(02-14-2022 11:49 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 10:49 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The ACC is committed to ESPN through 2036, so any changes have to be made within the context of the existing arrangement.

The first and most obvious opportunity is in connection with the revised College Football Playoff. The conference needs to get the most out of these negotiations. Some folks have suggested renegotiating the Orange Bowl, but with a 12 team playoff, this relationship is likely to become irrelevant.

Second - improving payouts from second tier bowls.

Third - increase the number of conference football games to 9 or increase the commitment to play games against P5 opponents to 2 per season, and reduce or eliminating games against FCS opponents.

Fourth - work with ESPN to move a number of football and basketball games to be shifted to ESPN+, perhaps by shifting games from the current Bally Sports package.

Fifth - switch to a non divisional format in football and grant ESPN input in setting matchups.

3, 4, and 5 are things which need to be done during a "Look-In". They should've all been on the table last Summer (maybe they were). Obviously, ESPN must agree to actually pay for them! 3 and 5 have the potential to increase ticket revenue - but the OP question was about tv revenue.

There is one other thing ACC teams could do to increase tv revenue, but it requires cooperation from Notre Dame: agree to play additional games against the Irish - all under the NBC contract - with Notre Dame splitting the additional tv money. It would need to result in the Irish getting more than 7 "home" games, and NBC would have to agree to pay more for the extra game(s) - so there's a lot to work out. But an extra "Shamrock" type game selected by Notre Dame (not the ACC) and sold to NBC (or another broadcaster?) could bring in a few extra millions... not a game-changer, though.

This year's Shamrock Series game is an ND "home game" shifted to Las Vegas. ND is playing BYU, a team to whom ND owed a game under their previous contract.

2020's Shamrock Series game was supposed to be against Wisconsin, with ND's "home game" shifted to Lambeau Field.

I suppose that ND might play an ACC team in a Shamrock Series game in places like San Antonio, San Diego or Orlando once in a while, but not as any type of regular thing.

I don't think that the ACC would have any interest in playing "one and done" away games against ND in South Bend in lieu of teams like Toledo and Cal, but who knows?

(ND and NBC used to announce that such teams were paid a portion of the NBC money for those games)

I hate to be Negative Nelly here, but I don't think that ND has much interest in regularly playing ACC teams more than the five game per year average required by contract.

It was a long shot at best.

(02-14-2022 11:49 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 10:49 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The ACC is committed to ESPN through 2036, so any changes have to be made within the context of the existing arrangement.

The first and most obvious opportunity is in connection with the revised College Football Playoff. The conference needs to get the most out of these negotiations. Some folks have suggested renegotiating the Orange Bowl, but with a 12 team playoff, this relationship is likely to become irrelevant.

Second - improving payouts from second tier bowls.

Third - increase the number of conference football games to 9 or increase the commitment to play games against P5 opponents to 2 per season, and reduce or eliminating games against FCS opponents.

Fourth - work with ESPN to move a number of football and basketball games to be shifted to ESPN+, perhaps by shifting games from the current Bally Sports package.

Fifth - switch to a non divisional format in football and grant ESPN input in setting matchups.

3, 4, and 5 are things which need to be done during a "Look-In". They should've all been on the table last Summer (maybe they were). Obviously, ESPN must agree to actually pay for them! 3 and 5 have the potential to increase ticket revenue - but the OP question was about tv revenue.

There is one other thing ACC teams could do to increase tv revenue, but it requires cooperation from Notre Dame: agree to play additional games against the Irish - all under the NBC contract - with Notre Dame splitting the additional tv money. It would need to result in the Irish getting more than 7 "home" games, and NBC would have to agree to pay more for the extra game(s) - so there's a lot to work out. But an extra "Shamrock" type game selected by Notre Dame (not the ACC) and sold to NBC (or another broadcaster?) could bring in a few extra millions... not a game-changer, though.

This year's Shamrock Series game is an ND "home game" shifted to Las Vegas. ND is playing BYU, a team to whom ND owed a game under their previous contract.

2020's Shamrock Series game was supposed to be against Wisconsin, with ND's "home game" shifted to Lambeau Field.

I suppose that ND might play an ACC team in a Shamrock Series game in places like San Antonio, San Diego or Orlando once in a while, but not as any type of regular thing.

I don't think that the ACC would have any interest in playing "one and done" away games against ND in South Bend in lieu of teams like Toledo and Cal, but who knows?

