“This agreement would not have occurred without the collaboration of all Big 12 Presidents and Chancellors and our partners at ESPN and Fox”. There is more about how Fox was compensated for the deal. So it not only happened this time, as you said this is pretty typical.

going on between FOX and ESPN concerning ACC realignment. They have partnered for their own streaming network that debuts this August. There is courtroom and there is business. The later moves much faster.

Those three schools don't get added if ESPN doesn't want them to be added. That much is for darn certain. And can we be just offer a disclaimer for this entire board that it is TV money that's driving all of this? School presidents aren't sitting around thinking about how they can alter the way the nation consumes college sports on TV. Media companies are. The media companies offer money to the school presidents' athletic programs to make the changes occur in the manner they see fit. So the real question you need to answer is "Why is ESPN OK with adding three 'mid' additions to the ACC"? That is up for debate, but ESPN clearly knows FSU and Clemson want out, but due to the Calford + SMU adds, that must mean that ESPN also wants the ACC to remain a viable athletic conference. My guesses (2) as to ESPN's reasoning are: (This is long, if you want to just get to key points, scroll down to the ****Basic Summary statement*****) 1) Because of the revenue and profit BOTH the ACC Network and SEC Network produces. First the ACC Network $$$- Everybody knows the $$ situation at Disney/ESPN and the simple fact is the ACC Network adds 9 figures of revenue per year to ESPN's books and will continue to do so for the next 13 years. Extinguishing that cash stream is bad business. Who says "No" to what will likely amount to $1.5 Billion dollars over a decade-plus? Yes, cord cutting will continue to be a thing and paid subscriber fees to Dish, DirecTV and Comcast will continue to drop, but it's not going away, because subscriptions to YouTube Live and Hulu Live continue to rise. There are over 12 Million subscribers to those Live TV services. It's not disappearing, it's just shifting. It won't even make a large sized dent before 2036. Live sports will remain a cash cow for most of our lifetimes. Eventually, it will be replaced by paid streaming subscribers, but not likely by the end of the ACC Media Rights deal. But, what if FSU and Clemson go to the B1G? Well, the ACC Network still pulls in Florida revenue with Miami and losing South Carolina is more than offset by adding Texas and California, so ESPN still makes their ACCN revenue if FSU and Clemson leave. Now - SEC Network $$$ On the other hand, what if ESPN could add FSU and Clemson to the SEC Network? NOTHING, they add zippo to SEC Network revenue. The SEC Network has ~70 million subscribers paying $1.40 per sub. (These are somewhat old numbers, but it probably isn't much different today...keep that in mind) If the SEC adds FSU + Clemson, the SEC Network adds exactly........zero subscribers. Multiplying 0 times $1.40 = $0 added subscriber fees. Now, what about the rest of the SEC? 70 million subs x $1.40 = $98 million dollars. Per month. $98M x 12 months = $1.176B per year. (I'm guessing this is about 4-5 times the ACC Network revenue, btw) This $1.176B revenue is most likely split 50/50 just going off the ACC's deal with ESPN. So splitting $1.176B in half means $588 million is generated by the SEC Network that's delivered to the SEC member schools. $588M divided by 16 schools = $36.75M per school per year JUST from the SEC Network. (For comparison, I think ACC schools get about $8M-$10M per school annually from the ACC Network) Now....lets add FSU and Clemson with their ZERO added SEC Network dollars $588M divided by 18 = $32.67M. So every SEC school takes a $4M+ hit to allow FSU and Clemson to join? So, this mean ESPN has to say "Hey Florida/Bama/South Carolina/etc..., can you guys vote to add FSU and Clemson? Your conference will get harder to win, its going to be harder to recruit and we are taking $4M away from you every year!" I don't think so..... Or....ESPN tries to ram a subscriber rate hike down Comcast/Dish/DirecTV's throats to get the money back? In this economy? I also don't think so.... I honestly think ESPN loses money (a lot) if FSU and Clemson jump to the SEC. So, in summary - FSU and Clemson leaving for the B1G does nothing to hurt ACC Network revenue as long as the league stays viable. It also does nothing to hurt SEC Network payout per school nor ESPN's payment to those 16 SEC schools. However, ESPN would have to pay (a LOT) to the current SEC to compensate them for adding FSU and Clemson or ask Comcast/Dish/DirecTV/Hulu/YouTube to pay for it. This is why I could see FSU and Clemson to the B1G as a realistic possibility. **** Basic Summary statement******* - FSU and Clemson want out and are fighting like mad to get out. ESPN will lose money if they go to the SEC, but won't really lose money if they go to the B1G. ESPN also wants the ACC to stick around close to its current form, because it's making good money there, so I could see ESPN working to allow FSU and Clemson to leave, but making it right for the rest of the ACC $$$-wise to allow them to leave, yet stay together afterwards. -This is why UNC was the only remaining ACC school to vote against expansion - because the other schools know there is more money by keeping the ACC together. Only FSU, Clemson and UNC can make more money elsewhere. Miami, VT, UVA, NC State - none of them are getting a better deal from the P2 or Big 12 (for the time being) than what they're getting from ESPN to stay in the ACC and allow FSU and Clemson to leave. ********************************************* 2) It keeps Notre Dame happy and out of the B1G and Fox's control. I think ND's current relationship with the ACC Network is a boon for ESPN. ESPN does get 2-3 ACC home football games vs Notre Dame per year, not to mention full ND inclusion on the ACC Network for all other sports, and they have to be pretty happy with that arrangement. Notre Dame is obviously getting paid like a P2 school to remain independent, so they are certainly good with that as well. Conclusion for the ACC. FSU and Clemson want out. They won't be here much longer. The B1G probably is the right place for them based on the fact the SEC and ESPN probably doesn't want them in the SEC. So, the next domino is UNC, and based purely on finances, I could see ESPN trying to keep UNC in the ACC for the time being. All of that FSU/Clemson -> SEC money talk above kinda extends to UNC. North Carolina has 4.3M TV subscribers. Even if the SEC Network wasn't currently cashing in a full $1.40 per subscriber in North Carolina (I'd find it hard to believe the SEC Network isn't getting a full carriage fee in NC for ESPN), the difference between in-market and out-of-market subscriber fees is around $1.00 per month, so that's roughly $4.3M a month than UNC adds to the SEC Network revenue (MAYBE! Again, I feel like NC subscribers are already paying a full share because of proximity to the SEC). So ($4.3M x 12months)/17 new SEC members = about $3M per year of value added per school on an annual basis. And why would there be 17 schools in the SEC? It's weird, so go 18. You could add UVA and that also probably keeps a fairly consistent $3M value added with the addition of the state of VA's slightly-smaller-than-NC subscriber base. BUT, this is ESPN, and that will be the straw that breaks the ACC's back and ruins the ACC's valuation as a whole. So....while the SEC school's may make more money, ESPN loses big on the ACC falling completely apart. So I don't see that happening for now.

