began his blebble blabble, ( thanks, Keanon Thompson) with a couple of possible points but then went the clemson and fsu are gone route, then tried to tell us how bringing in USF would help mitigate these losses. "Where do ACC teams go if ACC implodes"? Where do clemson and fsu go? No P2 has said publicly that they are wanted. Maybe, maybe not. Then he bases his remaining points from a Big 12 POV. He leaves topics and crosses back with a 180 degree, totally different opinion, half a dozen times. Bottom line, he could be correct. But to assume the 2 wanna be P2 members will get out of their GOR signed agreements is a done deal, is incorrect. A different take initially, but same BS as 99% of other no nothings pretending to know what's going to happen was disappointing.

I agree he chose the worst case scenario, but it's always smart to be prepared for the worse and then aim for the best. What is your opinion of the ACC even if they do leave (not much debate if they stay), but are the three points below on target if they left? 1) ESPN has a lot invested in the ACCN and is now making good money with Comcast aboard. It puts them in a strong position since they have already built it and (something not talked about) new schools have to spend the money to build their own studio. So adding new schools is not expensive for ESPN. 2) Nor UNC's BOT or John Skipper the alum and former President of ESPN can push UNC into the SEC like they apparently want to. That decision will come from the North Carolina Board of Governors that looks after NC State and all the state schools of North Carolina. This won't be a unilateral decision by the UNC BOT encouraged by John Skipper. It's very doubtful that they would vote for anything that would hurt NC State. 3) The state of North Carolina will lose many millions of dollars, if the ACC Championships like Football and Basketball are moved out of the state, The state agreed to put up huge incentives to keep the ACC Headquarters in North Carolina, This will not just impact economically the public schools, but all the economies that have ACC schools. Triangle area for Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill, Greensboro/Winston Salem and of course the biggest area in the state, Charlotte. (You could also add the Wilmington Area that has UNC-W and is growing at a nice pace too, for retirees) ** Edited by Stech at 5/27/2024, 11:16:11 AM

NC contributed 20-30 million to the ACC to relocate the ACC HQ to Charlotte. It also gave ACC huge tax breaks. With that they got most of the acc sports championships, including football, basketball (charlotte/ Greensboro), baseball charlotte etc. This is the same state that oversees their universities with the UNC university system. While UNC and their wealthy alumni think they can jump, they are not like their brethren at Duke. They are part of the UNC system, and they cant simply jump, no matter if you are Jordan or any of their CEO's lobby. The state of NC got ahead of this (after seeing the UCLA/ University of California controversy, and they wanted to make sure they have the oversight and governance. They got it now. UNC (and their trustees) better get their homework together, the trustees are finding out, they are not the ultimate governance of UNC Chapel Hill its the board of governors. (and many of those trustees are having a fit). and any trustee who runs his/her mouth ahead of the Board of Governors position will be handled. This is another issue where his whole plan is BI PARTISAN. In such of split state like NC, this is an unified position

Surely therefore would be expected to know even less about the hierarchy of the university systems across that state. I accept those both as facts. However I do know a lot about the university systems within another southern state. I know a lot from just reading statewide newspapers over many decades in Arkansas. The Board of Trustees is all powerful at the U of A in Fayetteville. Frank Broyles had the BOT support in never scheduling Arkansas State. Arkansas has never played Arkansas State in a college football game. Broyles always said Arkansas had everything to lose and nothing to gain in playing Arkansas State. The current AD at Arkansas has scheduled a football game in the future with Arkansas State. Yurachek did that at his discretion. It is the right thing to do. The state money should go to Jonesboro instead of some out of state football program that is paid to play the Hogs.. My point, nobody in the capitol in Little Rock or anywhere else tells the Board of Trustees in Fayetteville what to do. Even if the BOT and everyone in Fayetteville were wrong as with never scheduling ASU. The University of Arkansas receives state money with the purse strings held in Little Rock just like UNC gets state money from a purse in Raleigh. I understand all that. What I don't understand is how this Board of Governors in North Carolina just assumed control over the UNC BOT? Did the state government in Raleigh just legislate that control? Could UNC tell Raleigh to shove their money where the sun doesn't shine and tell the BOG to get a new hobby? Can somebody in North Carolina tell me who or what legally made this Board of Governors all powerful in the state university systems? What power does the BOG really have over UNC beyond funding? I don't think anyone at UNC would be jailed for none compliance.

