Brother Griswold

Country boy drivers. Your average bubba nascar fan could deal with one Jeff Gordon (by hating him). When most of the drivers became similar to him, it became unwatchable. Moving races out of traditional strongholds like Darlington and Wilkesboro for bigger city tracks didn’t help much either.

I’d guess the ratings were above everything on that list aside from NFL / MLB / NBA / NCAAF / NCAAB and above all but the most hyped boxing matches. NASCAR doesn’t release attendance figures but it drew some pretty large crowds. As far as spectacles are concerned - I’ve been fortunate to go to some big time stuff and a big NASCAR race was right up there with anything I’ve seen live.

to any other. In my mind UNC is the most valuable (non-Notre Dame) team that will come available. Can UNC really dictate who goes with them into a league? Are they willing to fall on that sword for another school? I certainly don’t think they would for Virginia. A lot of it probably depends on how strongly the new league feels about Virginia one way or the other. I do think both schools strongly prefer to be in the same league and view each other as peers. Just not sure UNC has enough influence if one of the leagues strongly prefers another team.

nothing. The answer is different for schools like Wake / BC / Syracuse. Safety in numbers. For Virginia & Virginia Tech - it was better to not add those schools.

the three teams. The addition of those teams only gave each of the other ACC teams that were already members $3.5-$4mm per year for 10 years. This is not material vs. what was at stake. I spend a lot of time following this - you are the only person I've ever seen come up with the idea that the addition of those three teams (despite the fact that teams interested in leaving voted *AGAINST* expansion) had anything to do with the settlement or the fact that the ACC didn't already implode. Doing nothing was the better option than making a bad situation worse by adding teams no one cares about watching that are either halfway or all the way across the country. I'm done debating this with you. You continue to try and insult me but can't find any facts (or even a third party opinion piece) that supports your argument that the only reason the ACC hasn't had defections was because the league added those three teams. The only reason the ACC hasn't imploded is because the GOR was in place and both sides decided that rather than go through a lengthy court battle it was best for everyone to stay put until 2030 with the success initiatives and then after that - who knows?

