Zero chance as of now, but if ND keeps its (semi) indepnednce status and Texas doesn’t join the ACC as a full or a partial football member, would the ACC consdier a ND type deal with Penn State as a Plan C?

More specificially,

1) How financially benefical if PSU joins the ACC, playing five ACC games? 2) Would PSU consider this deal? Financially, it may not be a good move unless ESPN subsidizes heavily. I don’t know much about PSU but does it have Texas size ego or want a ND style independence?

Penn State is sucking off the trough that the Big Ten Network provides.

While it'd be a fun partial addition, I think the likelihood is right at 0.

Why would they take a $25-$40 Million a year pay cut to go to the ACC?

(04-18-2021 04:03 PM)nole Wrote:  Why would they take a $25-$40 Million a year pay cut to go to the ACC?

Well, they may get Nittany Lion Network. Don’t know how much the ESPN is willing to pay.

Yeah, that was a random thought.

(04-18-2021 04:03 PM)nole Wrote:  Why would they take a $25-$40 Million a year pay cut to go to the ACC?

Will it be that large of a pay cut if the ACC could lure a school of PSU magnitude, or would there be a pay cut at all? Remember by inviting another school would reopen the ACC deal with ESPN. Inviting Penn St would be a bigger deal than most schools. The ACC has been underpaid because they signed their long term tv deal before the markets kept resetting. Not because no one wants to watch the ACC.

After the Acc invited SU, Pitt and ND their deal was a couple million dollars shy of the SEC. Then the SEC started the SECN which caused a larger revenue gulf between the leagues. Then the SEC was able to renegotiate their tv deals because of shorter contract periods which resulted in even larger leads in revenue. There is nothing that the ACC could realistically do to catch the SEC and BIG, but there must be some options for the ACC to get somewhere near the vicinity of those 2 leagues. I also continue to believe and as I have always maintained that ESPN has a vested interest in seeing that the ACC continues as a thriving league and will do what is necessary to keep the league together.

The premise of the thread is allowing Penn State to be a partial member so they can be a football independent and I assume a full ACC member in other sports. Then again, other than Notre Dame which has historically been an independent along with a few others, very few schools really benefit much from being a football independent. Notre Dame has a few built in historical rivalries. Penn State, other than Big Ten teams which would probably not want to play Penn State if it bailed on the Big Ten, mostly backed out of most of the Eastern rivalry games in this century and many of those would be renewed in the ACC anyway (Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College). I'm thinking about possible Penn State independent schedules with no Big Ten teams and five ACC teams and they don't sound too good compared to the current Big Ten right now. If Penn State were to jump to the ACC (which I would only consider if as cuseroc said the money made it worthwhile) I would want to be a full ACC football member, not a partial.

Penn State now has what they—and JoePa—always wanted in the Big Ten: Maryland and Rutgers. AKA their little eastern brothers to beat down on a yearly basis. Although, don’t tell last year’s Terps that!

If you could somehow convince Penn St and ND to come in together as full members, with football then you might see a hefty increase.

That’s likely not happening.

(04-20-2021 05:15 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If you could somehow convince Penn St and ND to come in together as full members, with football then you might see a hefty increase.

That’s likely not happening.

I think the East coast super 16 team conference including ND and PSU was Swofford’s grand plan. If he were successful, he would have been hailed as a visionary...

(04-18-2021 08:26 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-18-2021 04:03 PM)nole Wrote:  Why would they take a $25-$40 Million a year pay cut to go to the ACC?

Will it be that large of a pay cut if the ACC could lure a school of PSU magnitude, or would there be a pay cut at all? Remember by inviting another school would reopen the ACC deal with ESPN. Inviting Penn St would be a bigger deal than most schools. The ACC has been underpaid because they signed their long term tv deal before the markets kept resetting. Not because no one wants to watch the ACC.

After the Acc invited SU, Pitt and ND their deal was a couple million dollars shy of the SEC. Then the SEC started the SECN which caused a larger revenue gulf between the leagues. Then the SEC was able to renegotiate their tv deals because of shorter contract periods which resulted in even larger leads in revenue. There is nothing that the ACC could realistically do to catch the SEC and BIG, but there must be some options for the ACC to get somewhere near the vicinity of those 2 leagues. I also continue to believe and as I have always maintained that ESPN has a vested interest in seeing that the ACC continues as a thriving league and will do what is necessary to keep the league together.

