I see 2 sides with hard stances represented on this site: (1) wants their favorite school to leave the ACC, (2) does not want to address the problem that makes (1) want to leave.

I’d hope that in the ACC meeting room there is a lot more flexibility and a reasonable compromise can be had so that the ACC survives and everybody is happy past 2036.

(1) Should want to work things out because it’s generally thought to be easier to win football games in this conference. Plus, (depending on your school) there is a long history with the other members and the ease of traveling in your region.

(2) Should want to work things out for long term stability. There will be a big drop off in payment in 2037 if you are a fan of one of the unlucky schools left behind. Besides that, do you really want your long time conference partners to leave?


How can we save this?

We have no idea what will happen in 2036 or beyond. The B12 has lost their six top programs over the past 13 years…and the new B12 commissioner / schools / boosters all believe that their conference is in the catbird seat going forward. Obsessing about what may happen in 13 years isn’t going to help resolve problems.

(03-09-2023 10:26 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I see 2 sides with hard stances represented on this site: (1) wants their favorite school to leave the ACC, (2) does not want to address the problem that makes (1) want to leave.

I’d hope that in the ACC meeting room there is a lot more flexibility and a reasonable compromise can be had so that the ACC survives and everybody is happy past 2036.

(1) Should want to work things out because it’s generally thought to be easier to win football games in this conference. Plus, (depending on your school) there is a long history with the other members and the ease of traveling in your region.

(2) Should want to work things out for long term stability. There will be a big drop off in payment in 2037 if you are a fan of one of the unlucky schools left behind. Besides that, do you really want your long time conference partners to leave?

How can we save this?

The ACC as a functional conference is unlikely to be 'doomed.' The ACC is a sturdy, long-lived conference with many resources. It's built to last. There's no need to 'save' it in this sense.

What's likely, though, is that the ACC as we know it will be dispersed. Half of its members, or more, are on course to go elsewhere. The conference that survives and moves forward will look very different.

If the familiar ACC is what you want to save (and it seems it is), we need to look at that huge money gap between the P2 and everyone else. That's at the root of all the instability.

The gap has ballooned to the point that Notre Dame going all in would not close it. So what would?

Any of these could.

1 ACC starts a streak in national football titles as P2 teams collapse.

2 Notre Dame and Penn State join, all in. Georgia and UF, too.

3 Football loses fan interest.

4 Popularity of a non-football sport soars (basketball, Olympics, video, etc).

5 ACC Network has a hit show separate from live sport.

6 Streaming craters media revenues.

7 Soaring travel costs lead to contraction in size of conference footprints.

8 ACC merges with SEC.

9 New CFP revenues close the gap.

10 Universities nationwide drop football scholarships.

None of these is likely but each is possible. Most are big, seismic things that would shake up the whole environment—not the kinds of things conference members can propose and vote on. And some involve closing the gap through shared poverty rather than increases in wealth.

(03-09-2023 11:10 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  We have no idea what will happen in 2036 or beyond. The B12 has lost their six top programs over the past 13 years…and the new B12 commissioner / schools / boosters all believe that their conference is in the catbird seat going forward. Obsessing about what may happen in 13 years isn’t going to help resolve problems.

We do have an idea, I'd say, based on the very example you mention.

B12 schools are giddy over what is, by P2 standards, an unacceptably small amount of money.

They are tickled about it because none of them ever expected P2 revenues in the first place. Anyone who had a shot at that kind of cash has already left in that group of six.

ACC schools in 2038 could find themselves similarly giddy, for similar reasons.

If the power conferences and high majors in basketball break away from the NCAA before then, then no.

If status quo remains in terms of the monetization of football and basketball, then yes

I think the world has more of a chance to be doomed prior to 2036, than the ACC has in 2036.

(03-09-2023 11:36 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 11:10 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  We have no idea what will happen in 2036 or beyond. The B12 has lost their six top programs over the past 13 years…and the new B12 commissioner / schools / boosters all believe that their conference is in the catbird seat going forward. Obsessing about what may happen in 13 years isn’t going to help resolve problems.

We do have an idea, I'd say, based on the very example you mention.

B12 schools are giddy over what is, by P2 standards, an unacceptably small amount of money.

They are tickled about it because none of them ever expected P2 revenues in the first place. Anyone who had a shot at that kind of cash has already left in that group of six.

ACC schools in 2038 could find themselves similarly giddy, for similar reasons.

