(04-16-2023 11:04 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(04-16-2023 10:22 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Update on this:

Message Board proceeds to 'not' go crazy about this.

It rather wants to talk about the mindless Swaim show. The ACC being proactive just doesn’t fit the narrative.

(04-16-2023 11:14 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(04-16-2023 11:04 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(04-16-2023 10:22 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Update on this:

Message Board proceeds to 'not' go crazy about this.

ACC/PAC deal by the end of the month confirmed. I look forward to the new 2PACC.

I knew he was living on a tropical island this whole time!

(04-16-2023 11:14 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(04-16-2023 11:04 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(04-16-2023 10:22 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Update on this:

Message Board proceeds to 'not' go crazy about this.

ACC/PAC deal by the end of the month confirmed. I look forward to the new 2PACC.

This would be the only sensible reason to extend phillips, but the ACC lacks alot of sensible thinking...

If a full merger were to go ahead, the 2PACC would have 24 of the ~70 P5 programs all under one roof. They could also kill off the Pac-12 and the "Autonomous 5" becomes the "Autonomous 4", meaning MWC tagalongs won't be able to improve their standing just by virtue of everything collapsing around them.

Financially, it may not be the best move to take all 10 Pac-12 schools, but there may be strategic value to it. Obviously closing the financial gulf between the ACC and B1G/SEC is important, but it's also imperative to take steps to guarantee inclusion as a "power" player going forward. Basically, schools need to improve their Best-Worst scenario (and currently, the worst-case scenario is effectively falling out of the the "power" structure).

(04-17-2023 12:17 PM)LeeNobody Wrote:  

(04-16-2023 11:14 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(04-16-2023 11:04 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(04-16-2023 10:22 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Update on this:

Message Board proceeds to 'not' go crazy about this.

ACC/PAC deal by the end of the month confirmed. I look forward to the new 2PACC.

This would be the only sensible reason to extend phillips, but the ACC lacks alot of sensible thinking...

I was thinking the same thing. Phillips must be doing something behind the scene. The media partnership is one thing but as you said, the ACC doesn’t need the entire Pac schools. Just get four, five or six Pac schools and call it a day.

(04-17-2023 10:56 AM)LeeNobody Wrote:  If the ACC had bold leadership, they would realize there doesn't need to be a negotiation. You offer those that would add value and leave the rest. More money beats less money. The more that join the less cross continent travel is needed. ESPN gets what it wants. The ACC gets a slight raise. The left behind... are left behind

You (or, people, generally) keep citing this, but it is not true.

Keeping an 8 game schedule:
1 PAC team requires 4 ETZ teams to fly west.
2 PAC teams, requires 7
3 PAC teams, requires 9
4 PAC teams, requires 10
5 PAC teams, requires 10
6 PAC teams, requires 9
7 PAC teams, requires 7

So, you have to add 7+ PAC teams to start seeing a substantial reduction in travel. At this point (presuming round-robin among the PAC teams) you are essentially adding a separate conference under your ACC name anyway. Just add all 10 teams at a payout rate somewhere between the $24M offered by ESPN and the $45M we assume the ACC gets.

The ACC would need a complete west division. You are probably looking at 7-team divisions. If they incorporate ND evenly in the schedule, you could look at something like:

West: ASU/Zona, Cal, Stanford, UO, UW, CU
North: UL, Pitt, Cuse, VaTech, UVa, Miami, BC
South: FSU, Clemson, Carolinas (4), GaTech

You could conceivably rotate ND among the divisions with a few other overlapping teams among different divisions for football scheduling to get to 24, with ND playing an expanded 7or 8-team ACC schedule (hence, not renewing MSU, UM or potential SEC/ND rivalries over the course of the next cycle).

I'd see OSU/WSU and perhaps Utah go to the Big 12 as opposed to poaching from the MWC to form a new western league, although Utah would have a good shot to get into a 20-24 team ACC with a Pacific Division.

If it's a full blown merger, I could conceivably see the ACC jettisoning some teams to the Big 12 if those schools would preferably avoid the extra travel. BC and Cuse may have no interest in this, and the pay gap wouldn't be so insurmountable that you could potentially off load them to Yormark at the same price tag.

