Hopefully not. I don't know even if after emotions simmer down that there can be a salvage of the relationship between the ACC and FSU, one that would keep FSU (and any others tempted to join FSU) in the ACC at the very least until 2036.

What FSU wants is more money, for whatever the reason, it is what it is. You can bet there are others that feel they deserve more too, so if FSU get's concessions then they are going to want it also, so you have to make those who have a landing spot in the BigTen and SEC happy too.

What the ACC could do is make a separate football subdivision, one that would guarantee sellouts (more money), a larger media payout and a larger piece of the success initiative. I'd propose this new division to include: FSU, GT, UM, Clem, UNC, NCSU, UL, VT, Pitt. The ball park figure I'm throwing out is $65m per in media payout starting in 2025 through 2036 with the usual increases. Teams in this subdivision are not obligated to play teams in the other sub-division, but are encouraged to do so.

The other sub-division members will receive approximately what Cal and Stan were expected to receive.

I feel this is preferrable than opening up the floodgates that could see the ACC picked apart by the BigTen, SEC and Big12. After the ESPN contract is up in 2036, maybe we can all make the same afterward.

(12-23-2023 01:54 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Hopefully not. I don't know even if after emotions simmer down that there can be a salvage of the relationship between the ACC and FSU, one that would keep FSU (and any others tempted to join FSU) in the ACC at the very least until 2036.

What FSU wants is more money, for whatever the reason, it is what it is. You can bet there are others that feel they deserve more too, so if FSU get's concessions then they are going to want it also, so you have to make those who have a landing spot in the BigTen and SEC happy too.

What the ACC could do is make a separate football subdivision, one that would guarantee sellouts (more money), a larger media payout and a larger piece of the success initiative. I'd propose this new division to include: FSU, GT, UM, Clem, UNC, NCSU, UL, VT, Pitt. The ball park figure I'm throwing out is $65m per in media payout starting in 2025 through 2036 with the usual increases. Teams in this subdivision are not obligated to play teams in the other sub-division, but are encouraged to do so.

The other sub-division members will receive approximately what Cal and Stan were expected to receive.

I feel this is preferrable than opening up the floodgates that could see the ACC picked apart by the BigTen, SEC and Big12. After the ESPN contract is up in 2036, maybe we can all make the same afterward.

there is no way this will work or that it would be agreed to

https://www.on3.com/teams/florida-state-...year-2022/

in May of 2023 the ACC distributed $40 million to each member based on the earnings from 2021-22 (the 2022 fiscal year)

it has been made clear by FSU in their lawsuit that adding Cal, Stanford, and SMU and even with taking 66%, 66%, and 100% of their MEDIA MONEY it will still REDUCE the per member payouts in the future for current members

this is because people always want to ignore that conference distributions have a lot of money in them that is NOT media money and when you get a "pro rata" share of MEDIA MONEY that means you are getting ZERO dollars from any of those other sources of meaningful income

you are looking at an 18 team conference that will be distributing something like $42 or $43 million in May of 2024 and you want to have half of those teams suddenly get a distribution of $65 million while the other 9 cover that

which means 9 conference members need to give up about $23 million each to make that happen

so not you have half the conference earning $65 million and the other half earning $22 million......I am pretty sure that will be a non-starter for 9 of those members

(12-23-2023 02:13 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(12-23-2023 01:54 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Hopefully not. I don't know even if after emotions simmer down that there can be a salvage of the relationship between the ACC and FSU, one that would keep FSU (and any others tempted to join FSU) in the ACC at the very least until 2036.

What FSU wants is more money, for whatever the reason, it is what it is. You can bet there are others that feel they deserve more too, so if FSU get's concessions then they are going to want it also, so you have to make those who have a landing spot in the BigTen and SEC happy too.

What the ACC could do is make a separate football subdivision, one that would guarantee sellouts (more money), a larger media payout and a larger piece of the success initiative. I'd propose this new division to include: FSU, GT, UM, Clem, UNC, NCSU, UL, VT, Pitt. The ball park figure I'm throwing out is $65m per in media payout starting in 2025 through 2036 with the usual increases. Teams in this subdivision are not obligated to play teams in the other sub-division, but are encouraged to do so.

The other sub-division members will receive approximately what Cal and Stan were expected to receive.

