Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[Clonehomer]

But … the idea going from “we want to join this conference because it’s successful and we’ll make a lot more money from their playoff appearances” to “actually, the money from playoff appearances is going just to those schools who made the playoff, it’s only fair” isn’t exactly a long-term team-building exercise. It’s never a good idea to pit conference members against each other financially.

To me it sounds it’s like the first step towards booting out the lower-performing schools to create a super conference of blue bloods earning unimaginable amounts of TV money (and probably requiring viewers to pay an annual $350 subscription to the SuperSEC Channel) - the bottom half of which will be astonished to discover they’re now the ones finishing under .500, since somebody has to lose each game.

Especially when some of the programs struggling the most financially are not in the picture for the higher shares. Colorado, for example, isn't going to the playoffs anytime soon. So an unequal revenue sharing model is going to hit them worse than just losing USC and UCLA. So I see them wanting to make the jump this year.

Then, the question is will the Big12 take Colorado and UCONN only? That doesn't seem like a winning proposition until basketball starts making more revenue. So, perhaps this is the holdup where CU was told to find a P5 partner and UA isn't sold on the move yet?

 

[Gunnerclone]

I’m still just stunned with every day that passes. I don’t think they have a deal yet. Like if they had to sign something today to save any semblance of the conference or disband, they would have to disband.

 

[Bestaluckcy]

Since they are not competing with each other for a Big 12 spot, my guess is CU and UA presidents are fully transparent with each other concerning both conferences negotiations.

 

[Clonehomer]

Since they are not competing with each other for a Big 12 spot, my guess is CU and UA presidents are fully transparent with each other concerning both conferences negotiations.

Perhaps. But as both are public universities, they would need to be careful about being transparent in communications that would be subject to FOIA requests. I'd have a lot of let's get coffee type meetings if I were in their shoes. Which, is difficult when you're several states away.

 

[AuH2O]

On the ACC revenue sharing: there's a big difference between the performance based model they are setting up vs what brought the B12 down in 2012. Feels like much less hard feelings.

Except there’s no reason for the bottom 60% of schools to agree to this. The difference between SEC and Big 10 money vs what the top schools could get in uneven revenue sharing is still going to be large. Maybe when they are getting close to negotiating a new deal and the next TV deal is going to be somewhere between the Big 12 and the Big 10/SEC there’s enough room to go unequal revenue sharing that keeps Clemson, FSU and others from jumping. And then, depending on where they are compared to the big 12, there will probably be a tier of schools better off heading to the Big 12 then giving up revenue to keep the ACC together.

Even if they were only a couple years away from negotiating a new deal I don’t think they would be able to hold it together.

Given their current deal and money, agreeing to unequal revenue sharing is just handing over the ransom money when you know the hostage is going to be killed anyway.

 

[Clonehomer]

Except there’s no reason for the bottom 60% of schools to agree to this. The difference between SEC and Big 10 money vs what the top schools could get in uneven revenue sharing is still going to be large. Maybe when they are getting close to negotiating a new deal and the next TV deal is going to be somewhere between the Big 12 and the Big 10/SEC there’s enough room to go unequal revenue sharing that keeps Clemson, FSU and others from jumping. And then, depending on where they are compared to the big 12, there will probably be a tier of schools better off heading to the Big 12 then giving up revenue to keep the ACC together.

Even if they were only a couple years away from negotiating a new deal I don’t think they would be able to hold it together.

Given their current deal and money, agreeing to unequal revenue sharing is just handing over the ransom money when you know the hostage is going to be killed anyway.

The only way I see this agreed to is for a piece of additional money brought into the conference due to performance. So, for example, a second playoff spot beyond the guaranteed spot for the champion. That wouldn't take any money that the other schools were expecting to receive. They'd only see a smaller portion of that extra money.

Perhaps NCAA tournament shares could be done this way too. Then more of the conference could reasonably see that increased revenue.

