The ACC’s Lack of a Grant of Rights Needs to Be Addressed
The Confidential is on record as disagreeing with the notion that the Big XII’s grant of rights is impenetrable. That being said, the Confidential also disagrees with the notion that a grant of rights is merely an exit fee with lipstick. Depending on the legalese, a grant of rights should be a property transfer, made voluntarily and for consideration, by a school. It should be much much stronger than an exit fee. As such, the ACC needs to address its current perceived weakness relative to the Big XII by pursuing, successfully, a grant of rights of some length.
The response is always that a grant of rights is not wanted by the membership. Who does not want it? If UNC, Duke, and Virginia do not want the grant of rights, then that tells you everything you need to know about the viability of the ACC. Maryland did not like the exit fee and now it is in litigation with the ACC. If these three schools are not bound to each other, and willing to reduce that to paper, then the ACC is doomed.
If those three agreed, one would have to think that Syracuse, Wake Forest, BC, and North Carolina State would be on board immediately. For the most part, these schools are at risk for being left out when the chairs reshuffle. Pitt could dabble with the Big XII, but the Big 10 is not an option, so Pitt should also be in favor. While Virginia Tech–like North Carolina State–is rumored to be attractive to the SEC, it is unclear that the SEC is actually interested in these schools are their first choice. If UNC and UVa went the Big 10 route, then perhaps a marriage would make sense. But as long as UVa and UNC are solidly ACC, it is difficult to believe that a separation would be desired by Va Tech and NC State.
So that leaves Georgia Tech, Miami, Clemson, and FSU. All four duplicate SEC markets (Georgia, South Carolina, Florida). The Big 10 is not at all likely for Clemson alone. Georgia Tech, FSU and Miami are possible, but have many reasons that they do not fit the Big 10. At least not in the same way that North Carolina and Virginia do–proximity and academics. Plus, Georgia Tech is a clear also-ran in its market.
The Big XII complicates things. All four schools could make more money in the Big XII. Probably. It is unclear why Clemson and Georgia Tech would make $26+M per year for the Big XII. Again, both are secondary schools in their markets. And it is not like South Carolina is a big market. Miami and Florida State are a different story. Together, they would give the Big XII a strong Eastern flank and presence throughout Florida. It would likely be worth it for the Big XII to take these two (or perhaps all four). So these are the four truly “problem” schools. At the same time, if the ACC had a legitimate plan to increase overall revenue, it is unclear that the monetary difference would be worth the move. Certainly not in the same sense as Maryland’s move to the Big 10 (a relative no-brainer for a mismanaged athletic department that needs money badly and had the one thing the Big 10 needs–a new market). But joining the Big XII would mean a grant of rights. So, while it is unlikely that the SEC would come calling for Florida State or Clemson, a grant of rights with the Big XII would take them out of consideration. Of course, a grant of rights with the ACC does the same thing. So, yeah, the hesitance is there.
So this is the point where the ACC and ESPN need to sit down and talk seriously. Without a grant of rights, the ACC is at a real risk of dissolving or turning into something unrecognizable. If that happens, the good ACC markets will be divided between the Big 10, Big XII, and SEC. If 10 teams leave the ACC, but only two go to the SEC (i.e. 6 to the Big XII and 2 to the Big 10), that means that 80% of those schools will shift over to conferences with a significant Fox relationship. If Fox throws more money at these conferences, ESPN will be marginalized further with the lucrative college sports market (and ad revenue generated). If ESPN is cool with that, so be it. But if ESPN is not, then they need to step up to the plate and agree to something to make the ACC stronger. And, by stronger, the ACC needs something tangible to convince everyone in the ACC to be willing to sign a grant of rights.
The length does not matter. A five-year grant of rights would be enough to at least quiet the realignment talk a little. It is shorter than the Big XII’s current grant of rights, meaning that schools with an eye on other conferences will still have an edge. But it would allow for a bit of a “cease fire” and chance for the ACC to rebrand itself with its new additions.
If anyone does not want a grant of rights for even a relative short period, then it is clear that the ACC is not long for this world. It is what it is.
