(08-25-2022 10:52 AM)1845 Bear Wrote: They'd likely lose money unless ESPN is willing to pay more. They may not have the leverage in the contract to get more unless they add a Notre Dame or Texas sized brand.
I don't get the money thing. Basically everyone not in the SEC/Big 10 looks on pace to get $35-40mm ish regardless of whether PAC, Big 12, ACC conference.
Unlike the other two the ACC has a contract that extends into the 2030's. It isn't in an open market scenario and ESPN has the rights to their games and any expansion games for a negotiated price already. Unless ESPN agrees to add more... no marginal increases.
Quote:This is about survival and positioning your conference to be alive and positioned well in the future. The real battle here is between the ACC and Big 12 as to who will be the 3rd best conference (I am assuming PAC is going to lose more teams to Big 10).
The ACC could be aggressive right now to at minimum stay in the game and at best be the 3rd best conference after all the dust settles and the Big 10/SEC take who they want in the future.
Just shocked they are not being proactive. If I could add teams and maintain the same payout...I am voting yes if I am an ACC school.
And from North Carolina, Clemson, FSU, Virginia perspective.....what is the negative to bring in more teams as long as it 1) Doesn't extend GOR 2) keeps my payout the same?
It goes back to the contract. They don't have the ability to sell to anyone else so they have to ask ESPN per a contract the ACC agreed to.
Because it reinforces the GoR and more votes against the high value schools. And the benefit just isn't worth the effort. It's like going through a divorce and wanting to move the hell out of the house...you don't focus on sprucing up the joint.
(08-25-2022 11:53 AM)LeeNobody Wrote: The reason the ACC is not doing anything is they have piss poor leadership.
John Swofford let himself get played for a generation and kept cashing check. The voting block of UVA and the 4 NC schools kept the conference focused on BB instead of the much more profitable football. When Maryland walked out for more money in the B1G, the ACC decided that sports rights were a bubble and signed a decade long year deal while the B1G signed a 5 year deal. Then they were late to the game on conference networks and extended the GOR another 10 years at below market rate to get one that is only now reaching comparable distribution to the sec network at lower ad rates.
Once the calls for replacement finally picked up, who do they hire but a college athlethics dean, Jim Phillips instead of someone to get out under ESPNs thumb. What are Jim Phillips accomplishments:
Getting played by B1G in forming an Alliance to delay the playoff. Unknown to him the B1G just wanted to make sure they got paid before the playoff expanded so their rights weren't competing with the playoff rights.
Getting played by ND for a single season of membership when he could have leveraged for at least 2 seasons.
Holding a contest to move ACC headquarters out of NC that will likely result in staying in NC, with tax breaks 1 guess.
Killing the terrible divisions of the ACC. Thats something I guess, though the new permanents are a head scratcher
1/4 is an F in my book.
At media days Phillips is preaching about the greater good, when he doesnt work for the greater good. He works for the ACC. There was no bold vision, no seizing circumstances. He should have said "we are going to keep doing what we are doing, because thats what we have always done."
This is the biggest reason I am an ACC doomer. The ACC could be conference 3 and save all members from relegation, instead we are all going down on this Titanic. Some will survive, I hope Tech is one, but I dont have hope the ACC will survive.
(08-25-2022 11:10 AM)Skyhawk Wrote: I agree. Not adding schools right now makes them look weak and unstable.
The ACC is weak and unstable. Sometimes there just aren't enough porcine cosmetics available to hide reality, and no school that could counter that perception would come anywhere near the ACC and its onerous GoR right now.
I wouldn't say that instability is an issue. No one is going anywhere for another 15 years.
In 15 years, if not one has left the ACC, those schools will be afterthoughts, 2nd tier, left behind.
(08-25-2022 10:52 AM)1845 Bear Wrote: They'd likely lose money unless ESPN is willing to pay more. They may not have the leverage in the contract to get more unless they add a Notre Dame or Texas sized brand.
I don't get the money thing. Basically everyone not in the SEC/Big 10 looks on pace to get $35-40mm ish regardless of whether PAC, Big 12, ACC conference.
