I'm More Convinced Than Ever: UConn & UVA to the B1G

[CL82]

Grant of Rights? People seem to forget about this. You would need 80% of the 15 ACC schools to vote to dissolve it.

I don't think that any one conference or one/two schools are going to want to challenge a GOR in court.

That's the fly in the ointment isn't it? Unless, of course, the rumored ACC TV network contingency clause actually exists. In that case the recent Swofford announcement that it is a ways off might be an indication that change is coming.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

The OP scenario actually would be detrimental to getting in the B1G .
An ACC destruction model moves us down the pecking order.
The best that comes out of this is some of our old BiG east foes will have to turn to the AAC. Welcome to Big East football part two.

 

[CL82]

Kind of agree AZ but the BE/AAC brand is too devalued compare the to ACC brand. So what happens if the ACC implodes is that join the B1G and the better AAC schools, UConn included, would join the ACC. Not a great scenario, but any move to a P5 is an improvement.

 

[billybud]

From what our President said to the FSU boosters at our meeting...the ACC network was a contractual promise to "try to do" and not a sure thing...and that the contract stipulated that ESPN would add a couple of million per program if the network didn't take wing.

 

[BC1978]

That's the fly in the ointment isn't it? Unless, of course, the rumored ACC TV network contingency clause actually exists. In that case the recent Swofford announcement that it is a ways off might be an indication that change is coming.

The ONLY people who have mentioned such a clause are some of the WV bloggers - so take that for what its worth. Indeed, if such a clause were to exist, I am sure we would already have heard something about it following the announcement from the ACC that an ACC network is a way off, if ever. I don't think there ever was such a quid pro quo because the ACC never promised a network - only that it was under active study, with the league committed to look into its feasibility.

 

[CL82]

The ONLY people who have mentioned such a clause are some of the WV bloggers - so take that for what its worth. Indeed, if such a clause were to exist, I am sure we would already have heard something about it following the announcement from the ACC that an ACC network is a way off, if ever. I don't think there ever was such a quid pro quo because the ACC never promised a network - only that it was under active study.

Has the GOR ever been released? One would think that would be a very easy way to put that rumor to rest.

 

[Dooley]

From what our President said to the FSU boosters at our meeting...the ACC network was a contractual promise to "try to do" and not a sure thing...and that the contract stipulated that ESPN would add a couple of million per program if the network didn't take wing.

Which would still fall WAY short of the PAC, B1G and coming SEC revenue stream. The ACC needs its own network. Let the B12 become the conference that other P5s circle like vultures. The ACC has a chance to be really successful in both major sports for a long time and would threaten the SEC and B1G if it had its own network. Until then, these CR rumors involving ACC schools will always swirl.

 

[CTGoonie]

when did the NCAA officially change the rules allowing #2 ???

They haven't yet but are expected to within 6 months.

 

[BC1978]

Has the GOR ever been released? One would think that would be a very easy way to put that rumor to rest.

I am not aware that it has been published. That said, the ONLY place where such a clause has been brought up is in the WV blogs which, IMO, tell you all you need to know. It supposedly has been patterned after the B12's GOR. Not sure why the ACC would feel compelled to publish it. This seems only an issue with some of the WVU bloggers, which, again, IMO, tells you all you need to know.

 

[billybud]

We have to crystal ball that revenue stream from the PAC 12 and Big 12....the PAC 12, for instance, led in revenue in 2012-13...but had huge expenses....leading to a $19.8 million payout per program. That isn't a world beating figure.

 

[Fishy]

Every conference has a clause dealing with dissolution, so I'm sure one exists in terms of the grant of rights. But I think there is zero chance it's ever exercised - the simple truth is that all but perhaps UNC and UVa don't have any real value to another conference.

 

[BC1978]

Which would still fall WAY short of the PAC, B1G and coming SEC revenue stream. The ACC needs its own network. Let the B12 become the conference that other P5s circle like vultures. The ACC has a chance to be really successful in both major sports for a long time and would threaten the SEC and B1G if it had its own network. Until then, these CR rumors involving ACC schools will always swirl.