(ND and NBC used to announce that such teams were paid a portion of the NBC money for those games)

I hate to be Negative Nelly here, but I don't think that ND has much interest in regularly playing ACC teams more than the five game per year average required by contract.

what if we breach the lopsided contract ...
kicked your high and mighty ass out ...

SO SUE ME

(02-14-2022 12:53 PM)green Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:49 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 10:49 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The ACC is committed to ESPN through 2036, so any changes have to be made within the context of the existing arrangement.

The first and most obvious opportunity is in connection with the revised College Football Playoff. The conference needs to get the most out of these negotiations. Some folks have suggested renegotiating the Orange Bowl, but with a 12 team playoff, this relationship is likely to become irrelevant.

Second - improving payouts from second tier bowls.

Third - increase the number of conference football games to 9 or increase the commitment to play games against P5 opponents to 2 per season, and reduce or eliminating games against FCS opponents.

Fourth - work with ESPN to move a number of football and basketball games to be shifted to ESPN+, perhaps by shifting games from the current Bally Sports package.

Fifth - switch to a non divisional format in football and grant ESPN input in setting matchups.

3, 4, and 5 are things which need to be done during a "Look-In". They should've all been on the table last Summer (maybe they were). Obviously, ESPN must agree to actually pay for them! 3 and 5 have the potential to increase ticket revenue - but the OP question was about tv revenue.

There is one other thing ACC teams could do to increase tv revenue, but it requires cooperation from Notre Dame: agree to play additional games against the Irish - all under the NBC contract - with Notre Dame splitting the additional tv money. It would need to result in the Irish getting more than 7 "home" games, and NBC would have to agree to pay more for the extra game(s) - so there's a lot to work out. But an extra "Shamrock" type game selected by Notre Dame (not the ACC) and sold to NBC (or another broadcaster?) could bring in a few extra millions... not a game-changer, though.

This year's Shamrock Series game is an ND "home game" shifted to Las Vegas. ND is playing BYU, a team to whom ND owed a game under their previous contract.

2020's Shamrock Series game was supposed to be against Wisconsin, with ND's "home game" shifted to Lambeau Field.

I suppose that ND might play an ACC team in a Shamrock Series game in places like San Antonio, San Diego or Orlando once in a while, but not as any type of regular thing.

I don't think that the ACC would have any interest in playing "one and done" away games against ND in South Bend in lieu of teams like Toledo and Cal, but who knows?

(ND and NBC used to announce that such teams were paid a portion of the NBC money for those games)

I hate to be Negative Nelly here, but I don't think that ND has much interest in regularly playing ACC teams more than the five game per year average required by contract.

what if we breach the lopsided contract ...
kicked your high and mighty ass out ...

SO SUE ME

How exactly is the ACC going to defend itself when it's sued for a few hundred million dollars? The courts don't recognize "I don't like the contract anymore so it's over as far as I'm concerned" as a defense. What other media company will be willing to do business with the ACC with such a lawsuit hanging over the conference?

Deal with the situation as it is, not as if you've been crowned emperor of the universe.

And by the way, let's recognize that renegotiating the media contracts today would only get the ACC so far. Football is king and ACC football isn't as attractive a product as SEC or B1G football. Period.

What if as low as the ACC TV contract is that it is overvalued compared to the other conferences? ESPN makes their money on the 3 million and up viewership games of which the ACC had none. Having a bunch of games floating near 1 million viewers doesn't make up for that.

As bad as the ACC contract is, there's a good chance we should be happy with it because had we signed for a shorter team we wouldn't have gotten as much money.

Stretching it out to 2037 may have been to far but, right now I can see why ESPN would say they're over paying for the ACC.

(02-14-2022 10:49 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The ACC is committed to ESPN through 2036, so any changes have to be made within the context of the existing arrangement.

The first and most obvious opportunity is in connection with the revised College Football Playoff. The conference needs to get the most out of these negotiations. Some folks have suggested renegotiating the Orange Bowl, but with a 12 team playoff, this relationship is likely to become irrelevant.

Second - improving payouts from second tier bowls.

Third - increase the number of conference football games to 9 or increase the commitment to play games against P5 opponents to 2 per season, and reduce or eliminate games against FCS opponents.

Fourth - work with ESPN to move a number of football and basketball games to be shifted to ESPN+, perhaps by shifting games from the current Bally Sports package.

Fifth - switch to a non divisional format in football and grant ESPN input in setting matchups.

https://twitter.com/BallySportsFL/status...8923672586

bally been berry berry good to me ...
copious replays ...

