VT top football school in state BU at best will always be 3rd or worse in their state (from a marketing perspective) VT has a bigger national brand than Baylor. BU has had some better years than VT recently in football, but has also had a lot of scandals. VT has 4 conf championships in past 20 years BU has 3 conf championships in past 20 years VT is a much better get when you add it all up in my very biased opinion.

Differently. Outside of Va. and east coast. VT might not be the draw you think.

The B1G and SEC would have a field day picking up whoever they want, and leave the rest for your pretty little ACC/BXII merger.

and see the potential of renovating it into something new. The ultimate win for the ACC would be having secret negotiations with ESPN for an expanded ACC. And then sell the existing teams on this and keeping them in the fold. Oddly enough, one of the selling points would be an "easier" path to the playoffs compared to the SEC and BIG. Sure it is a pipe dream, but anything is possible, just like UCLA being in the same conference as Rutgers.

be challenged. However, if challenged and GOR allowed to fall, might as well get it overwith now instead of waiting for it to happen later. Whatever is going to happen, just ripe the bandaid off and start moving on.

If expansion happens soon the teams left behind stand to make a boatload of money, the only issue is ESPN would try to nullify the contract if the ACC lost all of the big teams. The GOR stands if the ACC is still a conference, so it's in everyone's best interest to keep the ACC whole. Here's an example if you lose FSU, Clemson, UVA, UNC, Miami, Duke in 2024: - The ACC receives ~$600M a year from those 6 schools' media rights deals with the B1G and SEC - Currently the ACC receives maybe ~$500M from their media rights with ESPN - The remaining 8 ACC teams split that and net $137M per school per year We know that's would never happen, ESPN would nullify the current contract due to the losses. However if the conference litigates it and renogiates a lower rate, say even just $100M a year, that nets out to $87.5M per school which is WAY more than a combined ACC/B12/Pac12 would get with all the leftover teams.

He was the mastermind for the Super Conferences and TV deals. He was involved with just about all of the negotiations on them or at least the ESPN part. Listen to him way over the Rumor Writers, just about everyone calls him (not Fox), when they are being negotiate. He says the ACC is number 3 for Power Conferences and we need to pick up two more. ND if we can get them (he still thinks we can) and if not two others with big markets. He likes something in Texas to get that state. He said Rice, but I think that is a decoy, doubt he would say anybody (except ND) because he knows that would hurt negotiations.

academically, but we are talking about sports. Rice would not help. ND is not going to join the ACC as a full member. Skipper has been on the shelf for a bit. Maybe he is not the best source right now. I am sure Skipper knows way more than I do, but I question his thinking on these two points.

If ND leaves their independence behind and joins a conference it will be for a big payout. And that only comes with the BIG or SEC. Even if the ACC gets a new GOR with more money, it won't match what ND can get elsewhere. That's why I suggested a merge of select ACC and B12 teams. That is the only way to improve revenue. I'm assuming that UNC, Clemson, FSU are gone no matter what. Whether they leave now or in ten years, they care enough about football and money to want to leave the ACC if they can. It's just good business. I wouldn't want to stay if I were them.

If you tear up the GOR then you get to negotiate a new contract. If not then we just fall behind and wait for the ACC to get raided and made worse.

increase the payout to ACC schools? And the GOR has nothing to do with the ACCs ability to negotiate a new contract.

Not one of those teams has any national brand, period. They are small to midmarket teams that bring you spot markets. The problem that every single discussion here about the ACC's survival is that the only national brands that are now not destined for the SEC or Big10 are Clem, FSU, maybe OR and maybe scUM. You can't build a conference to compete from a revenue perspective when all but 4 of the roughly 20 teams that matter are already in those 2 conferences. Unless something political happens that forces things, the SEC and Big12 will take the remaining teams that matter, they both may shed a few dead weights. The Big12 was done when they added the 3 commuter schools last fall and now the PAC12 and ACC are done to.

To be relevant in the new model you have to have two things. 1. Schools with size (current student bodies plus alumni) 2. Good conference marketing to build up the individual brands plus the matchups between schools (this is what sets the BIG and SEC apart from everyone else currently) Plus add in the fact that sports betting is now legal in a bunch of states and is actively discussed on tv. This is an entirely new environment for college sports. And there can be good money made with a plan for embracing the new model. The future is not cable subscribers tied to big city markets. It is fun matchups between teams/brands/states that can be shown on streaming and/or cable. This is a marketing problem that can be solved in new ways. If CU, FSU and UNC stick around then great. If not, then there needs to be new ways of thinking. And by the way, those 3 commuter schools the B12 added have huge populations of students and can be valuable in a new model.

Whether it's cable subscribers or streaming service subscribers it all comes down to driving up the number of subscribers. But you're correct in that traditionally it has been cable subscribers and the largest television markets drive the most subscribers. When you pivot to Amazon Prime, Apple TV, etc. it becomes national brand that drives the subscribers. Given that the ACC still needs to drive cable subscribers to our cable channel with ESPN, you'd still want to get populous states that we don't currently have. For the ACC that's California, Texas, Illinois, Ohio, Washington, and Arizona.

signature programs. A mashup with the remnants isn't going to bring more dollars.

And all the schools that are left behind will earn much less than they do now under the current contract. The GoR is what is holding the ACC together. ** Edited by tarheelblue at 7/8/2022, 2:02:59 PM

Because no other combination of teams will be nearly as attractive.

That's a pretty good collection of states for media coverage if it were to happen. And by ditching WF, BC, TCU, and Baylor you drop some very small schools. I know, all hypothetical and there can be arguments made for or against several teams. But just waiting and hoping is not going to end well for anyone. The time to act is now.