Arkansas, with two national championships, plenty of history, and a location in a region where people are rabid about college football is a lot more likely to make it than Rutgers, a school with no football tradition of success in a region where pro football is king. A lot more people around the country would watch a 6-6 Arkansas team than a 6-6 Rutgers team. But let's hope it never comes to that. At any event, Rutgers needs to get very good very quickly to safeguard itself against whatever is going to come next.
OT: Lot of smoke about Clemson leaving ACC
- Thread starter JayDogSmooth
- Start date
neither would make it... who do you leave out of my 32 to fit Arkansas in? For 64 teams I think we are both in.
ND
Bama
Georgia
LSU
TAMU
UF
Mizzou
Tenn
Michigan
OSU
Indiana (or Purdue)
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Maryland
PSU
Illinois
UNC
Clemson
FSU
Miami
UVA
Pitt
Texas
Oklahoma
USC
UCLA
ASU
Utah
Washington
Oregon
Colorado
Nebraska (last add because of the national brand).. but it could be Stanford or Cal for that market.
Or maybe football is completely separate and for all other sports, the more traditional conferences would still exist.
So, who above do you leave out to go with Arkansas? And could you make that same case for Kentucky of Duke or Michigan State or Ole Miss.. etc.
Hopefully, this is all just a mental exercise and it will never come to pass. BTW.. your Arkansas history story is nice.. but we heard similar things about "Why Rutgers" when Big Ten added us. We still hear it... but HERE we are.
Last edited:
Perhaps I misread your post. You seemed to think that Rutgers would have a better shot than Arkansas. "And in the end I think market size matters... not enough to take a Rutgers over, say, Bama.. but maybe over Arkansas or Ole Miss.. but as I said, I don't think we'd make the cut if such a super conference were to be formed... nor do I think Arkansas would." I agree that neither would make it, but if one did, it wouldn't be Rutgers.
Rutgers is not being left out.
We have better ratings than some of the schools named.
Just so you know. . . last Saturday, Arkansas's game with LSU had a 1.3 rating; our game with Michigan had a 1.0 rating. We better hope it doesn't come down to Arkansas versus us! https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
Well, yes.. you are right. If the choice comes down to Rutgers or Arkansas.. I think the business decision is Rutgers.
But it would never come to that... because either they'd both be in or both be out... imho, of course.
Consider it this way.. the very premise of this is about a 32 team "superconference".. and that happens ONLY as a business decision... and that would signal the TV-interests coupled with business people in the conferences, power-brokers... they would be making the decisions and it would be about money. Can they make more with Rutgers or Arkansas? I think Rutgers.
But then I had this thought when ESPN, then a business partner with teh Big East, seemed to want to destroy Rutgers football. And the only rationale I could come up with was that they wanted the NYC media market completely open.. with no pesky local team stealing TV viewers (and ratings) for whatever out-of-market game they wanted to force college football fans in this market to watch.
Now.. of course they/we want to watch big games.. like Colorado vs TCU and then a few others. But the reason for this is that NATIONAL games attract NATIONAL advertisers and they pay big money... and teh cost to them, of NYC eyeballs is much more than that of a Little Rock Arkansas pair of eyeballs... purely because of income levels in the two markets.. disposable income. And a local game that steals eyeballs costs the network money. That, IMHO, is why we always seemed to be relegated to noon games.. or ESPN360 games.. or off-night games.. which ended up helping us get some national recognition, oddly enough..
I suspected this was why ESPN encouraged the ACC to add everyone EXCEPT Rutgers.. jumping over us to choose BC. Syracuse and Pitt as well... we are actually on the Atlantic Coast in teh largest TV market for the ACC... the Big Ten figured this out.. why didn't teh ACC? I think ESPN wanted the NYC market open.. so do all teh programs that traditionally recruited here.. no local team that makes it big and then shuts down recruiting.
The counter to that is that, surely, a successful Rutgers who gets more NYC eyeballs with help any network that had it.... but that is not really the case, IMO. Even a successful Rutgers does not have teh brand name and national interest of even a struggle team like Nebraska. They can make money with Rutgers in Philly and NYC.. but what about all the smaller markets? Smaller markets that when you total them all up... well, that's a lot.
The point of all this TLDNR explanation is that in our hypothetical 32 team superconference... the same sort of logic may apply. They might very well want to see the NYC market wide open so they can add it to any game they broadcast.
And my final point don't this matter is that you might consider how teh Jets and Giants.. especially in down years.. seem to be arranged to be away from other top team games... teams like KC have a national interest now but a small market. When teh Jets and Giants have no real pull nationally.. they seem to often play at the same time. Leaving other time slots available for other games to also grab the NYC market.
The NYC market is a prize and business people at these networks and conferences and advertisers probably have a lot of plans and scenes and strategies to make the most of it... and, I think, Rutgers has been hurt by it just like how New Jersey is hurt by not having its own real major network TV stations... and not not even its own real PBS stations... NYC's 13 controls them.
Back to the topic heading and claims of Clemson having found a way out of the GOR, each of the above opinions raise interesting points. I concur with retired711 that it's more likely than not that this is all "smoke" in the immediate sense. Rarely do these sort of rumors ever pan-out in the moment. GOR’s have existed for sometime and have never been seriously contested.