This is about survival and positioning your conference to be alive and positioned well in the future. The real battle here is between the ACC and Big 12 as to who will be the 3rd best conference (I am assuming PAC is going to lose more teams to Big 10).
The ACC could be aggressive right now to at minimum stay in the game and at best be the 3rd best conference after all the dust settles and the Big 10/SEC take who they want in the future.
Just shocked they are not being proactive. If I could add teams and maintain the same payout...I am voting yes if I am an ACC school.
And from North Carolina, Clemson, FSU, Virginia perspective.....what is the negative to bring in more teams as long as it 1) Doesn't extend GOR 2) keeps my payout the same?
The ACC is stuck in their existing contract until 2036. They can only add if ESPN wants to add. And with the buyout, peeling off Big 12 schools would be difficult. Just not enough of a dollar difference, and maybe even a deficit.
Most of the ACC will find a life boat. The top 4 to 8 will head to the SEC or Bg10. A few others will probably get a Big12 lifeboat. Only maybe 2 to 4 teams at most might be stuck in an Oregon St/Washington St situation---and even they have will still have the ability to rebuild the ACC into a pretty interesting eastern home with the east coast G5's of their choice. Say 4 are left (say its BC, Syracuse, Wake, Duke)---likely they add schools like ECU, UCF, Memphis, Navy, Temple, SMU, Rice, Tulane, and Army. Given the remaining members---maybe they reconstruct their conference with more of a basketball vibe--or they focus on creating an academically elite conference---but in the end---they will have a decent home with reasonable geography constructed with the priorities they value most.
(This post was last modified: 08-25-2022 02:17 PM by Attackcoog.)
(08-25-2022 11:53 AM)LeeNobody Wrote: The reason the ACC is not doing anything is they have piss poor leadership.
John Swofford let himself get played for a generation and kept cashing check. The voting block of UVA and the 4 NC schools kept the conference focused on BB instead of the much more profitable football. When Maryland walked out for more money in the B1G, the ACC decided that sports rights were a bubble and signed a decade long year deal while the B1G signed a 5 year deal. Then they were late to the game on conference networks and extended the GOR another 10 years at below market rate to get one that is only now reaching comparable distribution to the sec network at lower ad rates.
Once the calls for replacement finally picked up, who do they hire but a college athlethics dean, Jim Phillips instead of someone to get out under ESPNs thumb. What are Jim Phillips accomplishments:
Getting played by B1G in forming an Alliance to delay the playoff. Unknown to him the B1G just wanted to make sure they got paid before the playoff expanded so their rights weren't competing with the playoff rights.
Getting played by ND for a single season of membership when he could have leveraged for at least 2 seasons.
Holding a contest to move ACC headquarters out of NC that will likely result in staying in NC, with tax breaks 1 guess.
Killing the terrible divisions of the ACC. Thats something I guess, though the new permanents are a head scratcher
1/4 is an F in my book.
At media days Phillips is preaching about the greater good, when he doesnt work for the greater good. He works for the ACC. There was no bold vision, no seizing circumstances. He should have said "we are going to keep doing what we are doing, because thats what we have always done."
This is the biggest reason I am an ACC doomer. The ACC could be conference 3 and save all members from relegation, instead we are all going down on this Titanic. Some will survive, I hope Tech is one, but I dont have hope the ACC will survive.
(08-25-2022 10:50 AM)Boots Wrote: Just stunned that the ACC is standing still. This is like the PAC not adding any B12 teams last summer when they had the chance. They are going to regret this and are missing a major opportunity.
If the ACC right now added 6 schools to go to 20.....that would ensure even with a Big 10/SEC future poaching of up to 8 ACC teams that at least the ACC conference exists in 10-20 years from now.
As it stands if the Big 10/SEC poach 8 ACC teams (4 each)....the remaining 6 ACC could go to Big 12 and the ACC no longer exists. Gone.
And I believe the ACC still holds enough power here to attract schools right now. But, if the Big 12 gets much stronger, than maybe they cannot poach from Big 12 any more...and the Big 12 is in a stronger position.
They could even jump in to grab the 4 corners right now and beat the Big 12 to the punch. Utah, CO, ASU, AZ would love the prestige of the ACC.
