With the PAC 12s media contract not going well could the talks of a merger start again? Would it be beneficial for the ACC to consider or is it just far fetched? I could see West Coast broadcasting being beneficial for the ACC Network. Maybe have a kickoff game in Vegas or Florida?

Highly doubt the ACC will want all 10. Adding say Cal, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon, maybe.

Maybe a football alliance disguised as a conference merger. I would not want FSU traveling to the West more than once a year., maybe no more than twice every 3 years.

Nope. You can't add two crappy conferences together and add them up to more money per school. If you have two rotten apples and I have two rotten apples, we can't pool them together for four good apples. It's still four rotten apples. The conferences are worst paid for actual reasons, none of which are fixed by jamming them together.

Any consolidation between the ACC and PAC that makes for an increased value needs to jettison a significant portion of the teams that aren't contributing to the media value of the conference. For every Clemson-Oregon game that might increase value, there's six Boston College-Cal type games that are dirt.

The only options that increase the value are theoretically:

- 2-4 teams from the PAC leaving the others behind to join the ACC, raising the average value of the ACC, which is probably not going to happen

- The reverse, with a few valuable ACC teams joining the PAC, which definitely isn't going to happen

- 6-8 most valuable teams in each conference leaving their respective conferences to form a new bicoastal conference with an average higher value. Also not going to happen.

I suppose it's possible that ESPN could add some money to make this happen purely as a stabilizing move against further B1G expansion, but like their other mostly symbolic increases (with the additions of Pitt/SU) the number will be small and accompanied with added years to the GOR. It wouldn't change anything about the intentions for schools like FSU, Clemson, Oregon, Washington, etc.

The Pac should have merged with the Big12 when they had the chance, it would have been so easy by moving Colorado to the Big12 division and have 18 members, 9 in each division. Both “conferences” would have likely be making close to what the ACC is making, perhaps more. But as I understand the Academia at these Pac schools would not go for it.

(02-03-2023 06:39 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Highly doubt the ACC will want all 10. Adding say Cal, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon, maybe.

There are two levels of possible incorporation.

1) Pilfer 4ish of the top teams
2) combine media rights while keeping separate conferences

Both require pacific teams agreeing to lock themselves away until 2036, which is against the best wishes of the most attractive teams.

The new Pac 12 is the least valuable P5 conference. No need to merge.

Washington and Oregon are cleary valuable for the ACC (but not valuable enough for BIG) in my opinion. I think a couple more schools are either marginal increase or revenue neutral. The ACC can try to add these schools. Alternatively a media partnership with Pac through ACCN is likely profitable.

IMO, making an offer to six PAC schools would be a good financial move.

Washington and Oregon are essential. They get good TV ratings and are consistently strong in football. Their addition enables the ACC-ESPN media deal to be renegotiated at current market rates.

Stanford and Utah also add value to the ACC contract. Stanford has strong schedules (the Tree adds another game against ND) and is in a massive market. Utah has been one of the best football programs in the western states over the past two decades.

Cal is necessary to make the deal possible for Stanford, and it solidifies the ACCN in California. The sixth member will be dilutive, but makes traveling and scheduling easier. Arguments could be made for Colorado, Arizona State or WSU as the final member.

Create two divisions based on football strength. The ACC divisions will each have conference championship games, maximize CFP possibilities and generate more valuable media content for ESPN. Based on average Sagarin rating over the past half-dozen years:

ACC Elite - Clemson (94.5), Utah (81.8), Oregon (81.4), Washington (81.1), Pitt (75.7), Wake (75.5), Miami (75.5), NC State (75.1), Louisville (73.3) and FSU (73.1)

ACC Core - UNC (72.8), Virginia Tech (72.6), Stanford (72.5), UVa (72.4), Cal (71.2), Boston College (70.7), Syracuse (69.1), Duke (67.9), Georgia Tech (67.0) and Colorado (66.0)

Each team chooses three annual rivals, plays six games within the division, and three games out-of-division. If members agree to promotion & relegation of the top/bottom two teams each year, then conference payouts to the “Elite” division would be $5M higher. Media interest in the ACC-Elite division games would be enhanced because it would always have the highest top-to-bottom strength of schedule. ACC-Core would have the advantage of an easier schedule, but it’s competing against G5 conferences for the final conference champion slots in the CFP.