three schools bought the ACC time. This is false. The teams that were thinking of leaving the league did not want those teams added. Two of them even voted against it. This is a *FACT*. Another point - doing nothing (re: adding teams) was absolutely an option and IMHO (that is an *OPINION*) a much better one than adding three teams no one cares about watching. The reason the lawsuit was dropped was because they renegotiated the time schools could leave with a more reasonable exit fee and push when teams could retain their media rights from 2036 back to 2030. I enlisted my friend Grok to provide several articles that stated this. Adding SMU / Stanford / Cal had nothing *AT ALL* to do with the lawsuits getting dropped: FROM GROK: Yes, I can provide information based on news articles that discuss the reasons behind Florida State University (FSU) and Clemson University dropping their lawsuits against the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), specifically highlighting the connection to the ability for teams to leave the league by 2030. The settlement included a revised revenue distribution model and a reduced exit fee structure, which made it feasible for schools to exit the conference by 2030, addressing key concerns raised in the lawsuits. Relevant News Articles and Details ACC Settlement with Clemson and Florida State Provides Stability Now, Uncertainty in 2030 Source: Sports Business Journal, March 5, 2025 Details: The article notes that the settlement between the ACC, FSU, and Clemson included an agreement for "uneven revenue distribution tied to competitive success" and a "diminishing exit fee." It suggests that the ACC "kept itself together and signaled its 2030 breakup date," as the exit fee drops to $75 million by the 2030-31 season. This reduced fee and the clarity on retaining media rights were key factors in resolving the lawsuits, as they addressed FSU and Clemson's desire for a clear and affordable exit path. ACC Settlement Opens Door for Clemson and Florida State to Leave Conference in 2030 Source: College Sports Wire (USA Today), March 4, 2025 Details: The article explicitly states that the settlement "preserves the league for now" but makes it easier for FSU and Clemson to leave in 2030 due to lowered financial penalties for exiting. The exit fee is reduced significantly by 2030, aligning with the expiration of major television contracts for other conferences (e.g., Big Ten, Big 12), which could trigger further realignment. The settlement resolved the lawsuits by addressing the exit fee and media rights issues that FSU and Clemson contested. ACC, Florida State, Clemson Agree to End Legal Battles. Has Realignment Peace Arrived? Source: The Athletic, March 4, 2025 Details: The article confirms that the lawsuits were dropped after the ACC, FSU, and Clemson agreed on a settlement that clarified the cost to leave the conference: $165 million in 2026, decreasing by $18 million annually to $75 million by 2030-31. This structured exit fee schedule, along with schools retaining their media rights upon leaving, was a primary reason for ending the legal disputes, as it gave FSU and Clemson the flexibility they sought to potentially exit by 2030. Settlement in ACC Lawsuit a 'Win, Win, Win' for Florida State Athletics Source: Tallahassee Democrat, March 5, 2025 Details: The article highlights that FSU dropped its lawsuit because the settlement introduced a new revenue-distribution model and a reduced exit fee, starting at $165 million and dropping to $75 million by 2030-31. This addressed FSU’s concerns about financial competitiveness and the prohibitive cost of leaving the ACC, which was previously estimated at up to $600 million due to the grant of rights. Why Clemson Decided to End Its Lawsuit and Remain in the ACC Source: USA Today, March 4, 2025 Details: The article explains that Clemson and FSU settled their lawsuits because the agreement clarified media rights ownership and reduced the exit fee to $75 million by 2030-31. This resolution met Clemson’s litigation goals, including establishing a feasible exit strategy, which was a significant factor in dropping the lawsuits. Posts on X Source: X posts, March-April 2025 Details: Several posts on X reflect public sentiment about the settlement. For example, @Andy_Staples noted that the lawsuits were settled because the ACC established a clear exit fee number that decreases annually, achieving FSU and Clemson’s goal of a defined exit path by 2030. Another post by @NoleGIFs emphasized that FSU reduced the exit fee from $500 million to under $100 million and moved the exit date from 2036 to 2030, framing it as a major win. These posts, while not authoritative, corroborate the news articles’ focus on the exit fee reduction as a key reason for dropping the lawsuits. Summary of Reasons The lawsuits between FSU, Clemson, and the ACC were dropped primarily because the settlement addressed the core issues raised by FSU and Clemson: Reduced Exit Fees: The exit fee was set at $165 million for 2026, decreasing by $18 million annually to $75 million by 2030-31, making it financially viable for schools to leave the ACC by 2030. Media Rights Clarity: Schools leaving the ACC would retain their media rights, resolving disputes over the grant of rights that previously bound schools to the conference until 2036. Revenue Distribution: A new model was introduced to reward high-performing programs (like FSU and Clemson) with increased revenue, addressing their concerns about financial competitiveness compared to SEC and Big Ten schools. These changes provided FSU and Clemson with a clear and affordable path to potentially leave the ACC by 2030, aligning with the expiration of major television contracts and anticipated conference realignment opportunities. The settlement thus resolved the legal disputes by meeting the schools’ demands for flexibility and financial fairness. Note The information provided is based on the referenced news articles and posts on X, which consistently highlight the exit fee reduction and media rights clarity as central to the settlement. If you need specific excerpts or further analysis of any article, please let me know!

and his opinion is one I have not seen or heard anywhere else.

Please show me something definitive that says the league was imploding without adding those teams.

The only positive of adding them is it may make the "leftovers" take a long hard look at what they want and decide to form a regional league that makes sense. The payouts would be significantly lower than the P2 but with the right teams, it could approach that of the BIG XII. No one cares about Cal or Stanford sports. Literally no one. If you think UVa fans don't care, we are like the Bills mafia compared to those two.

Two of the teams that seem most interested in leaving (FSU and UNC) both voted against expanding. How did adding these teams keep the league alive for any time until the next contract renegotiation? The GOR held the league together and forced the lawsuits which led to an earlier renegotiation - not adding these three teams. It was a short term money grab that feels like it will hinder the league moving forward once teams leave.

will help the remaining ACC schools have a better TV contract during the next round of negotiations? Yes - we all get a little free $ in the short term, but these schools collectively will reduce the average payout per school for the schools that remain once the current deal expires and teams that have a landing spot leave. There is so much in flux - what if FSU and Clemson don't have a landing spot in SEC / B1G. Do you think they are more likely to stay in the ACC with these teams / diluted per school payout or more likely to leave for the BIG XII?

