Are UNC and UVA the perfect schools for expansion?

[Chilmonty]

I think the SEC should bring any good schools they want, rename the conference the SECAA, create our own National championships and playoffs, and tell the NCAA to GTFO!!!



.

 

[TrueOrange]

Glad I jumped ahead as this is what I was going to add.

Expansion between BCS schools is done for now. If UNC or UVA wanted to move, they have to pay the ACC $50mil and also give the ACC all their media money for the next 6 years. And that doesn't address the fact that neither school would want to leave the ACC for what they consider an academically inferior conference in the SEC.

And without those media rights for that long, they're not really worth much to a new conference (or things such as conference networks, etc).

 

[bamawriter]

I think it's debatable if WVU would be in worse shape financially if they had stayed in the AAC, especially if they continue losing in football.

That said, Oliver Luck is no dummy, and I think showing a "loss" is a ploy to get more travel concessions from the B12. He's really, really good at what he does.

With the AAC's expansion, WVU was going to run into the travel expense issue whether they stayed or left. At least the Big XII has a decent payout to offset some of those costs. I'm not good enough at math to even attempt to break it all down, but logically, it seems impossible that WVU isn't making out better in the Big XII than they would have had they been stuck in the AAC.

 

[TrueOrange]

I agree to an extent. But TV deals can be reworked, and conference contracts are only good as long as the conference exists. If the Big 10, Big XII, and SEC all decide that they want to get to sixteen teams by raiding the ACC, then the ACC's grant of rights is worth nothing.

The thing with this idea though is that you're asking for 3 conferences - that compete with each other in just about every aspect, the people in charge of which seem to dislike each other, and have quite a bit of difficulty even working together on past goals - to come together for such a fairly quick and coordinated move (one they also know might benefit some of them more than others)


It kind of seems almost prisoner's dilemma...and those don't tend to play out that way.

 

[TrueOrange]

And that's where you're wrong. As it was written, that grant of rights says that anything that remains of an ACC would retain TV rights to those departed schools, even if it was Duke and Wake Forest building around themselves. There were a lot of schools that wanted security, and they got it.

But that's beside the point. Without a conference network, which the Longhorn Network specifically forbids, the Big 12 isn't expanding, there's not TV money value in doing so. ESPN is likely going to get in-market rates for the SEC Network in North Carolina, which makes expansion there no more profitable. The animosity that the Big Ten created within the ACC makes it very unlikely that any of those schools would be receptive for overtures.

There is also plenty of debate whether Maryland will actually profit from their move. Much of the money they (and Rutgers) were "guaranteed" is based on projected revenue increases for the B10 Network by getting in-state rates and additional advertising dollars in Maryland and New York/New Jersey. So far, those increases haven't materialized. They won't materialize until BTN carriage agreements come up fore renewal, which will be years in some markets and with some companies. It will take years for Maryland to make up the money in TV revenue that they are losing to the exit fee and increased travel costs. Additional travel costs from the move to the Big 12 caused West Virginia to lose money last year, and they're projected to do so again.

Also agreed.


What are your thoughts regarding the Maryland court case and the top paragraph though? It's the only thing I could possibly see reopening expansion, but even then I'm not sure how likely such a ruling would be.

Fire Up The Realignment Talk: Maryland Claims The ACC - With The Help Of ESPN - Tried To Swipe 2 Big Ten Schools - MrSEC.com | SEC Football News | SEC Basketball News | SEC Football Recruiting | SEC Basketball Recruiting

Remember that monster lawsuit between The University of Maryland and the Atlantic Coast Conference? Yeah, well it just got taken to another level.

To briefly summarize, Maryland and Rutgers are scheduled to join the Big Ten this summer. The ACC filed a $52 million suit against Maryland for jumping ship. The $52 mil would be the Terps’ exit fee. Already, the ACC has withheld $16 million in revenue from the school.

