(02-21-2023 11:03 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(02-21-2023 08:56 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-20-2023 08:11 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  The ACC should add UConn

Swofford is that you?

As a basketball invite until their football program comes along, then the ACC can invite them as a football member, especially if the ACC neeed to backfill.

Listen Swofford I know you have a lot of free time in your retirement ... but you've done enough damage here. Move along and play realignment tiddly winks with the Big South conference in a tabletop exercise.

I’ll ignore the insults, but I thought this thread was for “aggressive moves” to “strengthen (more money) the ACC”. I think my suggestion does both of those things, I’d hope personal vendettas are put aside and the ACC will do what is best for it self and close the financial gap (even by a little) with the BigTen and SEC.

ACC-Pac football only Alliance

Send UVA and Duke to the Pac so that both conferences have 12 members. The Pac gets into the ETZ. The ACC sheds 2 redundant markets. Duke and UVA get to enjoy the academic association with Stanford, Cal and UW. The ACC divides Duke and UVA’s football share.

The big hurdle is continuing the rivalry games in the ACC. UVA needs to play UNC and VT and Duke needs to play UNC annually. The Pac would need to reduce their conference games to 8 and both UNC and UVA would have 10 P5 games on the schedule every year + ND.

That is the gist of the idea, maybe a different combo of schools could work better.

(02-21-2023 05:26 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  ACC-Pac football only Alliance

Send UVA and Duke to the Pac so that both conferences have 12 members. The Pac gets into the ETZ. The ACC sheds 2 redundant markets. Duke and UVA get to enjoy the academic association with Stanford, Cal and UW. The ACC divides Duke and UVA’s football share.

The big hurdle is continuing the rivalry games in the ACC. UVA needs to play UNC and VT and Duke needs to play UNC annually. The Pac would need to reduce their conference games to 8 and both UNC and UVA would have 10 P5 games on the schedule every year + ND.

That is the gist of the idea, maybe a different combo of schools could work better.

They don’t need to have equal number of teams. If the ACC doesn’t want to poach any Pac schools, the second best thing would be the media partnership. ACCN turns out to be successful. PACN doesn’t.

But it looks like the Pac is going with Apple or Amazon.

Is Disney/ESPN in such bad financial state at this moment that it can't find money to make a major play on college sports by mopping up the last remainining 10 schools of the P5 to have a major controlling influence on college sports.

ESPN controls 30 schools SEC and ACC
Fox only controls 16 with the BIG

Big XII is split between ESPN and Fox but are only 12 schools.

ND is a wild card with their independence, but just 1 school.

Buying PAC 10 at the Big XII rate of $30M / school is likely overpaying their independent or conference worth. But surely putting those schools under the ESPN banner for a controlling influence on the direction of P5 sports is worth the cost.

40 out of 69 P5 schools. Would the aggressive move be for the ACC help to get ESPN get control of college sports in return for steering ing the direction toward a more profitable ACC future.

Basically ACC buys a stake in Disney/ESPN to buy the PAC to control the direction of college sports.

(02-21-2023 09:10 PM)AeroWolf Wrote:  Is Disney/ESPN in such bad financial state at this moment that it can't find money to make a major play on college sports by mopping up the last remainining 10 schools of the P5 to have a major controlling influence on college sports.

ESPN controls 30 schools SEC and ACC
Fox only controls 16 with the BIG

Big XII is split between ESPN and Fox but are only 12 schools.

ND is a wild card with their independence, but just 1 school.

Buying PAC 10 at the Big XII rate of $30M / school is likely overpaying their independent or conference worth. But surely putting those schools under the ESPN banner for a controlling influence on the direction of P5 sports is worth the cost.

40 out of 69 P5 schools. Would the aggressive move be for the ACC help to get ESPN get control of college sports in return for steering ing the direction toward a more profitable ACC future.

Basically ACC buys a stake in Disney/ESPN to buy the PAC to control the direction of college sports.