(04-17-2023 01:02 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:56 AM)LeeNobody Wrote:  If the ACC had bold leadership, they would realize there doesn't need to be a negotiation. You offer those that would add value and leave the rest. More money beats less money. The more that join the less cross continent travel is needed. ESPN gets what it wants. The ACC gets a slight raise. The left behind... are left behind

You (or, people, generally) keep citing this, but it is not true.

Keeping an 8 game schedule:
1 PAC team requires 4 ETZ teams to fly west.
2 PAC teams, requires 7
3 PAC teams, requires 9
4 PAC teams, requires 10
5 PAC teams, requires 10
6 PAC teams, requires 9
7 PAC teams, requires 7

So, you have to add 7+ PAC teams to start seeing a substantial reduction in travel. At this point (presuming round-robin among the PAC teams) you are essentially adding a separate conference under your ACC name anyway. Just add all 10 teams at a payout rate somewhere between the $24M offered by ESPN and the $45M we assume the ACC gets.

What you said is true. But the more Pac teams added, the less difficult their travels will be. From the ACC’s perspective, I think adding four would hit a sweet spot in terms of maximizing the profit and reasonable travels for Pac teams.

I can see the ACC adding Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal, Utah and Colorado while the Arizona schools go to the Big XII with SDSU and Fresno or maybe OreSU/Wazzu.

No idea how this works at all long term though.

(04-17-2023 10:56 AM)LeeNobody Wrote:  If the ACC had bold leadership, they would realize there doesn't need to be a negotiation. You offer those that would add value and leave the rest. More money beats less money. The more that join the less cross continent travel is needed. ESPN gets what it wants. The ACC gets a slight raise. The left behind... are left behind

The problem is, that "slight raise" would be offset by the additional travel, leading to basically flat revenues for the privilege of traveling cross country in all sports regularly. Well, that's one problem. Another is that it takes more than "bold leadership". Phillips doesn't just decide which teams to add and then send a memo to his Presidents. The Presidents vote on it. They've looked at every option over the past few years and passed on all of them. A bunch of those Presidents are eyeballing the exits and thus even less likely than usual to be amenable to adding any teams at all, much less teams that are 3k miles away. A 3rd problem is that ESPN is under no obligation to pay what a new team is actually worth. They could offer $10m for Washington for example, and the ACC would have to take it or leave it. More likely, they'd offer pro rata for UO or UW, and something quite a bit less than that for any other Pac or big 12 school.

Tell us how "bold leadership" solves those issues.

(04-17-2023 01:09 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  The ACC would need a complete west division. You are probably looking at 7-team divisions. If they incorporate ND evenly in the schedule, you could look at something like:

West: ASU/Zona, Cal, Stanford, UO, UW, CU
North: UL, Pitt, Cuse, VaTech, UVa, Miami, BC
South: FSU, Clemson, Carolinas (4), GaTech

You could conceivably rotate ND among the divisions with a few other overlapping teams among different divisions for football scheduling to get to 24, with ND playing an expanded 7or 8-team ACC schedule (hence, not renewing MSU, UM or potential SEC/ND rivalries over the course of the next cycle).

I'd see OSU/WSU and perhaps Utah go to the Big 12 as opposed to poaching from the MWC to form a new western league, although Utah would have a good shot to get into a 20-24 team ACC with a Pacific Division.

If it's a full blown merger, I could conceivably see the ACC jettisoning some teams to the Big 12 if those schools would preferably avoid the extra travel. BC and Cuse may have no interest in this, and the pay gap wouldn't be so insurmountable that you could potentially off load them to Yormark at the same price tag.

Arizona, ASU and Colorado would certainly prefer a shift to the big 12 in this scenario, and likely Utah too if they could get the invite, unless the ACC brings them in at full price up front. But, they can't do that b/c ESPN will just say "we'll pay you the same for them that we would if they went to the big 12" and possibly "Your next contract will be lower because you added those schools, too". UW and UO aren't signing that monstrous ACC GoR until 2036, are they? That leaves Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU, hardly the Big Bad Wolves of Western Brands.

The Pac and ACC have looked at all their options, and none of them are good. Well, other than the 2PACC, I'd pay to see that logo get unveiled.

(04-17-2023 01:12 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  I can see the ACC adding Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal, Utah and Colorado while the Arizona schools go to the Big XII with SDSU and Fresno or maybe OreSU/Wazzu.

No idea how this works at all long term though.