Colorado left the B12 with an expectation of a long-term relationship with Southern Cal schools.

(03-10-2023 12:17 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 11:36 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 11:10 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  We have no idea what will happen in 2036 or beyond. The B12 has lost their six top programs over the past 13 years…and the new B12 commissioner / schools / boosters all believe that their conference is in the catbird seat going forward. Obsessing about what may happen in 13 years isn’t going to help resolve problems.

We do have an idea, I'd say, based on the very example you mention.

B12 schools are giddy over what is, by P2 standards, an unacceptably small amount of money.

They are tickled about it because none of them ever expected P2 revenues in the first place. Anyone who had a shot at that kind of cash has already left in that group of six.

ACC schools in 2038 could find themselves similarly giddy, for similar reasons.

Colorado left the B12 with an expectation of a long-term relationship with Southern Cal schools.

There is an old adage, you can escape just about anything, but what you are. The question is therefore do you belong in the P2, the Compilation Big 12, or at all, if that is indeed our only choices. You may belong in the Big 10, SEC, PAC 12, Big 12 or ACC and not belong in one of those 3. Time and circumstances will sort us all out.

There is a good chance that the ACC won’t be able to survive till 2036 when you have at least one school publicly stating they are actively looking for a way out of the GOR. There seems to be only one option to do so and that is to dissolve the conference. Could you imagine having that sort of destructive influence within you? Through back channels I think everybody has an idea where they will or could land. If 8 schools know that they will land in the P2, then would not the smart move be to dissolve the conference while you still have a sure landing spot and avoid the $120m exit penalty?

After this comes to pass, there are 6 remaining. The Big12 will pick off a few and the rest will find a home in the G5 or Indy.

I think this is the most likely scenario.

(03-06-2023 02:34 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  My preference for the ACC would be to add Washington, Oregon, Stanford, and Arizona. I would then sit down with Notre Dame to discuss 2 rotation options:
1. Keep the 5 games for the existing 14 ACC teams and leave the new teams out of it (with the ACC having TV rights to games at those stadia should ND choose to continue the Stanford series and/or play the other Pacific teams at their discretion), or...
2. Add all 4 teams to the rotation, increasing the deal to 6 games/year by replacing the annual Stanford game with a rotation of Stanford/Oregon/Washington/Arizona. I'd sweeten the deal by offering to let them end the season (in years they're not at USC) at either Stanford, Arizona, Miami, or Syracuse (indoors).

you can’t predict what will happen tomorrow ...
let alone 13 years from now ...

EXHAUST ALL OPTIONS

(03-10-2023 12:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-10-2023 12:17 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 11:36 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 11:10 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  We have no idea what will happen in 2036 or beyond. The B12 has lost their six top programs over the past 13 years…and the new B12 commissioner / schools / boosters all believe that their conference is in the catbird seat going forward. Obsessing about what may happen in 13 years isn’t going to help resolve problems.

We do have an idea, I'd say, based on the very example you mention.

B12 schools are giddy over what is, by P2 standards, an unacceptably small amount of money.

They are tickled about it because none of them ever expected P2 revenues in the first place. Anyone who had a shot at that kind of cash has already left in that group of six.

ACC schools in 2038 could find themselves similarly giddy, for similar reasons.

Colorado left the B12 with an expectation of a long-term relationship with Southern Cal schools.

There is an old adage, you can escape just about anything, but what you are. The question is therefore do you belong in the P2, the Compilation Big 12, or at all, if that is indeed our only choices. You may belong in the Big 10, SEC, PAC 12, Big 12 or ACC and not belong in one of those 3. Time and circumstances will sort us all out.

It’s the bolded statement that provides agency and hope. Pay-for-play could be a game changer, or D1 collegiate athletics could adapt to the new rules. ESPN could create a collegiate athletics monopoly or it could cease to exist. The NCAA could continue its bumbling existence, or power programs could build something new. There are too many unknowns and P2-shelter is at a premium.

Blockbuster and Netflix faced changing environments…big money, and common sense, bet on Blockbuster; while Netflix kept slogging for decades.