Well, the ONLY places these rumors still swirl is in the WV blogs so I don't think the ACC is too concerned about that.

FWIW, I think the ACC is correct in holding off on a network. IMO, the winds of technological change are blowing and I think it could (not necessarily "will", but "could") impact the current cable model which has been in place for quite some time. I think it is sound strategy to see how these changes might impact conference networks prior to taking the leap. That way, they can learn from the others on what to do, and what to avoid.

At one time, not very long ago, video stores dotted every town in the country. Land lines ruled in every household. People got music through CD's. People watched movies on VHS tapes, then DVDs, then Blu-Ray. Compare that to what is evolving today in these areas.

What does the future hold? I don't know, but the data in the attached article is quite revealing.

http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/cor...-of-tv-channels-available-to-them-1201172883/

 

[Dooley]

Well, the ONLY places these rumors still swirl is in the WV blogs so I don't think the ACC is too concerned about that.

FWIW, I think the ACC is correct in holding off on a network. IMO, the winds of technological change are blowing and I think it could (not necessarily "will", but "could") impact the current cable model which has been in place for quite some time. I think it is sound strategy to see how these changes might impact conference networks prior to taking the leap. That way, they can learn from the others on what to do, and what to avoid.

At one time, not very long ago, video stores dotted every town in the country. Land lines ruled in every household. People got music through CD's. People watched movies on VHS tapes, then DVDs, then Blu-Ray. Compare that to what is evolving today in these areas.

What does the future hold? I don't know, but the data in the attached article is quite revealing.

http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/cor...-of-tv-channels-available-to-them-1201172883/

Good points. For all we know, internet streaming services could be more lucrative than TV networks. I'm going to guess that conferences will figure out a way to do this too, should it come down to it.

 

[BC1978]

Good points. For all we know, internet streaming services could be more lucrative than TV networks. I'm going to guess that conferences will figure out a way to do this too, should it come down to it.

IMO, the most interesting thing in the article was how few channels the average American watches. I know I can relate to that as far as what I actually watch, as compared to how much I watch through my Apple TV. I don't think it is surprising that people are starting to look at their cable bills and compare them to the number of channels they actually watch. Just my opinion - and I am not sure of the economics of this - but I gotta think that a la carte pricing, in some form, is only a matter of time.

 

[Kolumbo]

One can only watch a limited amount of tv per day. Let's say a typical person gets home, watches the news, a sitcom, a sporting event or a movie. You can pile on the channels but he's still only watching a few channels that night. The only thing I really need is high speed internet and given the prices, I'm about ready to cut off tv altogether.

 

[Dooley]

IMO, the most interesting thing in the article was how few channels the average American watches. I know I can relate to that as far as what I actually watch, as compared to how much I watch through my Apple TV. I don't think it is surprising that people are starting to look at their cable bills and compare them to the number of channels they actually watch. Just my opinion - and I am not sure of the economics of this - but I gotta think that a la carte pricing, in some form, is only a matter of time.

I agree with you. A la carte is going to happen in the next few years. I *think* that conferences will position themselves for this with things like B1G2, B1G3, etc to house their games. I'm not sure how schools with their own networks will be affected. Conferences with their own networks may decide to shun schools with their own networks or they might figure out a way to integrate. I do think that schools with their own networks will be ahead of the curve if online streaming ever takes off. They'll know how to group and package their content and offer it in a variety of ways.

Personally speaking, I watch very few channels. NBCSN lately because of the hockey playoffs. I bought the MLB.tv package (which is friggin' outstanding, by the way). As for college sports, I keep it to UCONN only the majority of the time. I will watch other schools in the instance that it may affect UCONN somehow (ex - NCAA Tourney). But I realize that I'm the freakish outlier with outrageous, some might say, idiotic principles. I've actually flirted with the idea of trimming my cable all the way down to basic.

