Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[BullyPulpit]

1 hour ago, Jim Johnson said:

I know a lot of what this guy says is just throwing **** against a wall to see what sticks, but this post raises an interesting theory that might have some merit.

In a previous replay here @Cubanbullsuggested the ACC teams might want to restructure their agreement with ESPN to provide a "tiered" payment plan. Something I've seen posted in various tweets as well.  Cuban's suggestion is the ACC would add teams now, which would allow the ESPN Agreement to be re-opened for such a restructure.

However, the Grant of Rights document specifically mention the "ESPN Agreement" as being what are covered.  The "rights" being "granted" are the rights associated with ESPN - that is any home sporting event.  But if the agreement is re-opened and a "new" one is signed, it would be fairly easy for lawyers to get out of the grant of rights, because the "rights" being "granted" were those associated with the "old" ESPN agreement. (Even if they are technically for the same thing).  

Now, I am not a lawyer nor to I play one on TV, it just seems to be that re-opening the ESPN agreement for any reason would severely jeopardize the Grant of Rights agreement.  Which means the ACC/Pac 12 - "loose alliance" would be no different than the one announced previously.

 

 

 

Your thoughts are most likely accurate. The GoR would almost assuredly be determined to be tied to the existing ESPN TV contract. Additionally, any team signing a reworked deal could make it clear that they are doing so only with the understanding that the GoR is off the table. 

I think the PAC and ACC's deal might be more than a loose alliance. I believe the idea is to tie the conference's media rights together in a meaningful way in order to have leverage with ESPN. The ACC schools likely want it reopened because they are being grossly underpaid and the PAC teams need something to bolster its position having lost its biggest market. 

[Jim Johnson]

18 minutes ago, BullyPulpit said:

Your thoughts are most likely accurate. The GoR would almost assuredly be determined to be tied to the existing ESPN TV contract. Additionally, any team signing a reworked deal could make it clear that they are doing so only with the understanding that the GoR is off the table. 

I think the PAC and ACC's deal might be more than a loose alliance. I believe the idea is to tie the conference's media rights together in a meaningful way in order to have leverage with ESPN. The ACC schools likely want it reopened because they are being grossly underpaid and the PAC teams need something to bolster its position having lost its biggest market. 

Yes, the ACC teams want to link media rights together with the Pac 12... which means Clemson and others will bolt for the SEC before the ink is dry on that deal... and UNC/UVa might bolt for the Big Ten, although that is less of a sure thing.

[BullyPulpit]

1 minute ago, Jim Johnson said:

Yes, the ACC teams want to link media rights together with the Pac 12... which means Clemson and others will bolt for the SEC before the ink is dry on that deal... and UNC/UVa might bolt for the Big Ten, although that is less of a sure thing.

It will be interesting to see. It's up to ESPN if they want to do that at this point. They might be happy to bask in the added attention of Texas and OU in the SEC for a few years before bringing FSU and Clemson onboard. Also, the B1G has made it pretty clear that they will only consider teams at this point that will increase the TV deal they are negotiating by at least their fair share. UNC might do that, but I don't think so, since football is what drives these contracts. I would think that Oregon would have more football value than UNC. I would equate Virginia to Washington. If the B1G didn't want Oregon and Washington, I'm not too sure they want UNC and Virginia at this point. 

Of course, Fox might look at the B1G taking UNC and UVA as a way to take inventory away from ESPN and hurt their ACC product overall, while the same drive isn't there right now with Oregon and Washington, as they don't have a TV partner in the future at this point. 

[Triple B]

51 minutes ago, GoBulls84 said:

Daaaaaang, 60 pages of moderated nonsense? 

Maybe we should have an Extended Version of the thread ... .......

[MaltLiquorBull]

Screw ESPN for ruining traditional college football rivalries by breaking up conferences.  The fans are the biggest losers in these deals.

[GoBulls84]

7 minutes ago, BullyPulpit said:

It will be interesting to see. It's up to ESPN if they want to do that at this point. They might be happy to bask in the added attention of Texas and OU in the SEC for a few years before bringing FSU and Clemson onboard. Also, the B1G has made it pretty clear that they will only consider teams at this point that will increase the TV deal they are negotiating by at least their fair share. UNC might do that, but I don't think so, since football is what drives these contracts. I would think that Oregon would have more football value than UNC. I would equate Virginia to Washington. If the B1G didn't want Oregon and Washington, I'm not too sure they want UNC and Virginia at this point. 