 

[werdnamanhill]

Except there’s no reason for the bottom 60% of schools to agree to this. The difference between SEC and Big 10 money vs what the top schools could get in uneven revenue sharing is still going to be large. Maybe when they are getting close to negotiating a new deal and the next TV deal is going to be somewhere between the Big 12 and the Big 10/SEC there’s enough room to go unequal revenue sharing that keeps Clemson, FSU and others from jumping. And then, depending on where they are compared to the big 12, there will probably be a tier of schools better off heading to the Big 12 then giving up revenue to keep the ACC together.

Even if they were only a couple years away from negotiating a new deal I don’t think they would be able to hold it together.

Given their current deal and money, agreeing to unequal revenue sharing is just handing over the ransom money when you know the hostage is going to be killed anyway.

Except they've already agreed

 

[AuH2O]

Except they've already agreed

Sorry - I wasn't clear there. I was thinking of the ACC trying to shift a bulk of media dollars around to uneven distribution in a major way like the Big 12 was back before the first meltdown.

I think it makes sense what they have already agreed to in terms of the additional revenue splits based on who earned it.

 

[isucy86]

The only way I see this agreed to is for a piece of additional money brought into the conference due to performance. So, for example, a second playoff spot beyond the guaranteed spot for the champion. That wouldn't take any money that the other schools were expecting to receive. They'd only see a smaller portion of that extra money.

Perhaps NCAA tournament shares could be done this way too. Then more of the conference could reasonably see that increased revenue.

Once the TV rights for the 12 team playoff go out to open media bidding, how the schools structure payout structure could be eye opening.

• Do schools match what is done with the NCAA Basketball Tournament and TV money is awarded to conferences based on # of teams in their conference who get one of the twelve spots?
• Do schools jettison G5 from the 12 team playoff and they are forced to create a separate division like FCS. That could be hundreds of millions of incremental money to CFP conferences.
• Do Playoff teams earn a significant payout (aka $25-$50M) based on advancement. With the 4 team playoff a school's conference receives $6M and there is no additional payment if a school wins their semi-final round or championship game. Note: the 4 playoff schools do receive around $3M to cover expenses.

As fans we spend a lot of time focused on the Conference media deals: Big10- $1B annually, Big12- $380M annually, etc. Whereas the 11 game CFP is projected to generate $2B annually. It will become the football elites piggy bank filled with gold.

 

[Scruff]

The Memphis stuff from last week and the aftermath continue to be really strange. Someone from Memphis claimed the Big12 visited. The Big12 came out very quickly to deny it. Here is the latest from the Memphis President:

“You know, what I would say is we have, throughout, tried to be really professional and thoughtful about not commenting about the process,” said Veatch. “We’ll continue that. I believe that’s the right way to operate. You don’t want to get into commenting or speculation on anything. It’s not beneficial to the university or to the process or to anybody involved.”

Link: https://www.commercialappeal.com/st...-yormark-conference-laird-veatch/70306921007/

Is it all posturing by Memphis? It felt like Fresno State was posturing just a few months ago, but the Big12 didn't come out and deny everything as forcefully as we did with Memphis. Then we have UConn where all sides seem to confirm the discussions. The 3 are all so different within how the story is getting told and I find it all very strange.

 

[OldCurmudgeon]

The Memphis stuff from last week and the aftermath continue to be really strange. Someone from Memphis claimed the Big12 visited. The Big12 came out very quickly to deny it. Here is the latest from the Memphis President:

“You know, what I would say is we have, throughout, tried to be really professional and thoughtful about not commenting about the process,” said Veatch. “We’ll continue that. I believe that’s the right way to operate. You don’t want to get into commenting or speculation on anything. It’s not beneficial to the university or to the process or to anybody involved.”

Link: https://www.commercialappeal.com/st...-yormark-conference-laird-veatch/70306921007/

Is it all posturing by Memphis? It felt like Fresno State was posturing just a few months ago, but the Big12 didn't come out and deny everything as forcefully as we did with Memphis. Then we have UConn where all sides seem to confirm the discussions. The 3 are all so different within how the story is getting told and I find it all very strange.