You essentially made the argument that FSU and Clemson add no $$$ to the SEC. I don't agree with that. This thing changes often but right now, I see ESPN wanting to hold onto FSU and Clemson, either in the ACC or the SEC. If ESPN makes a tentative deal with those 2 schools then ESPN will offer the ACC a renewal, maybe better than we now have with the demand that the ACC allow FSu (maybe Clemson) to leave at way below the $500 mil price FSU has thrown out there. The other option is that FSU is so fed up with the ACC and ESPN that there is no negotiating with them. Then ESPN will move with the ACC to extract as close to that $500 mil figure as possible. Since FSU has burned so many bridges and are so desperate to leave, they are ripe to pay a premium to leave. Maybe a price so high not only UNC blinks but also Clemson. Lots going on that is interacting. I do not believe the SEC wants Clemson and FSU to go to the Big and the SEC generally gets their way.

The SEC came on board later when reality set in for FSU/CU. The SEC is involved big time (more pressure on UNC is already happening). Full pro-rata type deals from the start. I know where FSU is headed. Not so much with Clemson. They hide details very well - but they are pre-approved. The FSU fanbase won't be happy going B1G if there is not a southern regional partner. For some reason, regional alignment and conference realignment got tossed out the window. California teams in an Atlantic Coast league? WVU traveling to Orlando and Tucson? Makes zero sense, especially for Olympic sports.

to you is 100% accurate, You are a troll. Hell, you didn't even join TSL until March of this year. Either start providing evidence to substantiate your claims ("I know where FSU is headed."). OK, smart guy, Quit overusing your allotted electrons, and start providing proof. Your 15-minutes of infamy are coming to and end, unless you start providing substantiation, vice quixotic meanderings and prognostications. The only reason I've noticed you at all is because I follow @2hhoop3 , who keeps refuting your drivel time after time.

three other guys on here postulate speculation as fact. Thanks for the reminder. ** Edited by saret at 6/23/2024, 9:52:20 AM

the ones that have given specifics have made a mountain out of a mole hill IMHO.

made no reference to you. As far as specificity, I'll refer you to posts by @2hhoop3 , inasmuch as he's posted volumes in responding to "speculative posts" by @INSIDE99 and others (ahem) who have posted speculations as factual, without providing substantiation. So, I'll give specifics when INSIDE99 and others (ahem) start doing specifics. As far as making a "mountain out of a mole hill," I would suggest you look closer to home.

still haven’t given specifics. 2hoops mentioned an FSU BOT meeting not being a special meeting, that’s IMHO making a mountain out of a molehill. That doesn’t mean they didn’t discuss the topic, it is very insignificant whether it was special or scheduled. Also you give the molehill, for me in the mirror, but I just explained why I felt that way, and I didn’t call anybody a name like troll.

your opinion but, it spoke to likely intent and was reflective of past practices which is only a molehill for someone to blind to see or who does not want to see. There is nothing wrong with calling someone a troll when the assertion is explained and they are free to refute and disprove the assertions with their own arguments and subsequent behaviors. You're headed down a rabbit hole again, similar to your ACC headquarters fantasy and with a likely similar ending because you once again choose to ignore facts and realities.

molehill. And, I think I've been pretty measured and succinct. Perhaps all this could be avoided if posters would start providing substantiation instead of stating opinions and speculation as fact, as @2hhoop3 has REPEATEDLY asked for. Talk to @INSIDE99 and the others, not me. ** Edited by saret at 6/23/2024, 12:22:58 PM

even be hokierama's return!!

If we tailgated on a Blacksburg Saturday I bet you find we would have a good time talking football. Not so far apart. I'd gladly bring the burgers and dogs. I'm too old to hate. VT ain't going to disappear. Good football and good times continue. Exciting season ahead with a great chance of making the Dance. Peace. GO HOKIES!. ** Edited by INSIDE99 at 6/22/2024, 7:15:30 PM

about the people I associate with. We are way apart, despite your smarmy post title. I don't hate either, and don't try the unctuous marketing on me VT Strategic Communications do to much of that already.

consequence to me. Clemson, FSU, UNC leaving is no concern of mine. They can pay the exit fees, and go wherever they want. A simple disclaimer by posters that they are providing personal opinions, and not facts, would be more than sufficient. Otherwise, they're just trolling.

