Division 1 College Conference Realignment

[Island_Style]

Under Armour would "invest" at least 10 mil to get their flagship school in the B1G.

[Island_Style]

But why would Maryland want to leave the ACC?

For me, I'm not saying they will or want to. I'm saying the 20 mil wont keep anyone from leaving that wants to go.

[FiddySicks]

Ok so the ACC raised their exit fee to $20 Million, so what? Sure they voted on a higher exit fee in order to dissuade teams from leaving, but who were the ones voting? The schools themselves or some hastily assembled panel of supervisors or beneficiaries? It seems like they just pulled that number out of their asses, what's to stop a school from giving them the middle finger and NOT paying their old conferences a dime when they bail? If conferences can pull exit fee numbers out of thin air like that, why can't schools just refuse to pay them? I dunno, it just seems like something that would be hard to back up legally if they just randomly decided within the past few weeks to raise their exit fees.

[Island_Style]

Ok so the ACC raised their exit fee to $20 Million, so what? They obviously just pulled that number out of their asses, what's to stop a school from giving them the middle finger and NOT paying their old conferences a dime when they bail? If conferences can pull exit fee numbers out of thin air like that, why can't schools just refuse to pay them?

A judge will make them. However, that doesn't mean they cant find a way to stretch the payment. This 20 mil is such a non factor.

[ESTONES6]

Mizzou is just trying to latch on to any conference that will take them at this point. Don't think the Pac12 is the best move for Mizzou. Not just because I'm in Big 10 country, but because I think the Big 10 fits competitively, academically, geographically, and in both Basketball and Football.

It wasn't Mizzou latching on. They're actually being sought out. Not the top choices but definitely in the mix for 3 different conferences.

I guess that's fair to say... but they definitely want out of the Big XII by any means necessary.

[NatsFan2004]

The ACC is content with sponsoring a 4-team lacrosse championship.

The men's site will be at least 5 teams moving forward, with the addition of Syracuse. It'll be at least 7 on the women's side, as BC and VT sponsor only women's lacrosse.

[Geoff]

I was referring to the current state. Syracuse isn't joining until July 1, 2014 most likely (unless the 27 month thing is negotiated).

[Burmy]

I was referring to the current state. Syracuse isn't joining until July 1, 2014 most likely (unless the 27 month thing is negotiated).

I could see a compromise, with the effective move date being July 1, 2013 (remember, a few schools that joined new conferences this time last year won't have the moves take effect until next year)

[NatsFan2004]

I was referring to the current state. Syracuse isn't joining until July 1, 2014 most likely (unless the 27 month thing is negotiated).

Fair enough. I would agree that Syracuse and Pitt won't join until 2014; if for no other reason than those two schools' tie-ins to the Big East's current basketball TV deal. There's no incentive for the Big East to let them go early, IMO.

[McCall]

Ok so the ACC raised their exit fee to $20 Million, so what? Sure they voted on a higher exit fee in order to dissuade teams from leaving, but who were the ones voting? The schools themselves or some hastily assembled panel of supervisors or beneficiaries? It seems like they just pulled that number out of their asses, what's to stop a school from giving them the middle finger and NOT paying their old conferences a dime when they bail? If conferences can pull exit fee numbers out of thin air like that, why can't schools just refuse to pay them? I dunno, it just seems like something that would be hard to back up legally if they just randomly decided within the past few weeks to raise their exit fees.

These aren't pulled out of thin air. They've had an established one and then raised it and then raised it again to the current $20M just this past weekend. And yes, while it may be negotiable, they will have to pay something.

But again, there doesn't seem to be any school looking to leave the ACC now.

[Geoff]

Fair enough. I would agree that Syracuse and Pitt won't join until 2014; if for no other reason than those two schools' tie-ins to the Big East's current basketball TV deal. There's no incentive for the Big East to let them go early, IMO.

I could see the TV contract actually possibly being a reason they let deserters leave earlier. Contract size remains the same, number of pie slices decreases. It may only be for 1 or 2 years but it's more money per school at least for the short term.

[Chicageaux]

Fair enough. I would agree that Syracuse and Pitt won't join until 2014; if for no other reason than those two schools' tie-ins to the Big East's current basketball TV deal. There's no incentive for the Big East to let them go early, IMO.