The thing is, BY didn't deny being in Memphis. He denied Meeting with anyone "at Memphis" about a Big 12 move or being on campus. It's quite possible he was in Memphis for personal reasons, if he was there. Maybe talking to FedEx about sponsorships...?

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

People have to look at this situation just like looking to change jobs. Many are not going to switch or make a lateral move unless the money and time makes it worth their while to do so.

How much more money will it take to pry Colorado and Arizona away from the Pac 12 only they can say, but one would have to think it will have to 5 to 10 million more per year to make up for the amount of travel they are going to be forced to endure to the games. Less than 5 million, they are staying put. It was a no brainer for USC and UCLA to move when they could double at least their TV revenue.

Colorado and Arizona have to be wondering is there a deal on the table that will come close to what the B12 already has locked in, and without that, they are starting to look at alternatives. The longer this goes on, the more pressure the P12 commish will be under, and schools that have a choice will be looking to jump. Without at least two of the P12 switching, it would be silly for the B12 to expand to other schools. Gonzaga and UConn or not going anywhere, and the conference can afford to play the waiting game.

 

[Gunnerclone]

People have to look at this situation just like looking to change jobs. Many are not going to switch or make a lateral move unless the money and time makes it worth their while to do so.

How much more money will it take to pry Colorado and Arizona away from the Pac 12 only they can say, but one would have to think it will have to 5 to 10 million more per year to make up for the amount of travel they are going to be forced to endure to the games. Less than 5 million, they are staying put. It was a no brainer for USC and UCLA to move when they could double at least their TV revenue.

Colorado and Arizona have to be wondering is there a deal on the table that will come close to what the B12 already has locked in, and without that, they are starting to look at alternatives. The longer this goes on, the more pressure the P12 commish will be under, and schools that have a choice will be looking to jump. Without at least two of the P12 switching, it would be silly for the B12 to expand to other schools. Gonzaga and UConn or not going anywhere, and the conference can afford to play the waiting game.

If their TV deal comes in at 27 million and they go to unequal sharing everywhere else, that’s turning down a 20% raise. Not even close to a “lateral” move which would be “lateral” and not have a raise at all.

 

[CascadeClone]

Once the TV rights for the 12 team playoff go out to open media bidding, how the schools structure payout structure could be eye opening.

• Do schools match what is done with the NCAA Basketball Tournament and TV money is awarded to conferences based on # of teams in their conference who get one of the twelve spots?
• Do schools jettison G5 from the 12 team playoff and they are forced to create a separate division like FCS. That could be hundreds of millions of incremental money to CFP conferences.
• Do Playoff teams earn a significant payout (aka $25-$50M) based on advancement. With the 4 team playoff a school's conference receives $6M and there is no additional payment if a school wins their semi-final round or championship game. Note: the 4 playoff schools do receive around $3M to cover expenses.

As fans we spend a lot of time focused on the Conference media deals: Big10- $1B annually, Big12- $380M annually, etc. Whereas the 11 game CFP is projected to generate $2B annually. It will become the football elites piggy bank filled with gold.

Great questions and you are dead on. This is a huge cash grab and everyone is stepping up to the $2B trough and it is going to be sharp elbows.

I think:
1. there will be Great Compromise where some % is shared equally by conference, and the balance is shares per team invited. Obviously the P2 will want more of the latter, but I don't think it will be all one way or the other.
2. They won't boot the G5 entirely because they want it to appear inclusive - and it adds a lot for the talking heads to hype up about all year long. It also adds viewers for otherwise "meh" games between G5 teams. But I could see G5 may only get 1/6th of the "conferences equally" percentage; or they might only get that if someone qualifies at all. E.g. if the "conferences equal" share is 50%, and the G5 gets 1/6th of it -- that's $166M! All the P5 will absolutely look for ways to rig the system to limit what the G5 gets and keep it for themselves.
3. I don't think they will do greater shares for victories per se. But I could see maybe a slice of the overall pot set aside to pay per game for "expenses" that would then be a "very healthy" ie way more than expenses. The P2 would want this, assuming they will win more games and this is a way to get more. And of course, individual conferences could split this largess anyway they want, and pay more shares to teams that actually go (hidden unequal revenue).

