I could also see that neither the SEC or the B1G see the additive value now, but may see it don the line and feel no need to speed up the timetable which could also explain their annoyance that FSU/Clemson.
Both have already stretched their TV contracts: SEC with still negotiating a 9 game schedule and B1G giving partial memberships to Oregon and Washington until their next contract.
Yeah, with you. Kinda been saying this for a while. FSU/Clemson are big enough to make the B12 more money, but not to make SEC/B1G money. The only chance the B12 has to get close, and it wouldn't be at, but close, like within 20%, would be if FSU/Clemson also could pull ND to the B12 with them. Then the question becomes, who is the fourth, and, honestly, I don't honestly believe that matters. Louisville, Pitt, VTech, Miami, sure.
PE could finance this and make their money back in a 2030+ media deal (like 5% return for 20 years, which are how a lot of sports investments have been set up). I don't think they could pull ND, but Comcast investors could be institutional players in whatever offering is opened up. They could tier this by broadcast window too to ensure ND made the most to lure them in, which NBC would want to guarantee their involvement, which is also how FSU would get their money, everyone else would just have their boats rise with the tide of being successful and getting on a higher T1 package. Speculative, yes, but possible. Still, even with this, you're not getting the entire conference to the B1G level. Not enough brands, not enough markets, but maybe 2x today, on average, which everyone would gladly take.
Still, the only way I see this GoR being broken is if the rumors are true that the ACC did not sign the extension with ESPN from 2027 on. No one wants to see a GoR challenged and defeated because all of the conferences are using them to inflate their earnings by reducing risk. If the B1G or SEC cannot promise that Texas and Ohio State won't pull their rights back at any time for any reason, then their media contracts have ZERO value.
On your unless -
- I can see this, like grabbing Oregon/Washington. I could see the B1G getting to 20 by adding UVA/UNC and "playing school" as @Al_4_ISU said, at a lower rate. Adding Virginia and North Carolina and the combined 20m people to their footprint. Would the SEC do the same with VTech/NCState? VTech makes the most sense to me, with the Bristol connection and hopping football when winning, but they clearly don't need to.
- The 9 game schedule for the SEC is the wild card here. The B1G makes more than the SEC on three aspects; market, brands, 9 games. Even with that, the SEC is within range. The problem is they have all their ducks aligned with the mouse now and the Mouse believes it already bought everything and has already said so. The SEC rightly believes that 8 games against each other are better than 16 games against FCS teams. They're not wrong, but because of how they're all on the Mouse, they don't have leverage. All of those FCS games go on the SEC Network, and people pay carriage for them. There are already other games on the same days the Mouse has slotted into the big payment games, so, in their eyes, they don't have more big payment slots to offer. This also highlights why the Mouse is not trying to push expansion after Texas/Oklahoma (though why they thought the world would hold pat is beyond me).
- The next rights deals are going to be very interesting and it would not surprise me in the slightest if we do not see and alignment if media contracts under the CFP somewhere around 2035, for all 3 conferences and 60 some schools, where payment has two aspects; 50% participation + 50% performance (e.g. where did you play and how did you rate in that play). The big brands who win out and get 10-15m per game will make bank and the 0-12 lessers will get some take home pay for their beatings and to have been on all streaming.
-
Couple catch ups:
One, the Big 12 Network vote was a long time ago and it wasn't Dodds, though he was the only supporter, it was the assistant Commish of the Big 12 at the time who pitched the idea for the conference network and whose name slips my mind after all these years. The biggest issue at the time though is they couldn't make the money work, which is why it failed. Not only did it require a sizable investment per school to wire and set up, at a time when most schools where only making like $9m a year from the conference, but it was projected to be a yearly money loser as well because cable rights hadn't exploded yet. The exec left after the vote to go help the Big Ten form their network in 2004, which used Delaney's muscle to solve a bunch of the issues up front, including bringing on a media partner from the start (Fox) who gave each school a signing bonus to pay for the infrastructure. And even then, BTN didn't make money for a decade until 2015, a year after they added Rutgers and Maryland and renegotiated their carriage deals on the east coast.
