From the main board





P5 Payouts Article

It’s just one model with probably many assumptions and guesses but I would say the ACC numbers actually don’t look that bad. According to the model, the ACC and P12 will have similar revenue.

The money gap will be still there. The ACC would continue to make about 45 percent less than top conferences.

The issue is not really failure to grow ACC revenue, which has grown a little faster than the Pac-12 and considerably faster than the Big XII. The overarching problem is the enormous growth in Big Ten and SEC revenue, which has destabilized the entire FBS.

So .... based on these charts ...

Cincinnati, BYU, Houston and Central Florida are better for the bottom line than Texas and Oklahoma.

I like Cincy, BYU, Houston and Central Florida, but c'mon .... there's no way they replace - and add to -- the revenue that Texas and Oklahoma made for the Big XII.

The Conference Gross by 2029:

SEC 1.648 Billion
B10 1.323 Billion
ACC .774 Billion
P12 .678 Billion
B12 .622 Billion

The assumptions seem to hold the B12 harmless.

Per school distribution when the number of schools varies versus the lump yields two different sets of numbers.

(03-31-2022 09:09 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  So .... based on these charts ...

Cincinnati, BYU, Houston and Central Florida are better for the bottom line than Texas and Oklahoma.

I like Cincy, BYU, Houston and Central Florida, but c'mon .... there's no way they replace - and add to -- the revenue that Texas and Oklahoma made for the Big XII.

It looks like the playoff expansion money would make the Big 12 slighrly better off in 2026 compared to 2025. All other conferences including the ACC will get a much bigger bump during that time.

(03-31-2022 10:25 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-31-2022 09:09 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  So .... based on these charts ...

Cincinnati, BYU, Houston and Central Florida are better for the bottom line than Texas and Oklahoma.

I like Cincy, BYU, Houston and Central Florida, but c'mon .... there's no way they replace - and add to -- the revenue that Texas and Oklahoma made for the Big XII.

It looks like the playoff expansion money would make the Big 12 slighrly better off in 2026 compared to 2025. All other conferences including the ACC will get a much bigger bump during that time.

If you step back and look at the general curves you get an overall sense of things, but I really think there are some quirks that the modelers did not take into account and indeed they even say that. All I know is that any time I read ANYTHING about the matter, the estimates applied to the Big 10 are always maximums and ACC estimates are minimums and it's been this way for the last 15 year. I also wonder about Texas and OU being worth $600,000,000 to ESPN annually in the SEC. That figuring that ESPN gets half and the 16 members split the rest to account for the huge jump.

(03-31-2022 10:25 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-31-2022 09:09 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  So .... based on these charts ...

Cincinnati, BYU, Houston and Central Florida are better for the bottom line than Texas and Oklahoma.

I like Cincy, BYU, Houston and Central Florida, but c'mon .... there's no way they replace - and add to -- the revenue that Texas and Oklahoma made for the Big XII.

It looks like the playoff expansion money would make the Big 12 slighrly better off in 2026 compared to 2025. All other conferences including the ACC will get a much bigger bump during that time.

The B12 numbers don't make sense.

Even CFP expansion to 8 teams can't compensate for the loss of Texas and Oklahoma. Commissioner Bowlsby admitted that over 50% of B12 media rights are tied to the two powerhouse schools. Viewership data confirms that 55% of the B12's tier 1 & 2 value comes from OU and UT. In addition, the B12 is adding 4 lesser brand schools to replace their content...further diluting payouts. The SEC is getting a $10M / year per school increase from adding OU and UT in 2026; while all conferences are gaining a $7M incremental increase from the assumed CFP expansion.

The B12 should be ecstatic, and Bowlsby rewarded, if something like this scenario occurs.

(04-01-2022 05:15 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-31-2022 10:25 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-31-2022 09:09 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  So .... based on these charts ...

Cincinnati, BYU, Houston and Central Florida are better for the bottom line than Texas and Oklahoma.

I like Cincy, BYU, Houston and Central Florida, but c'mon .... there's no way they replace - and add to -- the revenue that Texas and Oklahoma made for the Big XII.

It looks like the playoff expansion money would make the Big 12 slighrly better off in 2026 compared to 2025. All other conferences including the ACC will get a much bigger bump during that time.

The B12 numbers don't make sense.

Even CFP expansion to 8 teams can't compensate for the loss of Texas and Oklahoma. Commissioner Bowlsby admitted that over 50% of B12 media rights are tied to the two powerhouse schools. Viewership data confirms that 55% of the B12's tier 1 & 2 value comes from OU and UT. In addition, the B12 is adding 4 lesser brand schools to replace their content...further diluting payouts. The SEC is getting a $10M / year per school increase from adding OU and UT in 2026; while all conferences are gaining a $7M incremental increase from the assumed CFP expansion.