To say the ACC is underpaid only due to the timing of their media deal may be looking at it optimistically. Who's to say that's not still the best deal they could get if they were signing it today? Their dominant football team today won't draw many eyeballs if the should stop going to the CFP every year. And, until very recently, that's where they would be. If you are ESPN, how much are you going to gamble that Clemson will stay a Top Five program for decades?

(04-22-2021 12:34 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-18-2021 08:26 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-18-2021 04:03 PM)nole Wrote:  Why would they take a $25-$40 Million a year pay cut to go to the ACC?

Will it be that large of a pay cut if the ACC could lure a school of PSU magnitude, or would there be a pay cut at all? Remember by inviting another school would reopen the ACC deal with ESPN. Inviting Penn St would be a bigger deal than most schools. The ACC has been underpaid because they signed their long term tv deal before the markets kept resetting. Not because no one wants to watch the ACC.

After the Acc invited SU, Pitt and ND their deal was a couple million dollars shy of the SEC. Then the SEC started the SECN which caused a larger revenue gulf between the leagues. Then the SEC was able to renegotiate their tv deals because of shorter contract periods which resulted in even larger leads in revenue. There is nothing that the ACC could realistically do to catch the SEC and BIG, but there must be some options for the ACC to get somewhere near the vicinity of those 2 leagues. I also continue to believe and as I have always maintained that ESPN has a vested interest in seeing that the ACC continues as a thriving league and will do what is necessary to keep the league together.

To say the ACC is underpaid only due to the timing of their media deal may be looking at it optimistically. Who's to say that's not still the best deal they could get if they were signing it today? Their dominant football team today won't draw many eyeballs if the should stop going to the CFP every year. And, until very recently, that's where they would be. If you are ESPN, how much are you going to gamble that Clemson will stay a Top Five program for decades?

There are a couple of reasons that I believe this.

1) When the ACC invited SU and Pitt to the league ESPN raised the per school payout by, just under $4 million per team. Do you really think SU and Pitt were worth an additional $56 million per year when they were invited back in 2011? Even I, as an SU fan dont believe that.

2) When ESPN, did bump the ACC's payment, the ACC was only a couple million from the SEC at the time. Meanwhile, the Pac 12 renewed their tv deal which was paying them more than the ACC and the SEC per team payout at that time. Then a while later the SEC renewed their tv deal that blew out every other league not named Big 10. Also, The B12 confirmed a tv deal that paid them more than the ACC, after losing 4 schools.

Im not just looking at this situation optimistically, Im looking at things and how they transpired at that time. The ACC has by far the largest tv market of any conference and has many top 20 fb teams of all time traditionally. And just as many elite bb programs. Even if one says there is not as great a concentration of folks who may tune into watch fb, there will still be great viewership because of sheer numbers.

I must be the only one here who remembers the football eggs laid by the ACC in the late aughts until 2012.

1. FSU went in to the crapper
2. Clemson was still suffering under Tommy Bowden
3. VT was choking the Orange and Sugar bowl and then laid an egg against Boise State resulting in a loss four days later to JMU
4. UNC, NC State, and UVa accomplished less than nothing and NC State managed to do that with Russell Wilson
5. When your ACC title game pits teams with four losses or WF and BC you have a Hell of a problem.
6. Miami still has not showed up from the Big East

All of these factors played into a weak contract because Miami's, Clemson's nor FSU's resurrections could be seen at that time and VT had never quite made it over the hump. There is a lot of blame to go around.

The ACC is not underpaid because we get a de facto penalty for exposing Disney/ESPN and major Bowls to the prospect of having Wake Forest, Duke, or BC in their bowl game and the very small alumni base they represent. If 3 of 14 are tiny, the odds just on the face of getting the small team is 21%. In the SEC and Big 10 that risk is 1 of 14 or 7%. Now when we control for the product on the field, the Sugar Bowl NEVER has to worry that it might get Vandy and the Rose Bowl has only a minor chance of getting Northwestern.

(04-22-2021 02:13 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 12:34 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-18-2021 08:26 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-18-2021 04:03 PM)nole Wrote:  Why would they take a $25-$40 Million a year pay cut to go to the ACC?

Will it be that large of a pay cut if the ACC could lure a school of PSU magnitude, or would there be a pay cut at all? Remember by inviting another school would reopen the ACC deal with ESPN. Inviting Penn St would be a bigger deal than most schools. The ACC has been underpaid because they signed their long term tv deal before the markets kept resetting. Not because no one wants to watch the ACC.