Aside: how do you like the Apple TV?

 

[BC1978]

I agree with you. A la carte is going to happen in the next few years. I *think* that conferences will position themselves for this with things like B1G2, B1G3, etc to house their games. I'm not sure how schools with their own networks will be affected. Conferences with their own networks may decide to shun schools with their own networks or they might figure out a way to integrate. I do think that schools with their own networks will be ahead of the curve if online streaming ever takes off. They'll know how to group and package their content and offer it in a variety of ways.

Personally speaking, I watch very few channels. NBCSN lately because of the hockey playoffs. I bought the MLB.tv package (which is friggin' outstanding, by the way). As for college sports, I keep it to UCONN only the majority of the time. I will watch other schools in the instance that it may affect UCONN somehow (ex - NCAA Tourney). But I realize that I'm the freakish outlier with outrageous, some might say, idiotic principles. I've actually flirted with the idea of trimming my cable all the way down to basic.

Aside: how do you like the Apple TV?

I really like Apple TV, Dooley. Lots of content, but I mostly link to my iTtunes account where I can watch movies on my big screen that I have either bought or rented. The picture is 1080p, with the highest digital sound quality that sounds great coming through the sound bar. Also stream Netflix, YouTube, etc. through it.

Amount the other things you can get through subscription are huluplus, MLB.TV, NBA, and NHL. Lots of other stuff too.

To my point above, I used to buy a lot DVD movies, then blu-Ray movies. Now I stream them onto my TV, iPad Air, or iPhone.

The footprint for the Apple TV is just a small cube and fits anywhere.

 

[Fishy]

ESPN has kicked the proposed ACC network down the road. There are no plans.

The biggest problem with something like the Apple TV as a cord-cutting device is that so much of the stuff on it requires authentication through a cable subscription.

We have a couple of Apple TVs and like them, though. I've also hooked a Mac Mini up to one of the televisions and that's something of an Apple TV on steroids. Although you can do it with an iPhone/iPad with Airplay, it makes Amazon Prime a little more convenient and also lets you watch channels that exist only on the web through a browser.

So I don't really see a la carte or cord-cutting coming any time soon, but if nothing else, being able to watch what you pay for is now much more convenient - anything with a screen is now a television.

 

[MTHusky]

Fishy,

"So I don't really see a la carte or cord-cutting coming any time soon, but if nothing else, being able to watch what you pay for is now much more convenient - anything with a screen is now a television." Dam, been staring at my screen door for the last 15 min. and I'm not receiving anything! Can you help me?

 

[Pudge]

On this day that we found out the LA Clippers ARE worth $2B, I am going to refer Fishy and the rest of you to the ESPN article on Dayton, George Mason and Wichita State.

Of course UConn is worth more than $2B ... and maybe we are worth the $12.9B theorized by our Leader.

 

[Fishy]

" Dam, been staring at my screen door for the last 15 min. and I'm not receiving anything! Can you help me?

We'll need some mushrooms and maybe just a touch of bourbon.

Then, we wait.

 

[billybud]

It has always been that ESPN has said that they would consider the ACC network after the SEC network was off and running...three-four years or so down the road.

If the SEC network has problems, then you will not see an ACC network.

 

[White Dwarf]

Not going to happen

VA politicians gonna politic.

 

[SouthronCross]

Question: In your scenario where "the SEC and the B1G will carve up the ACC" what to do with the elephant in the room a.k.a. UNC? The Tarheels are the lynchpin of the ACC & have been rumored in many threads as pairing with UVa to the B1G. How to separate the links of UVa-V.Tech & UNC-NC State? Not trying to throw a bucket of water on your enthusiasm, just a reality check.

I do not believe that either UNC or UVA would be the first school to depart the ACC. You are correct in saying that the two have been mentioned as a pair that Jim Delany (UNC alum) would like to see join his league.