The B12 should be ecstatic, and Bowlsby rewarded, if something like this scenario occurs.

IIRC, those projections were made before Texas and OU jumped ship. Now I expect the SEC would go higher and the Big XII lower.

How soon till FSU & Clemson start calling the SEC? NC, Duke, Virginia & GT not far behind. ACC headed for a B12 merger?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(04-02-2022 11:04 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  How soon till FSU & Clemson start calling the SEC? NC, Duke, Virginia & GT not far behind. ACC headed for a B12 merger?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seems like that’s what alot of people believe is going to happen. Personally no, a very very slim chance.

(04-02-2022 11:50 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-02-2022 11:04 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  How soon till FSU & Clemson start calling the SEC? NC, Duke, Virginia & GT not far behind. ACC headed for a B12 merger?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seems like that’s what alot of people believe is going to happen. Personally no, a very very slim chance.

If FSU & Clemson have a chance to jump to either the SEC or B1G, they’re gone. For Tobacco Road it will come down to money verses power. The B1G will look to counter the SEC to keep up. FSU/Clemson makes sense which will draw the SEC attention. With them gone the money gap will become to wide even for Tobacco Road to ignore. Whatever happens, VT is in good shape, I believe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(04-02-2022 08:13 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-01-2022 05:15 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-31-2022 10:25 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-31-2022 09:09 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  So .... based on these charts ...

Cincinnati, BYU, Houston and Central Florida are better for the bottom line than Texas and Oklahoma.

I like Cincy, BYU, Houston and Central Florida, but c'mon .... there's no way they replace - and add to -- the revenue that Texas and Oklahoma made for the Big XII.

It looks like the playoff expansion money would make the Big 12 slighrly better off in 2026 compared to 2025. All other conferences including the ACC will get a much bigger bump during that time.

The B12 numbers don't make sense.

Even CFP expansion to 8 teams can't compensate for the loss of Texas and Oklahoma. Commissioner Bowlsby admitted that over 50% of B12 media rights are tied to the two powerhouse schools. Viewership data confirms that 55% of the B12's tier 1 & 2 value comes from OU and UT. In addition, the B12 is adding 4 lesser brand schools to replace their content...further diluting payouts. The SEC is getting a $10M / year per school increase from adding OU and UT in 2026; while all conferences are gaining a $7M incremental increase from the assumed CFP expansion.

The B12 should be ecstatic, and Bowlsby rewarded, if something like this scenario occurs.

IIRC, those projections were made before Texas and OU jumped ship. Now I expect the SEC would go higher and the Big XII lower.

Ehh? Not sure that makes sense either. If Texas and OU were assumed to remain in the B12, then SEC revenues couldn’t leapfrog B1G media payouts. The B1G has structural advantages (eg, BTN, split-distribution of Tier 1&2 rights, more windows to renegotiate terms) that maintains its market leadership. IMO, it’s the combination of CFP expansion plus UT & OU expansion that is essential for the SEC to take the lead in media payouts.

(04-02-2022 11:04 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  How soon till FSU & Clemson start calling the SEC? NC, Duke, Virginia & GT not far behind. ACC headed for a B12 merger?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The SEC and ESPN don't gain anything from that.

The SEC and ESPN gain if you move 2 or 4 of VT, UVa, NC State, Pitt, UNC, or Duke to the SEC. Move any more than 4 and it's nothing but a merger and a return to the Old Southern Conference of 1921-1933.

FSU and Clemson in particular just want more money and how they get it is somewhat immaterial. If ESPN only moves 2 from the ACC, they will have to abide by the Contract which means about a 15% bump for each remaining ACC school. That would boost the remaining schools by about $4 million a year plus whatever ratchets. Take 4 and that price rises to $8 million a year.

Paying the current contract price for 10 instead of 14 schools is a way to finesse a move. On top of that ESPN would likely have to pay part of the exit fee. Using the above as a template that would put 10 remaining ACC schools at about $80 million in year 2029.

If the difference between being in the ACC vs Big 10 and being $15 mill behind or being in the ACC and being behind $25 million how many ACC school do you think would want to jump into a situation where they are non-competitive in football?

Part of what the SEC has to consider is that neither UVa nor UNC will be competitive in football. Basketball will have to sustain their boosters and fans. That's a problem long term.

More revenue is not the only moving part. Some schools can't abide losing. Some schools are used to losing. The Harlem Globetrotters need the Washington Generals in order to make a good show. At some point if you can't win, you will quit trying.

What is cheapest for ESPN is to pay the ACC just enough to prevent any mass exodus and to prevent Clemson, FSU, VT, Miami, NC State, Pitt, and UNC from quitting at football.

If you allow FSU and Clemson to move, you have to pay the SEC for that, and you get no break in the ACC, but ACC football is watered down. If you allow UVa and UNC to move the football product you own is not watered down, but now you are paying an SEC price for UVa and UNC football and still paying the ACC the same as if they had 14.

