SI reporting FSU AD hinting Big 10 Move
Sorry, no link available but title is FSU AD Michael Alford Possibly Hints At Big 10 Move During Chicago Boosters Event
Michael Alford told attendees that he could be frequenting the Midwest sooner rather than later.
ESPN also referenced FSU eying a move "potentially" to the Big 10 without mentioning the SEC. Looks like we may have a clearer picture where the pieces may fall after the lawsuit.
115 Replies
2y
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
T
TDVick
2y
is probably THE worst cold weather team ever. You should always bet against them in cold weather. FSU will see a lot of promising seasons get derailed on late season trips to the tundra.
(In response to this post by Tuckahokie)
T
Truthahn
2y
Everyone will be hate watching them, even if they underperform (actually especially if they do).
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
2y
Security find it yourself... Unsanitary locker rooms no problem.
Special consideration or their media team in the press room, forget it.
of course they get no VIP seating in visitors locker room much less visitor tickets
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
S
Stech
2y
in the next couple of months, except of course the Podcasters, who self admittedly know everything. 🤣
(In response to this post by DMV Gobbler)
V
Vippie1
2y
when you split it 18 ways with existing schools on a annual pro-rata basis? Is it worth adding another school in a different region, that for most of the existing schools will just make it even harder to ever compete for conference championships in a number of men's and women's sports? For the Nebraskas, Iowas, Rutgers, Illinois etc is a few more bucks really worth it? I get the networks could force it down their throats but I really doubt there is a lot of support amongst the now 18 members to bring F$U and its mercurial ways inside the tent.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
T
TDVick
2y
appeal of Miami versus Tallahassee. I've been to Orange Bowl games with Iowa in them. In the midwest, the entire state packs up an goes to games in Florida. You can make the same point for most of the more northern B12 teams as well as the B10. There are so many farmers in those state that shut it down for the winter and are dying for something to do, or somewhere warm to go. Kansas State used to bring huge crowds to Tempe. I'm not that big a fan of Hard Rock Stadium, but Miami is exploding and is becoming what New York City used to be. The B12 could give a sweetheart deal to the Canes. I could even see teams staying an extra week and playing a neutral game there.
The drawback to the B10 and B12 is bad climate. Miami is more accessible and desirable than Tallahassee. Miami plus the Arizona locations are excellent portfolio complements for the B12 and I think the B10 is crazy not to go after the Canes. I guess butts in the seats are becoming less of a driver, but everyone who is cold is going fly to Miami for a game.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
2y
Say either the BIG or SEC acquire no other schools. That lets the other acquire any additional property they want to build the #1 conference in CFB. So some of it is about protecting future negotiating power with the networks vs. being immediately additive from a $ perspective.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
P
pine52x
2y
It is now mostly about control and the destruction of other conferences/teams. That in-turn eventually leads to more power and money.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
2y
(In response to this post by pine52x)
W
WarHog38
2y
In the past, a year or so longer ago. When directly questioned, Sankey would say he was pleased with 16 and was only interested in successfully bringing Texas & Oklahoma into the SEC.
However within that last year, I have heard Sankey directly questioned on SEC expansion three times. The first time, Sankey said he would never take new schools just to reach a number. The second time, Sankey said the SEC would never become a life raft for schools needing a place to land. The third time, very recently, Sankey said SEC expansion was something he only ever thought about very late at night.
All these does make Sankey look very reserved & literally uninterested in the expansion topic. However I find Sankey very hard to read. Sankey is expressionless while being wordy but vague, not like either Mike Slive or Roy Kramer.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2y
wish to expand. He further declared that those conferences seeking to expand were simply predators. I think Sankey is quite open about his opinions; he didn't try to withhold his plan to form a P2 playoff if his needs were not met in the current system. I think he truly wants to stay at 16. But he cannot allow The B1G to intrude into the Southeast without first taking some premier programs off the menu.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
Did anyone see the SEC taking Big TX and OK, the two key brands to B12 athletics, months before it was announced?
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
it was leaked - right as TX was voting against expansion and telling the B12 that things were good. It's also why they were caught in the GOR mess. The SEC and TX already had an agreement, but they were not intending to "announce" when the news came out.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
H
HouClone
2y
I would bet he helped push the committee to bypass 8 and go to 12 teams knowing the extra at-large teams would help alleviate any TX and OU concerns of making the playoff in a bloated SEC.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
I believe both have responded to each other
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
S
Stech
2y
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
Pay in full and be gone
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
There was a reason Big TX and OK waited until there was only one year left before they jumped...it was too expensive to go earlier.
(In response to this post by VaTechHokiesACC)
V
VTCALS72
2y
that an immediate completion of the "look in" is completed with say all teams remaining in the ACC except FSU and the per team payout drops by say 5 mil per school. I know, FSU backers say they are worth about 10 mil to the current contract but lets say it is 5 mil. So even leaving out ND and the new 3, that is still 13 schools that directly lose 5 mil per year for say the 2025-2035 seasons.
So 5 mil *13 schools = 65 mill for 11 years = $715,000,000 plus ACC admin fees, etc. Why should that no be the payment FSU should make? That would be full payment for the GOR they signed. After all according to posters all over this board and podcast, FSU will be raking in way more than $65 mil per year with the change in conference and CFP money.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
O
obguthr
2y
Eleven years of value is a lot to give up no matter how it is determined.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
To make anyone who tries to break it pay a lot or maybe pay par value of the GOR?
(In response to this post by obguthr)
2y
there except noise!!
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
2y
SINKS ALL SAVED
(In response to this post by VaTechHokiesACC)
2y
** Edited by Will Stewart at 4/28/2024, 4:36:55 PM
Link:
Whole Lotta nothing here
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
W
WarHog38
2y
That along with big money spent to upgrade research facilities on the Tallahassee campus all point to the B1G. Most of the FSU fan base also wants B1G from my YouTube readings. Just too much bad blood over the last nearly 45 years between FSU & SEC. The SEC never forgets. Just ask Georgia Tech. The Gators also don't want FSU. Florida has more pull than average in the SEC. Right behind the Alabama schools.
