ACC absolutely open to expansion, Jim Phillips tells ESPN
This is just a couple hours old and from ESPN's site and after the ACC kickoff has ended I believe. And on the same day Colorado announces their Big XII intentions and several hours after FSU's 247 board mod Chris Nee posts a shot across the bow about FSU looking at leaving for the B1G.
"the ACC has explored possible expansion options, according to multiple league administrators, running models on adding a number of potential targets, including West Virginia, SMU, Oregon and Washington."
Coincidence? No such thing...
** Edited by hokieZ71 at 7/27/2023, 10:21:36 PM
65 Replies
3y
ACC is open to expansion, but they don't see any schools that make sense financially. So I would not be expecting any announcements from the ACC.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
3y
The actual quote is:
“However, league officials haven't determined if any additional schools would help bridge the ACC's financial gap with the SEC and Big Ten.”
“Haven’t determined” is way different than what you said (“has not found enough value”). So the response to a question about value was probably “we are still working on valuation metrics”
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
3y
My quote was in the first paragraph, and was the author quoting Phillips. Your quote was a statement made by the author, not quoting anybody. So my quote reflects what Phillips actually said. Your quote is a conclusion made by the author.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
3y
Not an author quote. You are right about yours though
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
3y
Quote them. So does he have quotes from League officials that he doesn't actually use? If so, why would he not use them? Or is that statement simply his interpretation of the quote from Phillips? I would suggest it simply his interpretation of Phillips statement, based on the fact that he gives no other quotes. And his interpretation takes the Phillips quote a step too far, reading more into it than what Phillips actually said. Quotes get misinterpreted all the time, which in my opinion seems to be what's happening here. Especially when you consider that the Philips quote specifically states that they have not found enough value in any expansion option. So the only actual quote he gives contradicts the other statement he makes which is not an actual quote. Just comes across to me as careless journalism, careless writing, careless drawing of conclusions. The only league official he actually references is Phillips, and Phillips is the only one he clearly quotes.
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 7/29/2023, 9:56:38 AM
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
2
2hhoop3
3y
is a valuable skillset anytime and particularly with the likely carefully parsed words and statements given on the topic of conference expansion and the many possible motives that might be attached to those statements. I think you accurately interpreted the statements.
I also think fans losing their minds over the latest flurry of activity would be wise to take some deep breaths and see a few more cards before deciding to hold or fold. If history has proven anything it is that stability and the ability to play the long game have been ACC trademarks compared to conferences with larger schools and seemingly more resources.
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 7/29/2023, 10:49:27 AM
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
V
Vippie1
3y
1) The PSU/Ohio St , Mich, MSU pod expansion option
2) The Florida/GA,USC-E, Maryland pod expansion option
3) The ND option
LOL, the other options is akin to rearranging the chairs on the Titanic :-)
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
T
Truthahn
3y
We need that to keep up with the big dogs.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
3y
If the Big ten gave them a hard no, then they might look to the ACC. But they are horrible fit geographically for the ACC. And adding them would probably come with the need to add a couple more west coast schools as well, A couple of additional schools that would not bring the financial gains that Washington and Oregon would bring, and therefore would negate any financial benefits to adding Washington and Oregon. So The only choice that would benefit the ACC financially would be to add only two schools on the west coast and live with the geographical complications that come with such an addition. There's just not the financial value with the remaining pac-12 schools, that's why they can't negotiate a decent media contract right now.
Neither Oregon nor Washington is going to sign on to the ACC's grant of rights, that would keep them from joining the Big 10, as long as they have any thoughts that the Big ten might want them in the near future
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 7/28/2023, 9:59:14 AM
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
Adding a California school would be huge for ACCN subscriptions, no?
I think UW, UO, Cal, and ASU would be a minimum starting point for any ACC expansion plans out West. But even that is too few teams.
But I do like the idea of taking UO and UW off the board for the B1G and the BigXII. I am also much more bullish on Arizona State than others.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
3y
Than LA and Nebraska inside the conference.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
T
Truthahn
3y
Phillips needs to maintain our position as #3. There is a quote to that affect in the article, which is probably why be mentions Oregon and Washington now.
Going hard after Oregon, Washington and maybe a few more would be a way to do that.
If we fall to #4, the FSU crowd will only get more restless and determined.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
I'd be curious to know FSU's opinion on UO and UW.