I do believe that regionality and contempt for opponents is what makes for a good league - one that people are willing to pay to watch. I don't know if the ACC can be saved - but I do feel like the ship sailed once the three additions were made. I didn't fully recognize how bad it was going to make future schedules until we played through it last year in football and basketball. A league with these teams would have a lot better matchups / regionality flair. Is it large enough? Probably not in today's environment: Virginia Virginia Tech West Virginia - everyone would hate them - would renew annual games with VT and the games with Virginia would see contempt for one another on both sides UNC NC State Duke (going against the grain because although fb rules, their basketball brand / success is worth a lot, plus their alumni are spending like wild to field good teams) Clemson GT FSU Miami That is 10 teams - I'd guess you really need at least 12. You would need a big kahuna that is unhappy with their current setup (for reasons outside of $, PSU has for years been unhappy with B1G and one of the reasons the B1G took UMD was because the ACC was reportedly poking around) to leave and then fill the last spot with the best remaining option. Then you fill the last spot with the team that would bring the best matchups of all the leftovers. With the teams above there are significantly less "throw away" games against BC / Cuse / Wake / Pitt (though they may be best remaining) / Cal / Stanford / SMU. Use NC State as an example - how much happier and more worked up do you think their fans are to play GT / Virginia / Duke / VT (notice I didn't pick the star brands of Clemson / FSU / Miami) vs. playing Cal / SMU / Pitt / Syracuse? I am a Virginia fan and would be way more likely to watch the games against GT / Duke / VT vs. the second list. I flat out move right through the channel when I see the other teams. All these throw away games are creating a snowball affect. I have been a UVa football & basketball season ticket holder for a LOOOOONNNNG time and am honestly thinking about dropping because their are so few games I actually care to see. A league with the above teams lessens a lot of the dead weight we are currently carrying - we have way too many private schools and our state schools pale in size as compared to the larger B1G and SEC schools. In our current setup this fact is compounded even more with so many throw away games that no one cares about.

Personally stay off of the other boards on this site. This conference realignment board is solid and I enjoy reading and will state my opinions from time to time. I have not said one thing disrespectful here. I have not insulted anyone. I just stand behind the fact I do not care to watch UVa play any of the new additions and long term it was a bad move to add those teams if the ACC had any hope of righting itself.

But basketball matters too.

It feels like a disaster. In most years very few are competing for championships. Regionality and contempt for your opponents are what makes college sports special. We don’t play the teams I hate enough any more. It was bad enough with the Pitt / Syracuse / Louisville additions. Three teams I could care less about and they don’t care about us either. Now we have three more to dilute the regionality even further. So we have a lot of teams that no once cares to watch play each other. As a case in point - I don’t care about Pitt - however when they play WVU I will watch that because I know those two teams hate each other. That is good TV.

Of the last 11 years. We have made the CWS 7 times since 2009, won a natty in 2015. What has SMU done that is even remotely close to that? You are in DFW and don’t even have a baseball team.

When the current contract expires. None of them bring eyeballs and that is what matters. They have now diluted one of the most valuable assets we had (ACC basketball) to the point where that is less interesting for any casual fan. Those three teams make it so there are three less games every year we might get an interesting team to play against. I am very skeptical any more people are watching ACC football due to the addition of Cal / Stanford / SMU. As a matter of fact I’d imagine average viewership is down for the rank and file matchups. People want to watch teams from their region that they have familiarity with. They were added to ensure safety in numbers - but the reality is what will be left behind when you include those three schools will get a G5 level contract because these teams further dilute the schools that are likely to remain.

Nothing you can say will change that.

And short sighted decision. Any chance the league ever had of making it without a massive shakeup in the future died the day those three teams were added. Adding those three teams has also diluted the basketball schedules to the point that I’m losing interest.

It’s place for wealthy folks that can’t get into a better school to go. I’d imagine they are near the bottom of the ACC in the US News rankings with maybe only Louisville beneath them?

Adds more $/team for either league. Both leagues are good on football - I don’t know that anyone left moves the needle - so any further expansion will likely be driven by other factors. So much has changed since the last round of expansion and things will continue to change. I do believe that it is important to look at things from the perspective of an outsider.

UNC & UVA. They were also very interested in GT at the time. UMD wasn’t the goal, UNC and UVA were. At the time the money gap wasn’t nearly as wide and UNC & UVA told them thanks but no thanks. It was a different time when getting the B1G network on the first tier cable package (driving revenue) was a big goal. UVA brings a lot more than athletics to the table as eye candy for the presidents that run the school. However much better Tech’s football team has been over the past 25 years doesn’t overcome all the other sports along with the non sports related stuff. At the end of the day neither school has been nationally relevant in football in over 15 years.