I feel this is preferrable than opening up the floodgates that could see the ACC picked apart by the BigTen, SEC and Big12. After the ESPN contract is up in 2036, maybe we can all make the same afterward.

there is no way this will work or that it would be agreed to

https://www.on3.com/teams/florida-state-...year-2022/

in May of 2023 the ACC distributed $40 million to each member based on the earnings from 2021-22 (the 2022 fiscal year)

it has been made clear by FSU in their lawsuit that adding Cal, Stanford, and SMU and even with taking 66%, 66%, and 100% of their MEDIA MONEY it will still REDUCE the per member payouts in the future for current members

this is because people always want to ignore that conference distributions have a lot of money in them that is NOT media money and when you get a "pro rata" share of MEDIA MONEY that means you are getting ZERO dollars from any of those other sources of meaningful income

you are looking at an 18 team conference that will be distributing something like $42 or $43 million in May of 2024 and you want to have half of those teams suddenly get a distribution of $65 million while the other 9 cover that

which means 9 conference members need to give up about $23 million each to make that happen

so not you have half the conference earning $65 million and the other half earning $22 million......I am pretty sure that will be a non-starter for 9 of those members

The 3 incoming members will be getting that (or less) anyway, so now you are dealing with 5 or 6. They wouid need to decide if these concessions are worth it vs the risk of the ACC totally blowing up and they are in the place of WSU and OSU.

(12-23-2023 01:54 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Hopefully not. I don't know even if after emotions simmer down that there can be a salvage of the relationship between the ACC and FSU, one that would keep FSU (and any others tempted to join FSU) in the ACC at the very least until 2036.

What FSU wants is more money, for whatever the reason, it is what it is. You can bet there are others that feel they deserve more too, so if FSU get's concessions then they are going to want it also, so you have to make those who have a landing spot in the BigTen and SEC happy too.

What the ACC could do is make a separate football subdivision, one that would guarantee sellouts (more money), a larger media payout and a larger piece of the success initiative. I'd propose this new division to include: FSU, GT, UM, Clem, UNC, NCSU, UL, VT, Pitt. The ball park figure I'm throwing out is $65m per in media payout starting in 2025 through 2036 with the usual increases. Teams in this subdivision are not obligated to play teams in the other sub-division, but are encouraged to do so.

The other sub-division members will receive approximately what Cal and Stan were expected to receive.

I feel this is preferrable than opening up the floodgates that could see the ACC picked apart by the BigTen, SEC and Big12. After the ESPN contract is up in 2036, maybe we can all make the same afterward.

I think that's too much to ask for. As a compromise I'd offer to give the participants in the ACCCG an extra $30 million some of it from the incentive funds from the newcomers and the rest off the top of ACC distributions.

What if the figure was closer to $60m and the other division got exclusive rights to the ND games?

(12-23-2023 02:50 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

^^^^

When Florida State started spouting off that they deserved more money than any other school in the conference it was over. It was just a matter of when they would strike the match and once they did, there is no turning back.
What a shame that there weren't cooler heads in Tallahassee.

I believe ESPN wants a viable ACC. Does anyone else think it's strange the conference filed a suit before FSU?

Theoretically, ESPN could pay FSU and others a larger amount based on some sort of ratings formula if they wanted to pacify the Noles. This would be in addition to their current contract.

Unfortunately, I think ESPN has been involved and is essentially saying, "go ahead, do your worst."

The conference could also invite another school willing to forgo their media paycheck (Tulane/Rice anyone?) and distribute that to FSU. Laugh as you will, but I actually made this suggestion months ago. Have FSU play Tulane yearly, with the games rotating between Yulman and The Superdome with Tulane keeping the gate. Yes, it's kind of a ***** move, but it would pacify the Noles. Of course, nobody else in the conference would agree to it haha

(12-23-2023 03:10 PM)esayem Wrote:  Does anyone else think it's strange the conference filed a suit before FSU?

first to file awarded home court advantage ...

TIPPED OFF

How about FSU just opens up a lemonade stand or raises the price of hot dogs or something? Get the heck out of everyone else’s pockets.

(12-23-2023 03:40 PM)green Wrote:  

(12-23-2023 03:10 PM)esayem Wrote:  Does anyone else think it's strange the conference filed a suit before FSU?

first to file awarded home court advantage ...