If you move the bulk of the ACC into the SEC, the SEC is no longer the SEC, it is the old Southern Conference and no sooner than the move is completed you have Texas and UNC get together to gin up trouble and demand what will become three conferences under one name - a defacto Atlantic, SE, and SW division. But you will paying an SEC price for the 8 ACC schools.

(04-02-2022 06:36 PM)Statefan Wrote:  If the difference between being in the ACC vs Big 10 and being $15 mill behind or being in the ACC and being behind $25 million how many ACC school do you think would want to jump into a situation where they are non-competitive in football?

Part of what the SEC has to consider is that neither UVa nor UNC will be competitive in football. Basketball will have to sustain their boosters and fans. That's a problem long term.

More revenue is not the only moving part. Some schools can't abide losing. Some schools are used to losing. The Harlem Globetrotters need the Washington Generals in order to make a good show. At some point if you can't win, you will quit trying.

What is cheapest for ESPN is to pay the ACC just enough to prevent any mass exodus and to prevent Clemson, FSU, VT, Miami, NC State, Pitt, and UNC from quitting at football.

If you allow FSU and Clemson to move, you have to pay the SEC for that, and you get no break in the ACC, but ACC football is watered down. If you allow UVa and UNC to move the football product you own is not watered down, but now you are paying an SEC price for UVa and UNC football and still paying the ACC the same as if they had 14.

If you move the bulk of the ACC into the SEC, the SEC is no longer the SEC, it is the old Southern Conference and no sooner than the move is completed you have Texas and UNC get together to gin up trouble and demand what will become three conferences under one name - a defacto Atlantic, SE, and SW division. But you will paying an SEC price for the 8 ACC schools.

1. Without the NCAA Current Basketball values will multiply by a factor of 2.25 x present revenue.

2. The question is what would a conference containing Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, Texas, Duke, Virginia, Florida, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee be worth in advertising in the winter? A bunch! That's multiples of T1 material and it doesn't matter if Alabama, L.S.U., Texas A&M and Auburn are hot or not. Brand x Market penetration is huge. It pays well enough to justify UVa, UNC, Duke and Kansas. Heck, at 2.25 x current Value Kansas is worth just a little less than Notre Dame. ESPN knows this.

3. With those lightweight football programs in the SEC it's still brand value and equals buy games in the standings which balances a top heavy football conference. It's a win win for the cost of 160 million more.

4. It also clears a merger of B12 and ACC football schools to form a much more marketable conference.

(04-02-2022 08:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-02-2022 06:36 PM)Statefan Wrote:  If the difference between being in the ACC vs Big 10 and being $15 mill behind or being in the ACC and being behind $25 million how many ACC school do you think would want to jump into a situation where they are non-competitive in football?

Part of what the SEC has to consider is that neither UVa nor UNC will be competitive in football. Basketball will have to sustain their boosters and fans. That's a problem long term.

More revenue is not the only moving part. Some schools can't abide losing. Some schools are used to losing. The Harlem Globetrotters need the Washington Generals in order to make a good show. At some point if you can't win, you will quit trying.

What is cheapest for ESPN is to pay the ACC just enough to prevent any mass exodus and to prevent Clemson, FSU, VT, Miami, NC State, Pitt, and UNC from quitting at football.

If you allow FSU and Clemson to move, you have to pay the SEC for that, and you get no break in the ACC, but ACC football is watered down. If you allow UVa and UNC to move the football product you own is not watered down, but now you are paying an SEC price for UVa and UNC football and still paying the ACC the same as if they had 14.

If you move the bulk of the ACC into the SEC, the SEC is no longer the SEC, it is the old Southern Conference and no sooner than the move is completed you have Texas and UNC get together to gin up trouble and demand what will become three conferences under one name - a defacto Atlantic, SE, and SW division. But you will paying an SEC price for the 8 ACC schools.

1. Without the NCAA Current Basketball values will multiply by a factor of 2.25 x present revenue.

2. The question is what would a conference containing Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, Texas, Duke, Virginia, Florida, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee be worth in advertising in the winter? A bunch! That's multiples of T1 material and it doesn't matter if Alabama, L.S.U., Texas A&M and Auburn are hot or not. Brand x Market penetration is huge. It pays well enough to justify UVa, UNC, Duke and Kansas. Heck, at 2.25 x current Value Kansas is worth just a little less than Notre Dame. ESPN knows this.

3. With those lightweight football programs in the SEC it's still brand value and equals buy games in the standings which balances a top heavy football conference. It's a win win for the cost of 160 million more.