Maryland countersued. As in the state of Maryland countersued the ACC. And today, a new counterclaim was announced. Specifically, a $157 million counterclaim against John Swofford’s conference. According to Maryland attorney general Douglas Gansler, “Our lawsuit calls the ACC’s ‘exit fee’ what it really is: an antitrust violation and an illegal activity.”

This is all big news because future exit fees for schools leaving conferences could also be viewed as antitrust violations. If Maryland wins its case, suddenly the grant-of-rights agreements signed by leagues like the ACC and the Big 12 might not mean a thing. (For the record, the SEC has no exit fees, but almost all of the league’s media rights were handed over to ESPN as part of the new SEC Network deal.)

Today’s suit also contained a surprise. Maryland alleges that the ACC — with Wake Forest and Pittsburgh leading the way — attempted to recruit two unnamed Big Ten schools into the ACC. Call it a “Terp-for-tat” move. It’s also claimed that none other than ESPN provided “counsel and direction” to the ACC in its attempts to fend off losses and instead grow. With Pittsburgh involved, Penn State is believed to have been one of the two schools the ACC chased, but neither Big Ten school will be officially identified until court proceedings ramp up.

ESPN’s involvement should surprise no one. The network has deals with just about every conference in the country. ESPN is partnered with the Big 12 (including an individual deal with Texas), the SEC (in a big way and growing), the Pac-12, and both the ACC and Big Ten.

ESPN owns the first-, second-, and third-tier media rights for the ACC through 2026-27. They own first-tier rights to the Big Ten through 2016-17.

That’s where things get messy. When the Big Ten chose to add Maryland and Rutgers — moves clearly made for television purposes — it stands to reason they consulted with both FOX (who co-owns the Big Ten Network) and ESPN. ESPN was likely aware of — if not pushing for — a raid of the ACC for Maryland.

But if the claims made today are to be believed, ESPN then turned around and told the ACC who to go after in the Big Ten in order to stabilize itself after Maryland’s departure. So ESPN was more than involved. It appears the network was playing puppeteer for both leagues. Surprising? No. Folks have been calling ESPN the man behind the curtain for years. But that doesn’t make these latest claims any less slimy. We’re talking about two leagues trying to lure schools from one another within a few months time all directed — allegedly — by the same adviser, ESPN.

Our question: How do any conference commissioners or university presidents trust their business partner, ESPN, to provide them with honest, sound advice when the network has its own interests in every contract, deal and move?

 

[bamawriter]

The thing with this idea though is that you're asking for 3 conferences - that compete with each other in just about every aspect, the people in charge of which seem to dislike each other, and have quite a bit of difficulty even working together on past goals - to come together for such a fairly quick and coordinated move (one they also know might benefit some of them more than others)


It kind of seems almost prisoner's dilemma...and those don't tend to play out that way.

I agree when it comes to the Big 10. But post-A&M/Mizzou, the SEC and the Big XII have developed a fairly solid working relationship. Starting with the Sugar Bowl contract, they've been of the same mind on most issues. Most notably, they worked together to make sure that the new playoff would be top 4 rather than conference champs.

 

[TrueOrange]

With the AAC's expansion, WVU was going to run into the travel expense issue whether they stayed or left. At least the Big XII has a decent payout to offset some of those costs. I'm not good enough at math to even attempt to break it all down, but logically, it seems impossible that WVU isn't making out better in the Big XII than they would have had they been stuck in the AAC.

They have stability, which really might have been all they were looking for. (Seemed at the time like they thought their conference was a sinking ship.)

 

[TrueOrange]

I agree when it comes to the Big 10. But post-A&M/Mizzou, the SEC and the Big XII have developed a fairly solid working relationship. Starting with the Sugar Bowl contract, they've been of the same mind on most issues. Most notably, they worked together to make sure that the new playoff would be top 4 rather than conference champs.