Then you will be fine when the announcement comes that FSU is leaving, only an opinion until official of course if that makes this post plausible for your judgement. Josh Pate was not entirely accurate, those breaking news stories have been in the oven. But don't take other FWAA writer's word for it. Could be that Pate's legal contact is false and spreading misinformation just to get clicks.

I am not saying it will be bad for VT, but it could be very bad. If VT does not get picked by the P2 then the ACC is the only way we can be any more than a G5 level team in the not to distance future. And please no pie in the sky B12 is going to flourish and be the class of everything outside of the P2.

current proponent on this board, MEH. And as far as the P2 including VT, that will be decided by avaricious entities outside the posters on this board. To me, the only purpose of all this talk that is beneficial is posting hits on TSL. VT could go to FCS, and it wouldn't bother me in the least. FCS, OK, G5, OK. All this talk is just to spur a speculative frenzy to raise funds. Nothing more, nothing less.

has made this board great. Some are becoming attackers to those that don’t agree with their end game, but not all act that way. You IMHO have stayed respectful even when attacked, way to take the high road, and not be intimidated.

here, even if I don’t share that view. That is, as long as you do it with respect and don’t attack other people. I have seen him attacked and have others try to shut him down, and I can’t remember him attacking or trying shut others down.

Inside person"so he can feel like an expert. Big difference than some regulars discussing our takes and take-aways from talking about what could happen with this topic, and what and where VT's athletics will be down the road. He certainly has the right to post "inside information" and all subscribers have the right to pooh pooh his comments as well. If you choose to believe him, that's also your right!! ** Edited by ancient alien 2018 at 6/23/2024, 1:33:41 AM

because things change. However, what part of what he is specifically saying are you concerned about? I am just trying to make sure I understand your specific statement he said that you are concerned about.

Hopefully I have not been disrespectful at any point nor resorted to personal attacks. This has always been a great place to discuss avenues of football for a very long time.

Stated here a few times that FSU has been locked to the B1G since October, long before the snub was even conceived.

In the middle of all this legalese… entanglement can be very expensive… they must wait until the dust is settled before saying come join us!

avoided the question asked multiple times when you have made this or a similar statement as to how FSU and/or the BIG/FOX MIGHT defend themselves against claims of tortious interference and breach of contract when FSU was still a conference member of the ACC.

In 2022 USC/UCLA announced that they would join the Big10 on 8/2/24, after their Grant of Rights contract with the PAC12 expires on 8/1/24 UW/UO announced last summer that they would join the Big10 on 8/2/24, after their Grant of Rights contract with the PAC12 expires on 8/1/24 Cal/Stanford announced last summer that they would join the ACC on 8/2/24, after their Grant of Rights contract with the PAC12 expires on 8/1/24 Col/ASU/AZ/UY announced last summer that they would join the BigXII on 8/2/24, after their Grant of Rights contract with the PAC12 expires on 8/1/24 In 2022 Tex/OK announced that they would join the SEC on 7/1/25 after their Grant of Rights contract with the BigXII expires on 6/30/25. The G5 conferences don't have Grant of Rights contracts, so they are able to come and go with a buyout that is easy for the schools if they want to move. There is nothing stopping the SEC or B1G from offering today a school in the ACC membership that begins on July 1, 2037 after the ACC's Grant of Rights contract expires. Offering an ACC school membership that begins before June 30, 2037 would be tortious interference.

there and diffused in the normal course of business and contract renegotiation.

Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby sent ESPN a cease-and-desist letter alleging that the television network and the SEC is conspiring to damage the league’s standing by luring schools to leave. How did ESPN and the SEC defend themselves when they took Texas and OU before their Big XII contract was done? Did you know other conferences have realigned before with teams under contract? Who were some of those teams? What law was broken? Was it an NCAA violation or a federal crime? Cause I'm not sure. ** Edited by INSIDE99 at 6/22/2024, 10:48:57 PM

That is when the GOR they signed with the BigXII was scheduled to expire. They were not planning on leaving this summer but were able to come to an agreement with the BigXII to leave a year early for about $50M each. The SEC offered membership to TX/OK starting on 7/1/25 when the two schools were no longer bound by the BigXII GOR

through the normal course of business and the renegotiated contracts they gave the the Big 12. This is different in that FOX has no contract with the ACC and FOX and ESPN are not on the same side here. However, thanks for finally responding, to one of many questions you have avoided and continue to avoid. I gave you the law(possible cause of action) in the question. That is not just an issue for B1G/FOX but, FSU as well. ** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 6/22/2024, 11:01:25 PM

are not on the same side? That there has been no network horse trading? Do you have a link? That's how you have approached my posts.

anything as the B1G is a FOX property and the ACC is an ESPN property. That is common knowledge or at least I thought it was(to borrow a line from you and your playbook). You and your posts have been approached with exactly what you and they deserved.

taken care of for losing them. Are you saying this doesn’t happen regularly? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Texas/OU to the SEC did not happen in a week. Prior to an announcement it took an extensive time of expensive analysis, discussions by both sides, BOT and member voting behind closed doors, network acceptance, approvals, etc, etc. -- all this long before the Big XII contract was up. All this while ESPN was still making money off of LHN (Longhorn Network) and CBS still owned the SEC contract. If some want to believe it was not the same "tortious interference", feel free to engage in that fantasy. Deals and options are constantly being discussed amongst institutions and conferences while under contract somewhere else. Not sure if a link is required or that this can be chalked up as common knowledge. Do those same people think VT has not talked with the SEC partners about opportunities/acceptance? If so you would be massively incorrect. Pitt has been in discussion with the B1G for over a year now concerning membership. LINK: https://pittsburghsportsnow.com/2023/10/13/big-ten-consid... QUOTES: According to a report from Yahoo! Sports’ Ross Dellenger, Pitt was included on a list of “attainable” programs that the Big Ten considered for potential expansion in the summer of 2022. “We had this list of schools and went through it with the chancellors and presidents,” a conference official who wished to remain anonymous told Dellenger. I can offer so many other tidbits without a link because they would never have a link. Don't care if readers believe it. When Greg Sankey visited the Gamecocks in February to have a meeting with their trustees, it wasn't to discuss out-of-state FSU...if you catch my drift. The ACC will have to sue the B1G and FOX to prove tortious interference, not FSU. Good luck getting those network trade secrets through discovery. CURRENT ACC LAWSUITS STARTING IN 2025 ACC vs. FSU FSU vs. ACC ACC vs. Clemson Clemson vs. ACC ACC vs. B1G ACC vs. FOX Have at it. Maybe the ACC will have to sue VT for working on getting out.