ICYMI (IN CASE U MISSED IT)

(02-14-2022 03:40 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 12:53 PM)green Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:49 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 10:49 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The ACC is committed to ESPN through 2036, so any changes have to be made within the context of the existing arrangement.

The first and most obvious opportunity is in connection with the revised College Football Playoff. The conference needs to get the most out of these negotiations. Some folks have suggested renegotiating the Orange Bowl, but with a 12 team playoff, this relationship is likely to become irrelevant.

Second - improving payouts from second tier bowls.

Third - increase the number of conference football games to 9 or increase the commitment to play games against P5 opponents to 2 per season, and reduce or eliminating games against FCS opponents.

Fourth - work with ESPN to move a number of football and basketball games to be shifted to ESPN+, perhaps by shifting games from the current Bally Sports package.

Fifth - switch to a non divisional format in football and grant ESPN input in setting matchups.

3, 4, and 5 are things which need to be done during a "Look-In". They should've all been on the table last Summer (maybe they were). Obviously, ESPN must agree to actually pay for them! 3 and 5 have the potential to increase ticket revenue - but the OP question was about tv revenue.

There is one other thing ACC teams could do to increase tv revenue, but it requires cooperation from Notre Dame: agree to play additional games against the Irish - all under the NBC contract - with Notre Dame splitting the additional tv money. It would need to result in the Irish getting more than 7 "home" games, and NBC would have to agree to pay more for the extra game(s) - so there's a lot to work out. But an extra "Shamrock" type game selected by Notre Dame (not the ACC) and sold to NBC (or another broadcaster?) could bring in a few extra millions... not a game-changer, though.

This year's Shamrock Series game is an ND "home game" shifted to Las Vegas. ND is playing BYU, a team to whom ND owed a game under their previous contract.

2020's Shamrock Series game was supposed to be against Wisconsin, with ND's "home game" shifted to Lambeau Field.

I suppose that ND might play an ACC team in a Shamrock Series game in places like San Antonio, San Diego or Orlando once in a while, but not as any type of regular thing.

I don't think that the ACC would have any interest in playing "one and done" away games against ND in South Bend in lieu of teams like Toledo and Cal, but who knows?

(ND and NBC used to announce that such teams were paid a portion of the NBC money for those games)

I hate to be Negative Nelly here, but I don't think that ND has much interest in regularly playing ACC teams more than the five game per year average required by contract.

what if we breach the lopsided contract ...
kicked your high and mighty ass out ...

SO SUE ME

How exactly is the ACC going to defend itself when it's sued for a few hundred million dollars? The courts don't recognize "I don't like the contract anymore so it's over as far as I'm concerned" as a defense. What other media company will be willing to do business with the ACC with such a lawsuit hanging over the conference?

Deal with the situation as it is, not as if you've been crowned emperor of the universe.

And by the way, let's recognize that renegotiating the media contracts today would only get the ACC so far. Football is king and ACC football isn't as attractive a product as SEC or B1G football. Period.

are you privy to said contract ...

JUST CURIOUS

Getting rid of 2 of Duke, WF, BC, and NC State would likely net the ACC $80 million a year because any two could be sent to another conference and the basic ACC contract would not change.

(02-14-2022 03:40 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 12:53 PM)green Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:49 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  3, 4, and 5 are things which need to be done during a "Look-In". They should've all been on the table last Summer (maybe they were). Obviously, ESPN must agree to actually pay for them! 3 and 5 have the potential to increase ticket revenue - but the OP question was about tv revenue.

There is one other thing ACC teams could do to increase tv revenue, but it requires cooperation from Notre Dame: agree to play additional games against the Irish - all under the NBC contract - with Notre Dame splitting the additional tv money. It would need to result in the Irish getting more than 7 "home" games, and NBC would have to agree to pay more for the extra game(s) - so there's a lot to work out. But an extra "Shamrock" type game selected by Notre Dame (not the ACC) and sold to NBC (or another broadcaster?) could bring in a few extra millions... not a game-changer, though.

This year's Shamrock Series game is an ND "home game" shifted to Las Vegas. ND is playing BYU, a team to whom ND owed a game under their previous contract.

2020's Shamrock Series game was supposed to be against Wisconsin, with ND's "home game" shifted to Lambeau Field.

I suppose that ND might play an ACC team in a Shamrock Series game in places like San Antonio, San Diego or Orlando once in a while, but not as any type of regular thing.