True, but you're still asking all 3 to work together on a move that might have to be relatively quick and coordinated (possibly without looking like it). It takes them all forever just to agree on simple rules and changes alone (and while they all eventually got the playoff agreement done...it took a while with a lot of back and forth seeming to intentionally be publicly announced or leaked).


The SEC seems though like it could also be trying to stabilize the ACC in a similar manner as well.




I also wanted to ask you about about a post that got buried in my flurry of responses:

Could you define "near future"? If you mean within the next 3 years, then I'd agree. If you mean within the next decade, I don't.

Are you one expecting for the Maryland case to null the grant of rights?

 

[bamawriter]

True, but you're still asking all 3 to work together on a move that might have to be relatively quick and coordinated (possibly without looking like it). It takes them all forever just to agree on simple rules and changes alone (and while they all eventually got the playoff agreement done...it took a while with a lot of back and forth seeming to intentionally be publicly announced or leaked).


The SEC seems though like it could also be trying to stabilize the ACC in a similar manner as well.

You are correct that it would take a level of agreement far beyond what we've seen in a long time, if ever.

I also wanted to ask you about about a post that got buried in my flurry of responses:





Are you one expecting for the Maryland case to null the grant of rights?

No, I don't think it will. I think only a full-fledged disbanding of the conference will do the trick.

The Maryland case seems to have little to nothing to do with the GoR. The GoR was signed after Maryland put in their notice. UM is fighting the 50+ million dollar exit fee that they didn't sign on to after Pitt and Syracuse joined the ACC.

 

[TrueOrange]

To post it again, they did file a countersuit a while back though. That's the case I'm talking about:

Remember that monster lawsuit between The University of Maryland and the Atlantic Coast Conference? Yeah, well it just got taken to another level.

To briefly summarize, Maryland and Rutgers are scheduled to join the Big Ten this summer. The ACC filed a $52 million suit against Maryland for jumping ship. The $52 mil would be the Terps’ exit fee. Already, the ACC has withheld $16 million in revenue from the school.

Maryland countersued. As in the state of Maryland countersued the ACC. And today, a new counterclaim was announced. Specifically, a $157 million counterclaim against John Swofford’s conference. According to Maryland attorney general Douglas Gansler, “Our lawsuit calls the ACC’s ‘exit fee’ what it really is: an antitrust violation and an illegal activity.”

This is all big news because future exit fees for schools leaving conferences could also be viewed as antitrust violations. If Maryland wins its case, suddenly the grant-of-rights agreements signed by leagues like the ACC and the Big 12 might not mean a thing. (For the record, the SEC has no exit fees, but almost all of the league’s media rights were handed over to ESPN as part of the new SEC Network deal.)

Today’s suit also contained a surprise. Maryland alleges that the ACC — with Wake Forest and Pittsburgh leading the way — attempted to recruit two unnamed Big Ten schools into the ACC. Call it a “Terp-for-tat” move. It’s also claimed that none other than ESPN provided “counsel and direction” to the ACC in its attempts to fend off losses and instead grow. With Pittsburgh involved, Penn State is believed to have been one of the two schools the ACC chased, but neither Big Ten school will be officially identified until court proceedings ramp up.

ESPN’s involvement should surprise no one. The network has deals with just about every conference in the country. ESPN is partnered with the Big 12 (including an individual deal with Texas), the SEC (in a big way and growing), the Pac-12, and both the ACC and Big Ten.

ESPN owns the first-, second-, and third-tier media rights for the ACC through 2026-27. They own first-tier rights to the Big Ten through 2016-17.

That’s where things get messy. When the Big Ten chose to add Maryland and Rutgers — moves clearly made for television purposes — it stands to reason they consulted with both FOX (who co-owns the Big Ten Network) and ESPN. ESPN was likely aware of — if not pushing for — a raid of the ACC for Maryland.