I also don't know why Phillips appears to have ignored this situation until Colorado left. Couldn't he see this coming? We should have been all over the best remaining Pac-12 properties the day USC announced.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
D
daveinop
3y
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
3y
Would that be an option provided to any target schools as incentive?
The GOR is all internal so it shouldn’t impact the media contract if someone doesn’t sign.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
3y
Protect their investment. So there is a connection between the GOR and the media contract
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
E
EDGEMAN
3y
They said if they join a conference before the end of the GOR, it would be the ACC.
Have no idea how much weight that carries, since football has been off the table since they affiliated themselves with the ACC.
(In response to this post by LonghornHokie)
3y
Include their football team, it comes with a much smaller financial buyout. They did make a commitment to not join any conference except the ACC for a period of time. That commitment did not involve giving the ACC a GOR. Therefore, buying themselves out of that commitment would be far less costly.
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 7/28/2023, 10:06:24 AM
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
T
TerryD
3y
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
E
EDGEMAN
3y
(TIC)
(In response to this post by TerryD)
3y
level. Depending on how the NCAA re-org shakes out and what requirements are put in place for each division level, it is possible that the ACC may have to sponsor some more sports if it wishes to continue competing at the highest division level.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
T
Truthahn
3y
The ACCN network should try to get some BC hockey games, IMO. ND plays in the B10, so I guess getting their home games is impossible. But it would be cool if the ND at BC game could get on the ACCN. I think they play each other often.
Also, Arizona State plays NCAA hockey (so does UConn).
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
T
TerryD
3y
ND hockey gets no TV money from the Big Ten, but has a separate deal with NBC Sports (or whatever it is now) for its home hockey games.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
3y
few schools that a club team too. BC competes as a DII club team. While Notre Dame competes as a DIII club team. Penn State and Arizona State are 2 other schools that also have a club team. Penn State and Liberty are one of the few schools that have multiple club teams. One team competes at the DI club level and the other at the DII or DIII club level.
** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 7/28/2023, 11:31:07 AM
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
3y
The only reason a school would join another conference is stability and a better future for their programs. So....sign the GOR and lock it down.
Honestly, if Oregon and Washington come (maybe Utah or Arizona State?), they add to the supermajority needed to break the ACC's GOR if the P2 decide to take it all for themselves.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
3y
To break the GOR.
I'd argue upon dissolution of a non stock corporation or association, the assets go to the last board of directors. They don't disappear.
And here the assignee is espn. Why would dissolution break an assignment when the assignor is a school and not the acc presumably? The assignee still holds the asset.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
3y
Isn't going anywhere this year.
I don't see how the big 10 would want the uncertainty of the GOR and neither would the SEC and I don't think the SEC wants them anyways.
Should be interesting.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
M
Mercury
3y
Except extensive law suits against the ACC and the other members, make big diatribes in the court, make ACC defend (and the question does the ACC settle (no that would create the roadmap for the other members) or waist all the ACC money to fight FSU.
With crazy stuff in other areas of florida, I dont think FSU would be far to try anything. Remember their AD did not come from college athletics, i believe dalasi cowboys management and wild cat texas. I wouldn't be surprised if the governor got involved as a way to help his polls, and say he's the governor I order FSU out, and I order state to refuse o pay..
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
3y
I think FSU knows the pvt schools whom are small bring nothing football wise.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
E
EDGEMAN
3y
Now if F$U was located in a current "non-SEC" state...
My beef with F$U is they sucked when the ACC needed them most during TV negioations, and now that they finally appear to be "back," they're talking about leaving the conference? If they hadn't sucked at the wrong time, we probably would have a better television contract with ESPN. (And yes, VT and Miami also sucked at the wrong time.)
I think the key is to start winning big OOC football games now, so ESPN will finally start paying us the actual value of the ACC.
(In response to this post by MrFantastic!)
M
Mercury
3y
Put them back to earth. Fsu is just another school
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
E
EDGEMAN
3y
If LSU just crushes them, it will probably stop the "we're too good for the ACC" talk.
(In response to this post by Mercury)
FSU is like Britney Spears on Instagram in 2023
They think they are still hot, but that was a long time ago….now people watch hoping to see some minge
Not sure how the last part of the analogy works honestly😂
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
I feel like a lot of FSU's "options" are in their heads.