I don't think that the ACC would have any interest in playing "one and done" away games against ND in South Bend in lieu of teams like Toledo and Cal, but who knows?

(ND and NBC used to announce that such teams were paid a portion of the NBC money for those games)

I hate to be Negative Nelly here, but I don't think that ND has much interest in regularly playing ACC teams more than the five game per year average required by contract.

what if we breach the lopsided contract ...
kicked your high and mighty ass out ...

SO SUE ME

How exactly is the ACC going to defend itself when it's sued for a few hundred million dollars? The courts don't recognize "I don't like the contract anymore so it's over as far as I'm concerned" as a defense. What other media company will be willing to do business with the ACC with such a lawsuit hanging over the conference?

Deal with the situation as it is, not as if you've been crowned emperor of the universe.

And by the way, let's recognize that renegotiating the media contracts today would only get the ACC so far. Football is king and ACC football isn't as attractive a product as SEC or B1G football. Period.

https://twitter.com/FOS/status/1436385694604304384

w/ so many deep-pocketed players on the streaming scene like apple, amazon et al.
respectfully, you have no bloody idea what undervalued ACC rights would fetch on the open market ...

CONTENT IS KING

(02-14-2022 12:53 PM)green Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:49 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 10:49 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The ACC is committed to ESPN through 2036, so any changes have to be made within the context of the existing arrangement.

The first and most obvious opportunity is in connection with the revised College Football Playoff. The conference needs to get the most out of these negotiations. Some folks have suggested renegotiating the Orange Bowl, but with a 12 team playoff, this relationship is likely to become irrelevant.

Second - improving payouts from second tier bowls.

Third - increase the number of conference football games to 9 or increase the commitment to play games against P5 opponents to 2 per season, and reduce or eliminating games against FCS opponents.

Fourth - work with ESPN to move a number of football and basketball games to be shifted to ESPN+, perhaps by shifting games from the current Bally Sports package.

Fifth - switch to a non divisional format in football and grant ESPN input in setting matchups.

3, 4, and 5 are things which need to be done during a "Look-In". They should've all been on the table last Summer (maybe they were). Obviously, ESPN must agree to actually pay for them! 3 and 5 have the potential to increase ticket revenue - but the OP question was about tv revenue.

There is one other thing ACC teams could do to increase tv revenue, but it requires cooperation from Notre Dame: agree to play additional games against the Irish - all under the NBC contract - with Notre Dame splitting the additional tv money. It would need to result in the Irish getting more than 7 "home" games, and NBC would have to agree to pay more for the extra game(s) - so there's a lot to work out. But an extra "Shamrock" type game selected by Notre Dame (not the ACC) and sold to NBC (or another broadcaster?) could bring in a few extra millions... not a game-changer, though.

This year's Shamrock Series game is an ND "home game" shifted to Las Vegas. ND is playing BYU, a team to whom ND owed a game under their previous contract.

2020's Shamrock Series game was supposed to be against Wisconsin, with ND's "home game" shifted to Lambeau Field.

I suppose that ND might play an ACC team in a Shamrock Series game in places like San Antonio, San Diego or Orlando once in a while, but not as any type of regular thing.

I don't think that the ACC would have any interest in playing "one and done" away games against ND in South Bend in lieu of teams like Toledo and Cal, but who knows?

(ND and NBC used to announce that such teams were paid a portion of the NBC money for those games)

I hate to be Negative Nelly here, but I don't think that ND has much interest in regularly playing ACC teams more than the five game per year average required by contract.

what if we breach the lopsided contract ...
kicked your high and mighty ass out ...

SO SUE ME

Its not "lopsided" at all. It was the best deal that the ACC could get from ND in 2012-16.

It is what the ACC, a sophisticated party with lawyers, advisors and consultants agreed to after full disclosure by ND and an arms length negotiation.

As a retired lawyer, I don't want to sue anyone.

But, as noted above, it would be fun to watch the ACC unilaterally breach the contracts and then try to defend that in court.

I have never seen so many people agree to a deal then not want to abide by its terms.

(02-14-2022 10:49 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The ACC is committed to ESPN through 2036, so any changes have to be made within the context of the existing arrangement.

The first and most obvious opportunity is in connection with the revised College Football Playoff. The conference needs to get the most out of these negotiations. Some folks have suggested renegotiating the Orange Bowl, but with a 12 team playoff, this relationship is likely to become irrelevant.

Second - improving payouts from second tier bowls.