I hear Sankey & Petitti have had 5 face to face meetings over the last 3 months. I think they were discussing expansion during all that togetherness. Probably have their expansion plans already laid out. I think the ACC schools through trusted 3rd parties all know as well.
I have also heard a new president at UNC purged everyone of any power at UNC that wanted the B1G. I heard that the UNC board of trustees was toying with the idea of a ACC lawsuit after FSU & Clemson filed. However a political powered Board of Governors in North Carolina ended that lawsuit plan. The BOG represents all the ACC Tobacco Road schools and highly values those ACC conference championship games in many sports that help local city economics. So UNC was stopped and it looks like UNC & NC State may be packaged together as expansion schools. I don't think the B1G wants NC State. Maybe the B1G would want UNC & Duke. I don't know if the SEC would take UNC & NC State? The past would say no. But who knows for the future?
I will not predict Virginia schools futures again here. My objective opinion is confused as callous by a few on here. It is true, I cannot even imagine by viewpoint on all this if the Razorbacks were in the same present situation as the Hokies. I really do believe the North Carolina BOG may have some of this all hanging still undecided to some extent.
As far as these lawsuits flying around. The one from the Florida AG against the ACC is one to note. Those state AG's around this country got us all those NIL rulings. However I think no court will rule on full public disclosure of that ACC GOR as the Florida AG wants. A settlement will probably happen sooner than later that releases FSU & Clemson from the ACC. However I think the rest of the ACC will continue on and may even add new schools as members. However the ESPN TV Contract with the ACC expires on June 30, 2027. ESPN has been able to extend that ESPN TV Deal since 2022. James Phillips put a deadline on ESPN extending that TV deal to February, 2025. ESPN still has not signed that contract extension. I heard a FSU YouTuber say the ACCN had been costing ESPN money every year. That true or not, ESPN reluctant to sign, ESPN will never extend that TV contract when FSU & Clemson leave. No TV deal killed the PAC.
I will only comment here occasionally in the future. I will respond to any opinion a person has to this comment or any future comment I might make. Best wishes to all.
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
S
Stech
2y
and UNC and UVA for basketball. I do think basketball will pay out for at least the Sweet 16 for basketball like football (it’s not like the NBA doesn’t make tons of money), but until the CBS contract expires in 2031, the money is in football. The SEC would be smart to take all 4 at a reduced rate, and then make ridiculous money from all 4 when there is money in basketball. In the meantime, the Tech and State football games against other SEC schools will be off the hook like most if not all SEC games. The state of Virginia with no Pro teams is a college sports state, that is in top 12 in population and top 10 in wealth, and cares most about college sports, it should be a no brainer, but we will see how smart the SEC and ESPN are on this move.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WarHog38
2y
Greg Flugaur talks a lot about contacts and being called on in past by Big Media to come clean about those sources. Flugaur is now claiming his contacts are stating the Big Money Whales at UNC are about ready to let loose with their resources on the North Carolina Board of Governors. Flugaur says more news about that subject in near future. I know one thing. Multi-Billionaires can quickly move political mountains as that NC Board of Governors.
Also, if UNC should manage to file another lawsuit against the ACC. I think that would be the final nail in the coffin. The ACC teams with a P2 option would all be soon out the door.
I know from all I read, I have seen UNC mentioned as SEC bound many times. I have seen some noise recently that UVA may be dead set on the B1G. I think FSU is going to the B1G. One would think Clemson is SEC. However will the SEC take two schools from South Carolina? I sometimes doubt that. I think that just leaves UNC, NC State & Virginia Tech as options for the SEC. Would the SEC just take two of those three or add another school from someplace else to make four? I just do not know. I think the SEC wisely should want a presence in both North Carolina & Virginia. Not sure about Sankey on nothing. I could read Kramer & Slive on expansion. But not Sankey. Cannot see Sankey taking any ACC schools by what he has said publicly in the past. All those reported meetings between Petitti & Sankey looks like getting too cozy for me.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
as both North Carolina and Virginia. I also have heard Florida, Georgia, Kentucky and even Tennessee don’t want them(unlike Texas where A&M was the only school that didn’t want them). I am hearing the B1G wants them. Those 4 schools at least and ESPN want new larger states in the South, with an eye towards expanding the NCAA basketball tournament to about 96, using the early rounds to fund Olympic sports, but the Sweet 16 paid out like the football playoff (that eventually goes to 16 too). Another thing, expansion usually goes a couple of schools at a time, so if you’re left out this round, it doesn’t mean you are left out forever (first UCLA & USC, then Oregon & Washington etc) The basketball contract with CBS is not up until 2031, but since both the SEC and B1G want UNC (mainly for basketball) they may go earlier because of somewhat of a bidding war.
** Edited by Stech at 5/3/2024, 9:05:47 AM
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
I
INSIDE99
2y
That's the SI link? hahahaha
At least they have a SI Swimsuit link where you can find pics of Martha Stewart and Angel Reese ;)
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
I'm not sure what constitutes tampering, but the B1G seem like it is doing
so in the FSU situation, as well having done it in the USC one.
Greg Flugaur often repeats the disclaimer that in expansion, the schools call the conference FIRST. Did USC call the B1G first? Did FSU? FSU sure feels like they are a lock to go to the B1G. How's that?
Flugs also said that UNC and UVa turned down the B1G in 2012. If this is the case, then why would UNC and UVa bother "contacting the B1G first," just to turn them down in the end? Both can't likely be true. (I heard him say at least 4 times that UVa turned down the B1G, and the other day, he mentioned BOTH UVa and UNC as having turned down the B1G).
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
2y
USC was extended an invitation to join the B1G when their grant of rights with the PAC12 expired, so the B1G did not tamper with USC's contract with the PAC12 as that expires this summer and USC joins the B1G right after. Much like the ACC and BigXII did not tamper with the schools joining this summer since their contracts with the PAC12 expire.