Two, this drop by Scheer is a bit nuts. Per someone's point above, he was accurate on the Pac 12 news for a while. He has some big feeders in the AZ world and is not prone to random speculation. He has further tweets/comments/replys that mention:
QuoteIt’s 100 percent real but there’s a lot of moving parts, starting with the lawsuits. There’s confidence it will go the way everybody wants except the ACC itself.
Quote"You mentioned Oregon state getting a look but they aren’t a priority.. is that as a pair with WSU or by themselves?" Washington State was not mentioned to me
...
Louisville is in a good place with the Big 12. Will have more information later this week
...
"Do you think we could see an announcement of intent to leave by one of them before 8/1? Does something need to break before the new ACC additions have voting rights, or does that not matter?" I would be shocked if anything is imminent. It’s a long game from what I’ve been told
---
Late Kick Josh has been teasing the same thing for a few weeks.
-
2
-
-
On 7/10/2024 at 9:45 PM, statsman said:
I can see why the B12 would be interested in FSU and Clemson (although I’m not so sure it’s a great idea; are they just recreating the UT/OU dynamic- Gulliver and the Lilliputians?). Why would FSU and Clemson be interested in the B12? Sure, it’s better than the ACC,…if the ACC doesn’t have FSU and Clemson.
Are they talking to the B12, hoping to elicit interest from the SEC and B1G? Because, if they had interest from the SEC or B1G, they sure wouldn't be talking to the B12.
I had my doubts already that FSU and Clemson had a landing spot all worked out should they break out of the ACC…FSU nor Clemson are worth $80m. If they were wars would already have been bled over their corpses. They're worth $50-65, tops, on a good day, when the humidity doesn't make their hair frizzy and they didn't drink themselves puffy the night prior.
And, actually, that isn't really fair. FSU is that. Well, FSU is likely $55-60. Clemson is already B12 with nail polish. It has natties and couldn't outdraw ISU/Memphis in a bowl game with Kentucky. No one is paying top dollar for that fan base.
-
On 7/10/2024 at 6:44 PM, CustersDoctor said:
I look as these rankings obsessively. UT is usually in the Top 5. But what continually surprises me is just how far down UNC & UV always are. They are always 40th or worse. Some people act like the B1G is drooling to pick them up if the ACC collapses. I call BS, UV is actually less valuable than Maryland and Rutgers.
UVA is continuously good in everything that doesn't matter. Stanford must feel weird to find its long lost twin in a new conference.
-
2
-
-
16 hours ago, bullet said:
Well that really isn't that far out of line from what Hurtlocker has told as, and I value his opinion! WVU gets the Big 12 attention in a lot of eastern markets. Its the Mountaineer diaspora. I can't say there is anyone below them I really disagree with but #s 25-28-Miami, Washington, Oregon and UCLA.
Ha, I don't think I disagree with WVU having a 20-30 reach due to being in the Pittsburgh DMA and having a strong presence in the DMV, but that list is kind of fucked. Texas isn't below Penn State, they are top three with Michigan/Ohio State. Michigan State and Iowa are not above USC and Auburn is way too high (there is a reason they gave Iowa three mid trophy games and it isn't to protect Iowa/Minnesota). I agree with your comment on Oregon, but Miami and UCLA I think are in that same 20-30 tier. Good Miami is top 10. Mid Miami is bottom 50. That is not a loyal fanbase, where that averages out is beyond me. Like 70-90s Huskers, that was people watching what was taking advantage of a situation at the time, which isn't a unique thing to take advantage of any longer. I'm not even sure if there is a future Miami or future Huskers that looks anything like the past. Washington is hard, in that they're so isolated. If Arizona State ever decided to win, they could supplant Washington easily and no one would give a fuck about the Huskies outside Seattle.
No way Kentucky is that low, same with Kansas at 60. Basketball would move them higher, even with 7-8 win football they'll be top 25. Brand is about name recognition. Those two should all be around UCLA with mid football, higher with great football.
-
On 7/1/2024 at 7:27 PM, BurntOrange&White said:
I can’t imagine why you would respond to a Swaim tweet
-
44 minutes ago, Vertigo said:
He has recused himself into an opium den in the Himalayas and made a friend named Ehrlich. I basically never give this guy any credit whatsoever, but this news would not surprise me. I don't really think FSU and Clemson in the SEC is super additive, but it certainly makes sense from a defensive standpoint. You don't want the B1G getting a recruiting foothold in Florida or the Carolinas.
