47 Replies
3y
And still not convinced the big ten wants to go to 20+.
You need competition.
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
3y
BIG/SEC divides up into sub divisions. Some the rivalries may come back. Not all them which is shame. The day OU/Nebraska ended was slow start of recklessness.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
3y
This will never happen.
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
H
hokieZ71
3y
(In response to this post by OrlandoHokie)
S
Stech
3y
ESPN. He looks bad if he loses his alma mater. A couple of things he missed:
1) If the Mag 7 go to B1G/Fox, the other sports will be regional IMHO for the most part and with 7 or 8 former ACC schools, this is not a problem.
2) Most football games the team gets on a plane, whether they go to Miami or Madison, no big deal.
3) If the APCC happens, it’s closer to Madison than any PAC school.
4) I do agree the key for the ACC to survive, basketball must expand and maybe break away.
5) His former network is the reason the ACC gets 5 instead of 10 teams, they have talked down the ACC in football and lately basketball, there is zero outrage or mention about the ACC getting 5 bids the last two years, in spite of doing better than the SEC or B1G in the Sweet 16 and Final Four the last two years.
6) This interview with him tells me he is scared of Fox/ B1G getting the Mag 7 plus IMHO ND.
7) Getting the PAC schools to agree to that GOR (his baby) could happen, but that’s a very steep hill to climb.
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
2
2hhoop3
3y
1 & 3 I agree. You may want to look at some of the schedules of the past as well as the future because I am not as sure air travel as opposed to bus travel is as prevalent as your #2 contends. Basketball is a very tricky issue for a variety of reasons and the B1G versus the ACC has more to do with CBS than ESPN. The SEC is on ESPN and their is the failure of ESPN personalities to support the ACC aside from UNC and Duke. Skipper is just out there talking to anybody and everybody and trying to make it rain greenbacks for he and LeBetard's Meadowlark Entertainment venture and his side consults.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
3y
from Boston to Miami, going North and South, and from South Bend to Miami going east and west. So a lot of schools ride a plan to games already. Now if the B1G only takes a couple of schools, I tend to agree more, but I think the B1G/Fox expect to eventually regionalize the Olympic Sports for the regular season. Just a guess, but it sure would solve some big issues with long flights during the regular season.
As far as basketball, I don’t think the ESPN talk shows have said enough about the ACC 🏀 schools not being in the tournament. So it’s more the ESPN talk shows, which ESPN still dominates the market. Even Fox is a distant second, but “if” they got the Mag 7 with ND. Way more people would tune in on their talk shows IMHO.
** Edited by Stech at 5/30/2023, 9:44:46 AM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
3y
drivel. He's as clueless as EVERYONE else as to what will happen, and you can rest assured it will be something no one outside of the Presidents and ADs. imagined!
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
3y
His thoughts seemed more personal opinion based on wanting to keep the regional rivals that the ACC has and not wanting the BIG. I did find it funny how he knocked the BIG locations (who wants to go to Madison and to Iowa?).
The biggest problem to me is something that was very clear in this interview. They unconsciously jumped between sports and their views were different based on sport. Sometimes they talk football. Sometimes they talk basketball. And non-revs never get talked about.
That is the core problem in all this. Solutions for one sport do not fit other sports. Cross country conferences can work for football with one game a week and only 6 games a year are travel and most are on the weekend. Basketball is a lot harder with 20+ conf games, but it can work with enough money. It's the non-revs that will suffer. They need to carve out the non-revenue sports into regional conferences for the benefit of those student athletes. Then football and basketball can do whatever they want.
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
H
hokieZ71
3y
One thing the ACC can offer west coast teams as far as away travel…multi-road games in one trip. Any combo of UNC, Duke, NCST and Wake can be handled with one flight, an extra couple nights in a hotel and some bus fare. VT and UVA can be done similarly with a charter flight. That’s 6 of the potential locations right there in two flights, if you’re creative enough. Can’t get that in the Big XII or B1G….
Add the fact the B1G isn’t able to take 6 PAC 12 schools like a more desperate ACC could and it’s got potential…
** Edited by hokieZ71 at 5/29/2023, 7:27:01 PM
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
3y
The fact that he suggested it implies the financial viability of the concept
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
E
EDGEMAN
3y
...ACC members receive now...lol
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
3y
1. He cited a pro rata clause in the ACC contract, which would guarantee that the payouts would not decrease. He has seen the contract, so I'd take that as authoritative.
2. He doesn't work for ESPN anymore, so he has no vested interest to lowball the ACC.
3. He's a UNC grad, so I'd be surprised if he would suggest something that is bad for UNC.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
H
HOO86
3y
It has had all along. With 2 or more adds at once, it forces opening up to increases. Thats why he keeps suggesting forcing ESPN to renegotiate. I've heard him say that a few times.
