Change is coming

Another wave of conference realignment

The life cycles of realignment have long been attached to the impending expiration of television contracts. As conferences approach new deals, history has shown that adding universities translates to additional inventory and dollars. Will that still be the case in an age where media is increasingly more fragmented?

The Big Ten’s TV deal is set to expire after the 2022-23 season, the Pac-12’s after the 2023-24 season and the Big 12’s after the 2024-25 season. That means that the Big Ten begins dabbling in the television market as soon as this calendar year. If any of those leagues had interest in expanding, the exploration would have either already begun or will start soon.

Perhaps more relevant to the prospect of a significant shakeup is the ACC’s untenable television deal that new commissioner Jim Phillips inherits. The ACC is locked up through 2035-36, and the fixed income of that contract essentially puts the league in cement financial shoes as its peers are poised to distance themselves from the ACC financially.

Can a creative and dynamic solution arise — like the addition of new big-brand partners — to prompt a new deal? It’s tricky, as ESPN didn’t become a worldwide conglomerate by ripping up deals that are tilted significantly in its favor.

(01-13-2021 09:22 PM)nole Wrote:  Change is coming

Another wave of conference realignment

The life cycles of realignment have long been attached to the impending expiration of television contracts. As conferences approach new deals, history has shown that adding universities translates to additional inventory and dollars. Will that still be the case in an age where media is increasingly more fragmented?

The Big Ten’s TV deal is set to expire after the 2022-23 season, the Pac-12’s after the 2023-24 season and the Big 12’s after the 2024-25 season. That means that the Big Ten begins dabbling in the television market as soon as this calendar year. If any of those leagues had interest in expanding, the exploration would have either already begun or will start soon.

Perhaps more relevant to the prospect of a significant shakeup is the ACC’s untenable television deal that new commissioner Jim Phillips inherits. The ACC is locked up through 2035-36, and the fixed income of that contract essentially puts the league in cement financial shoes as its peers are poised to distance themselves from the ACC financially.

Can a creative and dynamic solution arise — like the addition of new big-brand partners — to prompt a new deal? It’s tricky, as ESPN didn’t become a worldwide conglomerate by ripping up deals that are tilted significantly in its favor.

An interesting take by Thamel. Subsequent pages cover a lot more for those tempted to stop on page 1. The dynamics will change. The only thing I found weak by Thamel was the excuse for staying in the NCAA being that commissioners wouldn't make a move that affected their positions. This was a gloss attempt by Thamel. In reality those commissioners are all safe if what is formed is a new tier, but not a consolidated league, and there is no evidence that such consolidation needs to occur.

I absolutely agree that we move to all P scheduling within a decade and that more conference games are coming as well. Toss in NIL rulings and cash flow deficits due to COVID and you have ample reasons to expect further consolidations.

A bud of mine suggested that given the wholly different directions the commissioners took with COVID that a league primarily of Big 10/PAC schools and one primarily of ACC/SEC/B12 schools could form along ideological lines. I mean who wants to be tied to those who bail on athletics instead of finding a way to make them work?

What form it all takes is difficult to know. The SEC and ACC will probably work fairly tightly together. Does the Texas/Oklahoma block or some portion of them join? Maybe. But the real reason no consolidation into a league is coming as a bargaining unit is because the conferences are nowhere near to being on the same page financially and finances would be the common factor in consolidation. Texas and Oklahoma blend with SEC finances, the rest don't. So either we remain 3 distinct conferences with much tighter scheduling arrangements, or ESPN will eyeball taking the top product of the Big 12 and not the whole conference. It's going to be interesting.

(01-13-2021 09:22 PM)nole Wrote:  Change is coming

Another wave of conference realignment

The life cycles of realignment have long been attached to the impending expiration of television contracts. As conferences approach new deals, history has shown that adding universities translates to additional inventory and dollars. Will that still be the case in an age where media is increasingly more fragmented?