Good point about controlling the majority. ESPN would basically have the rights to almost any creative OOC game you can think of, they could probably just do the ADs job and broker the games themselves.

(02-21-2023 09:29 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(02-21-2023 09:10 PM)AeroWolf Wrote:  Is Disney/ESPN in such bad financial state at this moment that it can't find money to make a major play on college sports by mopping up the last remainining 10 schools of the P5 to have a major controlling influence on college sports.

ESPN controls 30 schools SEC and ACC
Fox only controls 16 with the BIG

Big XII is split between ESPN and Fox but are only 12 schools.

ND is a wild card with their independence, but just 1 school.

Buying PAC 10 at the Big XII rate of $30M / school is likely overpaying their independent or conference worth. But surely putting those schools under the ESPN banner for a controlling influence on the direction of P5 sports is worth the cost.

40 out of 69 P5 schools. Would the aggressive move be for the ACC help to get ESPN get control of college sports in return for steering ing the direction toward a more profitable ACC future.

Basically ACC buys a stake in Disney/ESPN to buy the PAC to control the direction of college sports.

Good point about controlling the majority. ESPN would basically have the rights to almost any creative OOC game you can think of, they could probably just do the ADs job and broker the games themselves.

It's not just controlling OOC games. Its controlling the future of how college football and other sports are conducted. Controlling the NCAA rules and regs in a manner more favorable to the ACC.

(02-20-2023 11:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-20-2023 11:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-20-2023 09:02 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  I find this thread very interesting, almost comicial!

The ACC outlined three challenges for ACC commissioner Jim Phillips this past summer, who has huddled multiple times with conference athletic directors and presidents:

1. Manage simmering resentment among some members and lean on the ACC’s long-term grant of media rights to keep his current group intact. The barrels o’ cash the SEC and Big Ten can offer complicate the task. (Maybe unequal revenue sharing)

2. Cement the ACC’s access to the College Football Playoff by pushing aggressively for the 12-team model, complete with automatic bids to the six highest-rated conference champions, that he and others delayed after its June 2021 unveiling.

3. In concert with ESPN, determine if there’s a way to markedly enhance ACC revenue, through outright expansion or a television partnership with the Pac-12.

More than a decade of annual tax returns show that television accounts for approximately two-thirds of ACC revenue and subsequent distributions to members. Even if we conservatively estimate those yearly distributions to average $45 million per school through 2035-36, that’s $30 million annually in TV revenue.

If a school wanted to depart 10 years before the grant expired, the price could be $300 million, or more. Plus, the ACC's exit fee, three times a school's annual distribution, exceeds $100 million. The issue then becomes whether the grant of rights would be upheld in court and how pricey those proceedings would be. Since no one has challenged a conference GoR, the answer is anyones guess, but Texas and Oklahoma only left 1 year early. So yes in 2035 the ACC may lose some members if ESPN doesn't pay up.

We probably should talk about how to strengthen the BIG12 or Pac12 since in the last ten years (2013-2023) the ACC has become the #3 P-5 conf after everyone predicted the ACC's demise, No ACC Network...on and on....

You make a good point which is often (usually?) glossed over: in the last decade the ACC has gone from 5th (6th?) best football conference to 3rd (2nd?) best. It's also gone from 5th in revenue to flirting with clear 3rd in that regard as well. The ACC has come a LONG way in the last 20 years - despite some decisions which were very bad [especially in hindsight]. We are talking about the weakest of the BCS conferences and the 2nd poorest moving up several notches. Yet, do we see a refusal to accept the bronze medal because it isn't gold or silver...?

The only time everyone finishes in first place is at the Special Olympics...

Mark, in fairness you didn't get there by addition. You got there by subtraction. The PAC lost its largest market and largest draw and could lose its most valuable (UW) and its 3rd most valuable (Oregon).