Have you looked at Michigan or Ohio State's roster? There are as many kids from Virginia, Georgia, Florida and Texas as there are from Michigan and Ohio. They don't really need a foothold.
-
9 minutes ago, gatormarc said:
I can't imagine the B1G is interested in anyone outside UVA, UNC and ND.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
-
1 hour ago, mdmost said:
If I had to lay money on who is going to run this conference now, Utah is easily my top choice. oSu, TCU, Tech, CU but not until The Deion decides he wants to recruit.
They definitely have the upper hand with Whittingham there, but I think what makes the conference interesting, though it will doom them, is I don't think anyone will run it. It seems very Pac12 ish where there is a lot of parity instead of a few big hitters having their way with the rest. That Holy War alone could sidetrack a season.
I'm not sold on Boulder yet. Four wins does not a world beater make. I'd put more faith in the old Big 8 schools or Arizona....hell, even UCF.
-
21 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:
Josh Pate keeps hinting at ACC destruction this month. Have to imagine this goes down much like the PAC.
It'll be curious to see how ND and the SEC are playing their cards here. I feel like the Big 10 has more of an internal need to grow than the SEC does, but they also always seem to feel compelled to respond. FSU has always felt more SEC to me, but the SEC has plenty of the Florida market eyeballs already.
This.
The SEC does not need to grow. Matter a fact they should not grow. They're already trying to monetize the 9th conference game and getting push back from ESPN. Adding more teams, at this point, is adding them to a second tier, much like the Oregon/Washington adds. FSU/Clemson would not be added full, no matter what the SEC always does, because there is zero way to pay for them at full with the current structure. You'd have to go to 9 and you'd have to have someone pay a premium for 9 who already owns all your games as it is. It just so happens that that same partner owns the rights to FSU/Clemson as well as UNC and that partner DOES NOT want to lose the rights to UNC/DUKE basketball, which if you haven't noticed, drives the bus during basketball season. Granted, not as big as football, but every big game on ESPN for the ACC is either UNC v Duke or someone against UNC or Duke. They are the engine that grew ESPN in the 90s and it still powers the off NBA slots to this day.
So, at the moment, this is an all-ESPN transaction. They don't want to lose UNC/Duke nor FSU/Clemson everyone else is kind of fodder. The only place they own completely is the SEC, but they'd need to pay these four schools $320m a year to join the SEC, which they're not worth.
The Big Ten is structured completely differently with 3 media partners, but is already tapping out on inventory space. Adding more inventory takes slots away from old school hanger ons, who have votes too. And if Oregon/Washington came in on the cheap, FSU/Clemson aren't coming in full. At that point I wonder if the Big12's PE connection could offer more. However, along those lines, with three media partners in place and coast to coast inventory, the Big Ten is no longer a regional conference like the SEC, it could easily become a consortium. Partner up with PE, buy 4-6 ACC properties now and tier them with some of your under performers. Then in 2030 inhale the Big12 and own all the inventory but 16 teams. PE wins.
None of this comes to pass though, unless this thing is true that the ACC didn't sign the extension to 2036 and needs to reup in 2027. If that is true, that's FSU's out. Even if I still can't see who gives them the money they want.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, statsman said:
I get that. My point is that a conference’s tier 1 content should come from league games, and solid non-conference games. Tier 2 should be where the less attractive league games go. It’s a problem when league games are streamed. Last year, a lot of Baylor games streamed. Baylor won the B12 just a couple of years ago.
Left Behind fans crow a lot about their media revenue and how it is superior to the ACC (not really so, when you add the ACC network revenue to the mix). The next contract after this one will be very telling.Happens in all the leagues though, its literally why BTN was created and rest of the conference nets to follow. Monetizing unsold inventory.
Notable games on the SECN last year: Clemson/SC, Vandy/Tenn, Kentucky/SC, Arkansas/Auburn, LSU/Florida, or basically any vandy or SC or Missouri game. There will be more as inventory expands.
For the B1G you have your Minnesota/Illinois, Purdue/Indiana, Rutgers/Iowa, Nebraska/NW, etc.
Its all the conference games where the match up is either great and you force someone to subscribe or meh and you pay for the game with carriage instead of advertising. The Vandy and Kentucky games next year are ripe for SEC Network. They've already dumped the ULMonroe to streaming to gain subscriptions.
