The problem is that Disney is not going to pay big money for SMU and Wake Forest, they're only going to pay a premium for what people actually want to watch. The bigger problem is that FSU, Clemson, VT, Miami, UNC, and the rest then have to turn around and split that Disney money even-stevens with all the dead weight properties in the conference that everyone in America couldn't care less about. THAT's the issue. Nobody wants to watch Syracuse and Boston College play football, so Disney isn't going to pay anything above Dollar Tree prices for that content, which is going straight to the ESPN+ streaming bargain basement. But Syracuse and Boston College get the SAME SHARE of the media rights revenue. The dead weight schools in the conference are an anchor around the neck of the 5 or 6 ACC football teams people will actually watch. This is the very simple reason why the ACC is not going to survive, not whatever flash in the pan BS Greg Flugaur is making up out of whole cloth on his 2 hour YouTube videos that only have 2-3 minutes of actual substance. ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 1/14/2025, 10:34:25 AM

I also agree that there is a structural issue in the ACC. The ACC will never be able to compete with the P2 in terms of marketability and will always receive less money. That being said, being #3 is not the end of the world. It's still better than any other non-P2 conference. And yeah, I agree—Flug's channel is boring as hell.

I think if you ask anyone besides Jim Phillips, or the dead weight members of the ACC, the ACC is not considered #3. Yeah, the ACC schools might be getting 2 million dollars a year more than the B12 schools, but nobody seriously thinks the ACC is a better football conference than the B12. For a decade now, the ACC has been the biggest running joke in college sports. There is no positive coverage of the ACC. Disney won't put them on actual legacy broadcast channels. Their other college football brand "just means more." Disney pays the ACC half what the SEC gets paid. And then we get to the punditry. If you're in the ACC, you can't win. Oh, you're in the ACC and win all your games? It's because all the other teams in the conference suck. You're in the ACC and lose all your games? It's because you're another ACC team that sucks. That's only going to get worse now, too, because the CFP committee balked and put SMU into the CFP over Alabama, and SMU proceeded to pee down its leg and roll right over. Perception, of course, becomes reality. The losses pile up. And, the best part is that the stigma against the ACC is already bleeding over into basketball, the only thing the ACC had going for it at all. Now, ACC basketball sucks too. To the extent that being #3 even matters, it's all temporary, at best. The death clock for the ACC is sitting at about 10 minute to midnight because when the current GOR expires, FSU, Clemson, Miami, VT, and UNC are definitely not going to sign another GOR, because why would they? Those brands hold the power over the ACC now, not the other way around. Things have changed. Even if you ignore the financials, SMU is now in the ACC, and who wants to rub stink all over their brand by being in a conference with SMU? Does anyone think that FSU, Clemson, and UNC are going to grant their media rights to the idiot that engineered SMU to the ACC, or flying the volleyball team from the upstate South Carolina to Palo Alto for a conference game? No, they won't, and if they won't, then ACC "membership" basically becomes meaningless, and that will be that. ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 1/14/2025, 3:16:26 PM

Everyone knew it was "the sick man of Europe" and lost most power and influence. But everyone knew it might just hang around for a while longer. The ACC (as we know it) has till 2036, max. ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 1/15/2025, 6:34:46 PM

conspicuously omits any reference to why any of the aggrieved football brands would sign another GOR to the ACC after what has transpired. No GOR from the football brands, no "power" ACC. It's that simple.

If you're going to take a big dump on my thought out, reasoned opinion, it certainly would be nice if you actually added to the discussion and explained why you think that.