The Big 12 lost 54.6% of its total value with Oklahoma and Texas and had already lost Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri and A&M. The ACC only lost Maryland and the value of Louisville eclipsed them. There's your addition. But it is surrounded by so much subtraction. And the additions made by the Big 10 and SEC are the reason the gap in revenue is so large. But, no question you are solidly third now and it isn't close.

Addition: ACC Network

(02-23-2023 11:59 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(02-20-2023 11:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-20-2023 11:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-20-2023 09:02 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  I find this thread very interesting, almost comicial!

The ACC outlined three challenges for ACC commissioner Jim Phillips this past summer, who has huddled multiple times with conference athletic directors and presidents:

1. Manage simmering resentment among some members and lean on the ACC’s long-term grant of media rights to keep his current group intact. The barrels o’ cash the SEC and Big Ten can offer complicate the task. (Maybe unequal revenue sharing)

2. Cement the ACC’s access to the College Football Playoff by pushing aggressively for the 12-team model, complete with automatic bids to the six highest-rated conference champions, that he and others delayed after its June 2021 unveiling.

3. In concert with ESPN, determine if there’s a way to markedly enhance ACC revenue, through outright expansion or a television partnership with the Pac-12.

More than a decade of annual tax returns show that television accounts for approximately two-thirds of ACC revenue and subsequent distributions to members. Even if we conservatively estimate those yearly distributions to average $45 million per school through 2035-36, that’s $30 million annually in TV revenue.

If a school wanted to depart 10 years before the grant expired, the price could be $300 million, or more. Plus, the ACC's exit fee, three times a school's annual distribution, exceeds $100 million. The issue then becomes whether the grant of rights would be upheld in court and how pricey those proceedings would be. Since no one has challenged a conference GoR, the answer is anyones guess, but Texas and Oklahoma only left 1 year early. So yes in 2035 the ACC may lose some members if ESPN doesn't pay up.

We probably should talk about how to strengthen the BIG12 or Pac12 since in the last ten years (2013-2023) the ACC has become the #3 P-5 conf after everyone predicted the ACC's demise, No ACC Network...on and on....

You make a good point which is often (usually?) glossed over: in the last decade the ACC has gone from 5th (6th?) best football conference to 3rd (2nd?) best. It's also gone from 5th in revenue to flirting with clear 3rd in that regard as well. The ACC has come a LONG way in the last 20 years - despite some decisions which were very bad [especially in hindsight]. We are talking about the weakest of the BCS conferences and the 2nd poorest moving up several notches. Yet, do we see a refusal to accept the bronze medal because it isn't gold or silver...?

The only time everyone finishes in first place is at the Special Olympics...

Mark, in fairness you didn't get there by addition. You got there by subtraction. The PAC lost its largest market and largest draw and could lose its most valuable (UW) and its 3rd most valuable (Oregon).

The Big 12 lost 54.6% of its total value with Oklahoma and Texas and had already lost Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri and A&M. The ACC only lost Maryland and the value of Louisville eclipsed them. There's your addition. But it is surrounded by so much subtraction. And the additions made by the Big 10 and SEC are the reason the gap in revenue is so large. But, no question you are solidly third now and it isn't close.

Addition: ACC Network

The Atlantic-Pacific Athletic Conference for football or football and basketball may be the answer to the ACC's dilemma.

(02-21-2023 05:08 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I’ll ignore the insults, but I thought this thread was for “aggressive moves” to “strengthen (more money) the ACC”. I think my suggestion does both of those things, I’d hope personal vendettas are put aside and the ACC will do what is best for it self and close the financial gap (even by a little) with the BigTen and SEC.

Aggressive is merger with the SEC.

Merger with the new Pac-10 sounds like two ships taking on water in heavy seas latching themselves together.

(02-23-2023 03:37 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-21-2023 05:08 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I’ll ignore the insults, but I thought this thread was for “aggressive moves” to “strengthen (more money) the ACC”. I think my suggestion does both of those things, I’d hope personal vendettas are put aside and the ACC will do what is best for it self and close the financial gap (even by a little) with the BigTen and SEC.