The ACC and B12 aren't behind on media revenue because of T2 and T3, all of those games suck, doesn't matter if your turd is polished or not, it sucks. They are behind from T1 audience. A decade ago each conference had around 3 big brands and the Big 12 had 4, but was managed by a bunch of dumbasses. You needed at three to keep enough T1 inventory going each week to generate higher values. Now those Tier One brands are consolidated as viewership (when winning) is Michigan>Ohio State>Texas>Alabama>Georgia>USC>Penn State>Oklahoma>LSU>Nebraska>Florida is better than any property left at the ACC/B12. Iowa State/TCU generated 4m, but Michigan/Ohio State generates nearly 20m. That's what broadcasters are consolidating, and you will see more games highlighted between those brands. That's what drives the needle, not the 4m games...the 10m.
Only way they'll top that in the next media cycle is:
- generate more audience or show audience growth over time of the contract
- win in the post season at a healthy clip
-
2
-
On 6/16/2024 at 6:15 PM, statsman said:
That’s a good point. Considering so many B12 league games (tier 1 content) are already on streaming, it’s hard to imagine subscribers for their tier 3. Probably, the only thing with value is KU tier 3 basketball and wrestling matches between ISU and OSU(?)
By definition, Tier one isn't streaming. Those are only games on over the air channels; however, ESPN has been added into that mix as of late. T2 was all cable channels, e.g. TNT, TBS, ESPN2, ESPNU, FS1, etc. T3 are all conference branded networks be it linear or streaming.
The only time you'd consider streaming numbers to be Tier one is if they were mirroring games on ABC, as an example.
League games vs non-league games don't define whether something is T1 or not, just the location of where it is broadcast. Most conference games are dumped on Tier 3, that's kind of why it exists.
-
6 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:
Take the fuckin' money.
Big ___ is a half-assed, shitty name for a conference anyway. Who cares?
State Farm Southeastern Conference
This, "Big" whatever is the dumbest fucking thing in the world. The Allstate conference was the least obnoxious thing I've read on here in a while, though Truckstop Conference still has my vote. For enough money let it be the Gecko Me In The Dick Conference, who the fuck cares. Stanford is in the Atlantic conference. There are 16 teams in the Big 12 and 18 teams in the Big 10 and if you put SEC in a search engine the first thing you get is the Securities and Exchange Commision.
This PE thing though is not a bad play if the PE knows what they are doing. Remember, each of the other three have ownership stakes in their conference in some way. The SEC and ACC's nameplate channels are fully and completely owned by ESPN. Fox owns 60% of BTN and sat at the table negotiating the rates with other broadcasters when the Big Ten did their new deal. Not only do those conferences have someone they are already in bed with, they are already taking a cut as well.
The question is what does 15-20% of the Big 12 buy you. You don't just give money to schools and siphon off an increase in revenues yearly, which you could do because broadcast contracts increase at a set rate. You want to invest and INCREASE revenues for the conference so that you make it back like they do. Now you could do that by bringing in other investments if you have these structures already set up for other sports or you can help them reduce spend in some way to make the value higher or you can make the value of the entire operation higher so that the next time the conference went to market for a tv deal it was sizably higher. To do that you'd probably need to use your investment to lure other properties that may move the needle.
However they do that will matter. If its just take money spend in NIL, both sides are stupid. They have to break something with it, then it can pay off.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Vertigo said:
There is no viable solution for bowl games in this era of CFB. The NCAA would be better off doing multiple playoff tiers. Most bowls don't make enough money for any NIL incentives, let alone enough to get the top players to play instead of opting out. If you had a 16 team playoff and then a G5 16 team playoff, not only would it make more money, it would keep all of the top players opted in for the games. Then you could take a few of the top bowls and have them host a best of the rest type of setup. 6 win teams should not have post seasons.
Yeah you don't even need to go that far you just need to take them all. Even if the top 12/16 are play in, you can still match up 17/18, 19/20, 20/21, what the fuck ever. The worst thing really left in CFB is conference affiliations, especially with bowl games. Now that the Rose is gleefully dead, let's nuke the rest from orbit.
Realignment talk not going away
in Football
Posted
Maybe its not 2027...