The Big Ten’s TV deal is set to expire after the 2022-23 season, the Pac-12’s after the 2023-24 season and the Big 12’s after the 2024-25 season. That means that the Big Ten begins dabbling in the television market as soon as this calendar year. If any of those leagues had interest in expanding, the exploration would have either already begun or will start soon.

Perhaps more relevant to the prospect of a significant shakeup is the ACC’s untenable television deal that new commissioner Jim Phillips inherits. The ACC is locked up through 2035-36, and the fixed income of that contract essentially puts the league in cement financial shoes as its peers are poised to distance themselves from the ACC financially.

Can a creative and dynamic solution arise — like the addition of new big-brand partners — to prompt a new deal? It’s tricky, as ESPN didn’t become a worldwide conglomerate by ripping up deals that are tilted significantly in its favor.

We really don't know what the financial arrangements are between ESPN and the ACC. When Syracuse and Pittsburgh were added, which included a contract extension, there was some reporting on the revised terms. However, since the ACC Network was launched and the contract extended another 10 years, there has been no reporting on the the financial terms during the out years aside from the revenue sharing arrangement with respect to the ACCN. It can be reasonably assumed that there was a bump in payouts based on the anticipated market value of conference games during this out period. Whether the ACC did a good job negotiating this bump is obviously a legitimate concern.

(01-14-2021 08:23 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(01-13-2021 09:22 PM)nole Wrote:  Change is coming

Another wave of conference realignment

The life cycles of realignment have long been attached to the impending expiration of television contracts. As conferences approach new deals, history has shown that adding universities translates to additional inventory and dollars. Will that still be the case in an age where media is increasingly more fragmented?

The Big Ten’s TV deal is set to expire after the 2022-23 season, the Pac-12’s after the 2023-24 season and the Big 12’s after the 2024-25 season. That means that the Big Ten begins dabbling in the television market as soon as this calendar year. If any of those leagues had interest in expanding, the exploration would have either already begun or will start soon.

Perhaps more relevant to the prospect of a significant shakeup is the ACC’s untenable television deal that new commissioner Jim Phillips inherits. The ACC is locked up through 2035-36, and the fixed income of that contract essentially puts the league in cement financial shoes as its peers are poised to distance themselves from the ACC financially.

Can a creative and dynamic solution arise — like the addition of new big-brand partners — to prompt a new deal? It’s tricky, as ESPN didn’t become a worldwide conglomerate by ripping up deals that are tilted significantly in its favor.

We really don't know what the financial arrangements are between ESPN and the ACC. When Syracuse and Pittsburgh were added, which included a contract extension, there was some reporting on the revised terms. However, since the ACC Network was launched and the contract extended another 10 years, there has been no reporting on the the financial terms during the out years aside from the revenue sharing arrangement with respect to the ACCN. It can be reasonably assumed that there was a bump in payouts based on the anticipated market value of conference games during this out period. Whether the ACC did a good job negotiating this bump is obviously a legitimate concern.

We 100% know the ACC is dead last in P5 (now the P2) conference payout.

We 100% know the ACC is somewhere between $18-$30 Million annual payout per team per year BELOW the P2 schools.

We 100% know that almost every other P5 conference has already signed for an increased or about to sign for an increase to SIGNIFICALLY increase that massive gap in the next 3 years.


Honestly, there isn't much left to know......change is coming.....ACC was asleep at the wheel the last 15 years and the damage will be significant.

Great. Another shift that will destroy what makes college foitball great in the first place. In a year where you'd expect ratings to be up due to covid, they were down.

(01-14-2021 05:39 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Great. Another shift that will destroy what makes college foitball great in the first place. In a year where you'd expect ratings to be up due to covid, they were down.

Politicize college football and you stand to lose 50% of your audience either way. Thankfully it wasn't nearly that much. But between that, and half of the P5 not starting when the other half plus a few did, and then having it become even more of a regional sport in a year that could have seen more inclusion instead of less, and none of us should be surprised. And if the corporatization of college sports continues it will fall even more.