Much like UT and OU, when they announced they were leaving the Big XII it was for after the 24-25 school year, when the Big XII's GOR was scheduled to expire, but they negotiated with the Big XII an earlier departure likely to the Big XII wanting to make sure the new schools were under the new and longer GOR.
As for FSU, they can talk to the B1G and SEC all they want about joining those conferences after June 2037, and those conferences can talk to them about joining then. The tampering comes if either the B1G or SEC starts talking about FSU becoming a member before that date.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
to whoever they want. There are penalties for leaving early, etc., but that doesn't mean they can't have any discussions.
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
2y
Not sure if they want to open themselves up to paying damages to the ACC for tortious interference.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
2
2hhoop3
2y
than a few conversations between peer institutions to generate a tortious interference claim. I imagine both the B1G and SEC are well acquainted with where the line might be and that is even before throwing the networks in the mix.
This entire mess gets more convoluted with each subsequent twist. The Super Conference, and more specifically it's architects, are the latest proof of crazy. Anybody want to bet on Gordon Gee doing anything aside from protecting his sniveling, bowtie wearing behind?
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 4/29/2024, 12:44:57 PM
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
2y
buddy-buddy talk with a casual, "so are you guys happy where you are?"
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
H
HOO86
2y
The Big Ten approached UVA when they approached Maryland. It wasn't Jim Delany, but a couple of their schools that approached. Craig Littlepage didn't want that. Teresa Sullivan was fighting for her job, so she wasn't thinking about atletics much at that time.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
But settled for Maryland and Rutgers.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
2
2hhoop3
2y
for Maryland and Rutgers. The TV sets in DMV and New Jersey/NY Metro dwarf Virginia and NC. They may have wanted UNC and UVA in addition as nothing would have given Delany greater join than to torpedo his rival Swofford and the ACC as an added addition.
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
2
2hhoop3
2y
the article or the case? Title might appropriately be applied to both.
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
H
Hokie 04
2y
when looking to join a conference. They had their SEC opportunity, but Bowden pointed out, correctly, that he'd win more games and have easier access to a championship in the ACC.
It's only when the money caught up with reality (the ACC being vastly inferior) that FSU had buyer's remorse.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
W
WarHog38
2y
I remember reading a long article long ago on the sport's pages of a statewide Arkansas newspaper. It was a long several pages diatribe analyzing how lousy Florida football had been for decades. With the Gators stinking in the SEC and FSU being a worthless independent in college football. The article delved into fertile Florida recruiting and noted a lack of seriousness by the Gators & FSU to develop good college football programs.
That is the FSU past before the ACC & Bobby Bowden.The FSU all time record against the SEC is 72-71-6. Arkansas has a 75-77-1 record in the SEC from 1992-2011. Arkansas had 4 or 5 real good years in that 20 year period with 3 trips to the SEC Championship Game. Arkansas lost all three. Anyway this all shows a history of mediocrity for both FSU & Arkansas with the SEC.
Why would the future be much different for FSU? Arkansas was just about as good in the SWC as FSU has been in the ACC. One could argue that Arkansas never had a lapse of being bad post 1960 in the SWC like FSU was bad recently for nearly a decade before Norvell. The ACC made FSU just like the SWC made Arkansas.
(In response to this post by Hokie 04)
I
INSIDE99
2y
Outside of Clemson and FSU, no one else is capable of competing at the highest level. Hence the problem.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
I
INSIDE99
2y
Mostly sarcasm related to posters claiming FSU made their success because the ACC is bad football. Is it or isn't it?
(In response to this post by HOKIEGOBBLE)
2y
The leadership in the old ACC, felt, let FSU play football, and we get the pub, without doing anything to improve football. FSU gets easy access. I always felt, that FSU was not a good pick for the ACC, they had absolutely no love for the conference but easy path to bowl games....You dont build a relationship based on the initial use.....
Then it goes back to 1989, VT and frankly WVU would have been much better regional fits. At that time....Those decisions is as bad as when the Big East initially for basketball and Penn State was in the Atlantic 10 and they voted down PSU and that turned PSU head to the Big 10. Would have been extremely different.
(In response to this post by Hokie 04)
2y
The ACC had the highest payouts back when FSU joined the ACC, and continued to do so for the next 10-15 years. Back then the conference TV rights were all basketball, not football, and when those rights went the football route, the $$$ going to schools actually dropped from what they got from the CFA because the conferences all cannibalized each other in order to get on TV. Roughly 2010 is when the B1G and SEC started to earn more than the ACC.
(In response to this post by Hokie 04)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
"Why did the chicken cross the road? To join the ACC."
Yeah, F$U ran away from the highest level of competition to be "Snow White and the Seven dwarfs" in the ACC...lol
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
I
INSIDE99
2y
Most fans of ACC schools acknowledge to some degree that the officials in Charlotte (starting with Swofford) have mismanaged the league. Taking lesser pay outs (like the new CFP contract), nepotism getting Swofford's son Chad to make out on the Raycom deals, lack of a voice in the sports world, etc. Everything is based on North Carolina - they don't care past those borders. The ACC just announced all the future championship game locations and every single one of them is in NC. Talk about nepotism (see link).
Signing a deal with ESPN through 2036 with no ability for the payout to be renegotiated based on market growth was a bad investment. Which is the main reason the P2 is going to be making almost double or triple that money by 2036.
There was a time when ACC basketball was king. Not anymore. It was actually awesome to see the ACC place three teams into this year's Elite Eight to prove naysayers wrong. Because no one saw that coming when the brackets were set - the ACC has been looked down upon from the people who measure hoops grades on a yearly basis now. Only four ACC teams made the dance and it took a ton of bickering to get UVA in. The ACC almost had three teams in the dance...HORRIBLE!
When football Selection Sunday happened this season, you could see Greg Sankey on every sports network back campaigning along side Nick Saban as to why the SEC deserved a playoff spot. Phillips was no where to be found. Not a peep. It was the final straw for FSU and I can't blame them one bit.
Very poor management and marketing by Phillips & Company.