TIPPED OFF

The ACC Office or more particularly someone with direct ties to WF, GT, FSU, or Clemson will have kept the Office or the Chancellor/President in the loop every step of FSU's way. Since they have to perform in public, they have to telegraph everything they do. They likely equate silence with passivity.

You will also probably find a great deal of "projection" on FSU's part that telegraphs all they do.


There is no fix for this because the old core ACC is not socially or culturally amenable to public behavior like this. In the long run, the ACC will be better off without them even taking into account a potential reduction in TV money.

(12-23-2023 03:53 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(12-23-2023 03:40 PM)green Wrote:  

(12-23-2023 03:10 PM)esayem Wrote:  Does anyone else think it's strange the conference filed a suit before FSU?

first to file awarded home court advantage ...

TIPPED OFF

The ACC Office or more particularly someone with direct ties to WF, GT, FSU, or Clemson will have kept the Office or the Chancellor/President in the loop every step of FSU's way. Since they have to perform in public, they have to telegraph everything they do. They likely equate silence with passivity.

You will also probably find a great deal of "projection" on FSU's part that telegraphs all they do.


There is no fix for this because the old core ACC is not socially or culturally amenable to public behavior like this. In the long run, the ACC will be better off without them even taking into account a potential reduction in TV money.

Amen.

When FSU leaves another team will be the Big Dog. Look at Cincy in the AAC. FSU will either finish 8-5 or 9-4 in the SEC most years or head off to games among the cornfields and find out they are still Beta Boy to OSU/Michigan and probably Penn State. USC and Oregon will be in the same spot.

the other issue with this suggestion is the same issue as people wanting 32, 48, 60 teams to break away....who is going to be the whipping boy so that other teams can go 12-0 and 11-1

you have 9 teams listed so they are going to play 8 conference games in their "upper tier" of the conference......they you say "suggest" they play others in the lower tier so if they play even one of them that becomes 9 "conference games" for the overall "ACC"......if a team played two then they have played 10 conference games......that becomes destructive to the conference overall because you are guaranteeing the overall conference more losses without the chance to get a win that does not also include a loss for the conference (which is what an OOC game offers)

this is the reason that the SEC SEC SEC and ACC play 8 conference games because they are the only two conferences that are smart enough to understand that you gain better strength of conference by beating teams in OTHER CONFERENCES not beating up your own conference

hell there was even a study done on the PAC 12 that proved this and the PAC 12 coaches argued for 8 conference games over and over, but larry tennis boy scott would not allow it

the Big 10 even questioned the wisdom of 9 conference games the first year after moving to that model, but they are simply not smart enough to reverse the decision

in addition the real issue is with those 9 "upper division" teams playing 8 games between them even if they play no other conference games there are still going to have to be terrible teams if you are going to have a team that is undefeated and a team with 1 loss

I mean simple math just works like that if one team beats all 8 of the others and another beats all the others but one then you are going to have 7 other teams with at least two losses......eventually a couple or more of those 9 teams will become weaker and start to be 4 or 5 game winners and they will lose more OOC games and they will lose a lot more of their "lower division" conference games than they win......and at that point why are they still getting $65 million per year when a team or two in the "lower division" of the conference might be winning 9 or more games consistently

I am sure someone will bring up euro soccer here and "relegation"......but that nonsense does not work for college football and would be a disaster to try and schedule and to try and keep in person fan support for......you start making it impossible to keep any meaningful rivalries consistently, you start making it impossible for fans to schedule what games they want to see 8-10 months out like many people do for major rivalry games

it is just a really good way to further ruin college football (along with this idea overall)

PS think of the budgeting issues.....the dunces that run these college programs cannot find a way to not spend every dollar that comes in with $100 to $200 million dollar revenue streams and academic side subsidies......what will some of these ADs to if their program is relegated down to the "lower division" and they have $25 million less coming in from the conference for at least a year maybe several until they move back up.......they will fall apart completely