Travel concerns are mitigated, because the six western teams form a large pod.

Using the previous 5 years’ results as modeling for how this set-up would impact scheduling & results:

Year 1: Elite CCG - Clemson v Washington; Core CCG - Stanford v Syracuse (based on 2018 team performances, Core CCG participants are promoted and FSU & Louisville are relegated for the following season)

Year 2: Elite CCG - Clemson v Oregon; Core CCG - UVa v UNC (based on 2019 team performances; also Miami & NC State are relegated for the following season)

Year 3: Elite CCG - Clemson v UNC; Core CCG - Miami v VT (based on 2020 team performances; also Syracuse & Washington are relegated…this is the Covid season in modeling)

Year 4: Elite CCG - Clemson v Utah; Core CCG - NC State v Louisville (based on 2021 team performances; also, Stanford & VT are relegated for the following season)

Year 5: Elite CCG - Utah v Clemson; Core CCG - Washington v FSU (based on 2022 team performances; also, UVa & Miami are relegated for the following season)

As expected, consistently good teams like Clemson, Utah, Oregon, Pitt & Wake stay in the top group. Weaker teams like BC, Georgia Tech, Cal & Duke stay in their division. The other teams with higher variability in performances will jump around. More importantly, brand programs (such as FSU, Miami and Washington) get greater exposure on CCGs.

(02-03-2023 03:04 AM)7thHeaven Wrote:  With the PAC 12s media contract not going well could the talks of a merger start again? Would it be beneficial for the ACC to consider or is it just far fetched? I could see West Coast broadcasting being beneficial for the ACC Network. Maybe have a kickoff game in Vegas or Florida?

Some sort of merger or co-op remains an appealing idea. We already know the two conferences have supported a scheduling agreement. ESPN analysts have surely considered how adding Pacific content on ACCN might boost views.

The catch is that P2 targets like Washington aren't going to sign a grant of rights until 2036. The grant of rights for all schools would need to be renegotiated.

It's not hard to imagine all schools managing to agree on a revised grant of rights term that expires in, say, 2029 or 2030. The tough part for them would be getting ESPN on board when ESPN already has a bargain in the present ACC contract.

(02-05-2023 05:48 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(02-03-2023 03:04 AM)7thHeaven Wrote:  With the PAC 12s media contract not going well could the talks of a merger start again? Would it be beneficial for the ACC to consider or is it just far fetched? I could see West Coast broadcasting being beneficial for the ACC Network. Maybe have a kickoff game in Vegas or Florida?

Some sort of merger or co-op remains an appealing idea. We already know the two conferences have supported a scheduling agreement. ESPN analysts have surely considered how adding Pacific content on ACCN might boost views.

The catch is that P2 targets like Washington aren't going to sign a grant of rights until 2036. The grant of rights for all schools would need to be renegotiated.

It's not hard to imagine all schools managing to agree on a revised grant of rights term that expires in, say, 2029 or 2030. The tough part for them would be getting ESPN on board when ESPN already has a bargain in the present ACC contract.

The ACCN could serve a similar role as Amazon Prime, only not paying as much in all likelihood. But there might be other ways to monetize an ACC/PAC alliance.

(02-05-2023 05:48 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(02-03-2023 03:04 AM)7thHeaven Wrote:  With the PAC 12s media contract not going well could the talks of a merger start again? Would it be beneficial for the ACC to consider or is it just far fetched? I could see West Coast broadcasting being beneficial for the ACC Network. Maybe have a kickoff game in Vegas or Florida?

Some sort of merger or co-op remains an appealing idea. We already know the two conferences have supported a scheduling agreement. ESPN analysts have surely considered how adding Pacific content on ACCN might boost views.

The catch is that P2 targets like Washington aren't going to sign a grant of rights until 2036. The grant of rights for all schools would need to be renegotiated.

It's not hard to imagine all schools managing to agree on a revised grant of rights term that expires in, say, 2029 or 2030. The tough part for them would be getting ESPN on board when ESPN already has a bargain in the present ACC contract.

Do all ACC additions to have to sign the existing GOR?