As the ACC has sat on its ass while WVU. Houston, Cincinnati, and so on have been taken off the board, we are left with just west coast choices. Again the ACC sits on its ass.
There must be an ACC faction of presidents and ADs resisting expansion today like in 1991 and 2003. Instead of having a Gene Corrigan or John Swofford who both had the same resistance, but provided a convincing vision each time, we now have Jim Phillips. So here we sit on our ass while saying everything is on the table going on 3 years now.
The SEC and B1G aren't adding more. Their numbers go down per school if they add. He said that too. I don't expect Jim Phillips to do anything at this point.
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
Pro rata. So the ACC can add teams without reducing payouts. But how does
that HELP existing members if payouts don’t go up? And nobody is talking about teams that would increase payouts.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
H
HOO86
3y
If we add teams in new states, particularly large population states, we get more payout for the ACC Network Subscribers.
If 2 or more are added, then ESPN would need to consider bumping the revenue for the TV Contract also. It was predicted that WVU has that kind of value for the rivalries. That's why we were talking WVU/Cincinnati for the WVU eyeballs and Cincinnati for Ohio Cable Subscribers for the ACC Network. After that we're looking for large states (Texas, California, etc.).
There are no more heavy hitters for Television other than Notre Dame, which we have half already.
(In response to this post by Femoyer Hokie)
Pros vs Cons
Pros:
-East Coast exposure for Pac-12 schools
-Fresh blood for ACC
-Pac-12 survival
-More money via the expansion of the ACCN
-Helps ACC bide time
-Far more interesting Conference Championship Game
-Academic profile of both conferences maintained
Con:
-Length of GOR for Pac-12 (Skipper didn't mention this, but it's the elephant in the room)
-Travel costs
-Possibility of leaving out some current Pac-12 schools
-one less conference champion (for CFP and NCAAT concerns)
Both ways:
-Scheduling
(could be a negative, but if they do it right, it should be a positive. More conference game. Get rid of some OOC games)
I think this should totally be explored and studied. One question I have is how valuable is adding one school from a new state to the ACCN? How big does the state need to be to make money for all members? How big does it need to be to add two members (Cal and Stanford?).
What is the ACC would add these schools from these new states? Would it make money?
Washington
Oregon
California
Arizona State
Colorado
Utah
SMU (Texas--big state)
Tulane (Louisiana--small state)
In the end, it comes down to making money for the existing members. So what makes money?
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 5/29/2023, 1:04:05 PM
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
H
HOO86
3y
We've looked at a number of them for consideration. I'd like to think we have a proactive and aggressive team or committee within the ACC looking at doing that. But I'm seeing no signs of it. I'm seeing deferment to a consultant I'm not familiar with. Who Knows what they'll come up with Or more importantly when.
These PAC12 schools are looking at being way behind given all that is leaking out. So who knows.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
3y
Come on. You think a small private school moves the needle? You need big state flagship schools.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
Purely for getting the ACCN into Texas. Simple money grab.
The next 12 years are about financial survival. Again, I don't know how much more money it would bring the current members, but that's why I asked.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
3y
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
H
hokieZ71
3y
Revenue from ACCN for going into several major media markets and at least 4 new states is guaranteed $$. (For the ACC and ESPN)
Potential for additional bids to the playoff would be substantial.
Add in a west coast time slot, good TV ratings for Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Utah in football, the ability to set schedules to match those 4 up with Clemson, FSU, Miami, VT, NCST, Louisville and UNC and it could work.
ESPN needs programming for the whole year, noon until midnight, East Coast to west coast.
They only want to pay the whole
PAC 12 $200-$250M a year, but maybe they find the same value with a handful of those schools with bigger brands and larger fanbases aligned with the ACC Network. $200-250M for 5 schools is $40-50M per school. That’s before ACC Network revenue and Bowl/playoff money. That definitely works for them because they’re getting half that or less now. If the ACC is stocked with more interesting conference games, they can probably get more from ESPN in a renegotiated deal as well. It wouldn’t be Big Ten or SEC level but it could be in Between the Big XII and the SEC/B1G.
(In response to this post by IB4TECH)
H
hoodat
3y
further and say the ACC/PAC would need a Texas school as well. Have to get the ACCN into the state of Texas!
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
3y
(In response to this post by IB4TECH)
3y
until 2036.
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
3y
To me he comes-off as an ACC/UNC homer. Sounds just like half of the posters on Tar Pit. As I watched him, I thought he was really playing to the audience, not presenting objective ideas.
(In response to this post by ancient alien 2018)
E
EDGEMAN
3y
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
3y
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
E
EDGEMAN
3y
...will skyrocket. I'm not buying.
it sounds like he's trying to do something that will ensure the ACC crashes and burns by the end of GOR, pushing UNC into a P2 conference.