are different than offers. Also, once the lawsuits start and until settlement takes place discovery can yield all sorts of information useful not only in ongoing suits but, new ones as well. You may want to check some of your facts. ESPN was taking a bath on the LHN and removing that cash drain made them amenable to various payments to get the UT/OU deal done. CBS owned the 3:30 slot but, ESPN had the lion's share with the SECN and other slots. All those behind closed doors BOT meetings you allege to have occurred would be subject to meeting notice and rules laws and would likely not have remained the secret that basically got out only because A&M got there feelings hurt. Finally, and most importantly, the last round found ESPN and FOX as partners in the Big 12 deal. When the B1G realized Sankey had hoodwinked them they responded with USC and UCLA(with UW and UO to come later) and they parlayed their joint venture with the Big 12 and the arrogance of the PAC 12 into a collegiate version of an NBA sign and trade three way deal with any legal concerns and hurt feelings diffused in the course of various contract negotiations. That dynamic in the present discussions is missing with ESPN/ACC versus B1G/FOX and FSU TRYING to play the hot girl egging on two guys to fight over her. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out and whether both "guys" ultimately decide the hot girl is not worth all the trouble.

for trying to work out a deal with the B1G because the answer was no. Got it. In that case, FSU has been in discussion with the B1G for over a year to see if they would be approved.

I didn't see where Pitt was anything more than a candidate on a B1G list that was vetted and yes, if the answer is NO, that makes the situations different because to have a suit you must be able to assert damages. I also liked how you sidestepped the factual errors in your original post. People can judge your current reply and this response as they wish.

ESPN and FOX working it out or even primarily that. It was ESPN and the Big 12 working it out. I am not saying things have not happened before or will not happen again, maybe even this time, but, the allegiances and relationships and contractual relationships this time DO NOT parallel prior situations.

wherever they want. I think @RJHokie made an appropriate suggestion.

Might be a good place for them to reside for a while……

Their sports future and doing it aggressively. Some may not like their methods, and I get that, but time is not their friend. They can’t sit back and let this play out for years or rely on someone else to fight the GOR.

and everybody who is not a lock for the P2. That is a reason the ACC will most likely go to the mat to get the max in exit fees. The main stop on the ACC in court to the end is ESPN. They can and probably will dictate what the new ACC will look like just like they did with the B12 and tried to do with the PAC.

to the media deals, I'm evolving to the position that they do not have nearly as much power as you think. ESPN did not dictate that the B12 pick up 3 G'5's and BYU. At the time, they were the best available athletic departments on the board. I also don't think that ESPN pulled strings to get the 4 corners into the B12, nor do I think they mandated it. The B12 was the best option for those schools at the time, and survival for those athletic departments were at stake. I'm also migrating to the position that ESPN did not pull strings to get Cal, Stanford, or SMU into the ACC. I think the contract was written in such a way that Phillips had the option, and took it. My guess (we don't have the contract in hand), is that they could add teams pro rata, and they did. The same could be said for the B12, and the 4 corners. Any media contract that ESPN has, is not damaged by adding teams. Did ESPN mandate that the MAC add UMass? or the moves in the ACC, Conference USA, or the Sunbelt? If ESPN had that kind of power, they would have added Oregon and Washington to either the B12 or ACC. I have no doubt that either conference would have added those two, at full shares. Instead, those schools took very reduced shares to be in the Big 10, just like Cal and Stanford did to be in the ACC. The B12 is in all likelihood, not in a position to add any more schools pro rata, and it's my guess, that the ACC used theirs as well. We don't know the SEC's contract, but it is my guess that they could add pro rata, but that is up to the conference, not ESPN.

Remember, the big picture is 2 power conferences, 3 mid level to produce transfer portal guys and coaches for the P2 and then everybody else. Oregon and Washington fit what the media wants, especially Nike $$$$$. IMHO the media was working off the seat of their pants when the B12 went through losing Texas and OU. But by the time the PAC imploded, I think big media had a pathway for the B12 which was to give them premium pay for this contract until all the pieces fit and the B12 (correctly) went along. I think big media had a plan for the PAC but the PAC would not play ball which increased the B12 and ACC short term value to "place" teams until they have the P2 set. I fully believe ESPN is running the back channel negotiations in this ACC split. ESPN has a vision of what they want for the ACC and will move to make that happen. That will not include cutting FSU and Clemson loose to go to the Big.

mid level conferences is your opinion - and very well could be correct. Currently, it's your opinion. The SEC and Big 10 did not divide up the PAC. That pretty much means that ESPN and FOX did not divide up the PAC. I no longer think this is the networks pulling the strings to have a P2 (or a mid three like you think). I'm also starting to think that ESPN wasn't the entity that brought on CAL and Stanford to the ACC. I'm starting to think that this is a snowball that no entity has control over. The P2 already have what they wanted - the lions share of the playoff money - and media contracts that the rest of college football can not touch. The solidifies their conferences to compete no matter what happens with the NCAA litigation, and other pending suits that are still in the pipeline. When the dust settles, and we have a clear picture of what the rules will be with player compensation (including NIL), it is then that we will find out if it's a pro model. There will be not "third tier" in my opinion. Either you are in the same league, or you are not.