After the Acc invited SU, Pitt and ND their deal was a couple million dollars shy of the SEC. Then the SEC started the SECN which caused a larger revenue gulf between the leagues. Then the SEC was able to renegotiate their tv deals because of shorter contract periods which resulted in even larger leads in revenue. There is nothing that the ACC could realistically do to catch the SEC and BIG, but there must be some options for the ACC to get somewhere near the vicinity of those 2 leagues. I also continue to believe and as I have always maintained that ESPN has a vested interest in seeing that the ACC continues as a thriving league and will do what is necessary to keep the league together.

To say the ACC is underpaid only due to the timing of their media deal may be looking at it optimistically. Who's to say that's not still the best deal they could get if they were signing it today? Their dominant football team today won't draw many eyeballs if the should stop going to the CFP every year. And, until very recently, that's where they would be. If you are ESPN, how much are you going to gamble that Clemson will stay a Top Five program for decades?

There are a couple of reasons that I believe this.

1) When the ACC invited SU and Pitt to the league ESPN raised the per school payout by, just under $4 million per team. Do you really think SU and Pitt were worth an additional $56 million per year when they were invited back in 2011? Even I, as an SU fan dont believe that.

2) When ESPN, did bump the ACC's payment, the ACC was only a couple million from the SEC at the time. Meanwhile, the Pac 12 renewed their tv deal which was paying them more than the ACC and the SEC per team payout at that time. Then a while later the SEC renewed their tv deal that blew out every other league not named Big 10. Also, The B12 confirmed a tv deal that paid them more than the ACC, after losing 4 schools.

Im not just looking at this situation optimistically, Im looking at things and how they transpired at that time. The ACC has by far the largest tv market of any conference and has many top 20 fb teams of all time traditionally. And just as many elite bb programs. Even if one says there is not as great a concentration of folks who may tune into watch fb, there will still be great viewership because of sheer numbers.

My sense was that it wasn't as much a matter of being signed before the market took an upswing as it was that the deal was for so many years. ESPN may have felt that the annual payments were too high in the first years of the deal, but that they would correct for that over the long haul. You point out that the ACC was within a few million of the SEC when this contract was signed. I believe that indicates those early years the ACC was probably overpaid.

As for the premise of this thread, the ACC might want PSU for football only, not for Olympic sports primarily with FB part time. Either way, they aren't interested in the ACC. We keep looking for innovative ways for the ACC to close the financial gap with the B1G and SEC. That's a futile exercise. There is no way that will happen barring a chaotic upheaval in all of college football.

I've done extensive analysis of the ACC TV contract in comparison to the other 4 power conferences. I can tell you that each time the ACC signed a contract or an extension, the new games were always paid at the current market rate. Therefore, a huge problem for the ACC is the fact that the initial contract was so long - thus locking too many years in at the lowest rate (The SEC also suffered from this somewhat, but they withheld their best game every week, which guaranteed a future bump that they will be getting in 2024).

Now, you can argue that another huge problem for the ACC is the number of small fan bases, and you'd have a point - particularly when it comes to bowl contracts - but that didn't seem to have a big impact on the TV revenue; they still got market rate every time.

(04-22-2021 07:38 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I've done extensive analysis of the ACC TV contract in comparison to the other 4 power conferences. I can tell you that each time the ACC signed a contract or an extension, the new games were always paid at the current market rate. Therefore, a huge problem for the ACC is the fact that the initial contract was so long - thus locking too many years in at the lowest rate (The SEC also suffered from this somewhat, but they withheld their best game every week, which guaranteed a future bump that they will be getting in 2024).

Now, you can argue that another huge problem for the ACC is the number of small fan bases, and you'd have a point - particularly when it comes to bowl contracts - but that didn't seem to have a big impact on the TV revenue; they still got market rate every time.

I think the small fan base thing is the biggest issue.

(04-22-2021 07:38 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I've done extensive analysis of the ACC TV contract in comparison to the other 4 power conferences. I can tell you that each time the ACC signed a contract or an extension, the new games were always paid at the current market rate. Therefore, a huge problem for the ACC is the fact that the initial contract was so long - thus locking too many years in at the lowest rate (The SEC also suffered from this somewhat, but they withheld their best game every week, which guaranteed a future bump that they will be getting in 2024).

Now, you can argue that another huge problem for the ACC is the number of small fan bases, and you'd have a point - particularly when it comes to bowl contracts - but that didn't seem to have a big impact on the TV revenue; they still got market rate every time.

