Obviously super conferences are coming. The ACC GOR is the only thing preventing that from happening tomorrow. What if the SEC puts the middle finger to the sky and just adds the entire ACC? We're at 30 teams now. What are you going to do B1G?

We become the AFL vs the NFL (pre-merger) overnight.

Edit to add: ESPN owns both the SEC and the ACC. Makes this very easy to do. The SEC gets to send a message to the B1G and ESPN gets to tell Fox to shove it all in one fell swoop. I think a slow picking off of the ACC makes for better football, but 14 years left on that GOR is a tough hurdle to jump

Quote:

---

What if the SEC puts the middle finger to the sky and just adds the entire ACC? We're at 30 teams now. What are you going to do B1G?

---

You understand that ESPN bought all the rights to the SEC. And that the ACC grant of rights is tied to their deal with ESPN.

So, cute, but the SEC ain't pointing one damn finger on that front, and certainly not the middle, without the daddy money doing it?

The SEC can run to Apple, Amazon, Netflix.

Fox (all in on Big10, sat in on every meeting, very well reported.)

CBS (who we just walked away from, bc we the deal was so bad and the treatment or was more terrible).

And daddy money ESPN's deal with the SEC opens up soon, but not theirs with the ACC for 14 more years.

So, lawyers and conglomerates can do a lot of things.

But, the SEC conference is not doing one damn thing, on next moves, without the ESPN lawyers/money boys saying yea.

Might be talking past each other here. By SEC putting up the middle finger, I meant the SEC and ESPN putting up the middle finger to the B1G and Fox. Both of our parties have an interest in screwing both of the other parties. So rather than poaching the ACC (which is near impossible with the GOR), ESPN brokers a deal between the two conference to combine. Bypass the poaching and the waiting games. Go straight to 30 and make the B1G and Fox figure out how to respond.

Quote:

---

Edit to add: ESPN owns both the SEC and the ACC. Makes this very easy to do. The SEC gets to send a message to the B1G and ESPN gets to tell Fox to shove it all in one fell swoop

---

But like you understand, this all will be a multi-billion dollar business deal.

On no uncertain terms.

Made by adults, who, are paid a lot to get the best deals for their employer. Their predecessors were too, and blundered.

But no one is brokering this one, which will be the biggest in "non professional" sports, to "send a message" or "tell them to shove it" or "throw a middle finger in the air".

Like you understand the stakes, other than the hurt feelings and all the whatnot, right?

That is completely incoherent. Sorry if I'm using shorthand and slang terms? I guess? Literally have no idea what point you're trying to make so let me be clear:

ESPN has a multi billion dollar interest in the ACC. It has a multi billion dollar interest in the SEC. Both the SEC and the ACC have multi billion dollar interests in themselves. When weighted against one another, it is clear the SEC is the more valuable brand. This has been made clear by the recent tv deal and the recent additions of OU and Texas, both of whom were rumored to have flirted with the ACC and B1G.

Enter the B1G and Fox. They are trying to make a massive move to position themselves as the preeminent conference, as taking USC and UCLA all but guarantees 2-4 other schools (Oregon, Washington, Utah, Colorado as the most likely) follow suit. All of a sudden the first 16 team conference is behind the 8 ball by 2-4 teams. This is important because of the rumored "alliance" and the impression that the SEC is rather despised by the other conferences. So how could one head this off?

One could attempt to remove 2-4 teams from the ACC and go head to head with the B1G expansion, but this would be incredibly difficult as the ACC has a GOR in place until 2036. How could the 2-4 teams and the SEC get around this?? If only there was a common financier to broker such a deal. That would be swell.