This time. I just disagree that it is all going to hell in a hand basket —-at this time.

the make up of the ACC as she is now. That does not, however, mean things will not change. For now, the GOR is intact, and there is zero indication that ESPN will walk from the ACC. As a matter of fact, it's absurd. Maybe ESPN gives a bump in the payouts, but it will not be enough to lure any current B12 teams, no matter how much sense it makes for the ACC to have WVU. The death of the ACC? I think that all depends on what the definition of the ACC is to some. Does it die if the top 2- 4 brands and ND leave? No, it will continue to be a power conference, because even if the P2 has all the brands, and all the money, they still need "competition" to beat. SMU aside, as they have never done anything wrong, is that the idea that if your aren't in the P2, you are toast, is just hogwash in my opinion. If you took ALL of the media money, and set it aside - look at the revenue per school, and look at their budgets. You will find that the bluebloods are far above in revenue and athletic budgets. Without their coveted media money. It's not the end of the world that you don't get as much money as a Texas (example). You (we) never got as much money as them, and we never will. I'm telling you guys, that does not mean you can't beat them on the field, and it doesn't mean you can't go on a run, and win the national championship. What the ACC and B12 need to do, is set a minimum investment in their football programs, and stop thinking that media money should pay for it. We would find out very quickly who wants to play ball, and who are just along for the ride.

1) No B12 team in their right mind would leave the B12 to go to the ACC, a conference that's treated like a running joke by the punditry, with leadership that is dysfunctional on a good day and incompetent on a bad day, where 70% of the conference is made up of afterthought or DOA football programs. No rats are going to try and get ON what is clearly a sinking ship. I assure you, the ACC is worried more about being raided by the B12 than the other way around. The only conferences the ACC will be raiding going forward are DOWN the totem pole. 2) When I say the ACC will "die," I don't mean that the ACC will immediately cease to exist. What I do mean is that once the current GOR is broken or expires, you will never again hear the word "power," used to describe the ACC, in any context. Frankly, you barely hear it used now, if you do at all. FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC, VT, and likely others will never again sign their media rights over to the ACC, not only because of the colossal financial quagmire it has caused them this time around, but also because doing so would allow the ACC to continue to hold them hostage, which is literally the only thing that's holding the conference together now. And, without the ability to hold the big football brands hostage via a GOR, the ACC will have no central authority to negotiate a media rights contract. Let's set that aside and assume that, somehow, a media rights agreement was reached with Disney or another partner. The football brands would then either demand a vastly disproportionate share of the media rights money, which your Wake Forest and Boston College types have shown they will never agree to, or the football brands will walk. Without the football brands, the ACC instantly becomes a G5, and not a particularly good G5 at that. 3) My beef with SMU is that it made no sense to add them. If you are an ACC football program worried about revenue and competing with the SEC, SMU added no value, at all, whatsoever. Adding Stanford and Cal was stupid too, but adding Stanford and Cal didn't look like pathetic stooping. Oh, we want Texas eyeballs? Yeah, right. It doesn't matter how many games SMU wins, if all the FBS programs in Texas were playing at the same time, SMU is, at VERY BEST, the 7th draw in a state with 13 FBS programs. Nobody watches SMU. Every other "power" conference that considered taking SMU balked. Because nobody CARES about SMU. They had a former president call and beg the ACC to add them. And, the ACC administration clearly understood this, because, as a condition for membership, SMU agreed to take no media rights money for a decade. SMU was added to spit in the face of the schools complaining about the ACC and threatening to leave, and to protect Wake Forest's ability to keep cashing ESPN checks if either FSU or Clemson make headway in their lawsuits. THAT's my beef with SMU being in this conference. It was a flop sweat, panic move that did nothing to improve the conference. I have predicted several times on here that getting in bed with SMU will prove to be a deal with devil, and will be a major discussion point in the coming "Demise of the ACC" documentaries. 4) You're delusional if you don't think the financial disparity is going to affect competitive ability. We are getting ready to have the schools directly pay the players. It is well documented that most of the FBS institutions will not be able to distribute the 20-whatever million dollar salary cap for this upcoming football season, because they just don't have it. You can also read articles where Babcock said VT basically had to scrape it together for the upcoming year, but that it's going to be difficult to find it every year going forward. So, everything else aside, balance sheets blank, you don't think that extra 35-45 million Vanderbilt and Northwestern will be starting with every year is going to matter?