** Edited by INSIDE99 at 4/28/2024, 12:49:09 AM
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
2y
It is literally right in the middle of the conference footprint, so most of the teams can take buses/vans to the championships instead of flying. Also, it makes it easier for fans of the Hokies, Hoos, Tigers, and Jackets to make it to the championships, as well as fans of the 4 NC teams.
I would also venture to guess that the ACC got a nice subsidy from the state of NC to hold the championships there that will more than offset any costs for conducting the championship tournaments.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
H
HOO86
2y
Direct flights to San Francisco and Dallas. Plus also direct flights to Syracuse, Louisville , Pittsburgh, Boston, and Miami. Greensboro and Raleigh easy drive from Charlotte. Or connecting flights to both of those.
** Edited by HOO86 at 4/28/2024, 8:37:56 PM
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
2y
Direct to Syracuse, Dallas, Miami, San Fran, Pitt, Boston, Miami, Chicago, and Atlanta.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
T
TDVick
2y
cancellation clause? It's hard to believe that they didn't. However the news reports of the leaked contract from the FL hearings that it seemed to be a big surprise. That's what I'd like to see reconciled. If it was hidden in some non-disclosed part of the contract, then FSU was completely justified to react the way they did.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
V
VTCALS72
2y
especially long term contracts. I don't think the characterization of "cancellation" is what anyone thought it was or that there was any way the idea of ESPN walking away was no more likely than the ACC walking away. Do we know whether this look in is for both the ACC and ESPN?
Again just a guess but ESPN may have wanted this as a time to bail on the ACCN part of the contract rather than pouring more money in it. That would make sense on pushing the look in back as the ACCN was late launching so the ACCN had not had time to stabilize back when the look in was supposed to happen.
I do not believe there was any real warning, "we want this so we can walk away if you aren't making us enough $$$$."
Then again, no one had any idea the lay of the land in 2024 would be so different.
(In response to this post by TDVick)
T
TDVick
2y
be. But I've seen some podcasters over the past few years mention that ESPN overpaid for some of its contracts - probably the ACC. The reason is that you can't cram college football into a bundled service like you used to, because consumers are cherry-picking from an unbundled menu. Their logic seems to make sense to me.
If that is the case, then why are so many parties acting surprised about the clause?
If the ACC contract is a dog for ESPN, you can see why they would want to skim FSU, UNC and Clemson and dump the rest. The problem is that the UNC situation has gotten political. If FSU and Clemson jump the SEC then it would be a net positive for ESPN. However, FSU is irate at ESPN and won't go to the SEC. There are probably quite a few SEC schools that don't want Clemson.
If you narrative is correct, which it well could be, then the parties left in the ACC don't seem to be making sense by adding SMU, Stanford and Cal. Straight up, I like the additions, but they won't vote to dissolve if VT gets an invite somewhere, so we were better off not adding them. Maybe the ACC remnants could pirate OKST and Arizona from the B12, if no one besides FSU and Clemson bail. We just seem to keep reacting and waffling with our approach.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2
2hhoop3
2y
the podcasters and others reconcile the previous reports that the ACCN generates in excess of $150MM cash flow on an annual basis for ESPN to the contention they overpaid? Also, if ESPN currently has BOTH Clemson and FSU for $40MM apiece in round numbers how does a jump, either to the SEC or B1G create a net positive for ESPN? I do not think people have fully considered the financial implications to ALL parties, including the networks. Up until the current contracts adding schools was generally considered a net positive, however, when getting in to the $70MM and above range the schools that are accretive shrink rapidly and at some point ND is likely the only target that MIGHT satisfy that metric. Just my opinion but, realignment is likely entering a new phase focusing more on power than money. Money is still important but, controlling and having the ability for power and influence is likely moving closer to a top of mind consideration.
(In response to this post by TDVick)
T
TDVick
2y
expert, but here is the link to the Clay Travis article
https://www.outkick.com/analysis/espn-vs-charter-could-be...
1. Cable trends: It seems bearish regarding cable revenue and seems to make some sense. Will streaming fill the void and be an even bigger source of payments? Maybe. But legacy cable seems a bit shaky. Perhaps some streaming buyers will be rabid college football fans who will pay more, but on the margin a lot of less rabid buyers can opt out of the bundle that couldn't before.
2. Opportunity cost: To your point about the ACC being profitable, the point is that the SEC and B10 are even MORE profitable even with their higher payouts. If not, why is everyone trying to get in those spots and that's what matters. If you have a lemonade stand that is profitable, you should still switch to an orange juice stand if it makes an even greater profit.
My rebuttal is that whatever number you think the ACC makes, you need to find out what the SEC makes and that is the relevant comparison metric. You could say that I'm making a circular argument, but it sure seems that right now, anyone who is not in the SEC or B10 would kill to get in. It looks like on a purely financial basis, Notre Dame is making less, but just has a strong preference for staying private. Schools seem to be acting like what I suggest is true.
Is everyone just being scared into the arms of the SEC and B10 for not that much more money? Maybe, but no one is really saying that point. Is that what you mean? It seems very likely that FSU marginal profit will be higher when plugged into a non-ACC platform.
The industry question seems to be whether the ease of access to streaming will offset the opt-outs from the old bundle. Whether that ACC can close the gap with the B10/SEC will determine whether teams defect.
Maybe its just that Disney sucks on execution of streaming and the other guys like Netflix will pick up that slack, but for now, it is a bad data point.
** Edited by TDVick at 4/29/2024, 4:43:12 PM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
I
INSIDE99
2y
Thank you. That is a great reading link.
Outside of what this article means regarding conference realignment, what I take from the read is that streaming subscriptions actually don't make sizeable money for the big networks. The simple reason (as Clay Travis explains) is that cable and satellite bundles charge upwards of $10 per month from each subscriber for just the ESPN package. Something you won't see broken down on your cable bill. Your grandmother or aunt, who never watches sports, pays for it. Which is a huge issue with bundles.