Hence the reason I broach the topic of "the SEC" "putting up the middle finger" to "the B1G" by "adding" the ACC. If you need me to be precise, perhaps I should add a definitions page similar to a legal contract. I would hope it's quite obvious that there would be numerous decision makers all looking out for #1 and the shortest path to making all of those overinflated egos happy is just joining forces in total, rather than fighting against on another. No one gets left out and you're so far ahead of the B1G and Fox that you leave them in a state where they have to respond with a major move, all while the available options are all unattractive. Especially since the geographical distances are immense. The 4 mentioned above to get to 20 are great but who are the other 10? The raiding of the bottoms dweller PAC and Big 12 are not going to do much for you, all while covering 66% of the land mass of the USA. The SEC/ACC are in the drivers seat, and someone could stand to profit!!! If only there was a common financier to help the SEC and ACC make this work!!! How incredible would that be!?!? What ho? ESPN owns the network right for both, you say?

I do sincerely hope this is formal enough for you, encompasses enough of the formalities and profitability concerns that all associated representatives of all parties involved are duty bound to bring to the table. Please forgive me if I didn't do my due diligence in spelling it all out. Silly me for thinking that posting in shorthand would suffice for the football board on such a busy day. Please accept my most humble of apologies. I do hope I have not offended thee too much.

All that said: yah, I think a big move is in order to counter the B1G's move and a total merger of two power conferences bypasses all of the drama of picking off the ACC. There are articles about their GOR not being all that solid, but if all 14 schools sign the richest deal ever, I'm betting they'll amend the GOR.

That was 22,000 words to defend your very stupidly worded initial post.

If ESPN wants to move some teams from the ACC, that's their deal. They have to tear up their contract to let the ACC schools tear up theirs with the conference. That's the deal.

Would ESPN, today, absolutely love a conference that includes games of A&M/Texas/OU/Bama/Georgia/LSU/Tennessee/Auburn/Florida/Clemson/Florida State/Miami/UNC/Duke(bball)?

Yes, 1000%, all the billions would flow.

Until the bottom feeders not mentioned aren't involved, you have no different situation.

You get headlines for 2 minutes.

But a 30 team league, and don't forget, in our current much smaller league, we've yet to play Georgia at home, gets you A&M/Virginia, Wake Forrest/Kentucky, Duke/Miss State, etc.

Nobody is paying a dime, and probably would be paying less than they currently are, to watch any of that.

So, other than "throwing the middle finger up", "sending a message" "making a statement", all that you said, why would ESPN, who controls the entire ACC for the next decade, go from 2 leagues to 1, have to pay more by ripping up the contract (which the top ACC schools would love), but would require paying more to the bottom feeders to make that situation go away, want to end up in a 30 team combination (but generally the exact same types of games)?

20ag07 said:

---

That was 22,000 words to defend your very stupidly worded initial post.

If ESPN wants to move some teams from the ACC, that's their deal. They have to tear up their contract to let the ACC schools tear up theirs with the conference. That's the deal.

Would ESPN, today, absolutely love a conference that includes games of A&M/Texas/OU/Bama/Georgia/LSU/Tennessee/Auburn/Florida/Clemson/Florida State/Miami/UNC/Duke(bball)?

Yes, 1000%, all the billions would flow.

Until the bottom feeders not mentioned aren't involved, you have no different situation.

You get headlines for 2 minutes.

But a 30 team league, and don't forget, in our current much smaller league, we've yet to play Georgia at home, gets you A&M/Virginia, Wake Forrest/Kentucky, Duke/Miss State, etc.

Nobody is paying a dime, and probably would be paying less than they currently are, to watch any of that.

So, other than "throwing the middle finger up", "sending a message" "making a statement", all that you said, why would ESPN, who controls the entire ACC for the next decade, go from 2 leagues to 1, have to pay more by ripping up the contract (which the top ACC schools would love), but would require paying more to the bottom feeders to make that situation go away, want to end up in a 30 team combination (but generally the exact same types of games)?

---

Huh? What??? That's not the deal- that's tortious interference.

ESPN signed a TV contract with the ACC. Do you think there's a clause in there that just says "ESPN can back out of this contract and tear it up whenever they feel like it"???? That's not how that works at all. There wouldn't even be a point of having a contract.