If they want more geographical additions: Cincy, UCF, WVU, TCU, Baylor, Ok. State/Kansas. (this also puts a massive hit and weakens the Big 12 who is their biggest competitor moving forward).
Or could go more national...Utah, CO, ASU, AZ, TCU, Baylor (you pick up Salt Lake, Denver, Phoenix, Texas markets)....geez that's a lot of new TVs.
There has to be a way around any GOR issues of adding teams. You got to think the lower half of the ACC would be very in favor of doing this to ensure their survival.
The sad reality for the ACC is that the left behind schools from the pac and big 12 can get similar money but without the insane travel of playing in an east coast conference or the 14 year GoR. Also, there’s nobody outside of the P2 who can really improve the ACC’s annual payouts much at all other than ND. To jump up even $5m the ACC would need to add a school that brings in $36m plus another $75m, so $111m. Or maybe 2 schools that each bring in 36 plus another 40m, so $76m each. Where do you find those schools? And even if you did find them, it doesn’t matter if they would add $5m if ESPN isn’t willing to pay it.
As for the teams you listed, they would move the needle in the wrong direction if anything even if they wanted to join.
(08-25-2022 10:52 AM)1845 Bear Wrote: They'd likely lose money unless ESPN is willing to pay more. They may not have the leverage in the contract to get more unless they add a Notre Dame or Texas sized brand.
I don't get the money thing. Basically everyone not in the SEC/Big 10 looks on pace to get $35-40mm ish regardless of whether PAC, Big 12, ACC conference.
This is about survival and positioning your conference to be alive and positioned well in the future. The real battle here is between the ACC and Big 12 as to who will be the 3rd best conference (I am assuming PAC is going to lose more teams to Big 10).
The ACC could be aggressive right now to at minimum stay in the game and at best be the 3rd best conference after all the dust settles and the Big 10/SEC take who they want in the future.
Just shocked they are not being proactive. If I could add teams and maintain the same payout...I am voting yes if I am an ACC school.
And from North Carolina, Clemson, FSU, Virginia perspective.....what is the negative to bring in more teams as long as it 1) Doesn't extend GOR 2) keeps my payout the same?
The ACC Grant of Rights specifically requires all new additions to sign the GOR.
What schools are willing to sign away all of their rights and be stuck in place no matter what for the next 14 years?
What schools? The ones who not only wouldn't add value to the ACC but also who would dilute its value. There are no teams available that would maintain the ACC's current payout who would agree to come.
(08-25-2022 11:10 AM)Skyhawk Wrote: I agree. Not adding schools right now makes them look weak and unstable.
The ACC is weak and unstable. Sometimes there just aren't enough porcine cosmetics available to hide reality, and no school that could counter that perception would come anywhere near the ACC and its onerous GoR right now.
I wouldn't say that instability is an issue. No one is going anywhere for another 15 years.
In 15 years, if not one has left the ACC, those schools will be afterthoughts, 2nd tier, left behind.
We’ve seen schools start programs and become competitive with zero TV money. Please explain.
(08-25-2022 10:50 AM)Boots Wrote: Just stunned that the ACC is standing still. This is like the PAC not adding any B12 teams last summer when they had the chance. They are going to regret this and are missing a major opportunity.
If the ACC right now added 6 schools to go to 20.....that would ensure even with a Big 10/SEC future poaching of up to 8 ACC teams that at least the ACC conference exists in 10-20 years from now.
As it stands if the Big 10/SEC poach 8 ACC teams (4 each)....the remaining 6 ACC could go to Big 12 and the ACC no longer exists. Gone.
And I believe the ACC still holds enough power here to attract schools right now. But, if the Big 12 gets much stronger, than maybe they cannot poach from Big 12 any more...and the Big 12 is in a stronger position.
They could even jump in to grab the 4 corners right now and beat the Big 12 to the punch. Utah, CO, ASU, AZ would love the prestige of the ACC.
If they want more geographical additions: Cincy, UCF, WVU, TCU, Baylor, Ok. State/Kansas. (this also puts a massive hit and weakens the Big 12 who is their biggest competitor moving forward).
Or could go more national...Utah, CO, ASU, AZ, TCU, Baylor (you pick up Salt Lake, Denver, Phoenix, Texas markets)....geez that's a lot of new TVs.