This unc system was crafted by nc in the 1970's it created all public universities under one ubiversity fhe nc aystem. From unc chapel hill fo unc raliegh )nc state) unc greenville east carolina etc. frankly since they are all part of one system they aimply cant pull away. Unless u are private

ESPN would be damaging themselves to damage the ACC. It would make much more sense for them to support the ACC picking off a B12 school or two if they would add value to the conference. I just don’t see any viable candidates out there, WVU included. I also don’t see UNC bolting the ACC unless NCSU already had another home. Would the SEC take NCSU knowing that the B1G would then pick off UNC? I don’t see either conference wanting to add both. For these reasons, I think the two are hardwired to the ACC so long as it remains viable. That turns the attention to UVa And VT. If F$U jumps to the B1G, then the ACC becomes even less competitive, but certainly not unviable. Would the B1G make a run at UVa at that point to keep it at an even number? Would the SEC try to add VT to counter the B1G’s move. Both are possible, but unlikely outcomes. Who else would the SEC pick up along with VT? Again, Clemson is not particularly beneficial to them. Kansas might be the next option. In any case, I have to think that a number of ACC schools such as Clemson, Miami, UNC, and Louisville have to be working the angle of forming a BAACC to try to retain as much of the current pie as possible while cutting it into fewer slices. There are many hurdles to overcome with trying to do this. However, it seems the most likely solution given all the economic and political considerations.

The conference has already taken a step away from even payouts to reward programs based on performance. At the same time, the NCAA settlement is going to present a major headache to sustaining FBS athletic budgets. The ACC will likely be at the forefront of the downsizing move that the settlement will trigger. It may be a matter of time before the culling takes place on its own. Someone on this board recently postulated that the ACC could actually split into two halves based on the level of their football programs. The BB half could then pick up other teams from the BE or elsewhere. It’s an intriguing concept.

From losing championships (that are already held in other states sometimes)

how do we pick the carcass that most of the podcast do.

You'll save yourself a lot of time. ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 5/27/2024, 12:47:36 AM

I hadn't seen that argument before, but losing yearly championship/tournaments/etc to Indianapolis or Atlanta would really hurt the state of North Carolina.... so much that it should be a non-starter for UNC or NCSU to leave as their gain in conference rev share would be far less than the economic impact to their state. However, if Clemson and FSU are looking to bolt, and possibly Va Tech or UVA...their states don't get the tourism benefit.

Step 1- tie UNC and NCSU together to lessen the chance of UNC bolting Step 2- Bring in the total cost to the State of UNC bolting. Step 3- State just says no to a UNC move. What is so interesting, all the financial connections between the ACC and the state of NC were promoted and pushed by UNC. Nothing happened in the ACC (or NCAA) without UNC's inclusion or at least blessing.

will be. I don't like it, but it is the reality.

!. That ESPN keeps the ACC TV Deal in the same payout range after FSU & Clemson leave? Couze seems to feel the ACCN is valuable enough (Calford & SMU adds) for ESPN to do just that. That does seem to perhaps rely on the good will of ESPN to at least some degree in my opinion. 2. Are the in-state economic advantages of ACC Sporting Events sufficient to balance out the benefits of a P2 conference change for UNC? NC State also being in a P2 might also need to be brought into that equation. I think this #2 also depends on #1 to a large extent. too. Will ESPN keep that TV Deal payout in the present range?

...ESPN is only paying around $24M per school for 100% of each ACC school's media rights (and then ESPN and the schools split the ACCN profits 50/50). In the new Big 12 TV deal that begins in 2025, ESPN is paying around the same for only about 63% of each Big 12 school's media rights (with FOX picking up the rest). So even if FSU/Clemson leave, I think the ACC deal is a good deal for ESPN (and it's an absolute bargain for ESPN so long as FSU and Clemson are around).