Separating UVA-VPI would be no issue, should the ACC ever implode. The Wahoos were never a fan of the Hokies being allowed to join the ACC, but, the VA state government intervened on VPI's behalf, and, the deal was done. Separating Carolina and State would be much more difficult, as the NC General Assembly, and, the UNC BOGs, take a very dim view on the two schools being in separate leagues.

 

[SouthronCross]

UNC will not leave the ACC unless it has to because 1) it has power in the ACC that it would not have in the B1G or SEC and 2) moving out of the ACC would fracture UNC between the academic pro BIG folks and the athletic pro SEC folks.

Absolutely spot on. Not to mention, a large number of big money athletic donors are pro-SEC as well.

Two other issues is what would happen to Duke as the UNC/Duke relationship generates a lot of money (TV and alumni) for both schools and the possible threat to UNC athletics should UNC go to the B1G enabling NC State to go to the SEC.

Another good point, but, when push comes to shove, UNC will look out for No 1 first and foremost. Just speaking for myself, I care more about our rivalries with UVA and NCSU, than anything to do with Duke. Although, UNC might want Duke included in any move to the B1G that they might make.

UVA aligned closely to UNC; but, should the ACC fold, they lean more towards the B1G than the SEC, just look at the 2012 presidential election map for Virginia to see why. I can see V Tech going to the SEC as they have some football cred and would give the SEC a foothold in the DC area. But, the Commonwealth of Virginia used a lot of weight to get V Tech into the ACC and I am not sure they would support a departure unless absolutely necessary.

As has been stated on here many times, the UVA Board of Visitors will NEVER allow their institution to join the SEC. UVA would go B1G, VPI to the SEC, and, both would have what they want.

 

[SouthronCross]

UNC will have to make a choice: either remain as the lynchpin in a weakened ACC or accept an invitation to the SEC. There is no way Delany attempts to pull them into the B1G, at least not until the middle third of the century. UNC would be an even tougher nut than Virginia. They are far more deep south. The culture shock alone would give both the Tar Heels and the B1G more than reason to reject each other.

I would disagree here. The University itself, as well as the state's largest metro areas, are much less Deep South than its rural areas. UNC would fit right into the B1G, but, the larger rank and file of the fanbase would be very unhappy if the school decided to join the league, when an SEC invite would likely be on the table, too.

Plus, what would be Delany's incentive to take on the SEC in its own backyard? Isn't a two-region conference enough of a challenge? Does he really need to attempt a three-region strategy when his current brand requires some re-burnishing? In my opinion, North Carolina is a bridge too far.

Fair points all. But, Jim Delany knows what SEC commissioner Mike Slive also knows...whichever league got UNC would control the TV market in the state. Like many here say about an ACCN being on the air in FL, GA, SC, or KY, the one without UNC would be facing a tough go here.

The SEC on the other hand needs two teams to get to 16 and two states to full-fill its destiny: North Carolina and Virginia. A North Carolina university and the other Virginia school fit nicely. Would the SEC prefer UNC to NC State? I don't know but if I held an executive position in Chapel Hill I'd sure be trying to find out.

The SEC would prefer UNC. What would NCSU bring them? They have accomplished little since winning their 2nd national title in hoops 31 years ago. If Slive were crazy enough to want them, he could kiss getting the SECN on basic cable in NC goodbye.

So, I think the B1G ignores UNC now because the risk of failure is just too troubling: risk of not executing in the northeast and risk of failure in the southeast.

The B1G will be patient, and, wait until the Maryland and Rutgers additions pan out. If both do as well as he hopes, he might be emboldened to go after them. We'll see down the road.

 

[CL82]

I am not aware that it has been published. That said, the ONLY place where such a clause has been brought up is in the WV blogs which, IMO, tell you all you need to know. It supposedly has been patterned after the B12's GOR. Not sure why the ACC would feel compelled to publish it. This seems only an issue with some of the WVU bloggers, which, again, IMO, tells you all you need to know.