I won't deny that politics have played their role. But across the board attendance has been declining the past ten years and ratings have peaked about 5 years ago.

You're an SEC guy, shouldn't Bama be playing Georgia, Tennessee and Florida every year as opposed to seeing then at home once every seven years?

What made the sport great is being thrown to the garbage bin for a few extra dollas and the only way to compete is throw more traditions to the curb and join a new league.

When this bubble pops, hopefully it's not too late.

(01-14-2021 07:35 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I won't deny that politics have played their role. But across the board attendance has been declining the past ten years and ratings have peaked about 5 years ago.

You're an SEC guy, shouldn't Bama be playing Georgia, Tennessee and Florida every year as opposed to seeing then at home once every seven years?

What made the sport great is being thrown to the garbage bin for a few extra dollas and the only way to compete is throw more traditions to the curb and join a new league.

When this bubble pops, hopefully it's not too late.

You can count on a 3% decline per year here on out just from the attrition of the Baby Boomers who wee mostly all players, cheerleaders, or bandmembers and love the game in high schools all across the nation.

People identify with games they played. I was a RT for the offense and Nose Guard on defense and played both ways. When I attend a game I watch the lines at work in the first quarter and by the 2nd I pretty much know, barring a severe lack of depth for the opposition, how the game is going to go. My daughters were band members for their high school games and their universities. They know football from years of being around it and enjoy the halftimes because of the bands. You can say the same for the cheerleaders and majorettes.

My point is those people are drawn to the games because they understand various aspects about them. The participation level beyond generation X is very low so the interest is low. Therefore as the older folks who had connections die out the younger folks who have no connection and no interest do other things. The same thing has already happened to basketball, but there are still playgrounds where pick up games are played. Softball and travel baseball is more of a niche upper middle class activity.

So Panther the decline is on and your assertions are not too far from reality through your observations.

I couldn't agree more about the loss of regionality impacting all of this. But I need only point to two catalysts that led to its loss. The first is the interest of corporate networks who wanted to reshape the alignments for their profit and paid for it. The second is the level of national debt and state debt that made our schools hungry for those extra sums. So here we are. And now we have the introduction of a third factor related to the first two. Higher Education will go through a downsizing. Part of that is due to robotics and declining job opportunities from that. Another part is the death of the family business which has been buried by corporate favors purchased from PAC money given our politicians. And finally by a demographic downturn in birthrates. Many immigrants, certainly not all, take a few generations before college is a must for them. So between higher immigration from the poorer people to the South of us and our own declining birth rate, and the lack of opportunities for independent entrepreneurships, and robotics and corporate mid level glass ceilings for management the need for higher education is rapidly declining except for STEM fields. If our children aren't going to be engineers, scientists or doctors then college is not worth the cost when trade schools for electricians and plumbers is more lucrative and less restrictive and controlled, or even confined.

So the stress for universities to seek new and larger revenue streams has just begun and that gives the networks even more leverage. It's not a pretty picture for any of us.

JR what do you think of the likelihood of large universities (or rich ones) creating their own networks? It seems like the next logical step to me and would actually create jobs.

(01-14-2021 08:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  JR what do you think of the likelihood of large universities (or rich ones) creating their own networks? It seems like the next logical step to me and would actually create jobs.

What I think and what I think will happen are two different things.

I agree with you 100% that they should pursue that, especially after paying the overhead to do so. They would more than double their revenue gains by doing so.

But, I don't think it will happen at all because University Presidents are political animals which are management adverse where hands on time is required, and are likely all beholden to corporate entities in one way or another. So like our Congress I don't count on them for anything but their blind obedience to the status quo that profits those who benefit them. They don't actually work for the states who pay them, or the students and faculty they command, but rather like all politically sensitive people, they work for themselves.

This is in every institution from Religious groups, to Academia, to Professional Associations, to Politics (both parties) to the Board Rooms of our Corporations. They are all risk adverse and self preserving.