The Confidential 
This is the first time I can remember anyone suggesting a short-term grant of rights in exchange for some consideration from ESPN (I would suggest the return of tier 3 rights and/or establishment of a true ACC Network). I like it! Actually, a GoR for ACC Network shares (ala BTN) makes the most sense, IMO… and it would definitely squash all realignment talk, too. After all, if you have to fight a GoR either way, why not fight for Texas?
IIRC, the Tier III rights are already assigned to Raycom or something. It is pretty complicated. The bottom line is that there is absolutely no reason in the world for everyone to agree that each school gets to keep the TV revenue for one game–at ESPN/Raycom’s choosing. For Florida State, maybe it is the Murray State game. You wanna play a scrub (look, I know FSU had the WVU issue, not talking about that), you deal with the TV revenue. Not like anyone is watching that game anyway.
Everyone can adhere to their contractual positions… as it is their right to do. But sometimes it is better to lose the battle and win the war. The ACC could be a power conference if ESPN, Raycom, and the ACC schools are willing to do what is necessary to get there.
For everyone NOT to agree. Need a proofreader, I guess.
Anyway, I am talking one crap football and maybe two hoops games in December. Give a dog a bone.
Why let rights to garbage TV games interfere??
I like the idea….and I will go one step further….the short term GOR is very smart and practical. Do this in the renegotiation with Notre Dame association etc. And do it with those teams willing to sign…give those that don’t 6 months to commit or to leave the conference. Will know for sure who is in or not. If FSU and Miami want to leave…let them go. There are teams to back fill…maybe not as glamorous in name and football history, but good enough.
If as stated, UNC, UVA don’t want to sign, then we know once and for all the ACC is doomed. I believe that I heard that all teams except for one or two were willing to sign a GOR previously…so lets do it…provide those who don’t a time frame to sign or leave…could be an interesting tactic.
The ACC needs to put up or shut up where the GOR is concerned. As long as the conference doesn’t put football first — and it’s apparent it isn’t priority #1 to UNC and Duke, the ACC power-brokers — its status is precarious.
Absurd. How is football not the top priority for the ACC? Because it did not limit itself to the past 7 years of results when deciding which two teams to add (Pitt and Syracuse)? When it added Miami, Va Tech, and BC (more ACC title games than Miami)? When it added Florida State? When it partnered with the Orange Bowl? When it agreed to 5 games with ND? When it added Louisville to replace (and then some) Maryland? When it did not add UConn or Rutgers (basketball for the former, market for the latter)?
The only negative was not adding West Virginia along with Pitt and Syracuse. But not sure how 15 teams would have worked out well.
Still waiting for examples of where the ACC prioritized basketball over football over the past twenty years.
I don’t see how the football schools would support a GOR unless we got a better TV contract (and, implicitly, another strong football team/market). Speaking of a new member and market, I would suggest the ACC dump Wake Forest and pick up USF. USF has the Tampa market, and while it duplicates FSU’s territory some, it would lock down a majority of Florida.
Down south, the perception is very much that the basketball schools run Swofford and the ACC. Basketball just isn’t the money maker it once was. And the reason FSU chose the ACC back in the early 90s was because they had a higher payout than the SEC. My, how times change.
Then FSU should join the Big XII. They’ll get an extra few million.
I am still waiting for someone to share actual decisions that were basketball-based, rather than football-based. WVU over Syracuse is about the closest anyone can get. But Syracuse is a fairly decent football brand that had a terrible stretch in the 2000s. Not like its program has been like Indiana or Kansas.
But what else? Surely, FSU fans can come up with specifics?
My original post said “perception.” I’ll do my research (which will eventually be the basis for a post on my thoughts for FSU’s expansion possibilities). I really haven’t tracked happenings at the conference level–I follow the program more than anything else.