(02-05-2023 11:13 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Do all ACC additions to have to sign the existing GOR?

Everyone signs the same agreement. Either new arrivals agree to the one in effect or everyone agrees to a revision.

Not wanting to open the thing to revision might be incentive enough for ESPN to stay cool on the whole idea adding PAC teams.

Which would be unfortunate. There's a lot to like about a two-coast league.

(02-06-2023 03:40 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(02-05-2023 11:13 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Do all ACC additions to have to sign the existing GOR?

Everyone signs the same agreement. Either new arrivals agree to the one in effect or everyone agrees to a revision.

Not wanting to open the thing to revision might be incentive enough for ESPN to stay cool on the whole idea adding PAC teams.

Which would be unfortunate. There's a lot to like about a two-coast league.

It's my understanding that adding teams doesn't open the GOR for teams to leave. The new teams simply sign the GOR.

Here’s a link to The ACC Grant of Rights.

Check out Section 4 on page 3: Additional Members
That should give you the answer you’re looking for.


https://wwwcache.wralsportsfan.com/asset...d1w2if.pdf

I would not be in favor of extending the GoR, not because I want FSU or anyone else to leave, but because the closer we get to the expiration the more pressure there will be to change the ACC into a conference that makes more money, which might mean accepting a certain member that brings a lot of football clout, but not much in the academic world.

(02-06-2023 03:40 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(02-05-2023 11:13 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Do all ACC additions to have to sign the existing GOR?

Everyone signs the same agreement. Either new arrivals agree to the one in effect or everyone agrees to a revision.

Not wanting to open the thing to revision might be incentive enough for ESPN to stay cool on the whole idea adding PAC teams.

Which would be unfortunate. There's a lot to like about a two-coast league.

Regarding the bolded…

Seems like a Catch-22 that must be common in contracts that have long horizons. ESPN views the GOR as a cash cow and source of power, while the ACC views the GOR as an anchor.

PAC instability creates a unique window of opportunity to restructure conferences. ESPN prefers the PAC to stabilize, grow, and accept bargain-level (lower than B12) payouts. An ESPN-PAC contract at $25M to $30M per year per team helps justify the B12 and ACC contracts to investors.

Individual PAC schools would probably be significantly better-off financially if they could find an adequate alternate home. For example,

PAC cohort to ACC - Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, Utah & Colorado. This allows the ACC to negotiate for fair market value on its Tier 1&2 content, and stabilizes longer term prospects for the conference. Yet the GOR time-frame is the roadblock to UW & OU.

PAC cohort to B12 - Arizona, ASU, Oregon State & WSU.

Larger membership provide conferences with greater content and negotiating power when renewing media contracts.

(02-06-2023 07:21 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Here’s a link to The ACC Grant of Rights.

Check out Section 4 on page 3: Additional Members
That should give you the answer you’re looking for.

https://wwwcache.wralsportsfan.com/asset...d1w2if.pdf

Thanks!

Yes, the grant of rights says new members sign the grant of rights as is.

The only way to change that would be to revise the grant of rights document itself (and thus modify this text we're using for reference). That would require the consent of all parties.

(02-06-2023 07:50 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I would not be in favor of extending the GoR, not because I want FSU or anyone else to leave, but because the closer we get to the expiration the more pressure there will be to change the ACC into a conference that makes more money, which might mean accepting a certain member that brings a lot of football clout, but not much in the academic world.

Was someone talking about extending the ACC grant of rights?

(02-06-2023 07:50 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I would not be in favor of extending the GoR, not because I want FSU or anyone else to leave, but because the closer we get to the expiration the more pressure there will be to change the ACC into a conference that makes more money, which might mean accepting a certain member that brings a lot of football clout, but not much in the academic world.

The ACC is inviting Alabama?

(02-06-2023 07:50 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I would not be in favor of extending the GoR, not because I want FSU or anyone else to leave, but because the closer we get to the expiration the more pressure there will be to change the ACC into a conference that makes more money, which might mean accepting a certain member that brings a lot of football clout, but not much in the academic world.

To whom are you referring? WV doesn't bring a lot of football clout - maybe 9-3 on a good year, but they may do significantly better playing the many apathetic ACC schools.