Despite the forgoing, this time, it actually seems plausible that Clemson (and, possibly, FSU and/or UNC) might attempt to contest, at least, full enforcement of the GOR. This is the winner-take-all moment of realignment with ALL major programs outside of the B1G and SEC switching conferences, other than those housed in the ACC solely because of its GOR. The ACC powerbrokers want out because they correctly recognize that there are now just two major power conferences (B1G and SEC). They feel entitled to be seated at the grownup’s table and, within reason, have the resources necessary to access those seats. And, they're unlikely to wait until 2036 for the possibility of a chair.
A plausible cause of action is needed to contest the enforceability of a GOR. The ACC’s addition of Stanford, Cal and SMU is more than sufficient to serve as an excuse to file suit. It’s reasonable for Clemson to assert that despite the ACC’s governance documents stipulating that conference expansion was always a possibility, it was never reasonably contemplated that the ACC would expand solely by adding realignment left-over schools on the other side of the continent.
Clemson would argue that the gross negligence of its fellow conference members in recklessly admitting new schools, requiring additional burdens to student-athletes and associated increased travel costs, etc., without any reliable corresponding increase in revenue, amounted to long-term devaluation of the ACC and its brand. By voting "no" on conference expansion, despite the short-term gain, Clemson (and FSU and UNC) further strengthened its hand as it wouldn't be complicit in decisions made to its perceived detriment.
Once in court, jaydog’s observation become relevant. If ever litigated, the GOR will never go to trial. Virtually every claim premised on breach of contract settles. Here, the absence of any meaningful caselaw addressing novel concepts like GORs, virtually guarantees settlement, as the uncertainty as to a predictable outcome will force a compromise.
Clemson and its fellow disgruntled ACC cohorts are smart enough to recognize that they have little chance in invalidating the GOR. But, invalidation wouldn’t be their real goal in litigation. Instead, it would be to negotiate a costly, but manageable exit fee. For the ACC, despite the strength of their argument that the rigid terms of the GOR are truly enforceable, it would be unwise to go the distance and assume the best at trial. Not only would the optics be awful, but even the unlikely possibility of an adverse outcome would absolutely destroy the conference at great financial loss to the members.
In the end, I concur with retired711. This is likely smoke. Still, should it actually occur, as jaydog suggests, the ability of a school to leave the ACC will come to a settlement. As the ACC's ESPN contract runs until 2036, the price-point for departure in the near future will only be affordable to those schools vocally opposed to expansion (which supports a strategy of voting against their own immediate self-interest). These payouts will, of course, be in the hundreds of millions, per school. However, they'll also prove to both be an additional source of revenue and sufficiently unaffordable to keep the remainder of the ACC together as a conference, either forever or until more desirable options arise.
Conference realignment sucks. But, I have little sympathy for the ACC. It was the ACC's Commissioner, John Swofford, who initiated to whole hostile-takeover realignment process, resulting in the death of the Big East as an all-sports conference. Only because of his epic miscalculation in building a wall to exclude the DC-Philly-NYC corridor by adding Pitt and Syracuse, instead of taking Rutgers and prioritizing the needs of Maryland within the most populous region in the country, would we be in the B1G today.
Dont any of these schools realize everyone is going to run to 2 conferences and the distribution is going to go down eventually. It's not endless $$.. the next transition is going to be teams within conferences are going to get to get paid based on TV ratings
The idea that the GOR is void because "expansion was not reasonably contemplated" is implausible. The ACC had expanded just a couple of years before the GOR, so everybody was aware that expansion was possible on a two-thirds vote. Someone could have said, "we'll sign the GOR only if consent to expand further is unanimous," but no one did that. They're stuck with the deal they made.
I continue to be unconvinced there is any legal theory for voiding the GOR. Clemson, FSU, or whoever can get only by consent of the other members, which would mean paying a *lot* of money.
I continue to be unconvinced there is any legal theory for voiding the GOR. Clemson, FSU, or whoever can get only by consent of the other members, which would mean paying a *lot* of money.
TBH, I think a lot of these rumors are wishful thinking by fanbases without any basis in fact. Anyone talking about a team leaving the ACC has to explain how it will get out of the GOR. We've heard three or four legal theories here about how the GOR can be broken-- but none sound promising.
Obviously the opinions expressed here are hard and fast beliefs and cannot be changed by any arguments.
The one point I would like to make is that the constant assumption that any ACC schools have guaranteed spots in the B10 or SEC is just speculation. If you pay close attention to the Jim Delaney interview on expansion, you may change your mind. Tell me which provider(s) of college football games on Cable, satellite or streaming need more content AND can afford to pay each new member 70 - 100 million dollars per year. I would really like to know.
The one point I would like to make is that the constant assumption that any ACC schools have guaranteed spots in the B10 or SEC is just speculation. If you pay close attention to the Jim Delaney interview on expansion, you may change your mind. Tell me which provider(s) of college football games on Cable, satellite or streaming need more content AND can afford to pay each new member 70 - 100 million dollars per year. I would really like to know.
I think it’s pretty obvious that this is the way things are going, as Ohio State and Michigan certainly think they deserve more money than Rutgers based on ratings, and it’s kinda hard to argue with him on that
I wouldnt blame them. But the history of unequaled revenue distribution - or even the suggestion of it - is it is a precursor for that conference's death.
As JayDog said everyone always wants more GREED is human nature. I honestly see super conferences disbanding in the future. No different than a rock band, there's always going to someone who thinks they deserve more than the others
Last edited:
Yep
Things will be much different in 15-20 years, if not sooner, then they are today IMO
Similar threads