Yes, that is another scenario, where the Zona schools decide it's not in their best interest and there is more political clout in keeping that pair together. In that case, SDSU goes with them, and probably another ETZ G5 school like Memphis.

In that case, 6+7+7 divisions although conceivably they'd add another western school like KU or even Zaga, where you play a double round robin (12 conference games in BBall). The football scheduling would be tricky with 6+7+7 unless a 7th western team is added. It's conceivable SDSU decides the PACC is better for them if either of the Zona schools can't break free from one another.

(04-17-2023 01:24 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Arizona, ASU and Colorado would certainly prefer a shift to the big 12 in this scenario, and likely Utah too if they could get the invite, unless the ACC brings them in at full price up front. But, they can't do that b/c ESPN will just say "we'll pay you the same for them that we would if they went to the big 12" and possibly "Your next contract will be lower because you added those schools, too". UW and UO aren't signing that monstrous ACC GoR until 2036, are they? That leaves Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU, hardly the Big Bad Wolves of Western Brands.

The Pac and ACC have looked at all their options, and none of them are good. Well, other than the 2PACC, I'd pay to see that logo get unveiled.

I think ND could conceivably come in as an all-sports member until 2036 with some unequal distribution deal, assuming they can still get flexibility with the OOC scheduling. They'd have exposure in every part of the country except Texas and LA, where they could schedule the Big 12 or SEC OOC and keep USC on the schedule. The ACC schedule is way less demanding than a B1G schedule. Until NBC re-ups with them, I won't exclude this possibility entirely. This would allow the western schools to sign a long term GoR.

(04-17-2023 01:18 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:56 AM)LeeNobody Wrote:  If the ACC had bold leadership, they would realize there doesn't need to be a negotiation. You offer those that would add value and leave the rest. More money beats less money. The more that join the less cross continent travel is needed. ESPN gets what it wants. The ACC gets a slight raise. The left behind... are left behind

The problem is, that "slight raise" would be offset by the additional travel, leading to basically flat revenues for the privilege of traveling cross country in all sports regularly. Well, that's one problem. Another is that it takes more than "bold leadership". Phillips doesn't just decide which teams to add and then send a memo to his Presidents. The Presidents vote on it. They've looked at every option over the past few years and passed on all of them. A bunch of those Presidents are eyeballing the exits and thus even less likely than usual to be amenable to adding any teams at all, much less teams that are 3k miles away. A 3rd problem is that ESPN is under no obligation to pay what a new team is actually worth. They could offer $10m for Washington for example, and the ACC would have to take it or leave it. More likely, they'd offer pro rata for UO or UW, and something quite a bit less than that for any other Pac or big 12 school.

Tell us how "bold leadership" solves those issues.

Your first two points are valid.

For the third point, I think ESPN would have an incentive to move high value Pac schools to the ACC. My guess is that ESPN would like some of the Pac contents for midnight programmings but not entire Pac package. Just move UO, UW, and Stanford along with Utah and/or ASU and cover the late night window while getting paid for additonal ACCN in-state coverage in California, Washington, Oregon and Arizona.

A full merger seems like a good idea, although a "network partnership" could work as well. A full merger would probably also have the added benefit of keeping Notre Dame happy, as they could add even more variety when it comes to their scheduling agreement already in place with the ACC.

It seems like a no brainer, especially if a unequal revenue model is put into place.

Here's a question(s): what would it take for SDSU to enter the picture? Would it be worth it to the ACC to expand out west with SDSU, California, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona State and... maybe Colorado?

(04-17-2023 01:24 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 01:12 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  I can see the ACC adding Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal, Utah and Colorado while the Arizona schools go to the Big XII with SDSU and Fresno or maybe OreSU/Wazzu.

No idea how this works at all long term though.

Yes, that is another scenario, where the Zona schools decide it's not in their best interest and there is more political clout in keeping that pair together. In that case, SDSU goes with them, and probably another ETZ G5 school like Memphis.

In that case, 6+7+7 divisions although conceivably they'd add another western school like KU or even Zaga, where you play a double round robin (12 conference games in BBall). The football scheduling would be tricky with 6+7+7 unless a 7th western team is added. It's conceivable SDSU decides the PACC is better for them if either of the Zona schools can't break free from one another.

Remember the ACCN is peculiar in that the in-network charge applies based on the “state”. If the ACC expands by more than four teams, SMU would be seriously considered in my opinion.