There is no known standard to which all opinions are measured against. We are all reading/following and analyzing and offering opinions of what we have heard. Even the so called insiders at best have only heard someones opinion. Maybe that someone has heard opinions from persons closer to where the the real power is but that is about it.

for that matter - it's why I'm here. I just happen to disagree with your take. The PAC is not coming back my friend (my opinion).

And a main reason is that no non P2 conference can be national largely because the national audience is taken by the P2. The addition of the Cal teams to the ACC and the 4 corners to the Big 12 has to be a temporary measure. Yes that is my opinion.

they are fighting for their future and as such they need to do what they feel is in their best interests. My issue with FSU is that, in my opinion, their current situation is more self inflicted than conference afflicted and the result of their bad decisions, the most recent of which has been their realignment approach. Whether they are in the ACC, B1G or SEC they have the same decision makers and the only difference will be that in the BIG or SEC money MAY not be their top excuse. They also may join the Texas Boys Club(UT and A&M as current members) whose identifier is "money does not necessarily buy brains."

FSU absolutely made some terrible football decisions over the past decade. But they finally seemed positioned to maintain a level of success again (to be confirmed after losing a ton of draft picks). But let’s never forget the ACC enabling FSU and Clemson with horrible schedules. And questionable media contracts locked in for far longer than any of their peers. And lack of vision regarding expansion. Ultimately I don’t blame FSU for being fired up and pissed off at everybody and willing to burn bridges after the playoff snub.

now want to go to a Conference with harder scheduling like the SEC or B1G. Swofford and Phillips kowtowed to them, but they really only need to look in the mirror to find the original culprit. How ironic is that!?!?!

the Nielsen count of TV households. Cable subscription would be a fraction of that.

....why would they? As a practical matter, you want as much information as possible before making a business decision. That's especially true when it's a ~10 year commitment for billions of dollars. I see no reason why ESPN would exercise their extension any time prior to the last possible day, and the same would go for their SEC, NFL, or NBA deals.

to direct FSU and Clemson to where they want them to be. Put another way, ESPN is up to their eyeballs in negotiations with FSU, Clemson, maybe UNC, the ACC and SEC to hammer out the best possible outcome for ESPN. They are not through with negotiations yet and the final offer back to the ACC will not be made until they either win or lose with FSU and Clemson.

....why make a 10-year, multi-billion dollar commitment in the midst of such instability? I will reiterate, however, that the only thing we know about the supposed ESPN "option" is what FSU said in their filing last year. No one else has ever reported it or confirmed it even exists. My guess (and I could be totally wrong) is that the ESPN option only applies to the ACC Network portion of the ACC deal.

It's all dumb speculation

type of speculation is one of the main reasons these contracts are not made public. Negotiating them in public could hurt both parties, and with college football, emotions tend to run high.

In fact, that's how the ACC in part is making money off of the SMU, Cal and Stanford adds (along with the ACC subscriptions in TX and CA) But according to you, if the ACC adds two schools, this allows ESPN to cancel or renegotiate the contract. So, in other words, FSU and Clemson don't even need to leave. ESPN can cancel the agreement the day SMU, Cal and Stanford walk through the door. I thought the composition clause was simple that if the conference fell BELOW a certain number of teams (14 or 15?) that ESPN could bag out. Can anyone offer clarification on this?

ESPN blessed up to 4. ACC added 3.

If so, I guess SMU paying their own way, plus being from Texas made all the difference.

ACC football teams - if not better. They had some really good runs and being in the American conference pulled down their ceiling quite a bit. If they get a couple extra ballers each year now that they are in the ACC, I can see them being somewhere between #20 and 40 in football. They care about football more than most ACC teams and should be able to afford some good players. They have tons of talent in their backyard.

Jim Phillips reached out, and they said they'd have to get a lot of money to do that travel. Would they be interested now? Don't know. I don't know about Washington State. Their academic ranking is terrible. ACC may not have talked to them. Jim Phillips also talked to Arizona. They said they were joining Big 12. He waited too long on that one. ** Edited by HOO86 at 6/21/2024, 8:20:56 PM

Is would be nice for them to have some conference games in their own (relative) region. But maybe there's other factors the drive them to the opposite position. From an East Coast/ACC perspective, for every additional West Coast school that is added, that one less cross country trip on of us has to make. But, like everything else, the price has to be right.

Oregon State academic numbers are much better than Washington State. Stanford and Cal care about that. I'd like for ACC to look at Colorado State and Nevada Reno. I like OSU and WSU to add those states, but not easy travel there. That's for them and us.

Pretty brazen if that is the case, but if there were rumblings of a reduced contract with FSU and Clemson making noise, Phillips may have saved the ACC. It's also not a slam dunk that FSU and Clemson leave - if that GOR is enforceable, and Philipps is not interested in a settlement, this could get very interesting indeed.