Let's say the SEC wants to add FSU. How much would FSU have to pay to leave? We learned from Maryland leaving that the $50mil exit fee is only as enforceable as the amount of earnings that the ACC was able to withhold. Would the same thing apply to the GOR? If so then the total cost to leave wouldn't be any more than what MD paid because the ACC will only be able to withhold so much before FSU leaves the conference.

Does anyone have any evidence or theory that the GOR is more enforceable than the exit fee? HokeMark, any ideas?

(01-17-2021 01:31 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Let's say the SEC wants to add FSU. How much would FSU have to pay to leave? We learned from Maryland leaving that the $50mil exit fee is only as enforceable as the amount of earnings that the ACC was able to withhold. Would the same thing apply to the GOR? If so then the total cost to leave wouldn't be any more than what MD paid because the ACC will only be able to withhold so much before FSU leaves the conference.

Does anyone have any evidence or theory that the GOR is more enforceable than the exit fee? HokeMark, any ideas?

3 times the current distribution plus GOR Value - Maybe $150 Million? The league was not prepared for what MD did. The ACC and MD settled in the State of NC. NC's laws will apply. The degree of the legal battle is relative to the degree of the harm. Imagine that I am unhappy with the building contractor but I am holding back 25%. For him to successfully get the money from me, he has to demonstrate that he finished the job properly. As I understand that's the basic contract between a public entity and a private entity in NC. The ACC could have gone after the Big 10. Could have claimed tampering with a contract, except the tampering occurred before a solid written contract existed. FSU can't go to the SEC unless the SEC is prepared to potentially compensate the ACC.

(01-17-2021 01:31 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Let's say the SEC wants to add FSU. How much would FSU have to pay to leave? We learned from Maryland leaving that the $50mil exit fee is only as enforceable as the amount of earnings that the ACC was able to withhold. Would the same thing apply to the GOR? If so then the total cost to leave wouldn't be any more than what MD paid because the ACC will only be able to withhold so much before FSU leaves the conference.

Does anyone have any evidence or theory that the GOR is more enforceable than the exit fee? HokeMark, any ideas?

From my understanding, with the GOR, a program could leave their current conference, but their tv rights would stay with their current conference until the tv deal runs out, which in the ACC's case is a long ways out. The new conference would also not be able to cash in on the incoming schools tv revenue until the GOR runs out. If it were just a couple of years, it may be bearable. But we have like 12 years left on the ACC GOR.

(01-17-2021 05:19 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-17-2021 01:31 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Let's say the SEC wants to add FSU. How much would FSU have to pay to leave? We learned from Maryland leaving that the $50mil exit fee is only as enforceable as the amount of earnings that the ACC was able to withhold. Would the same thing apply to the GOR? If so then the total cost to leave wouldn't be any more than what MD paid because the ACC will only be able to withhold so much before FSU leaves the conference.

Does anyone have any evidence or theory that the GOR is more enforceable than the exit fee? HokeMark, any ideas?

From my understanding, with the GOR, a program could leave their current conference, but their tv rights would stay with their current conference until the tv deal runs out, which in the ACC's case is a long ways out. The new conference would also not be able to cash in on the incoming schools tv revenue until the GOR runs out. If it were just a couple of years, it may be bearable. But we have like 12 years left on the ACC GOR.

With the exit fee alone being about $110 million. The net present value of what is left on the GOR would be in excess of $300 million. Of course in any contract the parties can negotiate. In this case, ESPN is the middle of the negotiation. The SEC is also involved. It's so complicated and potentially expensive that the parties have to agree to something in advance. FSU does not add as much to the SEC as UNC/UVa/VT or NC State might. The SEC would likely concluded it's not worth it. The ACC would have to collapse first to make it feasible or it would have to be part of some global deal.

Only Texas has the money to do what it wants, when it wants.