Of course, Fox might look at the B1G taking UNC and UVA as a way to take inventory away from ESPN and hurt their ACC product overall, while the same drive isn't there right now with Oregon and Washington, as they don't have a TV partner in the future at this point. 

I could see B1G taking UNC because A) they've shown potential in football before and could be an investment in potential growth there, and B) their basketball program is a national brand. Outside of that, I don't know if there are any other progrums in the ACC that would bring the value they're looking for with their new deal

4 minutes ago, Triple B said:

Maybe we should have an Extended Version of the thread ... .......

Unleash the Director's Cut! (But please God, not the Snyder Cut)

[NewEnglandBull]

13 minutes ago, BullyPulpit said:

It will be interesting to see. It's up to ESPN if they want to do that at this point. They might be happy to bask in the added attention of Texas and OU in the SEC for a few years before bringing FSU and Clemson onboard. Also, the B1G has made it pretty clear that they will only consider teams at this point that will increase the TV deal they are negotiating by at least their fair share. UNC might do that, but I don't think so, since football is what drives these contracts. I would think that Oregon would have more football value than UNC. I would equate Virginia to Washington. If the B1G didn't want Oregon and Washington, I'm not too sure they want UNC and Virginia at this point. 

Of course, Fox might look at the B1G taking UNC and UVA as a way to take inventory away from ESPN and hurt their ACC product overall, while the same drive isn't there right now with Oregon and Washington, as they don't have a TV partner in the future at this point. 

Really no one else can boost the B10 financially…it takes a school who can meet the $100m value each team will be getting. Will others in the conference take less in order to bring in a blue blood? 

3 minutes ago, GoBulls84 said:

I could see B1G taking UNC because A) they've shown potential in football before and could be an investment in potential growth there, and B) their basketball program is a national brand. Outside of that, I don't know if there are any other progrums in the ACC that would bring the value they're looking for with their new deal

Unleash the Director's Cut! (But please God, not the Snyder Cut)

Will the other schools in the B10 be willing to take a pay cut to do this? 

[BullyPulpit]

6 minutes ago, NewEnglandBull said:

Really no one else can boost the B10 financially…it takes a school who can meet the $100m value each team will be getting. Will others in the conference take less in order to bring in a blue blood? 

Will the other schools in the B10 be willing to take a pay cut to do this? 

I think it depends on what Fox wants and less about what the schools in the B1G desire. If Fox tells them they want UNC and, presumably, UVA in order to undermine the ACC and get more eyes and attention to the B1G, I think the B1G would have to do it. This isn't just about bringing value to the conference any longer, it is about consolidating and eliminating competition. Sometimes you have to pay a premium in order to acquire a competitor, and Fox might be willing to do that with the ACC teams. 

[Jim Johnson]

15 minutes ago, BullyPulpit said:

I think it depends on what Fox wants and less about what the schools in the B1G desire. If Fox tells them they want UNC and, presumably, UVA in order to undermine the ACC and get more eyes and attention to the B1G, I think the B1G would have to do it. This isn't just about bringing value to the conference any longer, it is about consolidating and eliminating competition. Sometimes you have to pay a premium in order to acquire a competitor, and Fox might be willing to do that with the ACC teams. 

UNC and Virginia are both flagship universities in the 10th and 11th largest states in the country... states with no current B1G or SEC teams.... which will men something to Fox.  They have the DC metro... but Virginia Beach, Richmond/Petersburg, Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham, Wilmington, and the other smaller MSAs (Lynchburg, Winchester, Greensboro, Winston-Salem).

From a brand perspective, Oregon and UNC might be about the same level.

[NewEnglandBull]

37 minutes ago, BullyPulpit said:

I think it depends on what Fox wants and less about what the schools in the B1G desire. If Fox tells them they want UNC and, presumably, UVA in order to undermine the ACC and get more eyes and attention to the B1G, I think the B1G would have to do it. This isn't just about bringing value to the conference any longer, it is about consolidating and eliminating competition. Sometimes you have to pay a premium in order to acquire a competitor, and Fox might be willing to do that with the ACC teams. 

We will see so far there is no evidence to that point.