But if the claims made today are to be believed, ESPN then turned around and told the ACC who to go after in the Big Ten in order to stabilize itself after Maryland’s departure. So ESPN was more than involved. It appears the network was playing puppeteer for both leagues. Surprising? No. Folks have been calling ESPN the man behind the curtain for years. But that doesn’t make these latest claims any less slimy. We’re talking about two leagues trying to lure schools from one another within a few months time all directed — allegedly — by the same adviser, ESPN.

Our question: How do any conference commissioners or university presidents trust their business partner, ESPN, to provide them with honest, sound advice when the network has its own interests in every contract, deal and move?

That said, I don't expect the court to rule in favor of it since, again, it's just their trying to get out of exit fees. Were the countersuit to win though, it'd very well could make everything into such a mess again.

 

[bamawriter]

To post it again, they did file a countersuit a while back though. That's the case I'm talking about:



That said, I don't expect the court to rule in favor of it since, again, it's just their trying to get out of exit fees. Were the countersuit to win though, it'd very well could make everything into such a mess again.

It could make things pretty chaotic if the court rules that conference exit requirements violate anti-trust laws. That would negate both fees and GoRs.

But like you said, the court doesn't need to make that finding in order to grant Maryland relief from the exit fee.

 

[HuntlandVolinColo]

UNC, VT, OK, Duke, WV and maybe NCST. Pick two.

 

[HuntlandVolinColo]

I wouldn't cry about Baylor or Clemson either but we have those TV markets already.

 

[VOLinNC]

Now that I live in eastern N.C. My chooses would be
1st. UNC and UVA
2nd. NC State and VT
With both teams joining the SEC east and put Mizzou in the west where it makes sense

 

[Vol8188]

Now that I live in eastern N.C. My chooses would be
1st. UNC and UVA
2nd. NC State and VT
With both teams joining the SEC east and put Mizzou in the west where it makes sense

Where at? I'm in Goldsboro and work in Johnston county.

 

[TrueOrange]

UNC, VT, OK, Duke, WV and maybe NCST. Pick two.

Take out WVU and you're good.


Actually, probably take out OU as well unless one feels the baggage (Ok state) is also worth it (...it's not).

 

[DeerPark12]

Regarding the Maryland lawsuit against the ACC, very few people expect that to have any sort of traction. A ploy to try and get out from under some of the exit fee (which they agreed to).

 

[GVF]

Ill tell you what dip****. I am family friends w 2 members of the board of visitors and I will be on the floor with them this Saturday for the Syracuse game. Ill ask them the question and when they laugh their asses off at the idea I will get a recording of it an email it to you.

1. Pretty lame to call out bamawriter like that.

2. WTF is the Board of Visitors? Is that the governing body of Walmart greeters?

3. You should have saved your intelligence. It would have grown some more come the spring bloom, with proper nutrition and watering of course.

 

[volinSmyrna]

I do NOT want UNC in the SEC!!! How many athletes have we pulled from NC over time? You put an SEC school in that state, and watch that pipeline dry up!

Since we're playing Fantasyland, my two would be Maryland and Louisville. I think Maryland is a no brainer since it would bring the D.C. market as well.

 

[GVF]

And that's where you're wrong. As it was written, that grant of rights says that anything that remains of an ACC would retain TV rights to those departed schools, even if it was Duke and Wake Forest building around themselves. There were a lot of schools that wanted security, and they got it.

But that's beside the point. Without a conference network, which the Longhorn Network specifically forbids, the Big 12 isn't expanding, there's not TV money value in doing so. ESPN is likely going to get in-market rates for the SEC Network in North Carolina, which makes expansion there no more profitable. The animosity that the Big Ten created within the ACC makes it very unlikely that any of those schools would be receptive for overtures.

There is also plenty of debate whether Maryland will actually profit from their move. Much of the money they (and Rutgers) were "guaranteed" is based on projected revenue increases for the B10 Network by getting in-state rates and additional advertising dollars in Maryland and New York/New Jersey. So far, those increases haven't materialized. They won't materialize until BTN carriage agreements come up fore renewal, which will be years in some markets and with some companies. It will take years for Maryland to make up the money in TV revenue that they are losing to the exit fee and increased travel costs. Additional travel costs from the move to the Big 12 caused West Virginia to lose money last year, and they're projected to do so again.