(01-17-2021 05:33 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(01-17-2021 05:19 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-17-2021 01:31 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Let's say the SEC wants to add FSU. How much would FSU have to pay to leave? We learned from Maryland leaving that the $50mil exit fee is only as enforceable as the amount of earnings that the ACC was able to withhold. Would the same thing apply to the GOR? If so then the total cost to leave wouldn't be any more than what MD paid because the ACC will only be able to withhold so much before FSU leaves the conference.

Does anyone have any evidence or theory that the GOR is more enforceable than the exit fee? HokeMark, any ideas?

From my understanding, with the GOR, a program could leave their current conference, but their tv rights would stay with their current conference until the tv deal runs out, which in the ACC's case is a long ways out. The new conference would also not be able to cash in on the incoming schools tv revenue until the GOR runs out. If it were just a couple of years, it may be bearable. But we have like 12 years left on the ACC GOR.

With the exit fee alone being about $110 million. The net present value of what is left on the GOR would be in excess of $300 million. Of course in any contract the parties can negotiate. In this case, ESPN is the middle of the negotiation. The SEC is also involved. It's so complicated and potentially expensive that the parties have to agree to something in advance. FSU does not add as much to the SEC as UNC/UVa/VT or NC State might. The SEC would likely concluded it's not worth it. The ACC would have to collapse first to make it feasible or it would have to be part of some global deal.

Only Texas has the money to do what it wants, when it wants.

I don't think it would happen, but let's say that N.D. was remaining independent and that Texas would agree to join the ACC if 3 schools came with them. In that hypothetical I could see perhaps the ACC waiving an exit fee and dismissing the GOR with the networks blessing if two properties departed to round out the SEC at 16 and Texas and the other 3 would net everyone a lot more money in the ACC. But, I don't think FSU would be one of those. The schools involved would likely be market additions for the SEC and the ACC would hang onto to content schools.

Case in point: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and one of Baylor, T.C.U. and Tech head to the ACC adding two major content drivers and markets totaling 32 million. The SEC gets (and this is why they were talked about in 2012) N.C. State and Va Tech which are two mid tier additions bringing in markets totaling 20 million without the ACC or the SEC giving up anything they already had access to.

It's not the grand slam the SEC is looking for but they add to their middle. Both increase markets by a whopping margin. ESPN helps the ACC close the gap to a competitive level, Texas keeps what it wants most, the LHN is rolled into the ACCN, Oklahoma adds significantly to your pot and they work it because you take OSU.

Notre Dame is still happy and a lot more secure and ESPN has everything it wants but Kansas and who knows but maybe the SEC winds up with an extra slot for them.

Now that's the kind of hypothetical that would have to transpire for exit fees to be waived, the GOR waived and it would be as ESPN loses no product and only gains more access to Big 12 properties, and everybody wins.

You could include Kansas like so:

SEC West: Kansas, Mizzou, Arkansas, TT, TAMU, MSU (Brings TT as well)
SEC South: Ole Miss, Vandy, Bama, TN, UK, LSU
SEC East: VT, NC State, SC, UGa, Auburn, Florida

You might get ND all in with:

ACC North: ND, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Navy, Miami
ACC South: UVa, UNC, GT, Clemson, Duke, WF
ACC West: Texas, TCU, OU, OSU, Louisville, FSU

The key thing to me is that the division winners plus a wild card have a playoff. With a six team division, you could have a guaranteed annual rival, and then rotavate between the 11 you do not play. Using this years results in the ACC, ND would host Texas or Miami, and Clemson would host OU. Winners meet for the title. In the SEC it would have been Bama hosting Florida and TAMU hosting Georgia. Winners meet for title. The would create SEC/ACC annual or semi-annual rivalries with NC State and UNC/WF, VT with UVa, Texas-TT, TCU-TAMU/TT/

But that's a lot of structural change however it would make the Big/Pac irrelevant in most years.