(12-23-2023 06:01 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the other issue with this suggestion is the same issue as people wanting 32, 48, 60 teams to break away....who is going to be the whipping boy so that other teams can go 12-0 and 11-1

you have 9 teams listed so they are going to play 8 conference games in their "upper tier" of the conference......they you say "suggest" they play others in the lower tier so if they play even one of them that becomes 9 "conference games" for the overall "ACC"......if a team played two then they have played 10 conference games......that becomes destructive to the conference overall because you are guaranteeing the overall conference more losses without the chance to get a win that does not also include a loss for the conference (which is what an OOC game offers)

this is the reason that the SEC SEC SEC and ACC play 8 conference games because they are the only two conferences that are smart enough to understand that you gain better strength of conference by beating teams in OTHER CONFERENCES not beating up your own conference

hell there was even a study done on the PAC 12 that proved this and the PAC 12 coaches argued for 8 conference games over and over, but larry tennis boy scott would not allow it

the Big 10 even questioned the wisdom of 9 conference games the first year after moving to that model, but they are simply not smart enough to reverse the decision

in addition the real issue is with those 9 "upper division" teams playing 8 games between them even if they play no other conference games there are still going to have to be terrible teams if you are going to have a team that is undefeated and a team with 1 loss

I mean simple math just works like that if one team beats all 8 of the others and another beats all the others but one then you are going to have 7 other teams with at least two losses......eventually a couple or more of those 9 teams will become weaker and start to be 4 or 5 game winners and they will lose more OOC games and they will lose a lot more of their "lower division" conference games than they win......and at that point why are they still getting $65 million per year when a team or two in the "lower division" of the conference might be winning 9 or more games consistently

I am sure someone will bring up euro soccer here and "relegation"......but that nonsense does not work for college football and would be a disaster to try and schedule and to try and keep in person fan support for......you start making it impossible to keep any meaningful rivalries consistently, you start making it impossible for fans to schedule what games they want to see 8-10 months out like many people do for major rivalry games

it is just a really good way to further ruin college football (along with this idea overall)

PS think of the budgeting issues.....the dunces that run these college programs cannot find a way to not spend every dollar that comes in with $100 to $200 million dollar revenue streams and academic side subsidies......what will some of these ADs to if their program is relegated down to the "lower division" and they have $25 million less coming in from the conference for at least a year maybe several until they move back up.......they will fall apart completely

You make some good points.

There appears to be a breakaway league forming anyway, the ACC could be a hybrid. Perhaps the ACC could look into morphing into a promotion / relegation conference? It would not exclude anybody and have a novelty element to it that maybe they can market it better, perhaps even getting casual fans to buy the ESPN-ACCN package.

I've talked extensively and covered just about every possible way the ACC could do things differently, not sure if you have read my post, it did not get a lot of feedback. The bottom line is one or more member(s) are unhappy about their financials, how do we remedy that?

(12-23-2023 03:10 PM)esayem Wrote:  I believe ESPN wants a viable ACC.

I judge by deed, and ESPN's actions are the POLAR OPPOSITE of that.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using CSNbbs mobile app

(12-23-2023 07:32 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-23-2023 03:10 PM)esayem Wrote:  I believe ESPN wants a viable ACC.

I judge by deed, and ESPN's actions are the POLAR OPPOSITE of that.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using CSNbbs mobile app

they want an ACC at the right price.....just like they would have taken a PAC 12 at the right price

(12-23-2023 05:08 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  When FSU leaves another team will be the Big Dog. Look at Cincy in the AAC. FSU will either finish 8-5 or 9-4 in the SEC most years or head off to games among the cornfields and find out they are still Beta Boy to OSU/Michigan and probably Penn State. USC and Oregon will be in the same spot.

Do yourself a favor and look up.how Fsu does against these two conference. They hold their own

There's a lot of people bitter about this because the league will lose one of their meal tickets. Nobody would care if a lower end team left.

You guys ran your mouths about how FSU was all bark and no bite in August. It was ignorant. This has been planned awhile and in the works

Try to diminish FSU if you choose, but you are mad because they are the biggest property in the biggest sport . And your school won't be joining the P2

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

(12-23-2023 07:32 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-23-2023 03:10 PM)esayem Wrote:  I believe ESPN wants a viable ACC.

I judge by deed, and ESPN's actions are the POLAR OPPOSITE of that.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using CSNbbs mobile app

ESPN likes having their basketball league with the occasional ESPN2/ACC network football games at a nice discount.

Money aside.

ESPN actively worked against the ACC in the CFP. That is not a small issue. I dont' expect it to improve when it grows to 12.

When your network partner is no different than your competitor, you have a major fundamental issue.