Give ND permanent cross overs with Stanford, Navy and possibly Pitt or BC.

(08-05-2023 12:10 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Give ND permanent cross overs with Stanford, Navy and possibly Pitt or BC.

and if ND says no, partial memberships to the others.

(08-05-2023 01:24 PM)Chris02m1 Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 12:10 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Give ND permanent cross overs with Stanford, Navy and possibly Pitt or BC.

and if ND says no, partial memberships to the others.

I assume a football only arrangement with Navy and Stanford. Yes I’d be good with all 4 as permanent cross over games under the ACC banner if it means squeezing a 6th game out of ND. Just my opinion, but if ND wants to take FSU out of the rotation then that’s fine too.

The thing I’ve always wondered about is what the ACCN’s contracts with cable companies say about ACC expansion. They must say something. Could the contracts say, for instance, that if the ACC adds a school in a state or TV market that the rate the cable company has to pay in that state or market goes up to the full in market rate? If so, even the pathetic remnants of the PAC (plus SDSU) would have value. The PAC remnant games would be televised primarily at 11:00 pm Eastern so they would not keep regular ACC members off the air. Add in some possible value from ESPN televising some of the PAC remnant games and you’ve got some money, certainly not enough money to justify a full ACC share, but maybe a half or quarter share. Make the PAC remnant schools “associate” members who play a reduced schedule against the Eastern ACC schools. The PAC remnant schools are desperate. $20 million or even $10 million a year each might look very good to them and there might be significant money left over for the full ACC members. There’s a lot of population in the San Diego, Bay Area, Oregon and Washington areas. These schools aren’t big draws but they do have fans.

Of course you could imagine the ACC having done something like this with other schools like Cincy or Houston but they haven’t so it may not be financially attractive but maybe they just didn’t like the idea of “associate” membership. The PAC remnant schools are desperate. The ACC is nearly desperate. It probably won’t happen but who knows in this environment? I keep thinking about the unused 11:00 pm slots on the ACCN and to some extent on the other ESPN networks and wondering whether it would be possible to get value from them.

(08-05-2023 02:59 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  The thing I’ve always wondered about is what the ACCN’s contracts with cable companies say about ACC expansion. They must say something. Could the contracts say, for instance, that if the ACC adds a school in a state or TV market that the rate the cable company has to pay in that state or market goes up to the full in market rate? If so, even the pathetic remnants of the PAC (plus SDSU) would have value. The PAC remnant games would be televised primarily at 11:00 pm Eastern so they would not keep regular ACC members off the air. Add in some possible value from ESPN televising some of the PAC remnant games and you’ve got some money, certainly not enough money to justify a full ACC share, but maybe a half or quarter share. Make the PAC remnant schools “associate” members who play a reduced schedule against the Eastern ACC schools. The PAC remnant schools are desperate. $20 million or even $10 million a year each might look very good to them and there might be significant money left over for the full ACC members. There’s a lot of population in the San Diego, Bay Area, Oregon and Washington areas. These schools aren’t big draws but they do have fans.

Of course you could imagine the ACC having done something like this with other schools like Cincy or Houston but they haven’t so it may not be financially attractive but maybe they just didn’t like the idea of “associate” membership. The PAC remnant schools are desperate. The ACC is nearly desperate. It probably won’t happen but who knows in this environment? I keep thinking about the unused 11:00 pm slots on the ACCN and to some extent on the other ESPN networks and wondering whether it would be possible to get value from them.

Hey we were talking about this literally for last 12 months.

(08-05-2023 12:10 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Give ND permanent cross overs with Stanford, Navy and possibly Pitt or BC.

The ACC should consider Cal and Stanford although I do not want them without OR/WA or Utah/ASU.

Just forget about ND. The obssession doesn’t and didn’t help the ACC. I suspect ND was one reason why we got Phillips. How did it help the ACC?

(08-05-2023 05:21 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 12:10 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Give ND permanent cross overs with Stanford, Navy and possibly Pitt or BC.

The ACC should consider Cal and Stanford although I do not want them without OR/WA or Utah/ASU.

Just forget about ND. The obsession doesn’t and didn’t help the ACC. I suspect ND was one reason why we got Phillips. How did it help the ACC?

asu and utah im sure had to sign GOR for big 12 to make it official

(08-05-2023 05:40 PM)Chris02m1 Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 05:21 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 12:10 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Give ND permanent cross overs with Stanford, Navy and possibly Pitt or BC.

The ACC should consider Cal and Stanford although I do not want them without OR/WA or Utah/ASU.

Just forget about ND. The obsession doesn’t and didn’t help the ACC. I suspect ND was one reason why we got Phillips. How did it help the ACC?

asu and utah im sure had to sign GOR for big 12 to make it official

True.

I also think the ACC should consider what Hokie Mark had proposed. Just get Stanford and SMU to maximize the ACCN profit. Stanford is desperate now and won’t demand a travel partner (Cal).