It's up to ESPN

My feeling is the "ACC" will still exist in 2036 but it won't be the ACC that we're used to or the 2023 ACC, the top teams like North Carolina, Florida State, etc, will almost certainly be gone to the SEC or Big Ten, schools like Temple, UConn, maybe even Cincinnati, UCF, or West Virginia will take their place. The Big East still exists today but there's no Syracuse or Pittsburgh or Boston College, most of the schools that were the heart of the Big East aren't what they were in the old days, and three of the four teams playing in the Big East SF's tonight are in the Midwest, one in Omaha. The Big 12 still exists but has only half of its original 12 members. There are plenty of schools out there dying to be in the ACC and if the UNC's and FSU's leave there will be plenty of schools applying to take their place. It wouldn't surprise me if the Eastern Big 12 schools get sick of the western travel and use the opportunity to get back close to home.

define "doomed"

It won't be a P2 conference. And it will look different. Not sure if that equals "doomed".

Let's look at another angle

Big 10 footprint
Congressmen: 166
Senators: 26

SEC footprint
Congressmen: 136
Senators: 22

Rest of College sports
Congressmen 133
Senators 52

Let's assume an FBS school probably represents its own congressional district. The Big and SEC footprints have at least 32 and 25 congressmen that may be influencable because they are likely representing districts with other FBS universities that would stand to lose significant money should football consolidation cause future cuts in total college media spending on non P2 schools.


Maybe the best approach is to get Congress involved in this multibillion dollar industry. We joke about California putting a Cal Support tax on UCLA for them to move to the Big. However many areas stand to lose if sports consolidation follows through it current trajectory . And that total spending is more likely to be highly localized. No better way to get a representative involved than to showcase his constituents are losing money and they have a way to change that

(03-10-2023 01:45 PM)nole Wrote:  define "doomed"

It won't be a P2 conference. And it will look different. Not sure if that equals "doomed".

If the conference is dissolved like Nole-stradamus predicts, then I think “doomed” describes it well. With that in mind, to block the dissolving, it might be a good idea to push expansion, someone brought up SMU and Tulane as a pair, that is if the APAC is dooooomed.

(03-09-2023 11:36 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-09-2023 11:10 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  We have no idea what will happen in 2036 or beyond. The B12 has lost their six top programs over the past 13 years…and the new B12 commissioner / schools / boosters all believe that their conference is in the catbird seat going forward. Obsessing about what may happen in 13 years isn’t going to help resolve problems.

We do have an idea, I'd say, based on the very example you mention.

B12 schools are giddy over what is, by P2 standards, an unacceptably small amount of money.

They are tickled about it because none of them ever expected P2 revenues in the first place. Anyone who had a shot at that kind of cash has already left in that group of six.

ACC schools in 2038 could find themselves similarly giddy, for similar reasons.

Actually Big 12 schools are giddy because they got a raise despite losing Texas and Oklahoma (a deal comparable to the B1G's expiring contract), a pro rata and a short term deal in order to stabilize and grow your schools and conference now and cash in later. It also allows the conference to cash in on sublicensing especially of it expands. It's not just the money it's the foundation that the TV deal and grant of rights creates and the tools to strengthen it's infrastructure that it provides.

The dooms day clock is ticking, let’s get this figured out before it’s too late. This guy regularly talks to Michael Alford, so you know he’s feeding him ideas:

If I had to put money on which conference would be the strongest outside of the SEC and BigTen in 2036, I would put it on the ACC.

If I had to put money on will the ACC still have all its current members or will they lose some, I would put my money on them losing some.

But even if that happens, I still believe the ACC will be a strong conference even if they lose a few members, maybe stronger.

In terms of the revenue gap, the ACC is already doomed. I did some calculation in anothee thread and the B1G schools would receive $30+ million more than the ACC schools during the seven year period from 2023/24-2029/30. The $30+ million difference is per year so over the seven years, a B10 school gets at least $210M more than an ACC school. The revenue gap between the BIG and the ACC will be bigger than the gap between the ACC and the AAC.

Does that mean the ACC is going to lose many member schools in 2035?

No, I don’t think so. The threshold for the P2 entry became so high now that only very few schools would be able to increase their payouts. ND would qualify for sure. Other than ND, there is no sure bet. The ACC may lose one or two schools in additon to ND, but I don’t see the ACC would lose more than two schools unless the P2 conferences adopt some type of unequal revenue sharing. But why would the P2 conferences do that? Would the ACC adopt the unequal revenue sharing so that we can add the AAC schools?

This is assuming the ACC maintains its position as #3 conference and that’s why I keep saying the ACC should expand not only for money but as a defensive strategy. The Pac had multiple chances of raiding the B12. They never did and see what’s happening now.