In the subscription world, the money isn't there because that grandmother and aunt are not paying $10 a month anymore for the ESPN package that is hidden in their bundle bill. The subscriber base gets cut in half which then forces ESPN to charge $80 per month to less subscribers to keep up with profits so they can obtain all these expensive sports rights. The guy you rarely hear about making $50 million per year in the NBA gets such from TV rights. It drives the industry.
This is a great article people should read if you watch TV frequently. It's not just about sports.
But the ESPN giant is getting chopped down hard. Subscription streaming is not lucrative. Broadband providers are the mega giants now.
(In response to this post by TDVick)
2
2hhoop3
2y
if the question actually asked was why schools want to move from the ACC to the SEC or B1G but that wasn't the question asked. You were asked two specific questions. One based on how you assert that ESPN overpaid if the ACCN contributes $150MM a year to ESPN and the other how ESPN is better off paying more for something they already get at a lower price. I don't think your answers address either one.
(In response to this post by TDVick)
T
TDVick
2y
get good time slots anymore. You pointed out that these games are profitable. Well, why aren't they getting good slots? My point is the same for this specific situation. ESPN is paying more for SEC games now? Yes. They are. To quote you, " how is ESPN is better off paying more for something they already get at a lower price."
Well, yes it is better to get the SAME THING or a COMPARABLE THING at a lower price, but clearly the SEC is a superior product overall. Even though ESPN pays MORE, they still make MORE profit off those games, otherwise they would be shoe-horning the ACC games into that slot. So basically, it goes back to my lemonade stand analogy with a few more complexities. The ACC is watered-down lemonade, whereas the SEC is non-watered down lemonade with fine whiskey poured in it.
Maybe there is some legacy issue where people prefer certain time slots and more people have access to ESPN rather than ESPN2 or other streamers. In which case, you're making a preferred "shelf space argument." You still put your best product on the best shelf, so even if the SEC games cost more, they more than make up for it.
It looks pretty obvious to me that SEC certainly cost more. That I agree with, but they also more than cover the cost and bring in a higher net profit than the ACC games. Or else there is no way that ESPN would be stupid enough to not show the ACC games. Sorry, but the SEC has 5 or 6 marquee teams that are more desired than a big ACC game. About the only ACC game that could possibly match up is when FSU and Clemson are both good - like last year. Clemson was still relevant.
The one positive that might eventually work for the ACC is if streamers get involved, then the inertia of being on ESPN might dissipate. Look at how crappy and difficult it is or was to find the ACC network "spurtle" games. I doubt that would happen with Apple or Netflix and having Stanford and Cal involved couldn't hurt.
Hope that makes sense. That is how I look at it.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
driven by viewership and nobody disputes the SEC is being paid more. The key is how much the broadcasts generate in revenue and how much they pay the SEC which yields the net. Because they pay the ACC less, without knowing what they make on the ACC slots you do not know the actual net. Your next question is if they make good money on the ACC why the favoritism to the SEC and you already answered your own question, they much more need the SEC inventory for the expensive time slots because people everywhere will watch Alabama/Auburn, Georgia/Florida, LSU/A&M, etc. before they think about turning in to FSU/Clemson or any of the other ACC undercarriage. The reality is that at present the only reason the SEC wants any other schools would be to keep the BIG out of the south. On the other hand, the BIG's expansion slate is marginal and they need some other teams to strengthen the slate with the possible added benefit of a southern presence. It is questionable whether the current version of FSU brings that or if the continuing to decline version of Clemson would bring that to either of the P2. There really are not any not already in the P2 that bring that competitive level and the ND interest has much more to do with their national profile versus their competitive profile.
(In response to this post by TDVick)
V
VTCALS72
2y
getting beat all over the field.
1- "some" mismanagement, but nowhere near the level this post suggest. again unless the "standard" is to continually pull rabbits out of a hat.
2- Raycom and the ACC had a long and successful relationship. Maybe that had more to do with it than Swoffard's son.
3- All Carolina Conference? absolutely agree with this one.
4- I think this one way overstates what the ACC had to "sell" and Clemson was it. Sure over time FSU was going to come back and people have assigned "backness" to Miami over and over but arguably FSU, Clemson, Miami and VT have been the biggest brands and only Clemson was a selling point for the ACC at that time. So the "way undervalued" point is really questionable.
5- Everybody, and I mean everybody in the ACC was all in on getting the ACC network and being willing to go a long way (long term contract) to get it. It may not have worked out as well as we all hoped but everybody was all in. Heck, FSU and everybody else signed the long term GOR to get the network. Not sure how that can be laid at the conference office feet. That was more the membership giving direction to the conference.
So most of your complaints are, IMHO outside of "reasonable performance." The Carolina ruled" is spot on and I kind of agree with Phillips not being as out front as many would like.
But the bottom line, this is way less about the ACC performance and way more that FSU has milked the ACC when it benefitted them and now wants to break a contract they willfully and with full knowledge of consequences signed, for the benefit of a couple and the expense of most. FSU owes BC, Cuse, Wake etc. as equal partners to a contract. Getting out of that is what the FSU suit is all about. Most of the stuff is out of context and partial truths throwing stuff up against the wall to see what sticks.
And one more thing. It is not reasonable to act like not keeping up with the Power 2 is a reason to release the GOR. The PAC is gone and the XII is fully emasculated. So ACC management is in the middle at worst.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
I
INSIDE99
2y
FSU joined the ACC as a football playing member in 1992, which at the time the conference payout was about 40% more per year than any other SEC school. The ACC payout in 1995 was $5.6 million. The top SEC school was just under $4 million.
In 2001, the ACC payout was $9.5 million while the top SEC school (Kentucky) was just over $7 million. Until around 2002, the ACC payout was the most lucrative of all college conferences. Then Swofford took over and here we are.