SMU took no media money...NOT TRUE. We gave up our Tier 1 share but still get our full ACC Network share (which will probably be about 2X our prior TV revenue from the American...don't worry, we raised $100M in 7 days after the ACC announcement to make up the rest for a few years!) SMU adds no value...NOT TRUE. By SMU, Cal and Stanford taking reduced shares I estimate this alone puts about $4 million additional revenue in each ACC school's coffers annually. And that's before you factor in adding DFW and the Bay Area cable subscribers at increased in-market rates (approx $1/sub/month) for the ACC Network "SMU was added to spit in the face of the schools complaining about the ACC and threatening to leave, and to protect Wake Forest's ability to keep cashing ESPN checks if either FSU or Clemson make headway in their lawsuits" - laughable nonsense from a person who shouldn't be taken seriously. If this were the case, how did we garner 12/15 votes for admission? Including, and you're not going to believe this....Virginia Tech's vote! Little ol' Wake Forest must really hold some sway! Not to even mention going 8-0 in conference play, losing on last second FG in an all-time classic against Clemson in the ACC Champ Game and making the CFP in year 1. Sorry if you don't like us, but actually I'm not sorry. We're here to stay-- deal with it.

"We gave up our Tier 1 share but still get our full ACC Network share (which will probably be about 2X our prior TV revenue from the American...don't worry, we raised $100M in 7 days after the ACC announcement to make up the rest for a few years!)" Oh, wow, even foregoing a decade worth of media rights money, you're STILL getting more money now from whatever the ACCN payout is than the $500/week you were getting in the AAC? OMG, why didn't you say so? I had no idea you'd make more money than the basically nothing you were getting paid before! I'm so impressed! Here's some breaking news for you: the ACCN is a Ponzi scheme that nobody watches and all the ad buys are for Spurtles and those yellow sunglasses that help old people see in the dark. Even if you set aside that the writing has been on the wall for legacy linear cable networks for some time, particularly niche ones that carry niche product, the cold, hard fact is the ACCN will last about as long as the current GOR lasts, which is 2036 at the latest. Also, what, I'm supposed to be impressed that your oil baron alumni raised $100M because you had to beg your way into the most vulnerable "power" conference? You think that makes you special? That may as well be a fart in the wind. Who cares. Maybe you can bring it up at your next wine and cheese mixer with the UVA and Duke alumni. "SMU adds no value...NOT TRUE. By SMU, Cal and Stanford taking reduced shares I estimate this alone puts about $4 million additional revenue in each ACC school's coffers annually. And that's before you factor in adding DFW and the Bay Area cable subscribers at increased in-market rates (approx $1/sub/month) for the ACC Network" OMG, THANK YOU FOR THAT! Everyone is so impressed. I'm sure an extra 4 million will offset the cost of having to fly the basketball, baseball, softball, volleyball, soccer, and tennis teams to Dallas and California, never mind the football team. Also, maybe you should do a little research (yeah, right) into why all the major cable companies are in a contract dispute with Disney every other year - the ACCN is one of the big reasons why. They don't want to pay for the ACCN, because they know absolutely nobody in Texas and California watches it. "laughable nonsense from a person who shouldn't be taken seriously. If this were the case, how did we garner 12/15 votes for admission? Including, and you're not going to believe this....Virginia Tech's vote! Little ol' Wake Forest must really hold some sway!" Since you actually wrote this out, I'm not sure you're very bright. So, I'll try and dumb this down for you. SMU garnered 12/15 votes because Clemson, FSU, and UNC would not vote for SMU under any circumstances, but could not form a majority, largely because North Carolina is a giant old boys' club and WAKE FOREST BOOSTERS (there's a reason why I specifically mentioned Wake Forest, but your mind is probably Jello and probably didn't consider that at all) lobbied the NCSU board and AD to vote yes. If you think I'm making that up, feel free to use Google - it was all over the Raleigh newspapers. And, since you may be 11 years old, I'll try to explain a very basic political tactic to you - in the absence of a clear path to a viable majority one way or the other, someone who is trying to play politics is not going to vote for the losing position and piss off everyone that won, because why would you? When that vote came down, FSU and Clemson clearly were no longer trying to maintain a friendly posture with the rest of the conference, and UNC took a principled stand that adding SMU was stupid, which is absolutely correct, and I commend UNC for it. Everyone else was playing politics and not voting for a position they knew would lose no matter what. That's why it wasn't closer to to the margin. "Not to even mention going 8-0 in conference play, losing on last second FG in an all-time classic against Clemson in the ACC Champ Game and making the CFP in year 1." Congratulations, big guy!!!!!! You played the bottom of the barrel in the conference, an FSU team that was a national embarrassment all year, and you beat an OK but not great Louisville team. Then you lost to Clemson, who barely squeaked their way in to the ACCCG. Then you peed down your leg at Penn State, to the embarrassment of all, and a new round of "the ACC sucks and an ACC team should have never been in the CFP over Alabama." Thanks for that, we're all super impressed by it. Please F off and stop reading/replying to my posts. They're not for you.