Penn State Virginia Virginia Tech UNC NC State Clemson FSU Miami 2 other schools from GT / Duke / WVU / UCF / Louisville / etc. What would that media contract look like per school in comparison to the B1G and SEC? I know it is unlikely PSU leaves the B1G but you never know. At some point the people at these schools are going to wake up one day and wonder why they are in scheduling arrangements with schools that are so spread out (particularly for everything but FB & BB). Just curious what the numbers could look like here if 8 or 9 of the more desirable ACC teams were able to leave and bring along 1 or 2 big boys from another league. Is this a viable option if the B1G and SEC either decide not to expand OR try and shove reduced payouts for an extended period of time onto schools that would be entering those leagues?

It’s going to be more and more difficult to keep the fans schools left behind / not in power 2 engaged. Back in the good ole days of a 2 team championship everyone felt like they could catch lightning in a bottle and potentially win it all. The more and more the power 2 set the rules in their favor the less opportunity there is for a school outside to win it all. At some point they will start losing fans of all of the other schools. Why should fans in Virginia, North Carolina, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, etc continue to watch this charade when their programs have been rendered non-competitive due disparity in $?

would be a great outcome. It would be a competitive league that restores regionality to the schedule. As a UVa fan when I look at our schedule this year and 4 of our 8 league games are against teams I could care less about (BC, Louisville, Pitt, SMU) - it becomes more and more difficult to motivate to carve off the time and energy to watch and attend games. A schedule that includes only MAG 7 + WVU + GT + one other would be significantly more appealing. Would not bring in as much $ as B1G or SEC but would think it would be significant raise.

since Miami did pick up a national title in 2001 and FSU started to fade a bit starting in 2000. FSU lost a total of 8 regular season games in the 8 seasons from 1992-1999 (they joined league in 1992). UF 3x, Miami 2x, ND 1x, UVa 1x, NC State 1x. FSU was clearly better than the Big East's best team of that time (Miami early or VT by 1999). Highly probable any Big East team not named Miami would have suffered the same fate as the the ACC teams of that era (meaning the rest of the league other than Miami would have been fortunate to pick up 2 wins against FSU). The ACC had some very good teams in that same timeframe and had a winning record in head to head vs. Big East from 1991-1999. See link I found: https://mcubed.net/ncaaf/tvc/bigeast/acc.shtml?expand_art... I could be counting wrong but it looks like from 1991-1999 ACC was 33-27-1 vs. Big East. VT vs. UVa was a push in the 1990s. I'd disagree that Big East was more fun to watch - but that is a totally objective argument.

FSU was one of the top teams in the country year in / year out. Duke and Wake were bad. Virginia, UNC, GT, Clemson, NCSU all had some good to very good teams in that span. Miami was not competing for national titles during that timeframe. VT had one excellent team and some other very good ones. Temple and Rutgers were terrible. WVU, BC, Syracuse, Pitt all had some good teams. I’d say it’s a push with a slight edge to ACC since FSU picked up 2 national titles.

UVa & UNC were not interested at all at the time and were not happy with the B1G poaching a charter member. The attitude at the time was - we don't need your $, we are just fine thank you. I don't have time to look but the revenues at the time between the leagues were much closer and both schools scoffed that they would basically blow up a conference that they founded (I know UVa came in months after the league started) over such a small amount of $. Neither school truly believed the projections they were being shown for future revenues showing such a large disparity or they may have taken the conversation more seriously. Delany was stunned that the schools were not more interested - he thought poaching UMD would destabilize the league. The other league members were very upset with UMD and couldn't believe they didn't ask for help with their issues from the ACC before making such a drastic decision.

Invitation or anything close to that to UVa / UNC. You are correct that the question doesn’t get officially asked unless you know the answer. Delany’s vision was to get the B1G into the Mid-Atlantic / Southeast. At the time the B1G was still subscribing to the “contiguous states” BS. My contact from UMD didn’t even know until 48 hours before me it was announced and at that point it was a done deal. Many folks there are still pissed about the way the whole thing went down. Where I think we disagree is overtures to UVa / UNC were made - I have heard from others that would know (at UVa) that they were. Delany was surprised at how quickly UNC / UVa said thanks but no thanks. At the time folks at both schools thought the projections that the B1G were making with regard to future revenue from B1G network and future TV deals were pie in the sky BS and that the ACC would be able to stay within close distance. Turns out that was wrong but I’m not sure anyone ever conceived that the PAC schools (and associated revenue bumps associated with taking two Crown Jewels) were even a consideration. Without the UT / OU to SEC and USC / UCLA to B1G dynamic the revenues at all of these leagues would be much more even. The ACC missed the boat when they had a chance to be proactive poaching other leagues crowns. I am convinced (this is my conjecture with no real knowledge) that the ACC could have had PSU not that long ago (during / just after Sandusky mess) if we’d been aggressive. If that had happened everything would be playing out much differently today. Not taking PSU in the early 1990s was the leagues biggest mistake.