Third - increase the number of conference football games to 9 or increase the commitment to play games against P5 opponents to 2 per season, and reduce or eliminate games against FCS opponents.

Fourth - work with ESPN to move a number of football and basketball games to be shifted to ESPN+, perhaps by shifting games from the current Bally Sports package.

Fifth - switch to a non divisional format in football and grant ESPN input in setting matchups.

https://twitter.com/astraffon/status/148...9666255875

PLACE A HIGH VALUE

(02-14-2022 04:47 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 12:53 PM)green Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:49 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 10:49 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The ACC is committed to ESPN through 2036, so any changes have to be made within the context of the existing arrangement.

The first and most obvious opportunity is in connection with the revised College Football Playoff. The conference needs to get the most out of these negotiations. Some folks have suggested renegotiating the Orange Bowl, but with a 12 team playoff, this relationship is likely to become irrelevant.

Second - improving payouts from second tier bowls.

Third - increase the number of conference football games to 9 or increase the commitment to play games against P5 opponents to 2 per season, and reduce or eliminating games against FCS opponents.

Fourth - work with ESPN to move a number of football and basketball games to be shifted to ESPN+, perhaps by shifting games from the current Bally Sports package.

Fifth - switch to a non divisional format in football and grant ESPN input in setting matchups.

3, 4, and 5 are things which need to be done during a "Look-In". They should've all been on the table last Summer (maybe they were). Obviously, ESPN must agree to actually pay for them! 3 and 5 have the potential to increase ticket revenue - but the OP question was about tv revenue.

There is one other thing ACC teams could do to increase tv revenue, but it requires cooperation from Notre Dame: agree to play additional games against the Irish - all under the NBC contract - with Notre Dame splitting the additional tv money. It would need to result in the Irish getting more than 7 "home" games, and NBC would have to agree to pay more for the extra game(s) - so there's a lot to work out. But an extra "Shamrock" type game selected by Notre Dame (not the ACC) and sold to NBC (or another broadcaster?) could bring in a few extra millions... not a game-changer, though.

This year's Shamrock Series game is an ND "home game" shifted to Las Vegas. ND is playing BYU, a team to whom ND owed a game under their previous contract.

2020's Shamrock Series game was supposed to be against Wisconsin, with ND's "home game" shifted to Lambeau Field.

I suppose that ND might play an ACC team in a Shamrock Series game in places like San Antonio, San Diego or Orlando once in a while, but not as any type of regular thing.

I don't think that the ACC would have any interest in playing "one and done" away games against ND in South Bend in lieu of teams like Toledo and Cal, but who knows?

(ND and NBC used to announce that such teams were paid a portion of the NBC money for those games)

I hate to be Negative Nelly here, but I don't think that ND has much interest in regularly playing ACC teams more than the five game per year average required by contract.

what if we breach the lopsided contract ...
kicked your high and mighty ass out ...

SO SUE ME

Its not "lopsided" at all. It was the best deal that the ACC could get from ND in 2012-16.

It is what the ACC, a sophisticated party with lawyers, advisors and consultants agreed to after full disclosure by ND and an arms length negotiation.

As a retired lawyer, I don't want to sue anyone.

But, as noted above, it would be fun to watch the ACC unilaterally breach the contracts and then try to defend that in court.

I have never seen so many people agree to a deal then not want to abide by its terms.

I want a fresh pair of eyes ...

THAT WAS THEN THIS IS NOW

(02-14-2022 04:26 PM)green Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 03:40 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 12:53 PM)green Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:49 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  3, 4, and 5 are things which need to be done during a "Look-In". They should've all been on the table last Summer (maybe they were). Obviously, ESPN must agree to actually pay for them! 3 and 5 have the potential to increase ticket revenue - but the OP question was about tv revenue.

There is one other thing ACC teams could do to increase tv revenue, but it requires cooperation from Notre Dame: agree to play additional games against the Irish - all under the NBC contract - with Notre Dame splitting the additional tv money. It would need to result in the Irish getting more than 7 "home" games, and NBC would have to agree to pay more for the extra game(s) - so there's a lot to work out. But an extra "Shamrock" type game selected by Notre Dame (not the ACC) and sold to NBC (or another broadcaster?) could bring in a few extra millions... not a game-changer, though.

This year's Shamrock Series game is an ND "home game" shifted to Las Vegas. ND is playing BYU, a team to whom ND owed a game under their previous contract.