You know where Dallas is, right? DFW is the third-largest airport on the planet and you can also fly direct into Love Field from most ACC campuses. Yeah, Stanford and Cal are a haul but you can knock out two games on the trip and it's certainly not much different than the preseason tournaments or invitationals that many teams travel long distances to. "Everyone else was playing politics and not voting for a position they knew would lose no matter what. That's why it wasn't closer to to the margin." SMU, Stanford and Cal needed 12/15 votes to be approved. Please don't tell me you thought that expansion only required a simple majority vote. FSU, Clemson and UNC did not need to "form a majority" as you erroneously stated; any of the 12 that voted yes could have switched their vote at the last minute and torpedoed the whole thing. The night before the vote, it was clear that only one more "no" vote was needed. I guess Miami, Louisville, VT, Pitt and others are just puppets for those ultra-powerful boosters in Winston-Salem! Puh-leeze. ALL of these schools are acting in their own self-interest. And 12/15 of them disagree with you. Thanks for reading and Pony Up!

You're now blocked. Stop replying to my posts.

So enjoy the rest of your time on the Titanic, dork. "how did we garner 12/15 votes for admission? Including, and you're not going to believe this....Virginia Tech's vote! Little ol' Wake Forest must really hold some sway!" - fan of a G5 program that's been in the ACC 5 minutes acting like he knows how the ACC works. Let's set aside the fact that I've explained ad nauseum why SMU was added to the ACC, because your ability to retain things you read is obviously sub par...Are you under the impression that I think Virginia Tech and/or the ACC is entirely run by competent people who make the best decisions? Also, I thought you were going to stop swinging off my jock strap every time I mention SMU and how useless SMU is from a media rights and branding standpoint. Every time I have to read one of your posts, it sounds like a five year old wrote it. Please, for the millionth time, F off somewhere that cares about SMU. ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 1/15/2025, 12:10:46 PM

They have a conflict of interest in all of this. They are trying to protect their jobs and existing power. But their actions are not in the best interest of the football schools. You are completely correct that none of the ACC's actions have in any way helped FSU, Clemson, VT or other football focused schools. I will offer one way out there scenario. ESPN could actually choose to not renew the ACC contract and actually save money by doing it. It all goes back to media rights. The only things that ESPN doesn't own are the BIG, PAC, Notre Dame, and the Mountain West. So theoretically, ESPN could allow the ACC to break up early. Take the risk that the BIG only grabs 2 programs, and that leaves the SEC to take their pick of who they want. The rest of the ACC can then be pushed off to the B12 (which ESPN has 60% of), G5 conferences (which are much cheaper and mostly under ESPN control), or stay in the weakened ACC (either a new cheaper ESPN contract or let someone else take them). ACC death sooner than expected is within the realm of possibility. If I can think of a scenario like that, then I'm sure someone else can as well.