Sure, they are probably the best of the Left Outs right now.
Sure, they are better than many of the privilieged bottom feeders in the P2.
But that does not entitle them to an invitation.
So do they have a back channel invite? Or are they just projecting what SHOULD be the case?
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
3y
In 2 weeks, either FSU is actually doing something or Chris Nee is up the creek.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
2
2hhoop3
3y
Michael Alford's unwitting dupe or just looking to generate page views to keep his job. FSU with their revenue advantage against most ACC conference members has not gotten it done on the field, in conference, since their last national championship. They need to look at themselves and figure out how they can maybe get it done in conference before seeking a new address. They are somewhat like a barking dog chasing a car at present, even if they catch it, it is questionable whether they would be able to do anything with it based on recent times.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
3y
And now, we get a semi-inside source that FSU is looking to bounce? The very day the PAC 12 gets another defection? This reeks of USC holding up the media deal for the Pac12 that would have held it together a couple years ago, then USC bounced. Maybe FSU doesn't want the ACC expanding to keep the membership as low as possible to help force a GOR breaking exodus through this Mag7+ND majority.
** Edited by hokieZ71 at 7/27/2023, 10:40:57 PM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
E
EDGEMAN
3y
No ACC team is going to break up the conference to join the Big-13.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
2
2hhoop3
3y
FSU has the brains, the balls or the bucks to challenge the GOR on their own. There is a reason for the timing of OU/UT, USC/UCLA and now Colorado, it is a risky, uncertain and likely expensive undertaking. That last part is the opinion of attorney friends who have actually seen the documents. To quote them, you never say never but, there are always strong positions you feel confident in.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
R
RJHokie
3y
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
3y
of you and I wondered if someone might have that response.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
WVU, SMU, UO and UW are an odd combination of schools.
And isn't WVU locked in long-term with the XII? Or maybe the vetting they are referring to happened in the past.
I think if they are going to take UO and UW, which I would love to see, they are going to have to take more schools from the West Coast. I'd like to see Arizona State for one. Utah can come too.
And getting the ACCN into California is essential. Cal, Stanford, SDSU or Fresno? Who ya got?
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
M
Marooned
3y
They would obviously jump at the chance to be a P5 school. How real is this interest on the ACC’s part? The PAC schools are in survival mode; so SMU is definitely on their radar, but less of a cultural fit.
** Edited by Marooned at 7/28/2023, 7:29:18 AM
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
From what I understand, SMU would be more valuable to the ACC than the PAC.
Mainly because the ACC has its own network and can make money off SMU being in a big population state. I don't think it's that simple for the Pac-9. In fact, SMU would much rather join the ACC due to stability.
Even the MWC teams would have to balk at joining the PAC right now. They have a $34m exit fee, and the PAC has no TV contract and the main two teams might be joining the B1G at any moment.
(In response to this post by Marooned)
3y
And based off of population in states where the ACCNetwork will get in state fees, that would make Cal/Stanford, Oregon, UW, AZ, UU, and SMU the most attractive. Those schools could make up a pod where they play 6 games in that pod and 2 against the other ACC schools meaning that the western teams would travel to the east once a season, and the current ACC schools would only play out west every other year.
Also, it opens up a late night window on the ACCNetwork and the ESPN family of networks, and the CW primetime.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
E
EDGEMAN
3y
...function, scheduling wise?
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
3y
Western schools in a pod, the eastern schools with the current 3-5 schedule.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
O
obguthr
3y
PITA for the non-revs, though. The whole notion of a bi-coastal conference hinges on whether ESPN increases the deal and/or changes the term. If they can't or won't sweeten the deal, it won't happen. It's entirely up to ESPN since we are under contract with them. Their only incentive is to keep UOW out of the B1G. They could still get back in the B1G deal if that happens, but at a much higher cost than if UOW (and others) join the ACC.
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
V
VPI_1998
3y
I don't see how it could be long-term - the logistics of travel, scheduling, etc. seem unwieldy and costly. I am still skeptical about USC-UCLA lasting in the B1G. They have the financial resources to sustain it for some time, but will it ultimately benefit those two programs? Time will tell but I don't think these mega "conferences" are going to last in their current from - even if each school gets $90M per year. Joining the B1G hasn't done jack squat for either Nebraska or Maryland, what's it going to do for UCLA other than cost more money for travel, lodging, etc for all of their teams?