(01-17-2021 10:12 PM)Statefan Wrote:  You could include Kansas like so:

SEC West: Kansas, Mizzou, Arkansas, TT, TAMU, MSU (Brings TT as well)
SEC South: Ole Miss, Vandy, Bama, TN, UK, LSU
SEC East: VT, NC State, SC, UGa, Auburn, Florida

You might get ND all in with:

ACC North: ND, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Navy, Miami
ACC South: UVa, UNC, GT, Clemson, Duke, WF
ACC West: Texas, TCU, OU, OSU, Louisville, FSU

The key thing to me is that the division winners plus a wild card have a playoff. With a six team division, you could have a guaranteed annual rival, and then rotavate between the 11 you do not play. Using this years results in the ACC, ND would host Texas or Miami, and Clemson would host OU. Winners meet for the title. In the SEC it would have been Bama hosting Florida and TAMU hosting Georgia. Winners meet for title. The would create SEC/ACC annual or semi-annual rivalries with NC State and UNC/WF, VT with UVa, Texas-TT, TCU-TAMU/TT/

But that's a lot of structural change however it would make the Big/Pac irrelevant in most years.

I think the SEC would insist upon T.C.U. in order to have a physical presence in DFW for Arkansas's sake. So maybe you guys get Tech. I don't think Navy is going to join a P5 conference period. The service academies are against the notion. Too much size differential and too many injuries as a result.

But you get the gist of it. 3 Division champs and a best at large is great for both conferences. 10 conference games for inventory to sell, play 5 divisional foes rotate two each from the other 2 divisions annually and have 1 permanent rival. You cover everyone in 3 years time.

And really does it matter what the Big 10 and PAC 12 thinks? The game is over with the landing of Oklahoma and Texas and the long term security of Notre Dame. There are no other prizes out there, certainly not in the PAC.

Try this:
Gulf Division: Florida State, Miami, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
Mid Atlantic: Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, Louisville, North Carolina, Wake Forest
North Atlantic: Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, West Virginia (or switch Baylor for W.V.U. and move Miami to the North Atlantic)

SEC:
Mountain: Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech
Gulf: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Mississippi State
West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Kansas, Missouri, Texas Christian, Texas A&M

(01-17-2021 06:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2021 05:33 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(01-17-2021 05:19 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-17-2021 01:31 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Let's say the SEC wants to add FSU. How much would FSU have to pay to leave? We learned from Maryland leaving that the $50mil exit fee is only as enforceable as the amount of earnings that the ACC was able to withhold. Would the same thing apply to the GOR? If so then the total cost to leave wouldn't be any more than what MD paid because the ACC will only be able to withhold so much before FSU leaves the conference.

Does anyone have any evidence or theory that the GOR is more enforceable than the exit fee? HokeMark, any ideas?

From my understanding, with the GOR, a program could leave their current conference, but their tv rights would stay with their current conference until the tv deal runs out, which in the ACC's case is a long ways out. The new conference would also not be able to cash in on the incoming schools tv revenue until the GOR runs out. If it were just a couple of years, it may be bearable. But we have like 12 years left on the ACC GOR.

With the exit fee alone being about $110 million. The net present value of what is left on the GOR would be in excess of $300 million. Of course in any contract the parties can negotiate. In this case, ESPN is the middle of the negotiation. The SEC is also involved. It's so complicated and potentially expensive that the parties have to agree to something in advance. FSU does not add as much to the SEC as UNC/UVa/VT or NC State might. The SEC would likely concluded it's not worth it. The ACC would have to collapse first to make it feasible or it would have to be part of some global deal.

Only Texas has the money to do what it wants, when it wants.

I don't think it would happen, but let's say that N.D. was remaining independent and that Texas would agree to join the ACC if 3 schools came with them. In that hypothetical I could see perhaps the ACC waiving an exit fee and dismissing the GOR with the networks blessing if two properties departed to round out the SEC at 16 and Texas and the other 3 would net everyone a lot more money in the ACC. But, I don't think FSU would be one of those. The schools involved would likely be market additions for the SEC and the ACC would hang onto to content schools.