I could see the TV contract actually possibly being a reason they let deserters leave earlier. Contract size remains the same, number of pie slices decreases. It may only be for 1 or 2 years but it's more money per school at least for the short term.

It's my understanding that if teams leave, then the current contract becomes null and a new one's worked out. When the SEC was talking about originally expanding, the talk was their TV deal would be increased because they'd have more teams. I imagine it would be the same way if you lost teams as well.

[NatsFan2004]

It's my understanding that if teams leave, then the current contract becomes null and a new one's worked out.

Where is this information coming from?

I don't see what the SEC does with their TV deal necessarily impacting the terms of the Big East's TV deal.

[BigMac12]

Sorta off-topic question:

Should the former 30,000-seat stadium rule be reinstated?

[NatsFan2004]

Sorta off-topic question:

Should the former 30,000-seat stadium rule be reinstated?

That'd make the MAC take quite a hit - Ball State, Bowling Green, Kent State, Miami(Oh.), Northern Illinois, Ohio and Toledo would be affected, as well as FIU, Idaho and Nevada-Reno.

I'm not sure what that would accomplish other than making mid-tier colleges pay for stadium expansions they can't fill.

[Chicageaux]

It's my understanding that if teams leave, then the current contract becomes null and a new one's worked out.

Where is this information coming from?

I don't see what the SEC does with their TV deal necessarily impacting the terms of the Big East's TV deal.

Whatever the Big East's tv deal is, it involves all current members of the Big East. The deal involves Syracuse and Pittsburgh. Why would they keep the same TV deal with those two teams gone? They'd be paying for two markets that they're no longer in. When the contract was signed, Syracuse and Pitt were part of the deal, when they leave, that contract doesn't add up anymore. Why would they continue to pay the same amount of money with renegotiating a contract?

[McCall]

I think Pitt and Syracuse will get around the 27 month waiting period to leave. Their buyout is only $5m so they can pay a little more if need to to get out early. But if the Big east continues to deteriorate, there may not be a conference left anyway. I could see them in the ACC next year possibly, but I'd say no later than 2013.

[NatsFan2004]

Whatever the Big East's tv deal is, it involves all current members of the Big East. The deal involves Syracuse and Pittsburgh. Why would they keep the same TV deal with those two teams gone? They'd be paying for two markets that they're no longer in. When the contract was signed, Syracuse and Pitt were part of the deal, when they leave, that contract doesn't add up anymore. Why would they continue to pay the same amount of money with renegotiating a contract?

I think it depends on the specific contract language. If it is literally specified that the Big East's TV deal (not just football, but men's basketball as well) is tied to a particular number of teams for each, then you're right. But if it pertains to just a specific number of games, I think it could be more ambiguous than you're assuming. We'd have to know what's in the contract to be able to tell.

[DCDuck]

Maryland is a basketball school first. Their biggest basketball rival is Duke (and you know it's a rivalry when students riot after every Duke game, win or lose). Duke plays in the ACC. Therefore I don't see any reason for Maryland to leave aside from money.

... Unless Kevin Anderson really believes football could actually be a big draw at that school... which it has never been, not even when Maryland was winning 9, 10, and 11 games a year back in Fridge's early years. Which is a definite possibility.

[dfwabel]

Whatever the Big East's tv deal is, it involves all current members of the Big East. The deal involves Syracuse and Pittsburgh. Why would they keep the same TV deal with those two teams gone? They'd be paying for two markets that they're no longer in. When the contract was signed, Syracuse and Pitt were part of the deal, when they leave, that contract doesn't add up anymore. Why would they continue to pay the same amount of money with renegotiating a contract?

I think it depends on the specific contract language. If it is literally specified that the Big East's TV deal (not just football, but men's basketball as well) is tied to a particular number of teams for each, then you're right. But if it pertains to just a specific number of games, I think it could be more ambiguous than you're assuming. We'd have to know what's in the contract to be able to tell.

The current Big East football contract ends in 2014, while the basketball contract ends in 2012. The Big East walked away from a deal ten year/$1B deal earlier this year.

In addition, the Big East reported revenue split is 60% is divided between every member, and the remaining 40% split with the football schools.

All in all, whatever happens through the end of the year, a school who feels that they have been "left out" will have their local Congressman/woman (or one who is an alumni) request a hearing with the conference commissioners, Mark Emmert, and the BCS CEO Hancock and ask them various things, but little will probably occur.