So if you are asking why a school like FSU would choose the ACC over the SEC the answer is in greed as always. Why someone would sign a GOR with extensions is based on past performance. There was trust initially between the ACC and FSU. But FSU was short sighted and they should have to pay a solid fee to get themselves out of a bad deal. On the flip side, the ACC has been mismanaged - where it went from one of the most lucrative conferences to now being almost double behind the SEC and B1G. Stuff happens, things change. Extending a media contract 20+ years in advance to 2036 for the same media payout was bad strategy for everyone since markets fluctuate.
Realignment is based on money everywhere - Capt Obvious. The money game changed drastically when NIL took root unregulated. Paying top players, getting them to transfer all while continuing to fund new facilities is a new world order, which is why PE is inevitable to fund both.
** Edited by INSIDE99 at 4/29/2024, 3:34:40 PM
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
kept pace wrt member payout is all about ACC mismanagement. the PAC couldn't, the XII couldnt. You are making an apples to oranges comparison.
The reason is so simple, big media chose the Big and SEC to be their national conferences and to assemble as many national name teams together as possible within those conferences.
the ACC management, whether bad, average or above average, did not have a chance in that fight.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
I
INSIDE99
2y
Absolutely. Networks control realignment, the playoffs, etc.
That is why the ACC realignment will have little to do with court cases and GoR when it comes to networks settling these deals. If ESPN and FOX want Clemson and FSU somewhere else, there is not much the ACC can do about it.
That is why ESPN did not extend the ACC contract past 2027 years ago. It's why they have look-in clauses to protect their interests.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
And it will exact a big price from any team leaving the ACC unless big media will "place" a majority in the P2 to get a vote to dissolve. But, again that points to the ACC doing a better job managing things than either the XII or PAC.
As for extending the contract, does any fan really know what are "extensions" and what are just check ins? There is a reason the GOR goes to 2035/36. To me that says yes ESPN has and has had a couple of look ins but there was at least an intent by ESPN for this to run through 2035/36.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
2y
intentions without considering the possibility that the winds could shift between now and when the "Agreement" expires. In some ways the "Agreement" appears to be structured similar to a base plus option periods contract. I say that because if it was truly ESPN's intention to have the "Agreement" end in 2036, then it could have been structured in such a way that the end period of performance (POP) would have been June 30, 2036 with specific dates identified when the value of the "Agreement" could be changed. Since the current end POP is June 30, 2027, it does suggest that ESPN may not be as committed to the ACC and/or the ACCN as the picture the ACC tried to paint towards everyone.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2
2hhoop3
2y
Just ignore the little Nole troll.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
FSU is always talking...
FSU leadership kind of reminds me of the loudmouth drunk aunt or uncle at a family gathering.
I know most are saying FSU will end up in the Big 10 but I still think ESPN will give them a better offer to join the SEC. The Big 10 will have to give FSU a full revenue share on day one. ESPN will likely want to keep the Big 10/Fox out of SEC territory. I feel like Miami has a better chance of landing in the Big 10. Big 10 fans will flock to Miami much faster than they will to Tallahassee. "If" Texas A&M leaves the SEC for the Big 10, the SEC will probably add FSU. Once the Big 10 seeks to add Clemson, the SEC will add Clemson and UNC since ESPN knows the Big 10 will never add NC State. The Power 2 money will easily have UNC forget about their century+ long rivalry with UVA. The SEC will be very content on their 18 members at that point. The Big 10 will need to add one more school and they'll go with the U (like I said, a great vacation spot for all those cold climate Big 10 schools plus the SEC doesn't consider Miami to be in the Southeast - more like North Cuba). The ACC survives but falls to #4 in D-1 college football pecking order. The ACC wil add USF, UConn, Tulane and some other unlucky G-5 school. All the ACCN personalities with FSU, Clemson and UNC connections will be transferred to the SECN. That pretty much just leaves Eddie Royal and Mr. Personality Jim Boeheim at the ACCN. ;)
** Edited by Old Line Hokie at 4/27/2024, 5:51:21 PM
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
2y
don't think the conferences would merge - but combining forces on the network could pencil out for more money for the ACC schools. (if it doesn't pencil out, scratch this as another click bait idea).
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
V
VTCALS72
2y
I do believe the XII, PAC and ACC will have to produce there own content with big media buying what games they want for the secondary markets they have.
The ACCN and Private Equity kind of push the needle towards a 3 division league or conferences under one umbrella commissioner.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
can compete in my opinion, but the current set up clearly puts them at a disadvantage moving forward. The P2 played their cards, and it went beyond negotiating better media contracts.
The guaranteed money in the post season sealed their intentions - and it is there that rest of college football not in the P2 is relegated. Even if a G5 team does the impossible, and wins the National Championship consistently, they will receive not a penny more than what has already been established.
Say VT wins 3 national championships in a row, the ACC receives not one penny more than what has already been awarded them. The look in is there because of possible realignment, not because of play on the field in the future. The playoffs could have been the unlikely equalizer, but it's a monopoly of the revenue that the P2 wants - not a competition.
A lot of people on this board think that VT has to have one of those seasons to be in a position to be included in the P2. It's my contention, that those decisions have already been made - we just don't know the outcome.
If the P2 break away, it's a different discussion, but if anyone thinks that the top schools will take a pay cut, or even out the playing field, I'm afraid they are mistaken.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
that there already is a short list for the P2 and no one not on that list is getting on it. I do not believe the final "cuts have been made yet because the Big and SEC have not yet gathered all of the "hidden" information and until they do, they are not ready to sit down and split up the list. As an example, lets take VT and NCSU.
To the fairly ignorant national podcast listener, neither are a real national brand so cast them on the discard heap. But when one looks deeper into things that the average college football fans would never contemplate, things can look a bit different. It is my opinion that the SEC, and only the SEC can garner more return out of the DMV/VA/NC with VT, NCSU and Clemson than by adding UVA and UNC.
One reason for VT is that we are the football program in the state of VA and especially strong in NOVA/DC/. When one stops and looks at the strengths, alums, actual students and employees working and studying at the NOVA campuses and their projected growth, it dwarfs MD and UVA. Bear in mind that nearly half of the DMV population is made up of Virginians and Virginia has something like 2/3rd of the land for growth and development, VT's presence is about to take off like a rocket.