So they can continue to consolidate brands where they want them. Doing so will ultimately save them money, and it's the only way their actions make any sense.

There are schools that will not be able to keep up with players being paid. Ohio State came out a day after the "settlement" did, and said they would pay their players the maximum amount. I think it is $25M to start. The finances of the different schools, athletic departments, and administration support are as diverse as you can imagine. A lot of schools will not be able to compete, but some really don't care. An example are the MAC schools. it's more important to be FBS for student recruitment than it is to be in a power conference, but every once in a while, a team good enough to compete with the big boys emerges. VT may struggle with the money part to compete at the highest level, but I ask you, when have they not struggled with the money part? SMU got some press and some playoff money for the conference, so out of the gate, VT got some money by adding them. Isn't that what this is all about? SMU will NEVER be a Texas with eyeballs, but I'm not sure anyone thought they would. VT however, can now recruit in Texas, and add that to Florida and California? Not sure what else you can ask for when it comes to recruiting territory. They are an asset to the ACC, they just don't bring VT more media money. If you want the media money, get an invite to the SEC or Big 10, otherwise, find a way to piece a competitive team. It doesn't matter which conference you belong too if you have an invite to the playoffs on the line. Win the dang conference, and you are in the playoffs - it's as simple as that. I'm on an ACC discussion board. I'm not here to say how good the ACC or the B12 is when compared to each other. Conferences do not win national championships, schools do. Could you take the best of the rest not in the P2 and get a better media deal? Sure you could, but that isn't in the cards. Play the cards in your hand, as there really isn't another choice.

1) The maximum amount of revenue share for schools will be calculated every year, I'm sure based upon some type of CPI-type formula. For this upcoming year, it's 22 million dollars. NIL will still be a thing, but payors and payees will have to demonstrate the deal is for fair market value, and all NIL deals over a certain amount (I think $500) will be audited for FMV compliance by Deloitte, a giant national accounting firm. So, NIL ain't going to be what it is now - completely unfettered pay for play. Collectives aren't going to be able to cut anymore $2 million dollar checks to QB transfers, unless they can demonstrate that the $2 million is FMV based upon the QB's calculated NIL value and whatever service they're providing in return for the money. So, presumably, the majority of pay for football players is now going to come directly from the schools, who have to find that money themselves. Again, do you own research - it's well documented that the majority of FBS schools have just come out and said they won't be able to distribute up to the cap, because they won't have it. Successful programs require good players on their rosters. Let's make this real simple - if team A distributes a payroll of $100, and team B distributes a payroll of $40, which team do you think will be able to attract the better players? Or, look at it through this lens: if company A offers you a $300,000.00 salary to do a job, and company B offers you a $100,000.00 salary to do the exact same job, which company are YOU going to work for? 2) I really don't think playing SMU in Texas twice a decade is going to help VT recruit Texas, and, that notwithstanding, you should ask everyone on this board how they feel about #TX2VT. Given recent history, I doubt you'll get many warm and fuzzies when it comes to the idea of Texas as a recruiting pipeline for VT. And, and this is exactly my point about both SMU and the ACC - SMU playing in the ACCCG and getting into the playoff was not covered like it was any kind of boon for the ACC. No, to the contrary - the media spin was "the ACC sucks so bad that SMU got to the championship in its first year" and then "clearly, SMU didn't deserve to be in the CFP, because they pissed down their legs in Happy Valley." SMU adds NOTHING. Adding SMU to the ACC was like adding capers to a really sad little half-melted ice cream sundae. 3) I'm sure they'll take calls from transfer portal guys, but the state of California is never going to be a recruiting focus for VT, ever. So, again, who cares? 4) Yes, of course, VT has never had billion dollar football complexes with lazy rivers and waterfalls. But, VT has also never had to directly pay players via revenue sharing either. That's a major, major change that's coming this fall, and you're just acting like, meh, "Ohio State has always had more money." That's true, but now schools have a capped amount they have to directly pay players with, and NIL contracts have to prove FMV. That's a MAJOR change - it's daylight and dark when compared to how things have been run since NIL arrived. 5) I'm not arguing that the ACC is better than the B12. If you want to have that argument, then it won't last long, because I don't think the ACC is a better football conference than the B12. 6) I think, at least definitely outside the SEC and B10, we are going to ultimately see a paradigm where individual schools negotiate the media rights for their own home football (and maybe basketball) games, and conference affiliation only exists for scheduling purposes and 2nd and 3rd tier media rights negotiations. If so, that's going to be a major game changer.