Composition Clauses are standard in the sports network industry. If it helps, here is a link to an SBJ article from 2011 when the ESPN $1.86 billion deal was in its infancy. Pay attention to paragraph 5 and the next to last paragraph. If it's easier I will copy & paste them here. Pay closer attention to the very last sentence about ESPN and Fox as it also applies to the ACC....... The ACC’s contract with ESPN, which is valued at $155 million a year, contains a standard line called a “composition clause” that allows either the conference or ESPN to reopen the deal if membership increases or decreases by at least two schools. The conference or the network can act on that clause any time the conference’s membership changes by at least two schools. The clause in the ACC-ESPN contract that permits the deal to be reopened is standard among college conferences. The SEC is expected to exercise its right to a new deal if it adds Texas A&M and another school, as reported. ESPN and Fox, meanwhile, could void the Big 12’s contract or ask the conference to give it a reduction in fees if it loses teams. ** Edited by INSIDE99 at 6/21/2024, 1:12:57 PM

These concepts seem to be in conflict. Here's what Ross Dellinger reported about it. See link (X). Also from a Yahoo article by him: "The ACC’s television contract with ESPN includes a pro-rata clause requiring the network to increase the value of the deal by one Tier 1 share for every new member — believed to be about $24 million a share, or about 70% of a full ACC share, which includes Tier 1-3. After Stanford's and Cal’s shares are removed, as well as travel costs, ACC schools stand to earn more than $30 million in new wealth to be distributed every year."

**

Did ESPN agree to this because these are from new markets? Or is automatic as part of the contract. I would think the latter since Cal and Stanford are each worth 24 million even though they are both in the same market. Likewise, SMU is getting 24 million as well. ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 6/21/2024, 2:05:36 PM

So, Cal and Stanford were added at the ACC average of the ACC schools rate. They are taking less money because less media money from the ACC is better than no media money as part of the PAC4. SMU I believe came in at a less than pro rata share, but they didn't take any media money for the next ten years. All of that added together equals higher shares for each school just from the ESPN portion of the deal. Adding Texas and California to the ACC footprint means higher fees and guaranteed carriage from local satcos/cablecos in those states which means even more money for the other ACC schools. SMU will make more money from the ACC's CFP shares and NCAA shares than they were making in total from the AAC, so they are really not taking a cut from leaving the AAC for the ACC.

I wander of that still applies to Wazzu and Oregon State. Also, perhaps the ACC should have "went shopping" at the BigXII before they got a new contact. Not sure which schools we should have gone after though. Anyway, that is water under the bridge now. ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 6/21/2024, 8:00:36 PM

Cal, Stanford, and SMU could afford to take partial shares to join the ACC, the PAC2 can't. That is why they are pretty much playing a MWC football schedule and a WCC schedule in everything else.

offer an informed opinion or clarification on the contract and its clauses at present will do so for a variety of reasons. The OP is not likely in that group. He is just "speculating and connecting the dots" for whatever that may eventually prove to be worth.

least interesting. Different perspectives and different opinions abound when the info is not known - no different than where the different schools will land - or not

there is nothing wrong with speculating but, it is disingenuous at best, if not an outright lie, to present/couch speculation as fact and even worse to then ignore/deflect when directly questioned. That is the standard MO of a troll, not someone seeking a real discussion, at least IMO.

he has a history of shutting people down that would not be in a position to know things, or are using post to promote their own agenda. I don’t know if this poster is for real or not, but he/she sure is going to look bad if the composition clause isn’t what he/she is saying it is about renegotiating the contract if two leave.

Several months ago. Pittinger said FSU & Clemson would announce leaving the ACC prior to June 30, before SMU entered the ACC. Therefore triggering the Composition Clause being used by ESPN to destroy the ACC. Pittinger is an ACC hater. Pittinger is like the 'Gold and Blue Dude' in throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks. Gold and Blue Dude was just a lot more entertaining. I don't even click Pittinger videos anymore. ** Edited by WarHog38 at 6/21/2024, 4:08:13 PM

ever gathered on his site. Inside99 is secretive about where he comes from and what school he supports. Probably a West Virginia fan from what I gathered from here over the years. That secret stuff does fuel distrust with some people. I actually do not care. I think something does loom in the near future as a big negative towards the ACC's future. Those lawsuits ever moving forward and Pate's tweet convinced me of that. I don't know what that is? 1. Could be just FSU announcing their ACC exit. 2. I have heard several times that both FSU & Clemson will both announce an ACC break and then immediately announce their intent to join the SEC. 3. I also think a UNC lawsuit could possibly be announced real soon. I think #2 might be the most likely occurrence to happen real soon. I think #1 would just label Pate as being overly dramatic.

All of VY, NCSU, UVA and UNC have to get clear of all the politics before they take the step to sue the ACC for separation. I don't think they are any where close to that. I am coming around to the idea that the powers that be in Virginia and NC politics would rather those 4 stay together and move the ACC forward than to cut and run since neither of the P2 guys really want to take 2 in a state. It is not too far a stretch to think Clemson seeing that those 4 are staying will stay too. In this day and time an ACC getting through all this and losing only FSU could easily be the closest to the P2 as is possible.

The UNC lawsuit would therefore be against the ACC. I would never disregard the influence that the ACC has over Tobacco Road schools. I know how Alabama is connected to the SEC & how Texas was connected to the SWC. The scenario you suggest may have played out when the dust settled on the public rumblings on expansion we heard publicly released the last several months within the states of North Carolina & Virginia. That all did completely stop which seems a bit odd. I do agree that FSU is leaving the ACC come hell or high water. Clemson is probably gone too. However not as sure a thing with Clemson. I think Clemson would have to be refused a landing spot in the P2. I think the P2 would take Clemson as well as FSU.