Case in point: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and one of Baylor, T.C.U. and Tech head to the ACC adding two major content drivers and markets totaling 32 million. The SEC gets (and this is why they were talked about in 2012) N.C. State and Va Tech which are two mid tier additions bringing in markets totaling 20 million without the ACC or the SEC giving up anything they already had access to.

It's not the grand slam the SEC is looking for but they add to their middle. Both increase markets by a whopping margin. ESPN helps the ACC close the gap to a competitive level, Texas keeps what it wants most, the LHN is rolled into the ACCN, Oklahoma adds significantly to your pot and they work it because you take OSU.

Notre Dame is still happy and a lot more secure and ESPN has everything it wants but Kansas and who knows but maybe the SEC winds up with an extra slot for them.

Now that's the kind of hypothetical that would have to transpire for exit fees to be waived, the GOR waived and it would be as ESPN loses no product and only gains more access to Big 12 properties, and everybody wins.

So....
SEC
East - Florida, UGA, USC, NCSU, VT, UK, Tenn, Vandy
West - Bama, Auburn, Miss, Miss St, LSU, Ark, Mizzou, A&M

ACC
South - Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson, Tex, TCU, Okl, Okl St
North - BC, Cuse, Pitt, Louisville, UVA, UNC, Duke, Wake



The only thing is that you have to keep Oklahoma and Texas making more than they would be making in the B1G. So, maybe a double share of the ACCN for them, a double share of football TV revenue for winning the division and a double share of bowl/CFP revenue for the conference winner. That reduces everyone else's shares but might have to be done to make it happen.

I'd prefer VT stay in the ACC as it is, as I think we can compete better in the ACC Coastal or even ACC North (if they re-arrange the divisions) than in the SEC.

If SEC/BIG are making $50-$70 Million a year more per team........then the math starts to make it reasonable for them to buyout teams that would of otherwise been thought impossible. Maybe not TODAY...but 3, 5, 7, 10 years from now?

Change is coming. ACC will have a situation like the Big East.....they won't die, but they won't be on the main stage anymore. The only question is who gets stuck and who bails.

(01-18-2021 06:32 PM)nole Wrote:  If SEC/BIG are making $50-$70 Million a year more per team........then the math starts to make it reasonable for them to buyout teams that would of otherwise been thought impossible. Maybe not TODAY...but 3, 5, 7, 10 years from now?

Change is coming. ACC will have a situation like the Big East.....they won't die, but they won't be on the main stage anymore. The only question is who gets stuck and who bails.

Swofford is the one who killed it.

It's amazing to me that people blame Swofford for having less to sell than the B10 or SEC. It's like a bordello, if most of your girls are fat and ugly they are not going to rack in the cash that prettier girls will. It's that simple.

The B10 has 6 bankable names in football, Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Penn State, and Iowa. The SEC has 8 bankable names, Alabama, LSU, Florida, Auburn, Georgia, TAMU, and Tennessee.

The ACC only has 3 bankable names - Clemson, FSU, and Miami. Miami has not done **** since joining the ACC. FSU has gone into the septic tank twice in the last 15 years.

It's not even a contest regarding inventory to sell and still people want to blame Swofford or someone else other than their own decisions.

If you have an 82K seat stadium and you can't sell but about 65K tickets - that's on you. It's crazy to think that schools that seat 20-25K less per game are going to earn as much money as those seating 90-110K.

https://collegefootballnews.com/2019/07/...-analysis. Only Clemson, ND, and NC State have average attendance the last 5 years above 98% (Clemson is 100.11%). VT and FSU averaged 93% and Louisville 92%. Next is a three way tie between WF, GT and Miami at 86%. UNC, BC, and Syracuse are in the 70s. UVa is 65 and Duke is 68

ND and Clemson are ND and Clemson. NC State fans will not miss a tailgate for any reason. If your attendance is below 95% you have a problem that TV is not going to solve.