The biggest problem the ACC has with TV contracts is that you do not have the dominant viewership in states you share with the Big 10 or SEC. When a network does business with the PAC 12 they know they are getting lousy viewership but they also know that the only way to reach that sports audience in the PAC 12 states during live broadcasts is through the PAC 12. This is the only reason the PAC 12 isn't a distant 5th behind the ACC today. Consequently the viewership numbers in terms of actual viewers to potential viewers within the tiny footprint of the Big 12 is only sufficient to stay ahead of the ACC because only in Iowa do they have another conference that dominates one of their states. The SEC is #1 in all of their states except for Texas which is so large that the A&M addition was still huge, in South Carolina where it's a virtual viewership dead heat with Clemson, and Florida where the Gators hold a plurality but not a defined majority. The Big 10 is #1 in all of the states they hold.

The ACC is absolutely #1 in North Carolina and Virginia, tied in South Carolina, holds a solid but not dominant position in Florida, and I could give you Massachusetts where I'm sure BC is likely the top college sports team but the issues when you get into New England is that they are so heavily professional markets that advertisers would rather spend their money on those franchises than on college sports.

So what's the favored sports in North Carolina? Not football per se. Virginia is likely split.

The ACC is where they are because advertisers have better options to reach your markets than by going through the ACC in most of your states.

This is the #1 reason the Big 10 was obsessed with Notre Dame. They may control all of their states, but Notre Dame gets advertisers into most of the major cities in the Big 10 without having to pay Big 10 rates. If the Big 10 ever landed N.D. outright it would be by far their most profitable addition since realignment began in the late 80's because it would mandate that advertisers to reach Big 10 audiences would have to go through the Big 10 office as there would no longer be any backdoors to reach their market. The ACC has way too many other ways for advertisers, even in the college market, to get to their base.

I don't know if you remember Mark but way back when I first came here to post I said that the market footprint model was a Network construct designed to break up each conference's leverage over its markets so that the networks didn't have to pay top rates for the rights. It is why ESPN has pushed so many scenarios in which schools from states, especially large population ones, should move so that two conferences could share a state and both broaden their footprints. The subscription fee payment model was the perfect lure for breaking up regional dominance among what had been regionally oriented conferences. It is, has been, and will be, all about what profits the corporations, in this case networks, as the whole realignment business since the OU/UGa vs the NCAA case in the early 80's became law. College sports suffered a hostile takeover by corporations through "media contracts". Once it started the networks controlled the most powerful by making them the richest and they manipulated the less powerful by using them to feed the rest. The PAC 12 took what they could but are terribly limited by distance and disinterest.

(04-22-2021 03:48 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I must be the only one here who remembers the football eggs laid by the ACC in the late aughts until 2012.

1. FSU went in to the crapper
2. Clemson was still suffering under Tommy Bowden
3. VT was choking the Orange and Sugar bowl and then laid an egg against Boise State resulting in a loss four days later to JMU
4. UNC, NC State, and UVa accomplished less than nothing and NC State managed to do that with Russell Wilson
5. When your ACC title game pits teams with four losses or WF and BC you have a Hell of a problem.
6. Miami still has not showed up from the Big East

All of these factors played into a weak contract because Miami's, Clemson's nor FSU's resurrections could be seen at that time and VT had never quite made it over the hump. There is a lot of blame to go around.

The ACC is not underpaid because we get a de facto penalty for exposing Disney/ESPN and major Bowls to the prospect of having Wake Forest, Duke, or BC in their bowl game and the very small alumni base they represent. If 3 of 14 are tiny, the odds just on the face of getting the small team is 21%. In the SEC and Big 10 that risk is 1 of 14 or 7%. Now when we control for the product on the field, the Sugar Bowl NEVER has to worry that it might get Vandy and the Rose Bowl has only a minor chance of getting Northwestern.

I always laugh at this one.

"We were horrible, so we locked in a 50 year contract...it's not Swofford's fault."

So many thoughts to this and other points above.

1) If you suck....don't lock in to a horrible contract for half a lifetime. Business neg. 101.

2) It isn't about the crapper....it's about TV ratings.

3) FSU won a NATIONAL TITLE in 2013.

4) Again, it doesn't matter whether you are good or bad....it's whether you bring TV ratings, but why do folks never say "well teams 3-13 of the ACC never produced over the last 30 years"....instead they say "Sure FSU won 14 ACC titles in a row and 3 national titles, but it's their fault because they sucked for 4 years out of the last 30"? The logic is insane.