I thought everyone's identity on forums was secretive. I don't post on other VT boards here, only the Realignment Board. Not sure what giving my real name or where I attended college would provide anyway other than the normal accusations of favoritism. I have played against VT in Lane Stadium for the visiting team - long enough ago that I do not qualify for House Settlement NIL dollars :( ---which BTW may not pass now that the smaller schools are peeved and legally battling over their non-inclusion on having any say. Good for them...taxation without representation. Just for fun, it's after midnight and I am RV camping all weekend with a great friend since high school who is one of the top NBC Sports execs. We are sipping Eagle Rare and talking about football and life again (2nd time in a month). We attend a few music festivals every summer. But dang, it's hot. He is laughing as I type this. He says ask whatever realignment question you want and he will try to answer. But I can't give out his name, although he doesn't seem to care right now. Hahaha. But seriously, ask away. He has had enough truth serum. Enjoy the banter here, even in disagreement. Thanks. ** Edited by INSIDE99 at 6/22/2024, 12:55:47 AM

I was referring to the football team you root for and the home state you reside. I am a Razorback fan and was born in Arkansas. Most of the people that post here have hokie in their moniker. That means they support Virginia Tech and probably have close ties to the state of Virginia. Nobody is using real names except the board owner. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I wanted your real name? I have read a lot of your past postings on this board. I have seen people several times ask you for the info I refer to. I have noticed you never give that info in response. Those simple facts are what I was referencing in my above post. It matters little to me personally what team you support or where you reside. I will type nothing more about that. If your NBC Sports Exec friend can tell us exactly what Josh Pate's shaking water in the cup tweet meant? Then by all means put that in a response below to enlighten everyone on the TSL Realignment Board.

I love Razorback passion. It's as engrained as any state in America. Can't drive past a gas station without a Razorback logo on the pumps kind of thing. Good to talk football with you anytime. I just posted a new thread on what Josh Pate had to say about the water gif. It's weird you asked that question and he already answered it. My NBC friend says Josh is like most in the know, they know already and the dam will leak. But they won't expound without confirmation details that are murky at best from all sides of the fence. Dissecting what it all means will be Phase II after an official announcement comes. Settlement is not imminent, but it needs to be sooner than later.

Read the link I posted about the clause. Last winter I just thought this would be common knowledge. Apparently it was not. COMMON LOGIC: FSU/Clemson leaving changes the entire ACC contract ball game like it or not. Cal/Stanford/SMU additions without giving them any revenue for an extended time period does not move the money needle for any network. The comparison is not the same. There is enough info available that demonstrates what ratings equate to without your top two (and only) championship qualifiers the last 30 years. I predict VT will be a P2 member down the road. Take it or leave it. My interest here and at other social networks is to bring attention to the opposite of what each self-interest fan wants, sees and dissects. At present, many FSU people are off their rockers. So are the SMU, VT and Clemson fans based on self-interest. It's human nature to believe what fits your desire. I would hope my going against the VT grain mentality opens up some positive dialog and intelligent thoughts outside the personal wishing walls, not the opposite. "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

realignment beat for decades. And while you claim your "interest here and at other social networks is to bring attention to the opposite of what each self-interest fan wants, sees and dissects," I think we've got it all covered without blinders or crazy biases. I'm not trying to shoo you away. But as someone with 28,000 posts, many of those on the CR board, I'm just letting you know what the landscape is. Meanwhile, the composition clause, as you state it to be, and the pro rata clause appear to be in conflict, and I still have no answer.

discussion is with someone else that has basically stated that he won't believe you even if you are right. To me that's his escape clause of using the broken clock analogy. I have said it before, but you might not remember it. Keep posting, I find what you are saying very plausible. If I didn't find it plausible, I would say so, that's simply not the case right now.

reservation if one wanders too far off of it. The different views and arguments are what makes this board interesting. I an join an echo chamber, but what fun is that?

but it is hardly the history of this board. There is plenty of diversity of thought as well as long standing posters from other schools and conferences. I know you just joined in 2023, so I'm just letting you know.

posters on this board. What I'm saying, is if you post something dumb, the record is sure to be corrected.

to give people plenty of rope to hang themselves on their own without being accused of censorship. Moreover, behavior as a troll is not necessarily a violation of TOS. One more question for you, how did connecting the dots on that NC Legislative action and the FSU BOT meeting work out? Finally, may he eventually be right on something? Sure but, remember even a broken clock is right twice a day. Throw enough stuff against the wall and IF something sticks that doesn't necessarily mean it was anything more than guessing right. ** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 6/21/2024, 1:33:53 PM

I have that right?

but, you knew that was not what I said before you even asked me the question. I noticed you sidestepped the NC Legislature and FSU BOT question. Why? ** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 6/21/2024, 4:16:45 PM

believe to be credible asserting a link between the legislation requiring the NC system schools to schedule one another and the inference of connection to something going to happen at a special FSU BOT meeting on 6/20 that was in actuality just their regularly scheduled meeting. Another case of just throwing something out there to see if it sticks. If you need to refresh your memory you can look up our previous conversation about this on June 4. ** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 6/21/2024, 5:51:44 PM

The NC government legislation did attempt to force state schools to play each other. It was shot down. Never was it claimed this was a done deal. The idea was stupid and based on realignment fear. As stated...UNC and NC State playing each other for the past 53 years had to be forced all of the sudden? Like many realignment followers, it seems you are looking for definitive dates and times. Hahaha. You can continue to put your head in the sand that FSU and Clemson are leaving asap.

on a question not making sense it would be wise for you to read the question close enough to understand exactly what was said. It was never said the NC legislation was a done deal. The question was your linking that to an FSU BOT meeting, inferring THAT meeting was specially called as opposed to a normally scheduled meeting and the two linked together implied something was happening. My eyes have been wide open with respect to FSU and you for quite a while. They are leaving and your "connect the dots excuse" doesn't track. What I look for is information that is accurately and truthfully presented and the ability to reasonably defend positions/speculations and respond to questions when asked.