There has to be a way around any GOR issues of adding teams. You got to think the lower half of the ACC would be very in favor of doing this to ensure their survival.
Why hasn't the ACC done (or more accurately announced) anything?
Probably because the conference isn't run by panicky fans and wildly speculating conference-realignment fan boys.
(This post was last modified: 08-25-2022 02:02 PM by CrazyPaco.)
Because its GOR means it is currently safe from being poached and its GOR means it can’t offer payouts anywhere near what the BIG/SEC or even the B12 can.
(08-25-2022 11:10 AM)Skyhawk Wrote: I agree. Not adding schools right now makes them look weak and unstable.
The ACC is weak and unstable. Sometimes there just aren't enough porcine cosmetics available to hide reality, and no school that could counter that perception would come anywhere near the ACC and its onerous GoR right now.
I wouldn't say that instability is an issue. No one is going anywhere for another 15 years.
In 15 years, if not one has left the ACC, those schools will be afterthoughts, 2nd tier, left behind.
We’ve seen schools start programs and become competitive with zero TV money. Please explain.
Not many, not recently at a noteworthy level anyway. Perhaps you're thinking about big ol' UCF located in Orlando FL? They'd be a great backfill to the ACC right now. It's too bad it can't happen. Yet.
(This post was last modified: 08-25-2022 02:04 PM by GarnetAndBlue.)
(08-25-2022 01:57 PM)esayem Wrote: We’ve seen schools start programs and become competitive with zero TV money
Not happening in football and men's basketball on the level which UNC and Miami are trying to compete.
The gaps between the haves and have-nots will never have been as wide as what we'll see once the B1G and SEC have taken what they want from the ACC, PAC and Big XII
(08-25-2022 01:57 PM)esayem Wrote: We’ve seen schools start programs and become competitive with zero TV money
Not happening in football and men's basketball on the level which UNC and Miami are trying to compete.
The gaps between the haves and have-nots will never have been as wide as what we'll see once the B1G and SEC have taken what they want from the ACC, PAC and Big XII
Is TV revenue the only source of income?
Is TV revenue the only way to fund a program?
Are student athletes now allowed to accept lucrative NIL deals?
Answer those questions honestly. Look in the mirror. Say “it’s going to be okay, Pete the Chop.”
So interesting...most all the excuses of why the ACC doesn't add or why schools wouldn't be interested is all about money. I get it....but don't get it.
Every school outside the SEC and Big 10 needs to understand...there is no "catching" those conferences. This isn't about an extra $5mm plus or minus. No matter whether you are in PAC, Big 12, ACC you are going to get approximately 30-40mm. The ACC payout is $40mm right now.
This is about positioning yourself as an institution/conference firmly in the future College Football system and surviving.
So if the ACC wants to add 6 teams at $40mm and it guarantees your survival....you should take it. A school like TCU, Houston, etc. is not going to the Big 10 or SEC. So they need to survive.
For the time being, ACC is in a position of strength over the Big 12 and PAC in my opinion. But if Big 12 secures the 4 corners it is debatable.
Two types of people....proactive and reactive. ACC appears to be very reactive and its going to hurt them dearly. Need to learn from the PAC.
Eat or be eaten.
(This post was last modified: 08-25-2022 02:25 PM by Boots.)
(08-25-2022 10:50 AM)Boots Wrote: Just stunned that the ACC is standing still. This is like the PAC not adding any B12 teams last summer when they had the chance. They are going to regret this and are missing a major opportunity.
If the ACC right now added 6 schools to go to 20.....that would ensure even with a Big 10/SEC future poaching of up to 8 ACC teams that at least the ACC conference exists in 10-20 years from now.
As it stands if the Big 10/SEC poach 8 ACC teams (4 each)....the remaining 6 ACC could go to Big 12 and the ACC no longer exists. Gone.
And I believe the ACC still holds enough power here to attract schools right now. But, if the Big 12 gets much stronger, than maybe they cannot poach from Big 12 any more...and the Big 12 is in a stronger position.
They could even jump in to grab the 4 corners right now and beat the Big 12 to the punch. Utah, CO, ASU, AZ would love the prestige of the ACC.