2020's Shamrock Series game was supposed to be against Wisconsin, with ND's "home game" shifted to Lambeau Field.

I suppose that ND might play an ACC team in a Shamrock Series game in places like San Antonio, San Diego or Orlando once in a while, but not as any type of regular thing.

I don't think that the ACC would have any interest in playing "one and done" away games against ND in South Bend in lieu of teams like Toledo and Cal, but who knows?

(ND and NBC used to announce that such teams were paid a portion of the NBC money for those games)

I hate to be Negative Nelly here, but I don't think that ND has much interest in regularly playing ACC teams more than the five game per year average required by contract.

what if we breach the lopsided contract ...
kicked your high and mighty ass out ...

SO SUE ME

How exactly is the ACC going to defend itself when it's sued for a few hundred million dollars? The courts don't recognize "I don't like the contract anymore so it's over as far as I'm concerned" as a defense. What other media company will be willing to do business with the ACC with such a lawsuit hanging over the conference?

Deal with the situation as it is, not as if you've been crowned emperor of the universe.

And by the way, let's recognize that renegotiating the media contracts today would only get the ACC so far. Football is king and ACC football isn't as attractive a product as SEC or B1G football. Period.

are you privy to said contract ...

JUST CURIOUS

This is an interesting question. ND signed a GOR so it cannot unilaterally withdraw from the ACC without losing tons of media money. But what if the ACC member schools vote to expel ND? I guess then the media right for ND would be returned to ND and ND is free to go anywhere, right? On what ground, ND will sue for a few hundred dollars? Expelling a member school is not anything illegal as far as I know. (VT fans should know this...)

Many would say expelling ND would be suicidal, and it might be. But I guess the finanfial impact would not be that significant at least until 2035 because I highly doubt the ESPN would reopen the ACC contract even without ND as the current contract is such a sweet deal for the ESPN. (Remember the BIG 12 didn’t really lose money when A&M, Neb, Colorado and Missorio left?)

I am not saying the ACC should / would expel ND. It’s certainly a lose-lose deal for both parties. But compared to 2013, ND’s choice would be limited as the new Big 12 would be certianly less attractive than the old Big 12. ND may consider rejoining the Big East, which is always their fall back option. Still, I would say ND will have a bigger damage than the ACC if the ACC triggers a nuclear option. Maybe this is something that Phillips should consider in future negotiation.

(02-14-2022 07:03 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 04:26 PM)green Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 03:40 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 12:53 PM)green Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:49 AM)TerryD Wrote:  This year's Shamrock Series game is an ND "home game" shifted to Las Vegas. ND is playing BYU, a team to whom ND owed a game under their previous contract.

2020's Shamrock Series game was supposed to be against Wisconsin, with ND's "home game" shifted to Lambeau Field.

I suppose that ND might play an ACC team in a Shamrock Series game in places like San Antonio, San Diego or Orlando once in a while, but not as any type of regular thing.

I don't think that the ACC would have any interest in playing "one and done" away games against ND in South Bend in lieu of teams like Toledo and Cal, but who knows?

(ND and NBC used to announce that such teams were paid a portion of the NBC money for those games)

I hate to be Negative Nelly here, but I don't think that ND has much interest in regularly playing ACC teams more than the five game per year average required by contract.

what if we breach the lopsided contract ...
kicked your high and mighty ass out ...

SO SUE ME

How exactly is the ACC going to defend itself when it's sued for a few hundred million dollars? The courts don't recognize "I don't like the contract anymore so it's over as far as I'm concerned" as a defense. What other media company will be willing to do business with the ACC with such a lawsuit hanging over the conference?

Deal with the situation as it is, not as if you've been crowned emperor of the universe.

And by the way, let's recognize that renegotiating the media contracts today would only get the ACC so far. Football is king and ACC football isn't as attractive a product as SEC or B1G football. Period.

are you privy to said contract ...

JUST CURIOUS

This is an interesting question. ND signed a GOR so it cannot unilaterally withdraw from the ACC without losing tons of media money. But what if the ACC member schools vote to expel ND? I guess then the media right for ND would be returned to ND and ND is free to go anywhere, right? On what ground, ND will sue for a few hundred dollars? Expelling a member school is not anything illegal as far as I know. (VT fans should know this...)

Many would say expelling ND would be suicidal, and it might be. But I guess the finanfial impact would not be that significant at least until 2035 because I highly doubt the ESPN would reopen the ACC contract even without ND as the current contract is such a sweet deal for the ESPN. (Remember the BIG 12 didn’t really lose money when A&M, Neb, Colorado and Missorio left?)