Aggressive is merger with the SEC.

Merger with the new Pac-10 sounds like two ships taking on water in heavy seas latching themselves together.

The Stockholm meets the Andrea Doria! Yep that pretty well nails the APAC idea!

(02-21-2023 05:26 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  ACC-Pac football only Alliance

Send UVA and Duke to the Pac so that both conferences have 12 members. The Pac gets into the ETZ. The ACC sheds 2 redundant markets. Duke and UVA get to enjoy the academic association with Stanford, Cal and UW. The ACC divides Duke and UVA’s football share.

The big hurdle is continuing the rivalry games in the ACC. UVA needs to play UNC and VT and Duke needs to play UNC annually. The Pac would need to reduce their conference games to 8 and both UNC and UVA would have 10 P5 games on the schedule every year + ND.

That is the gist of the idea, maybe a different combo of schools could work better.

(02-21-2023 09:10 PM)AeroWolf Wrote:  Is Disney/ESPN in such bad financial state at this moment that it can't find money to make a major play on college sports by mopping up the last remainining 10 schools of the P5 to have a major controlling influence on college sports.

This question was answered yesterday with the announcement of Ally and Disney increasing their support of ACC Women’s Athletics.

(02-21-2023 05:26 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  ACC-Pac football only Alliance

Send UVA and Duke to the Pac so that both conferences have 12 members. The Pac gets into the ETZ. The ACC sheds 2 redundant markets. Duke and UVA get to enjoy the academic association with Stanford, Cal and UW. The ACC divides Duke and UVA’s football share.

The big hurdle is continuing the rivalry games in the ACC. UVA needs to play UNC and VT and Duke needs to play UNC annually. The Pac would need to reduce their conference games to 8 and both UNC and UVA would have 10 P5 games on the schedule every year + ND.

That is the gist of the idea, maybe a different combo of schools could work better.

I don't think UVA and Duke would like that idea. The fair game is that 12 schools except Florida State and Clemson went to PAC12 once every six years. Florida State and Clemson are anchor of ACC so they get the exemption.

Ok guys, my bestest idea ever that would make the ACCN a ton of money....give FSU AD Michael Alford his own show, every Saturday night in prime time.

some prior things

1. I have seen zero evidence that the ACC GOR gets "opened up" with the addition of new members

and even if it did and many members of the conference are worried about losing a couple of the bigger brands why would the majority of the conference vote to "open up" the GOR and possibly lose teams

2. in addition people seem to think that the GOR is a TV contract it is not

there is a contract for conference membership (the document that has the rules for being a member, exit fees, and other things like that0

there is the GOR that is a VERY SIMPLE (by design) contract that simply binds a member's media rights to the conference for the length of the GOR.....the GOR matches to the length of the current TV contract

and of course there is the media contract between the conference and the media partner(s) for the media rights granted to the conference by the members under the GOR

3. does anyone have anything that shows (other than tweets from the dudoo of WV or greg flengua or mchiaver or similar idiots) that shows that ESPN is on the hook to open up and renegotiate the media contract with additional members

I have never seen anything credible that shows that

4. the Big 12 members have signed a new GOR that was confirmed by the commissioner on a recent interview and it is for the life of the mew media deal (plus the rest of the current one)......sadly there probably are university presidents that would be dumb enough to sign a GOR that goes past the length of a media deal, but fortunately that is not the case with the Big 12

so the Big 12 media deal and GOR will end one year before the current ACC deal and ACC GOR

(02-21-2023 09:10 PM)AeroWolf Wrote:  Is Disney/ESPN in such bad financial state at this moment that it can't find money to make a major play on college sports by mopping up the last remainining 10 schools of the P5 to have a major controlling influence on college sports.

ESPN controls 30 schools SEC and ACC
Fox only controls 16 with the BIG

Big XII is split between ESPN and Fox but are only 12 schools.