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
T
TDVick
3y
conference. This really makes no sense. It amazes me how some people can reach the high level that they do. Then again, we put our chips on the ACC and letting that savvy Swofford guy manage it.
** Edited by TDVick at 5/29/2023, 4:42:41 PM
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
3y
The current makeup of the conference. Then, both old conferences are free to design their part of the future PACC, balancing both needs of a conference that can survive longer term; max (and competitive) payout per school, and need for regionality of schools so that proper rivalries can be developed and/or maintained longer term.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
S
Stech
3y
1) He said APCC, the ACC would be the one with the TV deal right? So it’s not going to be named the PACC, right?
2) Second I have heard expanding will not nullify the GOR, if you have different evidence, I would like to see it.
3) The main focus in doing this according to John was to keep the regular season regional, but the Championships would bring the top teams together, of which I don’t think that’s hard to do or really that hard on students.
If true, why is any of this bad for the schools? Especially if they can make more money.
(In response to this post by BAMRising)
3y
Networks are at the top of the list for sure. The ACC network is built, has a national partner in ESPN, and can be automatically leveraged if both conferences were A) disbanded, thus nullifying the ACCs GOR, and then rebuilt based on maximum tv revenue per school, then B) combined as one legal entity, which allows each entity to operate on a regional basis (ACC focuses on east coast, PAC focuses on west), and only sees each other for tv made matchups and for conference tourneys/championship games.
The ACC has to recognize that as things stand now, we have no play which changes this conferences future competitiveness. Otherwise, we get eaten by the B1G/SEC. There is no other play.
However you slice this, aside from getting ripped apart by the B1G and SEC, the ACC should probably cull out the weakest of the schools, merge w the PAC, and run things as a 2 coast conference.
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
Does Wake add one dime? Kick them out and distribute their $40mm to the four "top" football performers based on some metrics of ratings and brand - Clemson, FSU, Miami and VT presumably. Problem mostly solved.
(In response to this post by BAMRising)
3y
The new teams just sign onto the GOR. It's such a dumb concept, I have no idea why anyone thinks that these contracts were written by idiots.
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
Break GoR by breaking away (8-10 teams) Then merge w PAC.
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
If there was a merger, I don't think it unreasonable for each team to play
two games on the opposite coast. Or more likely, Pac teams (about 7 schools) playing two in the East. And ACC teams (about 14 schools) playing at least one on the West Coast.
(In response to this post by Stech)
My post was taking into consideration that the 14 ACC members are going to
honor their commitment to one another.
But in 2036, the conference is done most likely.
(In response to this post by BAMRising)
3y
The worst thing they could do is "paralysis by analysis". That is a fast track to nowhere. Do what it takes to trigger a renegotiation and hire Skipper as a consultant for the negotiations. Make. It. Happen.
** Edited by ren_hoek at 5/29/2023, 1:25:36 PM
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
3y
There was one in 2021, another will be in 2026 and 2031. FWIU, ESPN looked at the numbers and didn't increase because of the COVID seasons hurting income.
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
O
obguthr
3y
between stakeholders in the two conferences and representatives from ESPN. I think if ESPN was willing to pay for it, we'd already be hearing more rumblings about it. The fact is, even if you cherry picked the best schools from both conference, the total value is not signifcantly more than the Big 12 and far less than P2. Remember, this is not at all about competitiveness on the field or courts. It's about revenue potential and marketability.
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
H
hokieZ71
3y
(In response to this post by obguthr)
2
2hhoop3
3y
revenue potential and control for the SEC and B1G. For the ACC it is about the possibility long term survival and, if not a viable alternative, an orderly dissolution and landing for its members. For the Big 12 and PAC 12 it is all about survival as a P5. Losing UT and OU for the Big 12 and USC and UCLA for the PAC 12 means they are much closer to G5 than P5 status. When those schools exit their respective conferences, based on current national champions in each sport, the Big 12 and PAC 12 will have 4 current champions combined and the SEC, ACC and B1G will have 12, 8 and 7, respectively.
(In response to this post by obguthr)
3y
ACC leadership is notoriously spineless and lacks the fortitude to be bold and aggressive. It may not be a financial bonanza to absorb 6-8 PAC teams, but it would in fact be an increase. The fact that Skipper has repeatedly suggested it gives it more credibility than all of us internet experts combined. He was the freaking CEO of ESPN for crying out loud.
Heck, Yormark would have made this happen in short order if he were the ACC commissioner.
(In response to this post by obguthr)
3y
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
3y
Negotiated the creation of the ACC network with Swofford, the previous ACC commissioner. so yeah, I'd consider him a subject matter expert.
(In response to this post by ZekeVT)