(08-05-2023 05:44 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 05:40 PM)Chris02m1 Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 05:21 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 12:10 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Give ND permanent cross overs with Stanford, Navy and possibly Pitt or BC.

The ACC should consider Cal and Stanford although I do not want them without OR/WA or Utah/ASU.

Just forget about ND. The obsession doesn’t and didn’t help the ACC. I suspect ND was one reason why we got Phillips. How did it help the ACC?

asu and utah im sure had to sign GOR for big 12 to make it official

True.

I also think the ACC should consider what Hokie Mark had proposed. Just get Stanford and SMU to maximize the ACCN profit. Stanford is desperate now and won’t demand a travel partner (Cal).

link?

(08-05-2023 05:17 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 02:59 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  The thing I’ve always wondered about is what the ACCN’s contracts with cable companies say about ACC expansion. They must say something. Could the contracts say, for instance, that if the ACC adds a school in a state or TV market that the rate the cable company has to pay in that state or market goes up to the full in market rate? If so, even the pathetic remnants of the PAC (plus SDSU) would have value. The PAC remnant games would be televised primarily at 11:00 pm Eastern so they would not keep regular ACC members off the air. Add in some possible value from ESPN televising some of the PAC remnant games and you’ve got some money, certainly not enough money to justify a full ACC share, but maybe a half or quarter share. Make the PAC remnant schools “associate” members who play a reduced schedule against the Eastern ACC schools. The PAC remnant schools are desperate. $20 million or even $10 million a year each might look very good to them and there might be significant money left over for the full ACC members. There’s a lot of population in the San Diego, Bay Area, Oregon and Washington areas. These schools aren’t big draws but they do have fans.

Of course you could imagine the ACC having done something like this with other schools like Cincy or Houston but they haven’t so it may not be financially attractive but maybe they just didn’t like the idea of “associate” membership. The PAC remnant schools are desperate. The ACC is nearly desperate. It probably won’t happen but who knows in this environment? I keep thinking about the unused 11:00 pm slots on the ACCN and to some extent on the other ESPN networks and wondering whether it would be possible to get value from them.

Hey we were talking about this literally for last 12 months.

Were you talking about doing it with the PAC teams receiving a fraction of the full ACC distribution? If so, you were talking about something that was out of the question until the last few days. Now, all we have to do is beat what the Mountain West can offer and that’s pretty easy.

When the NCAA tournament expanded, winning the ACC was no longer the only way to play for the national title.

I think the same will happen with football.

That takes the pressure off things like everyone playing the same number of games If there are 18 school in the ACC not only is a round robin not needed and will not happen, it doesn't really matter if you play 7, 8, or 9 conference games. To get to the playoff you will need to have no more than one loss unless you are a two - three loss conference champion.

(08-05-2023 06:16 PM)Chris02m1 Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 05:44 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 05:40 PM)Chris02m1 Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 05:21 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 12:10 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Give ND permanent cross overs with Stanford, Navy and possibly Pitt or BC.

The ACC should consider Cal and Stanford although I do not want them without OR/WA or Utah/ASU.

Just forget about ND. The obsession doesn’t and didn’t help the ACC. I suspect ND was one reason why we got Phillips. How did it help the ACC?

asu and utah im sure had to sign GOR for big 12 to make it official

True.

I also think the ACC should consider what Hokie Mark had proposed. Just get Stanford and SMU to maximize the ACCN profit. Stanford is desperate now and won’t demand a travel partner (Cal).

link?

https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2023/...d-smu.html

(08-05-2023 07:50 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 06:16 PM)Chris02m1 Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 05:44 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 05:40 PM)Chris02m1 Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 05:21 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  The ACC should consider Cal and Stanford although I do not want them without OR/WA or Utah/ASU.

Just forget about ND. The obsession doesn’t and didn’t help the ACC. I suspect ND was one reason why we got Phillips. How did it help the ACC?

asu and utah im sure had to sign GOR for big 12 to make it official

True.

I also think the ACC should consider what Hokie Mark had proposed. Just get Stanford and SMU to maximize the ACCN profit. Stanford is desperate now and won’t demand a travel partner (Cal).

link?

https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2023/...d-smu.html

I think you are under counting ACCN revenue from the States of Texas and California in your estimate. Texas and California represent 21% of the US population. ESPN has 72 m customers. That's roughly 14 million more accounts where you can raise the charge automatically from about 20 cents to $2 a month of which the ACC get's half. We would be neting 90 cents per month for 12 months. I get an additional 150 million for the ACC's share. That's about $8.5 million per school for SMU and Stanford if they check off the statewide box.

We now know something was cooking with the PAC before it fell apart

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1008...-expansion

Now?

It makes sense that the Big Ten came around and offered the PNW schools because actual conversations were going on. It also shows how desperate the schools are accepting a deal for $30-36m until 2030 when a hypothetical deal will be struck.