Point 1- IMHO a major reason the ACC got a cut rate direct payout was the added mega cost ESPN was incurring with the launch of the ACCN. That has only been running for 3 years and only was able to add Comcast within the past year. Apparently the numbers for the ACCN are looking pretty good right now. So with a much better cash flow to ESPN, a major cut because FSU leaves may not happen. And, I am sure FSU is gone but not so sure Clemson and Miami are. Point 2 I am sure as I can be that all this investment in the ACC/NC ties were directed by UNC. So whereas, UNC may be better off in the P2, the state may not be based on doing "for" UNC. If you remember a selling point to the pols who helped VT to the ACC, the economic impact to the whole Roanoke/New River valleys was considered, not just direct benefits to VT sports. Same here. Seems that UNC leaving will cost the state way more than UNC will make in a P2. I still believe that the 4 corner schools and Stanford/Cal were "placed" as a short term safe harbor until they could return to a mid level viable new PAC 12. If all that happens, the ACC would stand at 14 football schools plus ND. I would like to see 2 more leave as I think for a mid level conference 12 is the max economically feasible number, Fewer would be better.

Corner schools. The present PAC TV Deal was never publicly released but it was rumored to be similar to the media pay out to AAC schools. I think they get about $8 Million yearly. Not sure. I can be corrected here if $8 Million is far off. Anyway threats of those type numbers as a Media Deal is exactly what destroyed the PAC. Who is going to be in the new PAC besides Washington State & Oregon State? Fresno State, SDSU, Boise State, Colorado State. The PAC will NEVER get P5 status again to get a P5 media deal to draw back those 4 Corner schools. Especially with all this NIL, Transferring & Revenue Sharing. Money is going to get tighter in college football, separating to Haves & Have Nots ever more as things tighten up.

He's delusional if he thinks that ship would float. As for #2? The NC Legislature is basically bi-polar: What's popular this month can become taboo 2 months later. Personally, living in NC, I have not heard of this $1 billion payout for sports and tourism. Even if it exist, one thing I can tell you is UNC and NCSU will both be taken care of by the legislature and one goes, or stays, where the other one goes or stays.

to stabilize the ACC, but it's possible. If they want the ACC to continue, they need to pay us. They may still want that. Look, everyone knows we aren't getting paid our true worth relative to what the P2 are getting. Keeping the payouts where they are, despite the loss of the two biggest draws may be a way of correcting the discrepancy and would cost ESPN nothing extra. It's still a good bargain. From a PR standpoint, they can even spin it as helping to save the conference. It has been said many times, but if ESPN wants it, they will get it. Does ESPN want us? We'll see.

a sizable and important TV market. And they are STILL coming into the ACC to basically play for free for nine years. They also have more football pedigree than USF. Yeah, I'm bearish on USF unless we lose FSU AND Miami. And even then, I won't be excited about it. ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 5/27/2024, 12:53:22 AM

Almost 50k students, AAU status, and building a new on-campus stadium. Jim Leavitt showed what could be done there.

if FSU and Clemson both leave the departure fees combined could total $600MM - $1B and that helps close the revenue gap which might forestall others leaving and buy time to see what the landscape looks like 5 - 6 years down the road when their might be more clarity on both costs and revenues. That is the puzzling thing about the math for both FSU and Clemson. If the each pay $300MM to leave and you amortize that payment over a 6 or 10 year period that is a $30MM to $50MM haircut on the revenue bump they get from any new conference landing spot and that doesn't even factor in the increased operating costs, the most substantial of which is likely to be travel if they move to B1G location. I think they all likely need to sharpen their pencils on the math and I think they likely have already started that process contributing to some of the toned down rhetoric at the conference meetings and afterward. From VT's perspective I am not sure they are not better off economically if both FSU and Clemson pay the fees and leave.

That could perhaps be conservative for punching the ticket for both FSU & Clemson to leave the ACC. I must go back to our conversation concerning Flugaur info of several days past. Flugaur returned the next day saying he had had additional contact with his FSU Money Perch. Flugaur said he tried to get an exact amount from his Money Perch for a FSU settlement to exit the ACC. Flugaur said his FSU Money Perch failed to give that figure. However Flugaur said from all that he gathered from the Money Perch's responses was the amount was in the $380 Million range. Don't know about Clemson ever paying an amount that high, that would be a very high legal precedent. I still think this all depends on ESPN acting in earnest with the ACC. ESPN giving the ACC a fair shake is the basis of this video and this subsequent thread. Will ESPN give the ACC a fair shake? I think the future of the ACC depends on that answer.