As for NCSU, the reality is that while UNC is THE national brand, it is less of a local/regional brand. With Duke and NCSU close by, probably half or more can't stand UNC athletically.
Those are things the SEC can take and grow with.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
I
INSIDE99
2y
Much of what you say makes great sense. I agree.
The one aspect that has always befuddled me is that DMV market in regards to college football. I'll even expand that into Baltimore.
The Terps have a stadium that seats just 51,000. There are an ungodly amount of Maryland grads living in DMV and for a lifetime of existence they fail to half fill that stadium with any consistency. I was a Terp season ticket holder for years. Nobody in DMV cares about college football (basketball is another story) from a fan standpoint. It's horribly askew. Rich folks driving a BMW that pull up at kickoff in prime parking Lot #1 and leave before the third quarter is over.
The same seemed to have happened to the ACC when they are now finding out that the Boston market (BC) and the New York market (Syracuse), despite have large numbers of population and grads, do not offer anything in the way of TV revenue for college football. Which was the prime reason those were accepted into the ACC to begin with. Pro sports yes, much like DC/Baltimore.
The old adage that population markets affect TV media payouts are antiquated to some degree. I think ESPN sees this. The biggest draws in college football come from towns like State College, Tuscaloosa, Baton Rouge, etc. The big city schools not so much outside of LA and Seattle. All one has to do is look at the empty aqua colored seats at a Miami game.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
I wonder how many cars travel down 81 from NOVA on home game Saturdays?
Beyond that I agree that the "Boston Market" proved that to us. One other thing though, the ACC thought that bringing national name teams like FSU and Miami in football and UNC/Duke in BBall would grow ACC love in Boston. But not only were the pro teams a detriment to that, so was the fact a southern based conference with southern based teams just didn't match up with the New England culture. I would go so far as to say that FSU and Clemson in the Big would suffer some of that being out of their cultural regions and not being in the sweetheart conference that their home area loves.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
Not a surprise. But interesting that they are now making public statements.
IMO, FSU has ESPN and the ACC by the balls. Not saying that they for sure will win in court, but they are doing enough stuff to make ESPN's life miserable. ESPN/SEC/CFP might regret snubbing them from the CFP. That gave FSU the high ground to go for it NOW rather than later. ESPN is going to lose FSU to FOX and the SEC is going to have the B1G in their backyard.
I've sensed for several years now that FSU wanted to go to the B1G more so than the SEC. And particularly after the B1G went the whole way to the West Coast to take schools, I knew the Southeast was next. I think the B1G should make a play for Clemson at the same time. And if THAT happens, I think the SEC might regret taking Texas, which started all this Super Conference expansionpalooza.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
2
2hhoop3
2y
noise and public statements since February 2023 and even before in private. The nature and volume of their statements have increased as their desperation has increased. If the ex-Clemson QB does not work out their desperation will only escalate further.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
FSU *****ed about being snubbed in the Playoffs....
(which I agree with them at most points) but then they play another team that was pretty much #1 all season before losing to Alabama in the $ECFBCG that had as much right to ***** about being left out. Instead of proving that they belonged, FSU loses to Georgia by 60 points. That game proved that UGA was the school that was truly snubbed.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2y
anything given that players have the ability to opt out of playing in these games. I take that back because it did prove 1 thing. It is time for the schools to eliminate bowl games from the DI-FBS postseason and replace it with something else. The reality is that bowl games started to lose their value during the BCA Era. Now they are essentially on their death bed waiting for the final thread to be cut because the schools either cannot think of or agree to something else to replace it.
It is abundantly clear that the FBS Playoffs is the only postseason event that matters now. If expanding the FBS Playoffs so a lot more teams can participate isn't an option, then maybe it is time for college football to borrow a page from European pro soccer and create multiple tournaments. The tournaments could even be tiered the same way so the champion of the tournament receives an automatic bid next season to the next highest tournament or the highest tournament if a team wins the previous year. Naturally a team could still play its way into a higher tier tournament to give everyone an incentive during the regular season. If a team plays its way into a higher tier tournament, then their spot could go to another conference member. Heck enough tournaments could be created so every FBS team can participate since the practice time in December seems to be what teams value the most. If nothing else it would give the games meaning which no longer exists for the non-FBS Playoff games.
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
I
INSIDE99
2y
played in the Orange Bowl against Georgia among other starters and back ups. Not sure if the average fan grasps the insanity of that statistic. The players told the NCAA to stick it. Can't blame them really.
Opening the transfer portal up on Dec 4 just as bowl season kicks off is a horrific decision. The bowl games have become glorified spring games. Their demise is imminent.
The ACC administration has already admitted and accepted their Tier 2 status when their undefeated champion was left out without a peep from Phillips. It was further ratified at the signing of the new CFP agreement for far less money. Then people complain because they cannot understand why FSU/Clemson want to get out in order to compete financially against their SEC rivals on an equal ground. The difference is FSU/Clemson strive consistently to play for a national title.
The look on ACC faces after the Dec 3 snub as if it wasn't going to affect any of them...
** Edited by INSIDE99 at 4/27/2024, 8:01:37 PM
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
Imagine if one of those FSU draft picks would have blown out his knee or
worse just "proving the CFP Committee wrong."
It's a fool's errand when the CFP decision wasn't from just getting it wrong, but was totally fixed from the start.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
2
2hhoop3
2y
10 draft picks they might have kept their margin of defeat below 60.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
I give next to zero attention to the Orange Bowl game. The "consolation"
bowls have no meaning and a bunch of players were right to opt out of it. If I was Norville, I would have treated it like a spring game. Which, without saying it, he kinda did.
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
That is the problem.
FSU didn't give a damn about a bowl game. Why didn't UGA just say "F#ck It!" too? I would've bet some money that UGA would've beaten Bama in a rematch and beaten Texas, Washington or/and Michigan. UGA was snubbed too. FSU had a chance to show the Playoff Committee that they made a mistake but instead they quit and played so poorly that VMI could've beaten them that day at the Orange Bowl.