4. It also clears a merger of B12 and ACC football schools to form a much more marketable conference.

If NC, Duke & Virginia go to the SEC the B1G will go after FSU & Clemson along possibly with VT, NC St, GT & Miami. I bet ESPN & the SEC would like to keep the B1G out of the south. Should the B1G come calling for any ACC schools, the SEC & ESPN may not have a choice but to go BIG, taking 6-8. The problem for the ACC is that tv rights are locked in at a decade old rate while everyone continues to sign new contracts at higher & higher prices. Swofford gambled on a long rights contract & the ACC will lose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe just maybe the ACC should look at redoing distribution and reward schools for what they do as a whole. If you want better league play throughout especially football like the new commissioner wants then reward these teams who are making the conference better with their play on the field.

(04-02-2022 01:49 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-02-2022 11:50 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-02-2022 11:04 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  How soon till FSU & Clemson start calling the SEC? NC, Duke, Virginia & GT not far behind. ACC headed for a B12 merger?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seems like that’s what alot of people believe is going to happen. Personally no, a very very slim chance.

If FSU & Clemson have a chance to jump to either the SEC or B1G, they’re gone. For Tobacco Road it will come down to money verses power. The B1G will look to counter the SEC to keep up. FSU/Clemson makes sense which will draw the SEC attention. With them gone the money gap will become to wide even for Tobacco Road to ignore. Whatever happens, VT is in good shape, I believe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Any scenario where FSU and Clemson leave the ACC makes GT a wild card. That is the one scenario where B1G membership would be accepted: there's already no South left in the ACC anywhere close so you're not losing anything by being forced to play the Indianas and Minnesotas of the world at that point.

(04-05-2022 02:09 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-02-2022 01:49 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-02-2022 11:50 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-02-2022 11:04 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  How soon till FSU & Clemson start calling the SEC? NC, Duke, Virginia & GT not far behind. ACC headed for a B12 merger?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seems like that’s what alot of people believe is going to happen. Personally no, a very very slim chance.

If FSU & Clemson have a chance to jump to either the SEC or B1G, they’re gone. For Tobacco Road it will come down to money verses power. The B1G will look to counter the SEC to keep up. FSU/Clemson makes sense which will draw the SEC attention. With them gone the money gap will become to wide even for Tobacco Road to ignore. Whatever happens, VT is in good shape, I believe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Any scenario where FSU and Clemson leave the ACC makes GT a wild card. That is the one scenario where B1G membership would be accepted: there's already no South left in the ACC anywhere close so you're not losing anything by being forced to play the Indianas and Minnesotas of the world at that point.

1. I truly don't think the SEC is chomping at the bit to add Clemson and Florida State. I think the SEC would be interested in UNC and a Virginia school. UNC & Duke likely travel as a pair if they move.

2. The ideal expansion for the SEC would one that put them in the states of Virginia and North Carolina with a Flagship or top draw. Kansas would flesh out the West of a 20 school SEC. A second Florida school would be a priority but preferably one which puts the SEC into parts of the state which do not duplicate Florida's footprint. It's why I have raised S. Florida as a future prospect with an excellent location for the SEC, and Miami would also do the same.

3. I do not see the B1G breaking from an AAU requirement other than Notre Dame. So I do not see Clemson and FSU as B1G targets. Oklahoma is a better brand than FSU and they could have had them in 2010-1 and chose not to offer. If UNC, UYa and Duke are off the table I don't think they raid the ACC other than N.D. with a longshot chance for Pitt.

4. I think both the SEC and B1G would rather stay at 20 or less. 24 would simply be a defensive move to keep ad leverage at its highest and Southern State's committed solidly to the SEC. When talking in an open forum about further consolidation, which is coming, it is much less irritating to the board to speak of 24 because it doesn't require unnecessary talk about who gets left out. If ESPN sanctioned a move of the 3 I mentioned to the SEC and one more the total cost to them is 160 million (40 million each). So I think ESPN is much less likely to want 24. But clearly if the ACC lost those 3 a new day might well dawn. Picking up some of the more football oriented members of the B12 would actually raise contract values.

5. This would certainly not spark SEC fears of a B1G incursion in the South.

6. A 20 member ACC/B12, a 20 member SEC, a 12 member PAC and a 16 member B1G expands the current P5 by 3 while slimming down to 4 conferences. ESPN retains rights to the regions they want, and we start hasing out playoffs.

If however the B1G moves to 20 or more then mathematically it means a P3.

(04-04-2022 10:40 PM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  Maybe just maybe the ACC should look at redoing distribution and reward schools for what they do as a whole. If you want better league play throughout especially football like the new commissioner wants then reward these teams who are making the conference better with their play on the field.

Depending on how the ACC does it they could be driving the unhappy schools out of the ACC and to the other conferences (SEC, Big Ten). It's one thing for ACC schools to be given less money because the ACC averages less than the SEC or Big Ten but schools to then get less than the ACC average is only going to make them more want to leave, assuming someone else wants them.