or $300MM per school thinking it is conservative floor to demonstrate the financial impact and anything higher just increases the impact. Using that number whether it is spread over 6 or 10 years is still a $30MM to $50MM annual hit and takes an $80MM new conference share, assuming they get a full share and the projections are accurate, to a net of $30MM to $50MM and not significantly different than what they currently get in the ACC. That ACC number is not going down, if they stay, it is likely to go up, and with the success initiative already being worked up it could go even higher. Bottom line is if they jump now it would seem they have not substantially improved their financial position in the short term, maybe even weakened it with increased operating costs, are in a more competitive situation for playoff berths with a weaker financial situation than their direct competition and, likely most important, really have limited certainty the landscape could drastically shift again under their feet in the next 5 or 6 years. I think, at least in FSU's case, they have damaged their current conference relationship to appease/redirect some fan complaints and it is questionable as to the benefits. It is akin to a partner looking to dump their spouse for a hot new toy, not fully considering the cost of divorce, or the fact that hot new toy may have changed in the 6 years it took to pay off the divorce.

The NIL & Transfer Portal ramifications are just setting in real good. We even just lost Nick Saban due to those if you listen to what Saban said as he was going out the door as a head football coach. Those ramifications are going to eventually effect college football financially a lot more than losing head football coaches, Now you have this athlete revenue sharing just somewhat settled. They are talking $20 -$22 Million a year per school just to start with next year. I say start with because those $20 -$22 Million figures look far from static reading those press articles. Those Attorneys pushing athlete revenue sharing want lots of court room activities going forward. Controls are going to have to be instituted by the US Government to halt that. Will that ever be done? Good Question. This is all pushing the rush for schools to get in the P2 in hopes to afford all this.

I believe FSU is most likely a target of the Big Ten, which is primarily in the hands of Fox Sports now and also CBS and NBC to a lesser extent. I also truly don't believe the SEC is really in the market after adding Texas and Oklahoma. So yeah, I'd see ESPN wanting to give the ACC a fair shake to keep a major property aligned with a very favorable media rights deal for ESPN. I also still don't see what good it does FSU to leave under the terms of a major GOR settlement with the ACC. So what if they make $30M more per year in the Big Ten if they're paying that same $30M a year to the ACC for a decade? They'll be cash poor in a much more competitive league vs being cash equal in a lesser league, but with far greater access to a Top 4 playoff seed, in a league that is offering them unequal $$ distribution for that playoff spot. Can FSU really build a better team with less money playing a more competitive Big Ten schedule against nobody close to Florida?? Losing to Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State because they have $30M more cash than you doesn't sound very great for the ole Sunshine State recruiting base. I don't know, I'm starting to feel like this is all about to lose steam because it doesn't really make much financial sense to move around anymore.

Wouldn't it be better to add a school in a fairly large population state that we don't already have in our footprint for the purpose of ACCN sub? BTW. States with over 7 million population that are currently not in the ACC footprint: Illinois Ohio Michigan New Jersey Washington Arizona Tennessee

At that point, there's a good chance we aren't still here either. I put our chances of sharing a conference with the Bulls again at about 35%.

Ones that were at one time available were allowed to go elsewhere with no Jim Philips discussion. Cincinnati, Arizona, Arizona State. Vanderbilt could be one, but not until SEC leaves some behind. Don't want Memphis. Rutgers if B1G leaves behind.

Just having a school in that city would be a plus in my opinion.

The SEC doesn’t gain much from them. Is the B1G going to pay them a full share after the strong arm number they just pulled on Washington and Oregon?

The Big10 wanted Oregon and Washington in their conference, but the media partners weren’t going to pay it at this time. They were supposed to wait it out until 203o when the new Big10 contract was up. The contract situation changed that and that’s how those 2 got lesser deals. Now, Florida has a much bigger audience than Washington or Oregon. Could FSU bring in more than $60 a year? Who knows? I sure don’t. But I imagine Fox, CBS and NBC sure would like that market. Throw in the BTN on a higher rate? It just might.

the crazy exit fees that keep getting thrown around become reality. Pay $300 million to go to a conference that either geographically doesn't make sense OR has become very top-heavy with Blue-Bloods? To get what - an extra $15 million a year (and it probably wouldn't be that much more) as compared to now? Spend $30 million per year to get back $15 million? Does that math work? Maybe I am not forward thinking enough but if one really stops to think about it beyond just chasing the dollars (and even that doesn't make sense to me right now), what sense does it make? I just don't get it - but I am getting older and my interest continues to wane so that's probably it...

I listened to the podcast this morning. I agree it will all come down to what Carolina does.