Flugaur expects a "gathering" of ACC representatives and ESPN in Charlotte to discuss the disposition of the media contract. The deadline for ESPN's renewal is Feb. 1, I think. What needs to be addressed? - If ESPN intends to renew, what discussion is required? Just say so. - If not, start negotiations. Obviously we have issues: - Lawsuits are pending that could alter the membership. ESPN no like. - ESPN allowed pro rata when the conference recently expanded. Should the conference return the favor in the case of departures? - Might ESPN simply ask for another deferral of the deadline? Six months? three years? - ESPN might offer more linear, less streaming, in lieu of more cash? I noticed that ESPN recently offloaded 13 Big12 FB games and 15 Big12 MBB games to TNT. Could that be so they can better accommodate The ACC? While Flugaur is quite certain about the time and place, he cannot say, for sure, that the subject matter is the media contract renewal. He says that UNC is very eager to find their way into The SEC. And though he reports-on and speculates about ACC departures, he has said, all along that ESPN makes plenty of money with The ACC, and wants to retain the conference in their portfolio. The past behavior of ESPN indicates that they like to lock their media content into long-term contracts. ESPN is not your friend, as The SEC is beginning to realize.

It's not like they're going to negotiate it publicly. And most of the world doesn't much care what happens with the ACC media deal. Especially with college and pro playoffs going on. And conference hoops into full swing. ** Edited by Pylons at 1/14/2025, 5:20:44 PM

expansion, and portal traffic; not so important in that small world you referenced. Maybe just me, but I think this contract renewal (or contract expiry) could provoke far reaching consequences.

the media and pundits have stopped talking about it. To me, this is another sign that the ACC is going to get a not-bad deal. The media loves drama (and the ACC implosion scenarios) and they don't see it happening.

Phillips will obviously try to increase the payment. And there are many details to be ironed out. For example, - Are there any contingency clauses in case FSU or other schools decide to leave? - What about exposure (ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ACCN)? - The CW content? - Potential sublicensing (looks like TNT needs content)? - Future expansion targets and conditions?

ESPN can wait until the final day and extend the contract, as is, unilaterally, until 2036. It's up to Phillips to give ESPN a reason to negotiate.

1. they are NOT the SEC, so they willl not get the huge contract. however 2. They are giving very credible games, in major markets, and they are getting good ratings (not over the edge but good). 3. Also they need content, there is a limit to number of SEC contests in all sports. 3. They could easily bump up ACC by 5-10 percent and dont hurt their Return of Investment (and where can the ACC go?)

The ACC will likely get a bit more, though nothing close to the P2 payment. That's not necessarily bad, as long as we remain a definite #3.

a hill of beans. If you want bragging rights, schedule OOC games against the B12. A one and one with K-State or KU would be a fantastic start. TT against VT would be a good match up as well.

In case some schools leave the ACC. I can start a new thread about this topic.

A bump in revenue, but not close to what they pay the SEC. 2nd class pay for a 2nd class conference (due to ESPN's practices over the last two decades).