(04-17-2023 01:55 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Remember the ACCN is peculiar in that the in-network charge applies based on the “state”. If the ACC expands by more than four teams, SMU would be seriously considered in my opinion.

Certainly, Texas is a possibility. It would be more realistic though if TCU were to jump. Or Houston. But that doesn't seem realistic. Yes, SMU could be added at a lower revenue distribution for a few years. Definitely not full shares. Big 12 would have no interest in them.

While OSU/WSU are likely not to be added by the PACC, they could be added to the ACC at reduced shares if there is political clout, and the western schools want to save on travel costs. This is more likely in the event that teams have already left for the Big 12, including CU, and the Zonas.

Moving as a group of four (UW, UO, Stanford and Cal) to a PACC just makes no sense from a revenue standpoint let alone signing a potential long term GoR. Obviously, it wouldn't be a hard GoR. All of these schools would have outs for the B1G or some other opt-out in the event a better deal comes along.

(04-17-2023 01:02 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:56 AM)LeeNobody Wrote:  If the ACC had bold leadership, they would realize there doesn't need to be a negotiation. You offer those that would add value and leave the rest. More money beats less money. The more that join the less cross continent travel is needed. ESPN gets what it wants. The ACC gets a slight raise. The left behind... are left behind

You (or, people, generally) keep citing this, but it is not true.

Keeping an 8 game schedule:
1 PAC team requires 4 ETZ teams to fly west.
2 PAC teams, requires 7
3 PAC teams, requires 9
4 PAC teams, requires 10
5 PAC teams, requires 10
6 PAC teams, requires 9
7 PAC teams, requires 7

So, you have to add 7+ PAC teams to start seeing a substantial reduction in travel. At this point (presuming round-robin among the PAC teams) you are essentially adding a separate conference under your ACC name anyway. Just add all 10 teams at a payout rate somewhere between the $24M offered by ESPN and the $45M we assume the ACC gets.

Home and aways still alternate, but regardless. I agree have always advocated for going big on the west coast. 7 teams means 3-4 ETZ flights a year.

(04-17-2023 01:18 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:56 AM)LeeNobody Wrote:  If the ACC had bold leadership, they would realize there doesn't need to be a negotiation. You offer those that would add value and leave the rest. More money beats less money. The more that join the less cross continent travel is needed. ESPN gets what it wants. The ACC gets a slight raise. The left behind... are left behind

The problem is, that "slight raise" would be offset by the additional travel, leading to basically flat revenues for the privilege of traveling cross country in all sports regularly. Well, that's one problem. Another is that it takes more than "bold leadership". Phillips doesn't just decide which teams to add and then send a memo to his Presidents. The Presidents vote on it. They've looked at every option over the past few years and passed on all of them. A bunch of those Presidents are eyeballing the exits and thus even less likely than usual to be amenable to adding any teams at all, much less teams that are 3k miles away. A 3rd problem is that ESPN is under no obligation to pay what a new team is actually worth. They could offer $10m for Washington for example, and the ACC would have to take it or leave it. More likely, they'd offer pro rata for UO or UW, and something quite a bit less than that for any other Pac or big 12 school.

Tell us how "bold leadership" solves those issues.

Slight raise was meant to be in comparison to the B1G and SEC number. If 7 teams out west are taken then you are talking about only 1 game a year going east west. 1 in every 3 years for existing acc shools.

Presidents can bluster all they want, we all know noone is getting out of the ACC GOR. In the end if it increases revenue it will pass.

The advantage for ESPN here is that it monopolizes what is left on the left coast. Fox has the MWC package from what I've heard here (not sure what the status there is exactly), but outside of that, you cut Fox out entirely.

In an ideal world, the merger with the Big 12 makes a lot more sense (except for maybe Stanford and Cal), and the money would be just as good, but that move has to be funded by both ESPN and Fox. So with a PACC, you are talking about exclusive funding by ESPN. We already know they've lowballed Kliavcoff already, so I can't imagine the PACC will add more incentives for the remaining Pac10. It's just that ESPN would be incentivized to monopolize the content while the PACC West schools would remain with their cultural peers. That's the only thing in it for them.

There is a huge hard-on to stay with Stanford and Cal. I do think Frank is right in that most of us are undervaluing this aspect. Otherwise, all these schools would have made a deal with Yormark already without being subject to a GoR.