Why was Rutgers chosen? Please don’t say for the cable boxes in NYC area. This wasn’t a buddy - it was a colleague and he was a top donor, parking spot next to Kevin Plank, multiple seats on floor at Comcast Center type of guy. He found out about it ~48 hours or so before it went down and told me what was happening. The B1G was nervous about PSU (they were very upset about they were treated by the league during the Sandusky scandal) and wanted to destabilize the ACC. At the time the revenue gap wasn’t that wide. UVA and UNC were not interested and said no. This where we are today. I’m not so sure why this upsets you so badly. Do you have inside information that is different? I’d like to hear it if so.

I am telling you exactly how it went down - you can choose to believe what you want. Rutgers was a plan B add when the other schools said no. At the time B1G thought real prize was UNC / UVa combo and were exploiting UMD to try and make it happen. A lot has changed since then. No idea if any of this will hold true next time around.

Delany knew UMD was in deep trouble financially and exploited that in order to get them to switch. He figured that once UMD committed to B1G he could scare / strongarm UVa / UNC who politely told him no. GT was desired at the time to make it an even number and get into Atlanta. Remember that the financial disparity at the time between ACC and B1G wasn’t that large. UNC and UVa have never really “wanted” to leave ACC - as long as the $ divide wasn’t too large. For what it’s worth - VT I was told was very instrumental in helping to rally all of the troops and help the league stay together. Rutgers was only added because none of the other ACC schools they wanted would leave and they had to get an even number. This all comes from a very high level donor at UMD that was involved in the process. Delany was very focused on the academic image side of the equation and coveted UNC and UVa. A lot has changed since then. Delany no longer commish and they now have the 4 Pac schools.

B1G thought UNC / UVA / GT would come along with UMD when they were poached. None of those teams were interested at the time.

“Just because you say it doesn’t make it true”. ACC has put 5 different teams for a total 8 appearances in the Final Four in the last 10 tournaments, winning 3 titles by 3 different teams. Duke, UNC, UVa, Miami, Syracuse have all made it. If you add in Louisville and Syracuse making it as members of the Big East during that time frame the numbers become 6 different teams in Final Four, 10 appearances, 4 titles. That is in a 10 year time frame. The bottom of the ACC has not been strong lately but the top of the league has been better than any other conference, hands down. I’m sick of Big XII fans acting like a few good years saying “That really isn’t a debate anymore”. Since the tourney expanded to 64 teams the ACC has by far the best winning percentage. A few above average years for your conference does not change that.

ACC has had a team in 5 of last 8 NCAA finals and claims 3 titles in that span by 3 different teams. Year in and year out we have also had the best record in the dance over any reasonable time period.

And would have some really intriguing rivalries. It would be more fun than the amalgamation that is the ACC now. Regional schools that would not like each other. As a UVa fan I’d prefer this league to joining the Big 10.

The show he has now is just complete garbage. Unwatchable.

** Edited by Brother Griswold at 11/29/2022, 2:54:36 PM

Does anyone have a decent estimate of the what the ACC media rights package per school would be if it hit the open market today? Clearly we are in a sub-optimal deal but I've wondered what our conference would be worth if we weren't locked in.

Get worse.

Sometimes if you don’t have anything useful to say it’s better to remain silent.

About to stop looking at it if things don’t change. I come here to see what’s going on with expansion from an ACC perspective not read mind numbing articles or see consistent Big XII propaganda on YouTube.

** Edited by Brother Griswold at 10/27/2022, 1:30:14 PM

Or YouTube videos that few of us have time for, at least paraphrase what is being said so they are not a waste of board space. Thanks

Southampton High School history. My dad used to tell me that Lawrence was easily the best RB Virginia Tech ever had….

UVa vs UNC is not a problem game. I would put the atmosphere at that game way ahead of most ACC games, particularly if one of the teams is good and the other one is not horrible. Much better atmosphere than Pitt vs anyone at home other than WVU, Duke vs anyone at home (even unc), etc., etc.