ESPN: Inside the big-money battle that could decide the ACC's future
The GoR and its ironcladness:
"Over the past two years, a number of schools have sent teams of lawyers to examine the official grant of rights document, either looking for a potential pathway out or assurances that the biggest brands can't leave without a serious fight. As one administrator told ESPN, those reviews have established several potentially compelling arguments for breaking the agreement but have uncovered no obvious loophole that would provide a pathway out without engaging in protracted litigation.
'Is it worth the paper it's written on?' one AD said. 'If one school starts to leave, then another, how strong is it? It would involve a major legal battle.'"
Discussions wrt unequal revenue sharing:
"Yet, after lengthy discussions at the ACC's winter meetings, ADs emerged without anything approaching consensus on a new distribution plan, something that would require a two-thirds majority vote. Indeed, they can't even agree on what to call the plan -- 'weighted distribution,' as one AD said, 'alternative revenue," as the league called it or 'unequal' as most administrators opposing the plan have said.
Even the most seismic shifts in distribution don't exactly paint the picture of a financial windfall for power programs like Clemson and Florida State, however. Estimates shared by sources with knowledge of the discussions suggest a net shift of between $250,000 and $3 million annually -- 'pocket change,' as one AD called it -- leading some administrators to wonder if it's worth all the trouble."
The ACC's future:
"To the mind of FSU athletic director Michael Alford, the longer term picture remains bleak compared with the immense growth of the SEC and Big Ten. When the ACC signed its 20-year TV deal with ESPN in 2016 -- a deal approved by several of the current athletic directors and school presidents, it should be noted -- the payout wasn't entirely out of step with the rest of the country, and it opened the door for the league to launch its own TV network. But six years later, the landscape has changed markedly, the frustrations have grown exponentially, and the financial constraints, which several ADs noted are already being felt, will soon become an existential threat.
Alford's comments (last week) were a warning to his colleagues that time is running out to change those fortunes, and several administrators privately offered a similar lament to Alford's public statements. Change isn't about appeasement. It's about survival.
'At the end of the day, we need to try. And if, if we can't get things done, then, at least we can look around and say, 'All right, we attempted to get something done, we weren't able to do it,' Miami AD Dan Radakovich said. 'And then, if down the road, schools do choose to leave, it should not be a surprise.' "
Tik, tik, tik ...
15 Replies
T
Truthahn
3y
ACC: You need to join us. It would help us so much.
ND: No
FSU: You should let us go to the SEC. It would help us so much.
ACC: No
(In response to this post by goldendomer)
H
hoodat
3y
the conference! Only chance of survival seems to be in the hands of ESPN (and maybe one other media partner) along with the PAC and ACC merger of some sort.
** Edited by hoodat at 3/2/2023, 12:24:10 PM
(In response to this post by goldendomer)
3y
Big brand schools who don't want to get left behind in the money race
Small schools who know they have limited brand value in the new landscape and want to hold onto what they have
ACC leadership who want to keep the conference alive, even if it causes some big brand schools to suffer
FSU may be excessively vocal, but what they are saying is not wrong. And my guess is that they are being encouraged to speak out in order to force someone to give ground.
FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC, Duke all have some national sway. VT, UVA and NCSU have some various benefits and would likely be in favor of change. But that's still only 8.
(In response to this post by hoodat)
3y
If Washington and Oregon are not getting the invite with no GOR or exit fees, I'm not sure it looks very good for the rest of us.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
3y
The difference between Kansas and Duke is that while both are basketball blue bloods, Kansas has been a more consistent blue blood for a longer time and through more coaching changes. I put Kansas, Kentucky and North Carolina at the top of the pyramid because they have been nationally relevant for many decades and big winners (including national championships) under multiple coaches. UCLA, Indiana and Duke are in the same discussion and at times in the past one might have put one or more of them alongside the first three. But UCLA and Indiana have been wandering in the wilderness for a long time.
Duke won, at times, before Coach K. But Duke's blue blood status rests entirely on Coach K's legacy. To me, there is no guarantee Duke will sustain its success under the current or any future coaching regime. Logically, Duke should not be able to sustain it. It's a small, private, elite academic school and big-time basketball doesn't really fit, particularly in the modern era.
And as bad as Kansas football has been, and even though Duke has punched above its weight in recent times, Kansas clearly has a higher football ceiling, if only because it is a public school with a greater alumni base.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
Keep in mind that even with that pedigree, there has been no interest from the Big10, except for a few news stories, and boards like these.
The ACC might lose some of their top brands, but it's my opinion that the ACC will be and upper middle class conference like the Big12.
It's enough to make a run in the football playoffs in the near future, and enough to win it.
The top brands in the Big10 and SEC already had the recruiting edge, yet there are a lot of players out there. They may have fat checks, but they do not have a monopoly now the playoffs have expanded.
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
3y
But then again, it might not. I'm sure the B1G would take Stanford in a heartbeat if Notre Dame agreed to join along with them. It's a similar idea with Duke/UNC coming together. I think it would have more appeal to the B1G than the SEC, but who knows maybe the SEC looks around and thinks they already have enough football heavy hitters, and adding UNC/Duke would give them more basketball brands and football teams that they can beat up on every season. And who wouldn't want to watch the Vandy/Duke football game every year. They can brand it the Southern Ivy Bowl or something.
** Edited by tarheelblue at 3/2/2023, 1:24:30 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
some sway with a national brand in basketball. Important if basketball money goes up. But if football remains king then you are right, they are like Kansas and not as important.
The biggest advantage anyone has in all of this is VT, UVA, UNC, Duke and NCSU because we sit in new markets for the P2. The states of Virginia and North Carolina are more of a target than any particular school.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
E
EDGEMAN
3y
A tiny private school that built it's reputation on "hookers and blow" just doesn't cut it in big boy football...especially since they don't even have their own football stadium. They put about 6K paying fans in their stadium, and whenever there's a large crowd, it's because of the visitors. The last time they were relevant was 2 decades ago.
The SEC wants large public universities, and the B1X wants large research universities.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
3y
That's a nice little school they have down there in Miami, but I don't think they would add enough value to the SEC or B1G to be considered.
** Edited by tarheelblue at 3/2/2023, 1:12:31 PM
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
3y
Florida pop. 21 million Rank: 3
Miami MSA 6.9 million Rank: 11
Nielsen DMA 1.7 TV households: Rank 18
Especially attractive to B1G fans as a winter destination getaway.
** Edited by 33laszlo99 at 3/2/2023, 8:38:59 PM
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
3y
If the SEC takes another Florida school, it will be FSU. And the SEC won't want a 3rd school in the same state. The B1G might have some interest in Miami, but ultimately there are more attractive programs in the Pac 12 and ACC that the B1G would want rather than Miami.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
3y
I think they have enough juice to remain a contender for both P2's. I think The SEC would take three schools in FL just to blockade The B1G. It's ESPN who would object to three or maybe even two. ESPN hates paying for four properties in N.C. I think they would feel more comfortable if they weren't all in the same conference. They pay four times and it doesn't expand their footprint. Florida times three would be a similar expensive problem for ESPN, even if The SEC would prefer it.
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
3y
But as we are seeing right before our eyes, being competitive, or even deserving, doesn't get you 30-40 million a year more then you are really worth.
It's my contention, that once this shakes out, that the networks over paid for the concentration of the brands and blue bloods.
Regional conferences will prevail, or at least regional rivalries that make sense.
You can not create a rivalry between a Minnesota and a UCLA. The games have to mean something when both teams are 5-5. I think this experiment will fail, but they will destroy what we have built to get there
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)