to the teams who earned it. Don’t go to a bowl then you don’t get any extra money. Make the college playoffs then your school keeps the cash. Why should any school get equal benefit from another conference school making the playoffs or going to a bowl. Incentivize winning!

behind. We are not going to be paid at the level of Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, and maybe a couple of others. Some, would fight hard for Duke to get a large cut because they are Duke, (and justify it by their basketball program). VT would not get enough to compete with SEC an BIG in this situation. It would be a disaster for VT. Ultimately, it would not work regardless. The conference would fall apart because the schools getting less would fall apart. We need stronger schools top to bottom, not weaker schools except for the schools that are already strong. Yes, if the SEC comes calling our top teams are leaving. But even with unequal distributions they those top teams and any others would leave, because the ACC would just be a weaker conference top to bottom with no real future. If I were Clemson or FSU, I would bolt that conference first chance I got even if I was making the same money as SEC schools. Why would they want to stay in a conference with a bunch of failing and dying football programs. They would want better competition. Plus if many schools are getting less, they would fall behind more and become worth less to ESPN, and eventually the ACC media payout would decline and Clemson and FSU etc... Would have a smaller pie to pull from, and would fall behind anyway. Just a slow death. No Thanks!!!

To air your university’s game on television. Many times I have wanted to watch a VT football game and it just isn’t aired on the ACCN or any ESPN channel. So, VT would lose out on money not because people wouldn’t watch their game, but because there is no option for the fans to watch the game. Lots of times the games are blacked out.

audience of 247,000. VT versus BC in a meaningless Friday game had 1,215,000. I'm not saying this is the best or only way, maybe there is some kind of index or minimum investment standard; but there is a reason VT, UVA, UNC, NCSU, GT, Clemson, Miami, FSU and possibly Louisville and Pitt are exploring their options. The per team take has to increase for the ACC to be competitive in football. If BC, Syracuse, Duke and Wake were booted out for football, ESPN would likely not reduce the TV contract. The ACCN payout by itself is more than they would get in a G5 conference. I don't see any harm at all in teams getting the TV take from their OOC games, if that is all the ACC does. IMO, status quo dooms the league.

You would be dooming several Olympic sports teams at multiple schools with this. They can’t operate without knowing their yearly budgets. This would make the ACC quickly fall behind in everything else and really only benefit a small number of schools.

I think if they feel that way about a member, they should just boot them.

When one entity "subsidizes" another entity far more than the returned value, it creates friction in the relationship. This is a universal truth far beyond college football. An exaggerated example to show the issue: If team A contributed 1 billion in value while team B contributed 1 dollar, you don't think team A is going to constantly question the relationship if both teams get 500 million? Team A would likely be content getting less than 1 Billion, but the further you go from the 1 Billion, the more friction.

which count in the standings and in the draft; and they all have the same spending minimums and maximums. 1/3 of the ACC games don't count in the standings and they can be revenue producers or snoozers; and there is no minimum or maximum expenditure. Syracuse and Wake played no P5s outside the ACC last year; they weren't even trying.

1) be the Orioles in the al east vs Yankees or red Sox 2) or be the Norfolk tides The lessers will take the first choice to remain major. As to kick out ..please tell me exactly how that is done, easily and legally.

was from the Big East.

i.e. TV revenue equal but bowl payouts dedicated or pro-rated. Not sure exactly how it works now though.

we have teams getting 300% or more of their football media value and the teams carrying the load are getting perhaps half. And the have nots are the ones voting to keep the revenue producers in the fold. It isn't sustainable.

It won't be nationally competitive football programs.

they cannot compete is a disaster. Basically, unequal distribution puts the top teams into a conference that is the equivalent of the AAC, except for them - not appealing. Long term that is not sustainable. The teams getting less fall into decline, ultimately the conference declines and you lose the top teams anyway. The problem is not how do we keep Clemson and FSU. It is how can we make the ACC competitive. If we can't make the ACC competitive, the conference will fall to 2nd tier (most likely). Offering a few teams more allows a few teams to compete but the conference as a whole still become 2nd tier. Would Clemson and FSU want to be in such a conference if the SEC offers. I wouldn't. Before paying a school less, the better option would be to kick the school out. Ultimately, the school would be better off. To stay in a conference which is built so you cannot compete would be insane. Why would you do that. Did we learn nothing from the Big East experience?????????????

The individual members have plenty of revenue ops, like…….tickets, donations, merchandise, concessions, and “weekend with bstreet”. BY splitting tv, you give everyone a solid foundation and don’t end up with a Temple from the Big East. Then, it is up to the individual programs to maximize their revenue.

But thats not the situation so the NFL is a horrible example.

All of the NFL games are against NFL teams and count in the standings and draft order. In the ACC, 4 of those games are exhibitions...you can play Wagner (yes, Syracuse is playing Wagner this year) or Alabama. In the ACC last year 9 teams played 2 P5's OOC; 4 teams (BC, Pitt, Wake, NCSU) played one; and Syracuse didn't play any. Also note that one of those "OOC" games was UNC/Wake, so rather than two games to potentially televise, it was one game. Like Syracuse, Wake didn't play a P5 game outside the ACC.

competitive anyway...

but, it might be better to do it on the expense as opposed to revenue side. I would keep the revenue distributions formula similar to the current amount, however, I would impose a tax of some amount on programs collecting money but, not investing in their programs. Under that method, I think you get the benefits of equity coupled with incenting programs to use the money they receive to improve. The money from this tax could be redistributed to conference members meeting or exceeding spending guidelines.

How do you prove in their spend if its money raised from other things like boosters or if its their share of revenue being spent? It doesn't really address the core issue anyways, the earners want more up front and they don't want to be told how or how much to spend. I don't want to micro manage P&Ls with a larger conference bureaucracyHow do you prove in their spend if its money raised from other things like boosters or if its their share of revenue being spent? It doesn't really address the core issue anyways, the earners want more up front and they don't want to be told how or how much to spend. I don't want to micro manage P&Ls with a larger conference beuracracy, I want equity in Revenue, true equity not 2022 equity = equal outcome (which it doesn't). ** Edited by clemson81nc at 7/10/2022, 10:07:28 AM

BC seems to be winning a bidding war with VT for a RB recruit right now. Problem for BC, Cuse, Wake, Duke, Pitt, GT and even UVA and UM is their TV optics are awful for football. I just dont see how they can spend their way out of this (although Miami is trying) I agree that feeding the big dogs is a good idea but its only a band aid. The ACC is just not structurally built for football and I dont see a way around this

big donor McCreary has invested upwards of $100M in Wake football and all sports really facilities. I've come across an article or so commenting Wake facilities may only be second to Clemson! The issue with Wake is their size and nobody really gives a hoot about them outside the state of North Carolina.

UNC last year, Vandy this year

Wake is probably #6 in NC fandom behind UNC, State, App, ECU and Duke. I did think a bit about including Wake in my original post for the reasons you mention. But it kind of makes my point that throwing money at football does not work by itself. Got to have fan buy in as well. Wake has done as much as they can to improve their football and they are running a good/great program. for their level. But there are hard limits to how far they can rise in todays environment

they are televised.