Yes, FSU got screwed but that is a life lesson. We all get screwed, some of us more than others. Everything in life can't always go your way. FSU quit and looked like crybabies. I was embarrassed to have them in the ACC that day. Ever since that effortless performance, I am all for FSU leaving the ACC and taking with them their arrogance.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
Of the starting 22 players and backups normally for FSU, several were hurt, a bunch of backups went into transfer portal before game, and a bunch of stars prioritized their health and long term NFL career over a meaningless exhibition game. Even the NCAA calls the bowls as bonus games that happen after a season concludes (with the conference championships).
FSU had a bunch of young undersized players playing for the first time against a seasoned UGA team. I have no clue why the UGA players didn’t have as many opt out. But they had some as well. Quitting would have been to not play the game at all, like some schools do for basketball NIT.
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
Perhaps ESPN and SEC put pressure on UGa to go all out to beat FSU to
save face for the FSU CFP snub and to defend the machine.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2
2hhoop3
2y
in culture of a championship program versus a whiny little ***** looking for yet another handout. FSU was a competitive program at one point in their history, anybody anywhere, now they're soft, looking for the money and the easy way out.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
Welp. It was a once in lifetime thing that will never happen again.
First time an undefeated P5 got left out. And obviously, with the CFP going to 12, it won't happen again.
And congrats to UGa for showing up. But they are also in a well heeled conference that is in bed with ESPN.
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
2
2hhoop3
2y
they had an argument about being snubbed. However, they confirmed the nature and culture of their program by the way they responded, IMO. I do not wish the kids any bad luck over this realignment mess, however, I have zero respect for the FSU administration and Trustees for the manner in which they handled things.
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
2y
football, the SEC will regret inviting Texas.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
That...and what if A&M decides to bolt for the B1G? Double trouble.
B1G in CA, FL and CA with top brands? Game changer.
If FSU and Clemson are the only B1G brands in the South, their recruiting will be through the roof. And a big problem for SEC elites.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 4/27/2024, 5:32:50 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
T
tcc_dc
2y
behind the SEC.
Michigan can thank god every day that Georgia had a bad day against Alabama or the SEC would have won the title again.
Southern kids to do not want to go North to play....you go to a game a Michigan it is a morgue. Yeah, 100k plus but no life.
More atmosphere at a Miss St Bulldogs game...
And the best athletes are still in the SEC...and will remain so...so the best will always want to play against the best.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
Weather, current competition and game-day atmospheres certainly are
important, I grant you. And in the end, this might win out vs. the B1G's advantages.
But if the B1G is national, plus is bringing in more money...this might change things. I also don't think that the B1G is drastically behind the SEC in terms of on-the-field product right now.
(In response to this post by tcc_dc)
2y
hate to see the BIG benefit, but do you think the BIG would have imploded the PAC if Texas was still in the B12? I don't think so.
Out here in flyover, no one is sad to see Texas leave the conference.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
M
Marooned
2y
Hard to justify that relative to their other recent acquisitions and F$U’s competition in the Florida media markets. I know that F$U also made strides academically since joining the ACC; but wouldn’t they be something of an anchor to the B1G’s academic reputation?
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
D
dayooper
2y
Their ranking of 53 would be 12th on USNWR between Maryland and Minnesota (that’s where Virginia Tech would fall as well)
The TimesHigherEducation ranking had them 13th in the new Big10 so not the highest, but still pretty low.
(In response to this post by Marooned)
V
VPI_1998
2y
have been trying to keep up that appearance for a while, but this super-conference expansion has really shown that it doesn't really matter as much as it used to. Nebraska to B1G was one of the earliest examples, UL to ACC another. Now it's completely out the window as everyone scrambles.
(In response to this post by dayooper)
2y
Chance competing in that conference. At the same time is is quite a blow to ESPN. As such I expect them to collaborate with the ACC to make the departure as painful as possible for FSU.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
V
VTCALS72
2y
the SEC and maybe are in fact losing ground in the state to the SEC? I simply cannot see Florida football fans going against UF and the SEC.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
S
Stech
2y
They did the exact opposite, I think this is about cutting cost in a market they already have and dominate with Florida and the surrounding schools.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
VT having to play three straight in Tallywhacker is just whacked!
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
V
VPI_1998
2y
SEC. And I still think SEC doesn't really want Clemson, but Clemson wants SEC. SEC wants NC and Virginia in their footprint. If FSU does go B1G I think VT's chance of getting an invite to SEC increases greatly. SEC doesn't appear to want to add more teams already in their footprint - their expansion has been strategic and regional while B1G expansion looks to be every coast, every border. If the super conferences expansion strategy continues the way it has been, Clemson and FSU would be prime B1G targets. Wouldn't it be extremely odd to see FSU and Clemson in the B1G?
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
...it wouldn't give them a "cut rate" on their broadcast rights, nor would it belittle the conference all these years. (Remember the "Wheel of Destiny?" It was to make fun of parity in the ACC.)
If ESPN loses F$U, it's because they wanted to lose them.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
What has the ACC done to deserve more?
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2y
They thought they had this boxed in, all rights and expenses boxed in and they have exclusivity to the state of Florida. They really are upset with FSU and the demands on their way of during business; They would hate for the Big 10 to get into Florida. However, they know, its a hard sell for the SEC to pick up FSU without SEC getting some more rights. I have also heard SEC is exploring in the next round of rights in 2031 to break out the contract to highest bidders including streaming.
They are also in a cash bind, while they are working the NBA rights battles, and its looking like they might not get the package they wanted. Welcome AMAZON streaming....
Also from Disney, they are pushing ESPN brand, to manage expenses, simply' ESPN doesnt have a blank check for rights allocations, and they have to prove money distributed will give disney good Return in Investment.
THe keys to the rest of the ACC is dependent of 1) market and 2) product on the field. For any team in the magnificent 7, it is a very good time, to push for get into the playoffs.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)