Chasing the NY/NJ media market in terms of football revenue seems quite narrow minded from any angle. Who, pray tell in collegiate football, is even a formidable presence in that market? Rutgers? Syracuse? That is all. NY/NJ media markets in major college sports is only appealing in BB.

 

[gnm53108]

I do NOT want UNC in the SEC!!! How many athletes have we pulled from NC over time? You put an SEC school in that state, and watch that pipeline dry up!

Since we're playing Fantasyland, my two would be Maryland and Louisville. I think Maryland is a no brainer since it would bring the D.C. market as well.

We've pulled far more from GA and FL than NC.

 

[bamawriter]

Regarding the Maryland lawsuit against the ACC, very few people expect that to have any sort of traction. A ploy to try and get out from under some of the exit fee (which they agreed to).

Maryland is claiming that they didn't agree to it, and that they put in their notice prior to the new fee taking effect. I'm not familiar enough with the case to know if either of those arguments have merit.

 

[TrueOrange]

Chasing the NY/NJ media market in terms of football revenue seems quite narrow minded from any angle. Who, pray tell in collegiate football, is even a formidable presence in that market? Rutgers? Syracuse? That is all. NY/NJ media markets in major college sports is only appealing in BB.

I've been told Notre Dame does.

 

[DeerPark12]

Chasing the NY/NJ media market in terms of football revenue seems quite narrow minded from any angle. Who, pray tell in collegiate football, is even a formidable presence in that market? Rutgers? Syracuse? That is all. NY/NJ media markets in major college sports is only appealing in BB.

You're completely misunderstanding my point there. It's not about revenue in terms of pulling actual fans into events. They could care less whether anyone in the market ever attends an event.

It's about having enough of a presence in the market through Rutgers to get top-tier distribution of the Big Ten Network in the market at the top-tier rate of over $1.00/month per cable home. Time Warner cable alone has 11 million cable homes in New York state. BTN currently gets about 5 cents per cable home per month. Increasing that to $1/month is game-changing for the Big Ten. That's over $130 million/year for the conference, just from Time Warner in New York. There's another 2 million cable homes in New Jersey.

Even if they eventually only negotiate for an increased rate of $0.50/subscriber, that's over $60 million a year, which is also game-changing money. That's what it's about.

 

[bamawriter]

You're completely misunderstanding my point there. It's not about revenue in terms of pulling actual fans into events. They could care less whether anyone in the market ever attends an event.

It's about having enough of a presence in the market through Rutgers to get top-tier distribution of the Big Ten Network in the market at the top-tier rate of over $1.00/month per cable home. Time Warner cable alone has 11 million cable homes in New York state. BTN currently gets about 5 cents per cable home per month. Increasing that to $1/month is game-changing for the Big Ten. That's over $130 million/year for the conference, just from Time Warner in New York. There's another 2 million cable homes in New Jersey.

Even if they eventually only negotiate for an increased rate of $0.50/subscriber, that's over $60 million a year, which is also game-changing money. That's what it's about.

You are spot on. The per subscriber rate is exactly what this is about.

But I don't think Rutgers gets them the NYC market. To justify an increase from $0.05 to $0.50 woud at least logically suggest that the presence of Rutgers in the Big 10 would increase the likelihood of the typical NYC subscriber watching the BTN 10 fold. That's completely absurd.

I'm sure that the Big 10 isn't arguing a direct correlation between viewership and rate, but I still think that anywhere close to that rate hike is absurd. The only school that I think could justify anything close is Notre Dame.

If a company like Time Warner agrees to anything more than a 4 or 5 cent per subscriber hike, they are getting fleeced.