The problem is their valuations don’t add up. FOX will need to pay the PNW schools more than the entire Apple Pac offer in order to maintain the Big Ten’s payout.

Is the Big Ten plan to kick the can down the road and subsidize the league with more partial shares? Why would any president in their right pocketbook commit to that?

My prediction is Apple and Amazon pray on the most valuable brands in the Big Ten and they end up with their own independent streaming deals while FOX bundles the rest.

(08-05-2023 06:22 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 05:17 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 02:59 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  The thing I’ve always wondered about is what the ACCN’s contracts with cable companies say about ACC expansion. They must say something. Could the contracts say, for instance, that if the ACC adds a school in a state or TV market that the rate the cable company has to pay in that state or market goes up to the full in market rate? If so, even the pathetic remnants of the PAC (plus SDSU) would have value. The PAC remnant games would be televised primarily at 11:00 pm Eastern so they would not keep regular ACC members off the air. Add in some possible value from ESPN televising some of the PAC remnant games and you’ve got some money, certainly not enough money to justify a full ACC share, but maybe a half or quarter share. Make the PAC remnant schools “associate” members who play a reduced schedule against the Eastern ACC schools. The PAC remnant schools are desperate. $20 million or even $10 million a year each might look very good to them and there might be significant money left over for the full ACC members. There’s a lot of population in the San Diego, Bay Area, Oregon and Washington areas. These schools aren’t big draws but they do have fans.

Of course you could imagine the ACC having done something like this with other schools like Cincy or Houston but they haven’t so it may not be financially attractive but maybe they just didn’t like the idea of “associate” membership. The PAC remnant schools are desperate. The ACC is nearly desperate. It probably won’t happen but who knows in this environment? I keep thinking about the unused 11:00 pm slots on the ACCN and to some extent on the other ESPN networks and wondering whether it would be possible to get value from them.

Hey we were talking about this literally for last 12 months.

Were you talking about doing it with the PAC teams receiving a fraction of the full ACC distribution? If so, you were talking about something that was out of the question until the last few days. Now, all we have to do is beat what the Mountain West can offer and that’s pretty easy.

The unequal revenue sharing has been the KEY for the ACC expansion to happen. Check the realignment thread.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-961701-post-18...id18905976

https://csnbbs.com/thread-961701-post-18...id18955309

https://csnbbs.com/thread-961701-post-18...id18958925

We obviously could have proactively done better but if we must expand westward perhaps we could afford to look at the PACs targets as well.

We should probably focus on being the first to 20 at this point. So take 6. Stanford, Oregon State, WSU, SDSU, Fresno State and Boise St.

The way I'm currently leaning though, PAC 4 aside, is still 20 teams. But more regional towards us. I think it's time we have some of the smaller schools that have always taken football seriously but lacked resources. Let them incubate now and even put the league so in 10 years or whatever when others leave these guys are established.

SMU - I watched the Pony Express 30 for 30 and what they did is basically legal now. Plus their market. Sign me up.
Tulane - Large enrollment, football on the upswing, great market
USF - We need to get a big enrollment Florida school incubating. Former BCS school. It's time
Memphis - They've shown flashes in the past and not so distance past too. Big donors. Built in rival with UofL
Southern Miss - good regional rival for Tulane in fertile recruiting grounds, rabid fan base, Brett Favre WILL steal for them.
ECU - I know our Carolina friends are saying "no effing way" but truth be told all of most of you will probably leave soon. Let's get the cake baking on another rabid fanbase.

(08-05-2023 09:00 PM)esayem Wrote:  It makes sense that the Big Ten came around and offered the PNW schools because actual conversations were going on. It also shows how desperate the schools are accepting a deal for $30-36m until 2030 when a hypothetical deal will be struck.

The problem is their valuations don’t add up. FOX will need to pay the PNW schools more than the entire Apple Pac offer in order to maintain the Big Ten’s payout.

Is the Big Ten plan to kick the can down the road and subsidize the league with more partial shares? Why would any president in their right pocketbook commit to that?

My prediction is Apple and Amazon pray on the most valuable brands in the Big Ten and they end up with their own independent streaming deals while FOX bundles the rest.

TINA (THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE)

The PAC 4 remnants do nothing for the ACC bottom line other than get the ACCN there. ND will never join fully so no use in trying to include Them into any expansion talk, just act like They don’t exist and plan accordingly. As of now there are extremely limited choices for expansion including SMU, USF, UConn, Memphis, maybe Tulane but Phillips again waited far to long to be proactive so We sit and wait for the next hammer to drop

ND will never happen for FB. I really don't understand why this is so hard to understand. Frankly, we'd be better off kicking them out completely and asking them to park their no-FB sports in the Big East, which is actually a better home for them now than it was previously. I would be interested in Tulane and Rice (for markets/ academics) or UCF (as a backfill for FSU) and Cincy (as a geographic partner for Louisville). Stanford and Cal are good cultural fits, but I don't see how they work logistically.