Even if that was possible, the ACC still owns all 14 of those schools media rights. That's what a grant of rights is. It's literally in the name. The schools are granting the conference their media rights for a certain amount of time. This enables the conference to go out and negotiate deals with TV networks using the media rights it now owns for that period of time. ESPN trying to help those schools get out of their grant of rights with the ACC is tortious interference. We literally went through all of this a year ago with sip and OU.

First I use too simplistic of language. Then I over explain. Sorry? I guess?

Simple terms are as such: he who has the gold makes the rules. The B1G will be at 20 by 2024. They could go bigger. That means they have more bargaining power and more money, plain and simple. They now get to make the rules going forward

The SEC wants to head them off. Where do they get the schools? The only logical choice is the ACC, as the remains PAC and Big 12 schools aren't worth much at all. But as you've noted, there's an expensive piece of paper to rip up to get those ACC schools. How could they avoid that cost? Maybe, since they represent both the SEC and the ACC, they could broker a deal that gets them all together. Then they would own a singular league with half of the power 5 teams and 16 of the past 17 national champions. The reduced overhead of running two parallel networks would allow for them to eat the additional payment to each school.

Meanwhile, they have amassed the maximum amount of power any conference and network can possibly have. They have a voting block of 30 schools. The only way for the B1G to match that is to add scrubs from the pac and big 12. So they add schools no one pays attention to (similar to Wake, BC, Syracuse, etc) BUT they are covering 4 time zones and 66% of the country's land mass. Again, overhead kills Fox here.

Long story short, someone is going to determine the future of college football. That someone will be the entity with the most assets. If ESPN wants to sit around and wait until 2036, they will find themselves out of luck. If ESPN can position their assets in the most strategic way possible, they have a free shot at the evntual minor league being created. Fox won't be able to compete.

My strong preference is for the SEC to pilfer the ACC for the 4-8 schools worth adding. Last thing I want is the matchups you mentioned. But if the valuable ACC teams can't get out in a timely manner, this could be the bridge that keeps the SEC and ESPN on top (hence the middle finger). Money matters but power to shape what comes next is much more important.

Insert WTF gif

Rookies... we all had to start somewhere I guess?!?

a big move is not in order from SEC. they made a big move already with tu & OU. B16 made a move in response, and it was not nearly as big.

Like it or not, Ohio state is always going to be around. They basically anchor that area of the country's interest in college football.

ESPN owning the rights doesn't make it easy. I'm sure their preference would be to combine but only after dropping some of the dead weight. There is a lot of it in the ACC.

It sure makes it easier. The deadweight is going to get paid either way:

1. Pay them until 2036 while your conference falls 40-50 million per year behind in revenue

2. Pay them to let you leave (if you're the desirable programs)

3. Just bring them on and pay them in the new conference.

It all hinges if the B1G and what they do, but they decide to go to 18 or 20, all the entities (SEC, ACC and ESPN) will have to be ok falling behind for a decade.

Quote:

---

It all hinges if the B1G and what they do, but they decide to go to 18 or 20, all the entities (SEC, ACC and ESPN) will have to be ok falling behind for a decade.

---

And those 3 entities won't do that in any way.

The ACC sold their souls cheap to ESPN, so they are sitting.

ESPN was actively working to vaporize the Big12, like this is documented, before the Big10/Fox flex.

The SEC flexed with TX/OU, and was already working on stuff bc the Big10 getting more money per school than us in their newest deal, before USC/UCLA, was untenable.

With what Fox and the Big10 did, ESPN will flex again, doing something that might include blowing up the ACC.

ESPN and the SEC are not going to be OK falling behind for a decade.

What's the point of a 30 team
Conference When you won't play teams for years on end?

Might as well just not have any conferences and just have 1 big league where you play the same 3 or 4 teams every year and rotate through the other 120

Obviously breaking up the ACC is the better route. No one knows how iron clad the GOR is. Not saying they WANT 30. Just that going to 30 would help things move smoothly if necessary