I think Syracuse is a decent basketball team but I think it may have been shortsided on the ACC”s part. I heard they turned down Texas and Texas Tech for Pittsburgh and Syracuse. I think that’s dumb. Of course, Texas wanted certain rights with respect to the Longhorn Network, but why not give it to them? The ACC needs strong football teams to survive because football revenues are paying the bills these days. For me, in evaluating the quality and value of a football program, it’s not its success but it’s the potential success (a factor largely dependent on attendance and the quality of boosters). Schools in the SEC do not, generally, have big TV markets. They do, however, have loyal fan bases and many, many boosters with deep, deep pockets. The misnomer for is that Syracuse may be in a large TV network, but my understanding is that New York residents prefer professional sports.
I don’t see how you can kick out a school.
I would be in favor–and I think I have stated this here in the past–for performance incentives. Take the TV revenue, divide it by an extra share, and give it to the teams based on football rankings, post-season success, TV ratings, or whatever. If that puts FSU ahead of Wake Forest, so be it. How can anyone argue with that?
As for USF, I don’t get why the Big XII would not add Cincy and USF and require them to split a share for 5 years. That is still way more money than the Big East can pay. Nobody had issues with the Big 10 paying Nebraska less than a full share. The CCG would add something. Cincy is close to WVU.
I don’t think the ACC would have the votes to kick out Wake either. They’ve actually won the ACC Championship since expansion (unlike Miami and until recently FSU) and were really competitive in basketball until they fired Dino Gaudio, which was by all counts a mistake. The only downside is that they’re a small school with not that many alumni, but that only makes their accomplishments that much more impressive.
The league WILL get a better television contract, and I think the silence from headquarters means that they’re working hard on it. I really think ESPN has too much invested in the ACC to see it die.
See my post above. I could care less about Wake. Sorry. They don’t have the money to compete on a regular basis. Their accomplishments are, without a doubt, amazing. But they would be better suited for the Big East. I’d rather have WVU or USF. Neither is quite on par with the academics but last time I checked, the SEC wasn’t making money off academics.
Interesting theory about GoR. The problem with the ACC is that other conferences all have higher TV payouts and/or the potential for much, much higher payouts. Without addressing this core problem of payouts, the GoR is only a bandaid on a serious wound…it really won’t heal the problem.
A GoR works for the B1G and PAC because they have to protect their assets (specifically, cable networks). A GoR works for the Big XII because it ensures that Texas and OK can’t flee (those 2 schools anchor the TV deal).
An ACC GoR needs to have something of value to protect…yet the ACC has no cable channel and a below market TV contract. The reality is that if UVa & UNC go to the B1G, NCSt & VT join the SEC and the ACC picks up UConn & Cincy…then the TV deal is still a net positive for ESPN & Raycom. A 12 team ACC may bring financial comparability with the Big XII. The whole TV contract is messed-up. A GoR really only helps the networks & and maybe ND.
If ESPN & Raycom somehow contribute…if ND contributes…then a GoR has merit. GoR limits the choices of the all-in schools and basically forces continuation of the status quo. Currently, the winners with the status quo are: 1) networks, 2) ND, and 3) schools without better options. The ACC can’t publicly divulge who doesn’t want to sign a GoR, because these schools are the most easily persuadable to other conferences’ pitches.
The problem with the ACC’s TV contract is that it went on the market before the recent TV-rights explosion. If all the conferences were on the market right now… the ACC would easily take in more than the Big XII. It would be close with the Pac-12. The SEC and Big 10 are ahead of everyone, no doubt.
The Grant of Rights providing additional time to get to the next TV negotiation round would be helpful.
The TV contract is where ND can help. The ACC gave ND a nice landing spot for their Olympic sports, as well as great flexibility for ND’s national football schedule and access to bowl games. In exchange, ND gave 5 annual football games…2.5 games that the ACC can market.
If all-in ACC schools give GoR, then ND should contribute more to the TV contract value. Maybe by committing to 6 games overall or 3 annual games in ACC stadiums.
I’d like to see ESPN take ESPNU and rebrand it as the ACC Network. ESPN is going to lose a lot of content when the Big East schools split and each side cuts their ESPN deal. They’ll lose more low-end tier 2 content form the SEC when ESPN moves those games over to their network. An ACC network would take away a bit more. That won’t impact the quality of games you see on ESPN or ESPN2, but ESPNU’s quality will drop anyway.
Interesting.