If they want more geographical additions: Cincy, UCF, WVU, TCU, Baylor, Ok. State/Kansas. (this also puts a massive hit and weakens the Big 12 who is their biggest competitor moving forward).
Or could go more national...Utah, CO, ASU, AZ, TCU, Baylor (you pick up Salt Lake, Denver, Phoenix, Texas markets)....geez that's a lot of new TVs.
There has to be a way around any GOR issues of adding teams. You got to think the lower half of the ACC would be very in favor of doing this to ensure their survival.
Why hasn't the ACC done (or more accurately announced) anything?
Probably because the conference isn't run by panicky fans and wildly speculating conference-realignment fan boys.
(08-25-2022 02:16 PM)Boots Wrote: So interesting...most all the excuses of why the ACC doesn't add or why schools wouldn't be interested is all about money. I get it....but don't get it.
Every school outside the SEC and Big 10 needs to understand...there is no "catching" those conferences. This isn't about an extra $5mm plus or minus. No matter whether you are in PAC, Big 12, ACC you are going to get approximately 30-40mm. The ACC payout is $40mm right now.
This is about positioning yourself as an institution/conference firmly in the future College Football system and surviving.
So if the ACC wants to add 6 teams at $40mm and it guarantees your survival....you should take it. Even if you have to sign the GOR. A school like TCU, Houston, etc. is not going to the Big 10 or SEC. So they need to survive.
For the time being, ACC is in a position of strength over the Big 12 and PAC in my opinion. But if Big 12 secures the 4 corners it is more debatable.
Eat or be eaten. So if ACC doesn't act to secure their future...their stupid and open the door for some other conference to jump you.
I agree for the most part.
But a conference is a sum of its parts, not a freestanding entity. In this case, ESPN has monetary interest invested in the ACC, hence the ACCN and the GOR.
I think the Pac/Big XII stuff has to shake out a bit before the ACC can make their move. Meanwhile the Big Pig of the Windy City is keeping every eligible lady on the west coast waiting for an invitation to the ball. It’s laughable really.
...not sure if it's already been hashed out o this thread, but the thought is that ESPN is wanting the ACC to remain intact until ESPN gets some sort of return on the ACCnetwork... THIS makes as much sense as anything else I've heard about why the ACC is in a stalemate, other than the GOR itself...
FWIW, here's one of our YouTube buds with the info:
(This post was last modified: 08-25-2022 02:28 PM by GreenFreakUAB.)
(08-25-2022 10:50 AM)Boots Wrote: Just stunned that the ACC is standing still. This is like the PAC not adding any B12 teams last summer when they had the chance. They are going to regret this and are missing a major opportunity.
If the ACC right now added 6 schools to go to 20.....that would ensure even with a Big 10/SEC future poaching of up to 8 ACC teams that at least the ACC conference exists in 10-20 years from now.
As it stands if the Big 10/SEC poach 8 ACC teams (4 each)....the remaining 6 ACC could go to Big 12 and the ACC no longer exists. Gone.
And I believe the ACC still holds enough power here to attract schools right now. But, if the Big 12 gets much stronger, than maybe they cannot poach from Big 12 any more...and the Big 12 is in a stronger position.
They could even jump in to grab the 4 corners right now and beat the Big 12 to the punch. Utah, CO, ASU, AZ would love the prestige of the ACC.
If they want more geographical additions: Cincy, UCF, WVU, TCU, Baylor, Ok. State/Kansas. (this also puts a massive hit and weakens the Big 12 who is their biggest competitor moving forward).
Or could go more national...Utah, CO, ASU, AZ, TCU, Baylor (you pick up Salt Lake, Denver, Phoenix, Texas markets)....geez that's a lot of new TVs.
There has to be a way around any GOR issues of adding teams. You got to think the lower half of the ACC would be very in favor of doing this to ensure their survival.
Why hasn't the ACC done (or more accurately announced) anything?
Probably because the conference isn't run by panicky fans and wildly speculating conference-realignment fan boys.
True. No one on this board knows what the hell is going on now or what is going to happen in the future. The ACC is not a sinking ship.
/
Why is ACC not doing anything? !
with the info: 