You seem to be very fond of the bolded text. It pops up a lot in your posts. I think we understand your point so don't feel compelled to repeat it. Regarding the GOR I am surprised that no one has FOIA'd it. It would be interesting to see exactly what it says. I may take sometime to see if I can track it down.

Here is a summary of Frank the Tank's view of GOR's over on his blog. It is a good read. He suggests that they are simply a wildcard, possibly enforceable, possibly not. He further says that the ambiguity may well be intentional, so that it is impossible to quantify the likely outcome of challenging it. Of course one could also argue that such an agreement would be so vague as to be unenforceable. It's an interesting question.

Edit: Here is the best that I can find:

ACC GOR page 1
ACC GOR page 2
ACC GOR page 3
ACC GOR page 4

That certainly is every bit as vague as Frank suggests. Perhaps the meat of it in the mentioned collateral documents. This isn't 17 page document that we've heard mentioned. Based on this, however, I don't see any reference to any contingency clause.

​

 

[BC1978]

You seem to be very fond of the bolded text. It pops up a lot in your posts. I think we understand your point so don't feel compelled to repeat it. Regarding the GOR I am surprised that no one has FOIA'd it. It would be interesting to see exactly what it says. I may take sometime to see if I can track it down.

Here is a summary of Frank the Tank's view of GOR's over on his blog. It is a good read. He suggests that they are simply a wildcard, possibly enforceable, possibly not. He further says that the ambiguity may well be intentional, so that it is impossible to quantify the likely outcome of challenging it. Of course one could also argue that such an agreement would be so vague as to be unenforceable. It's an interesting question.

Edit: Here is the best that I can find:

ACC GOR page 1
ACC GOR page 2
ACC GOR page 3
ACC GOR page 4

That certainly is every bit as vague as Frank suggests. Perhaps the meat of it in the mentioned collateral documents. This isn't 17 page document that we've heard mentioned. Based on this, however, I don't see any reference to any contingency clause.

​

Hi CL82. Great post! Thanks for the attachments re: the ACC GOR. I also thought Frank's take was interesting. He makes an interesting comment when he refers to the GOR as a wildcard - possible enforceable, possibly not. Even if this were true (which I am not sure it is) this uncertainty does, IMO, make it unlikely that one will be challenged. Specifically:
1. Unlike, say, a hedge fund or a venture capital group, these schools and conferences are much more risk averse. Any challenge will likely consume years in litigation/appeals (since the conference the school is leaving will have, IMO, absolutely no reason to settle since any settlement will mean, for all practical purposes, the end of its GOR). Most importantly, the consequences of losing for a school and the new conference are potentially huge. This is a critical consideration. Unlike the exit fee issue with MD, ALL of the ACC schools willingly signed the GOR. A school would be effectively rolling the dice in launching a challenge.
2. Since 4 of the 5 P5 conferences have GORs, it would seem unlikely that any conference would try to bust the GOR of another conference since they are, in effect, busting their own GOR by doing so.

 

[Fishy]

I have no clue if a GOR is enforceable or not.

But given that a) the Big Ten, Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC have one, and b) that all of the schools in those conferences voluntarily signed one....I have to think that we won't see it challenged any time soon.

It doesn't seem like it's in anyone's best interests. (Except, of course, ours'.)

 

[BC1978]

I have no clue if a GOR is enforceable or not.

But given that a) the Big Ten, Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC have one, and b) that all of the schools in those conferences voluntarily signed one....I have to think that we won't see it challenged any time soon.

It doesn't seem like it's in anyone's best interests. (Except, of course, ours'.)

Agreed, Fishy (and I do understand and appreciate your last point).

Anyways, such a challenge would likely lead to some interesting testimony and cross examination. The challenging school would be challenging the GOR (which they had previously signed and approved), yet they would be moving to a conference that likely has a similar GOR which they would be expected to sign and approve. How they explain THAT seeming contradiction to a judge would be fascinating, IMO.