(In response to this post by obguthr)
3y
I'd say WVU prob not on the table given their GOR. But all Pacific Coast schools outside LA are on the table.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
E
EDGEMAN
3y
It's geographically in the current footprint, and had rivalries with a couple ACC teams. Next would be another large FL public school, although we already have two FL schools in the conference. Cincy, the permanent (at best) #2 school in Ohio, would have also been a possibility.
SMU and the Pac-9 schools are too far away to make rational sense. Inviting those is a clear sign of desperation.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
3y
UConn could make a great addition in the basketball side of the conference, both mens and womens. their football team could use some polish, but they would probably beat a few teams in the ACC currently.
Also, not sure how many seats they fill for a football game/if they travel well.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
E
EDGEMAN
3y
UCONN would be another BC...at best. Good BB, crappy football, with few fans willing to travel to their games.
(In response to this post by CappyHokie)
3y
Nor do they show requisite potential, IMO. They have a 38,000 seat stadium that they don’t come close to selling out.
From CT Insider:
UConn’s football program…does not sell out a massive stadium, or even its modest one, and instead operates deep in the red year after year. In the 2022 fiscal year (which included the 2021 football season), UConn football generated $4.7 million in revenues while costing $18.4 million in expenses.
No other sport contributes nearly as much to the athletic department’s deficit.
(Me again) 2022 financial statements indicate the athletic department’s largest deficit ever, $53.5 million and it continues to rank among the athletic departments nationally with the largest gap between expenses and revenues. To try and reel in expenses, the university recently cut men’s swimming and diving, men’s cross country, and men’s tennis.
The ACC doesn’t need a sinking ship to help its cause.
(In response to this post by CappyHokie)
3y
There are two lines of thinking here.
1) Media money is getting out of hand and if you want to compete in major athletics at the highest level, you’ll need to be in one of the P2 conferences to afford it.
2) Conference affiliation is getting too bloated, not regional enough and will collapse under its own weight.
My solution caters to both. Expand by inviting a bloc of Pacific schools. A large enough group to dominate the late time slot with enough major media markets to increase revenue for everyone as a whole.
The larger PAC group allows for competitive regionalism in a larger conference. As opposed to the B1G adding two LA schools only, adding 5-6 pacific schools allows for more regional scheduling within a larger group. Like who cares about balanced schedules for swim meets during the year if they all just get together for a tournament at the end of the year to see who is best? Just have some regionalized meets and that’s it. Same applies to golf and tennis and a good deal of Olympic sports.
This allows the ACC to keep up monetarily as best as we can, but also allows for the current regional ACC schools to stay together as long as possible until the bloated mess collapses. So when it collapses we are still in a group with UVA, NC State, UNC, Pitt, Louisville, GT, etc…
Inviting WVU would be great. You’re spot on there. It should have been done 10 years ago instead of Syracuse or 20 years ago instead of BC. It wasn’t. And WVU is locked into the Big XII through GOR until 2030 or so. So they are off the table.
The bigger Pacific coast schools are the only viable option to increase value. And, if Clemson, Oregon, Washington, FSU and ND leave in 6-8 years, THEN the ACC needs to be in a financial position to go add WVU, Cincinnati, UCF, Baylor, TCU, Ok State to be the third ranking conference as opposed to VT, NC State, Pitt etc… having to leave the ACC for the Big XII.
If we can create close to an 8 figure gap in payout between the Big XII and the ACC per school, (we are already a couple million ahead) we can be the league that gets the last remaining remnants of competitive value to be that third “major” conference.
All of these schools are trying to position themselves for the future. And the Big XII and ACC are battling for third as well. At least Brett Yormark is.
** Edited by hokieZ71 at 7/28/2023, 7:59:40 AM
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
3y
in media money at least until 2036, no matter how large the conferences get.
On one hand, some say that no ACC team will ever leave for the B12, and on the other hand, almost all of you would drop Syracuse in a heartbeat.
If you honestly think that WVU will leave the B12 for the ACC, then there are a host of North East schools that could leave for the B12. It's a two way street, and the B12 gets another contract before the BIG, SEC, and ACC.