ND is a wild card with their independence, but just 1 school.

Buying PAC 10 at the Big XII rate of $30M / school is likely overpaying their independent or conference worth. But surely putting those schools under the ESPN banner for a controlling influence on the direction of P5 sports is worth the cost.

40 out of 69 P5 schools. Would the aggressive move be for the ACC help to get ESPN get control of college sports in return for steering ing the direction toward a more profitable ACC future.

Basically ACC buys a stake in Disney/ESPN to buy the PAC to control the direction of college sports.

this is not how ESPN sees it

ESPN currently has all the content they need and more they NEED zero new content and the reality is they already have too much

there is no benefit to them for "control" of more content

in fact is becomes a money loser for them because you are looking at horrible start times for the PAC 12 and the more content ESPN buys at this point the more content they have that competes with their current content

you do not buy more content you do not need, with bad start times, in areas with low fan support and viewership to place it on more networks to compete with you are already paying a lot for or to place on a network instead of content you have already paid a lot for

with the ACCn ESPN was obligated to show ACC games on their main networks......with the ACCn contract they are now free to move that content over to the ACCn where there are less viewers (lower penetration than ABC and the main networks)

this works for ESPN (RIGHT NOW) because ESPN can "cram" the ACCn on cable/sat MSOs and make money

but cramming is being pushed back against by all the major cable and sat operators and as pay TV subscribers decline you get less revenue for any network if you can cram it or not

we see how cramming matters with the PAC12n.....the PAC12n had no one behind them with desirable content to hold out from cable and sat MSOs (back before pay TV subscribers started dropping off massively) and thus when cable and sat MSOs told the PAC12n "do not want you" the only thing the PAC 12 could do was ask their fans to call in and cancel with companies that would not carry them

and those 12 cancellations (probably massively overpowered by 1,200 calls in that said thank you for not placing another network I do not want on my TV bill) was not enough to convince ATT or Dish or others they needed to carry the PAC12n

in fact it helped them realize they could stand up to even Disney/ABC/ESPN and Fox on conference networks

there is a recent article that said that Fox, ESPN, and Discovery all turned down the chance to work with the PAC12n and that is the real reason they had to go it alone

there was another article a while back (from the PAC 12) that stated they had turned down the offer of zero dollars and zero cents from ESPN to take over the PAC12n and then run it and split profits with them after expenses (similar to the ACCn deal)

larry scott turned that down (of course because he is a dunce)

but that offered zero risk to ESPN, it allowed them to test and see if they could get away with one last "cram" and it would give them the chance to do what they have done with the ACCn (and the ACC) in the current TV negotiations with the PAC 12

and that is the ability yo get content, have the expenses of that covered by a "conference network", reduce the amount of owned content they are obligated to carry on the major networks they have, and profit from that f there are profits

but with the way things are now it is clear that cramming is not going to continue and it will help reduce overall pay TV subscribers and cause cable and sat MSOs to hold out and push back on ALL crammed channels once they get into a knock down drag out fight

so ESPN is not looking at taking over the PAC12n they are bidding for all the PAC 12 content at a very low price that will allow them to shelve a lot of games, maybe re-market some of them for a few dollars (swooford jr at Raycom holla!), and make a profit on the best games they feel like showing and a profit on the other late night games for the die hard college football fans and gambling addicts

there is ZERO sense in looking at it as a "control content" aspect for ESPN or a "get this all wrapped up" it is nothing more than "get it cheap pick the bones, make money on the scraps and leave the rest to whoever might stream or or show it on their network"

and if the PAC 12 does not like the deal offered for that they can go all in on streaming

Your best bet is to let the teams that can go go. They will never stop complaining and having negative people in the office never works. Then make sure they pay before they leave and make sure espn can’t do anything to the tv deal. But get all that money and move on. The teams that can leave will no matter what. Plus nothing will catch you up to the Sec or Big where those teams want to go. If they want to anger Espn go for it.