(04-25-2021 03:11 PM)nole Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 03:48 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I must be the only one here who remembers the football eggs laid by the ACC in the late aughts until 2012.

1. FSU went in to the crapper
2. Clemson was still suffering under Tommy Bowden
3. VT was choking the Orange and Sugar bowl and then laid an egg against Boise State resulting in a loss four days later to JMU
4. UNC, NC State, and UVa accomplished less than nothing and NC State managed to do that with Russell Wilson
5. When your ACC title game pits teams with four losses or WF and BC you have a Hell of a problem.
6. Miami still has not showed up from the Big East

All of these factors played into a weak contract because Miami's, Clemson's nor FSU's resurrections could be seen at that time and VT had never quite made it over the hump. There is a lot of blame to go around.

The ACC is not underpaid because we get a de facto penalty for exposing Disney/ESPN and major Bowls to the prospect of having Wake Forest, Duke, or BC in their bowl game and the very small alumni base they represent. If 3 of 14 are tiny, the odds just on the face of getting the small team is 21%. In the SEC and Big 10 that risk is 1 of 14 or 7%. Now when we control for the product on the field, the Sugar Bowl NEVER has to worry that it might get Vandy and the Rose Bowl has only a minor chance of getting Northwestern.

I always laugh at this one.

"We were horrible, so we locked in a 50 year contract...it's not Swofford's fault."

So many thoughts to this and other points above.

1) If you suck....don't lock in to a horrible contract for half a lifetime. Business neg. 101.

2) It isn't about the crapper....it's about TV ratings.

3) FSU won a NATIONAL TITLE in 2013.

4) Again, it doesn't matter whether you are good or bad....it's whether you bring TV ratings, but why do folks never say "well teams 3-13 of the ACC never produced over the last 30 years"....instead they say "Sure FSU won 14 ACC titles in a row and 3 national titles, but it's their fault because they sucked for 4 years out of the last 30"? The logic is insane.

I realize the truth hurts you.

Let's look at the facts:

2000 - 11-2 Lost Orange Bowl final rank 5th (you will not finish the year ranked in the top 10 for the next 12 years.
2001 - 8-4 Won Gator - final rank 14th
2002 - 9-5 Lost Sugar Bowl - 21st
2003 - 10-3 Lost OB - 11th
2004 - 10-3 Won Gator - 19th
2005 - 8-5 Lost OB - 23rd
2006 - 7-6 Lost Emerald Bowl - NR
2007 - 6-6 Lost Music City Bowl - NR
2008 - 9-4 Won Citrus - 21st
2009 - 7-6 Won Gator - NR
2010 - 10-4 Won Peach Bowl - 17th
2011 - 9-4 Won Champs Bowl - 23rd
2012 - 10-2 Won Orange Bowl - 10th (first major bowl win in 13 years, first time back in the top 10 in 12 years - STILL UNABLE TO BEAT NC STATE ON A REGULAR BASIS).

Now UNC or NC State, or any other program in the ACC other than Clemson and perhaps Miami would love to have that 12 year record. But that's the record of a "HAS BEEN" program. Now, Jimbo finally righted the ship but you were in the proverbial crapper for your own standards for a decade. And when it comes to ratings, there is only so long you can stink before marginal viewers tune out.

The TRUTH is not a brand against FSU - it's just a fact. In a league very dependent on it's top 10 brand to produce - you didn't for a decade. You know full well that the ACC mix for value in the aughts was Florida State football, ACC Basketball, and the 11-13 other schools put together - a three legged stool.

That does not get any of the rest off the hook for suck performance, especially Miami. But a third of the ACC Eggs were in your basket and you dropped it and after a few years Swofford panicked.

(04-25-2021 04:35 PM)Statefan Wrote:  ...The TRUTH is not a brand against FSU - it's just a fact. In a league very dependent on it's top 10 brand to produce - you didn't for a decade. You know full well that the ACC mix for value in the aughts was Florida State football, ACC Basketball, and the 11-13 other schools put together - a three legged stool.

If you're saying that the other ACC football are never going to produce on the level of an FSU - even when the 'Noles are down - then it's time to start cutting some of them lose. You can afford to have a few non-contending teams, but not 10 of them!

Quote:That does not get any of the rest off the hook for suck performance, especially Miami. But a third of the ACC Eggs were in your basket and you dropped it and after a few years Swofford panicked.

Yes, he did - and it's now costing ACC teams at least $10 million per year per team.