I am not saying the ACC should / would expel ND. It’s certainly a lose-lose deal for both parties. But compared to 2013, ND’s choice would be limited as the new Big 12 would be certianly less attractive than the old Big 12. ND may consider rejoining the Big East, which is always their fall back option. Still, I would say ND will have a bigger damage than the ACC if the ACC triggers a nuclear option. Maybe this is something that Phillips should consider in future negotiation.

So, if what you say bolded above is true, then ND would be able to collect those damages in court if the ACC unilaterally breached those contracts.

(02-14-2022 04:31 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Getting rid of 2 of Duke, WF, BC, and NC State would likely net the ACC $80 million a year because any two could be sent to another conference and the basic ACC contract would not change.

Duke and BC should be quite happy in the Big East.

(02-15-2022 06:38 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 07:03 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 04:26 PM)green Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 03:40 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 12:53 PM)green Wrote:  what if we breach the lopsided contract ...
kicked your high and mighty ass out ...

SO SUE ME

How exactly is the ACC going to defend itself when it's sued for a few hundred million dollars? The courts don't recognize "I don't like the contract anymore so it's over as far as I'm concerned" as a defense. What other media company will be willing to do business with the ACC with such a lawsuit hanging over the conference?

Deal with the situation as it is, not as if you've been crowned emperor of the universe.

And by the way, let's recognize that renegotiating the media contracts today would only get the ACC so far. Football is king and ACC football isn't as attractive a product as SEC or B1G football. Period.

are you privy to said contract ...

JUST CURIOUS

This is an interesting question. ND signed a GOR so it cannot unilaterally withdraw from the ACC without losing tons of media money. But what if the ACC member schools vote to expel ND? I guess then the media right for ND would be returned to ND and ND is free to go anywhere, right? On what ground, ND will sue for a few hundred dollars? Expelling a member school is not anything illegal as far as I know. (VT fans should know this...)

Many would say expelling ND would be suicidal, and it might be. But I guess the finanfial impact would not be that significant at least until 2035 because I highly doubt the ESPN would reopen the ACC contract even without ND as the current contract is such a sweet deal for the ESPN. (Remember the BIG 12 didn’t really lose money when A&M, Neb, Colorado and Missorio left?)

I am not saying the ACC should / would expel ND. It’s certainly a lose-lose deal for both parties. But compared to 2013, ND’s choice would be limited as the new Big 12 would be certianly less attractive than the old Big 12. ND may consider rejoining the Big East, which is always their fall back option. Still, I would say ND will have a bigger damage than the ACC if the ACC triggers a nuclear option. Maybe this is something that Phillips should consider in future negotiation.

So, if what you say bolded above is true, then ND would be able to collect those damages in court if the ACC unilaterally breached those contracts.

failure to mitigate damages by the aggrieved party should be considered ...

CONTRACTS 101 FOR NON LAWYERS

(02-15-2022 07:53 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 04:31 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Getting rid of 2 of Duke, WF, BC, and NC State would likely net the ACC $80 million a year because any two could be sent to another conference and the basic ACC contract would not change.

Duke and BC should be quite happy in the Big East.

Getting rid of schools requires a great deal of thought. The ACC is already at a disadvantage by being the smallest of the P5. This is one of the key factors behind our smaller tv revenue distributions.

I attached the 2 charts below just to provide some demographics data. The data represents the various schools with their projected conference members. Notre Dame is included in the ACC, SEC now has UT and OU, and the Big 12 has its new schools. While demographics not always everything it is still a good indicator. (Statistics compiled for the 2020-2021 year using univstats.com).

Those small ACC members are (in order) WF, ND, BC, Duke, Miami, Syracuse, Louisville.


  2020-2021 Conference Demographics Student Pop. per School.png (Size: 22.56 KB / Downloads: 11)


  P5 Conference School Population Comparison.png (Size: 28.84 KB / Downloads: 9)

(02-15-2022 09:09 AM)AeroWolf Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 07:53 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 04:31 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Getting rid of 2 of Duke, WF, BC, and NC State would likely net the ACC $80 million a year because any two could be sent to another conference and the basic ACC contract would not change.

Duke and BC should be quite happy in the Big East.

Getting rid of schools requires a great deal of thought. The ACC is already at a disadvantage by being the smallest of the P5. This is one of the key factors behind our smaller tv revenue distributions.