The mag 7 has spoken. If you are not part of that group, I assure you, you are assessing your options. The uneven distribution that the ACC has come up with, is also a problem. It's a problem because that isn't what many signed up for, like it or not - and could give a challenge to the GOR as it takes money out of the pocket of a good standing school, and could show harm.
If you are BC. Syracuse, Louisville, Duke, WF, Pitt, and even GT, you are looking around at the Mag 7 and might be saying, to hell with those guys. I would be.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
3y
Because it’s better for all involved except basically FSU and Clemson if the ACC stays intact In its current form, for reasons we’ve all discussed ad nauseum.
Regarding an ACC team leaving for the Big XII right now, if they look around and decide to bolt, they are adding expenses and taking less payout. At least for the next 6-8 years. It’s ACC or stepping up to the SEC/B1G right now.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
3y
pay closer attention and think about what reality is telling you. First, uneven revenue sharing is a concept that is rising, not becoming less considered, from playoff revenue on out the people generating the revenue are looking to get more of what they generate. The schools making the investment and competing are tired of subsidizing those riding along. As far as ACC schools looking around, only a few you listed have real options but, the question is whether those options provide a slice of the pie big enough to make it worth consideration. Things are going to get shaky for a while in a lot of different ways. Yormark's initial strategy has produced its first fruit, time will tell whether it turns out to be sweet or bitter. The next action, any action, by the PAC 12 and/or its individual members is likely to be the canary in the coal mine as to how widespread the movement in this next round might be. UC-Boulder is not a significant blow IMO, the next might be.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
uneven distributions are coming, but those will be negotiated when the next contracts are signed. It is then the Universities will/ will not sign on the dotted line. Personally, I agree with merit money, and the schools should keep their postseason money, but that isn't what the conference contracts (including GOR) state. The ACC is attempting to change the rules in the middle of the contract, and that "could" present some problems.
Everyone signed the GOR with their eyes open. Will teams like Ohio State and Alabama get tired of carrying others in their conference? No doubt, but can they make that kind of media money without a conference? Not so sure they can, as even ND is struggling to keep up with.
Colorado is not the game changer that USC was, and it's a blip (for now). College football needs the PAC to survive in my opinion, but are in danger of imploding. I just don't see the networks matching what the BIG is making now for any other University other than ND. There is a point of diminishing returns, and those media contracts are not pay for performance, they are based on what the advertisers will pay for the eyeballs.
Either FBS media contracts have been underpriced all these years, or they paid too much for the BIG media rights. We won't know until the next contract cycle, but the contracts are set for the SEC, BIG, and ACC are set for now. The B12 is the only conference that has language for expansion.
** Edited by Big12 guy at 7/28/2023, 10:49:17 AM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
3y
media contracts have no bearing on revenue distribution. That is a formula determined specifically by the individual conference and its members or the collective conferences and the playoff/tourney governing body. They are subject to change at time and preference of the bodies by designated vote. It has nothing to do with a midstream contract change.
I think you probably better read the fine print, if they ever disclose it, about what the Big 12 agreement language for expansion is. I think you probably over read that and I feel fairly certain that any language the Big 12 has is available to and applicable for the SEC, BIG and ACC. No media company, unless desperate or nuts, will guarantee pro rata expansion, without at least setting parameters around the candidates eligible for those amounts. Again, I urge you to think about the thinks you say to make sure they are logical from a business perspective and within the confines of reality.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
conclusions on what has been reported by the B12, and comments by the athletic directors. Until they release the documents, it's all we got, until they tell us otherwise.
The conference bylaws state the distribution process. If you signed on the dotted line, and the ACC owns the rights, then you signed based on those by laws. By changing the distribution formula, are you not changing the agreement between the members and the conference?
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
3y
but, all it does is make you look foolish, gullible and/or uninformed as in the previous post of yours I responded to. Also somewhat similar to your post I am now responding to.
Have you ever looked at or read a set of organizational bylaws? If not, you might find it informative to do so. Bylaws are generally high level framework documents with guidelines as to operation and governance. Details and more specifics are confined to operating policies and procedures manuals. The distribution process is not stated in conference by laws, it is a transaction process for which the mechanics of determining that process and/or voting to modify that process might be defined but, amounts/details are not actually set. It is a change in agreement amongst conference members but, bears no relation to the change you originally tried to characterize.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)