As an example of the whole thing:
$100M for travel costs (11 games = 22 teams -> ~$5M each)
$600M for conferences (P5+G5 = $100 per conference)
$1.2B for participant shares ($100M per team, to the conference)

In that set up, if every conference got 1 team, but the SEC/B1G each got 4... they would get $540M and each other conference about $210M. If you change it to 50/50 equal/participant, then you narrow that gap by about $75M from the P2 to the others.

 

[CascadeClone]

If their TV deal comes in at 27 million and they go to unequal sharing everywhere else, that’s turning down a 20% raise. Not even close to a “lateral” move which would be “lateral” and not have a raise at all.

$5M difference minus increased travel costs. Institutional inertia is a hell of a thing. it wouldn't be hard to justify the lower number if they want to.

 

[Gunnerclone]

$5M difference minus increased travel costs. Institutional inertia is a hell of a thing. it wouldn't be hard to justify the lower number if they want to.

I have yet to see numbers on just how big of an increase the travel number would actually be. Per the interview with KU AD on HCS podcast, they don’t so much care about travel costs (it’s all relatively similar, a flight from Denver to Pittsburgh vs a flight from Denver to LA is minimal in the grand scheme) as much as it’s about how it affects arrival times and getting everyone to class the next day.

 

[Nolaeer]

There is a very real risk, as I stated earlier in the thread, to sign some crappy 6 year GOR if you are a 4 corner school.

in 6 years, the ACC may(probably will) unravel. The buyout will be manageable enough for the BIG to risk it to grab UNC and UVA. SEC grabs clemson/fsu. Oregon and wash may be off to the BIG.

so then the big 12 might add a 4-corner school, or they might not. There could be miami, nc state, g tech, louisville, pitt, VT as competition.

maybe colo and az are taken by big 12 but utah and arz state are not.
where can utah and arz state go then?

 

[2speedy1]

$5M difference minus increased travel costs. Institutional inertia is a hell of a thing. it wouldn't be hard to justify the lower number if they want to.

Looking at the distances in the Pac 10. I am not sure there is that much of a travel difference for CU, AZ, and AZst, than would be to most of the Big 12. Especially if they dont go to WVU and UCF as often and do some sort of regional pods/rivals. But then you have to look at how far it is for them to go to UW, and WSU.

If all 4 corners end up coming to the Big 12, their closest Pac 10 teams would all remain together and they would be as close or closer to most of the Big 12 as the rest of the Pac 10. Utah would have a bit of a travel increase but the other 3 would be similar.

 

[nfrine]

EIU was also the only school that chose to list 3 rivals they wanted to play each year, so they have put themselves in that box of little flexibility.

tOSU and PSU opted to not list each other as a protected rival, one less guaranteed slobberknocker every season. There were strategic reasons to opt for protected rivalries and to not opt for them.

ToE wanted protected rival status for all the current B1G West...

 

[HouClone]

maybe colo and az are taken by big 12 but utah and arz state are not.
where can utah and arz state go then?

Hopefully to the Mountain West.

ASU, at least from the ASU AD, doesn't look like they have any inclination to move to the Big 12.

Utah fans are justifying the Pac media rights delay as "right on schedule" and have been bashing the Big 12. A Utah "insider" has got their fans fired up that he has a source say $33 million per school for the new media deal.

One rumor that has floated around the Utah forum is that Fox will be in play with the Pac but with the Pac providing their Pac Network distribution and announcers. The Pac Network provided about $11.3 million per school in revenue - but $8 million in expenses for $3.3 million profit. And that is how the Pac may PR this media deal, "we'll beat the Big 12's number", by not factoring in Pac Network expenses if it is used. Canzano and Mandel didn't even mention the Pac Network expenses last week when touting last year's Pac media revenue.