I attached the 2 charts below just to provide some demographics data. The data represents the various schools with their projected conference members. Notre Dame is included in the ACC, SEC now has UT and OU, and the Big 12 has its new schools. While demographics not always everything it is still a good indicator. (Statistics compiled for the 2020-2021 year using univstats.com).

Those small ACC members are (in order) WF, ND, BC, Duke, Miami, Syracuse, Louisville.

I thought that the Big 12 at 10 was the smallest. Then the PAC with with 12 members.
The ACC has 14 5/8 members, The B1G and the SEC only have 14.


***note: the Big 12 will grow to 12 and the SEC will grow to 16.

(02-15-2022 09:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 09:09 AM)AeroWolf Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 07:53 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 04:31 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Getting rid of 2 of Duke, WF, BC, and NC State would likely net the ACC $80 million a year because any two could be sent to another conference and the basic ACC contract would not change.

Duke and BC should be quite happy in the Big East.

Getting rid of schools requires a great deal of thought. The ACC is already at a disadvantage by being the smallest of the P5. This is one of the key factors behind our smaller tv revenue distributions.

I attached the 2 charts below just to provide some demographics data. The data represents the various schools with their projected conference members. Notre Dame is included in the ACC, SEC now has UT and OU, and the Big 12 has its new schools. While demographics not always everything it is still a good indicator. (Statistics compiled for the 2020-2021 year using univstats.com).

Those small ACC members are (in order) WF, ND, BC, Duke, Miami, Syracuse, Louisville.

I thought that the Big 12 at 10 was the smallest. Then the PAC with with 12 members.
The ACC has 14 5/8 members, The B1G and the SEC only have 14.


***note: the Big 12 will grow to 12 and the SEC will grow to 16.

I think he means smallest total number of students enrolled, all schools combined.

(02-15-2022 09:09 AM)AeroWolf Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 07:53 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 04:31 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Getting rid of 2 of Duke, WF, BC, and NC State would likely net the ACC $80 million a year because any two could be sent to another conference and the basic ACC contract would not change.

Duke and BC should be quite happy in the Big East.

Getting rid of schools requires a great deal of thought. The ACC is already at a disadvantage by being the smallest of the P5. This is one of the key factors behind our smaller tv revenue distributions.

I attached the 2 charts below just to provide some demographics data. The data represents the various schools with their projected conference members. Notre Dame is included in the ACC, SEC now has UT and OU, and the Big 12 has its new schools. While demographics not always everything it is still a good indicator. (Statistics compiled for the 2020-2021 year using univstats.com).

Those small ACC members are (in order) WF, ND, BC, Duke, Miami, Syracuse, Louisville.

China UCF greatly helps the Big 12 with their ludicrous near 60k enrollment. Didn't anticipate GT being one of the larger enrollments in the ACC now, though.

(02-15-2022 09:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 09:09 AM)AeroWolf Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 07:53 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 04:31 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Getting rid of 2 of Duke, WF, BC, and NC State would likely net the ACC $80 million a year because any two could be sent to another conference and the basic ACC contract would not change.

Duke and BC should be quite happy in the Big East.

Getting rid of schools requires a great deal of thought. The ACC is already at a disadvantage by being the smallest of the P5. This is one of the key factors behind our smaller tv revenue distributions.

I attached the 2 charts below just to provide some demographics data. The data represents the various schools with their projected conference members. Notre Dame is included in the ACC, SEC now has UT and OU, and the Big 12 has its new schools. While demographics not always everything it is still a good indicator. (Statistics compiled for the 2020-2021 year using univstats.com).

Those small ACC members are (in order) WF, ND, BC, Duke, Miami, Syracuse, Louisville.

I thought that the Big 12 at 10 was the smallest. Then the PAC with with 12 members.
The ACC has 14 5/8 members, The B1G and the SEC only have 14.


***note: the Big 12 will grow to 12 and the SEC will grow to 16.

I kept the charts simple. For our purposes regarding new and future revenue, we can consider ND an ACC(15) member, SEC(16) now has UT and OU, Big 12(12) has their new additions of BYU, central Florida, Cincinnati, and Houston while losing UT and OU. The BIG(14) and PAC(12) have not changed yet.

These charts are not the end-all-be-all, but it points toward the ACC's declining future unless major changes are made in ACC competitiveness. I think too many ACC schools are overestimating their individual brand's future value to realize the ACC may need to consider a more integrated-conference approach to student athletics and not simply be reactionarily thinking of themselves.