give him credit. He has no chance with you from the start. I on the other hand want to hear what he has to say, and see if he is right. I think the composition clause is going to be interesting to watch. If he is wrong on it. he will lose a lot of credibility. As far as the NC legislature putting forward the legislation that UNC and NCSU must play, that is documented that it was put out there. It didn't go through yet, but clearly there was concern enough to get it out there. The only reason for the concern most likely is that the two could end up in different conferences IMHO. That's interesting information right there. Now as far as the FSU BOT meeting, being called because of the NC Legislature, he may have missed on that one, but I just don't see that as a big miss.

what you want. Your description of no chance is inaccurate, however, his track record and posting history calls into question his credibility up to this point. I don't think if he is wrong he loses much because outside of you most on this board are already skeptical of him. The reasons for that skepticism are valid. Putting forward the legislation and reporting that it was put forward has NEVER been the issue. Trying to link it with the FSU BOT meeting was the first issue. The second issue you just proved once again. They do not only have to end up in different conferences, they could be in the SAME conference and just not get scheduled to play annually. The bigger piece of that legislation was to try and mandate games with smaller system schools. The legislation was influenced by realignment but, not necessarily as much a fear of realignment as the practical recognition control could change and doing what the legislators believed was best for their constituents. At no time was it linked to FSU or their BOT meeting, just another nonsensical connecting of the dots you chose to accept without question or skepticism.

I know you have stated that you want the ACC to stay the same, but do you think it will? If so, how long? At least this guy is saying what he thinks will happen, what do you think is going to happen? I am not looking for 100% guarantee, because we all have to live in the world of probability, so please stop just picking on others and put yourself out there. You clearly have a strong opinion on what others say, how about you stop beating around the bush and give us your take please.

you just have not been paying attention. I said that originally I thought the ACC might stay intact and hoped for that, however, for quite a while now I have acknowledged I believe FSU is gone. The die, as yet, may not be cast for others. Clemson has options and the second highest probability of moving on. UNC and ND are in the next tier and it really makes no sense at present to discuss the other possibilities. You can whine all you want but, challenging someone to support their position and pointing out their inconsistencies is not picking on them. When someone is Don Quixote tilting at windmills they need to be challenged on the actual realities of what they say and that is what I have done.

this? I would love to hear what you think I think is the situation. You constantly tell me I am not paying attention (very insulting), but let's see if you are paying attention.

I have told you before you were not paying attention but, I have said before on several occasions what my position was as to comings and goings on realignment. If you can point out to me where I have constantly told you that you were not paying attention I am all ears. As far as your position goes and this is from memory, you see the inevitable for the ACC and you want P2 landing spot. I believe you have advocated for VT and State to SEC and UVA and UNC to B1G if the four split. Otherwise, if they go as a group you might lean to SEC but, would take either. More importantly, you seem to think the basketball tourney and expansion with tweaks to the revenue distribution model could be a partial solution. If I have misremembered or erred I trust you will correct my erroneous perception.

as the P2 and stay together. However, I no longer think that is possible, so going forward, I would like the two Virginia schools and the two North Carolina schools to go to the same Conference. It’s not likely however IMHO. As far as FSU you originally said they would not be able get out, only in the last couple of months have you changed your mind on that. That’s not a fault, that’s called evolving with the latest information. However, when others evolve with new information, you tend to act like they have tried to deceive. I know some of the basement podcasters are playing games, but I also know there are people that post here that are heavily dialed in on the situation. That doesn’t mean they will always be right, because as you know, until the ink is dry, everything is subject to change. In fact, even with the ink dry, the contracts can be challenged. Plenty of proof of that going on right now.

P2 conferences? I would buy that in 2005. But not in the last decade+.

a lot in 00’s I definitely thought for a few years they could, and actually they were right there money wise until the B1G got their Channel, and the SEC got their channel. Even ten years ago it was not a huge difference, but the last 5-7 it is certainly is huge. That said, my point is “IF” the ACC could make the same money, my choice is the ACC. That was the biggest point of my post. That’s why I wrote it, to tell 2hoops that I am not an ACC hater.

wouldn't be preference though, even with money being equal. It's mostly bad teams with small fanbases. It's pretty boring.

Virginia Tech and Clemson should have played every year. Instead Tech hardly played FSU and Clemson, and Phillips listened to Miami on not playing Virginia Tech when they first dropped Divisions. FSU and Clemson had one SEC game, and you would have thought it was a full schedule by the way they acted. 🤷‍♂️ This is not 🚀 science!!

it. What is so ironic, is that the ACC basketball schedules have been great, and so has the Conference been in basketball. Most Sweet 16’s, Final Four’s for decades in basketball. The tough regular season made you better, same as SEC in football. ** Edited by Stech at 6/22/2024, 11:34:05 PM

point to a situation where I have mischaracterized an evolving situation as an intent to deceive please do so. The current situation and poster we are discussing is not an evolving situation, in my opinion. Any backtracking/evolving he has done is the result of being challenged and questioned and realizing it was his best option for reset. I believe his posting history provides ample evidence for that contention. Like I said earlier, you can believe or accept what you wish.

you thought since December they would be able to get out of the ACC?

prior to December the situation might be salvageable, however, the playoff snub and their sloppy initial filing ended that thought. I do not believe that is any evidence of my request that asked you to point out an evolving situation that I mischaracterized as an intent to deceive.

after the lawsuit was filed because of the GOR, that’s what I was pointing to, on your evolving with more information. That said, things do evolve with new information, and not evolving with it, is weakness, not a strength IMHO. In the meantime, we will see if INSIDE99 is correct about how the Composition Clause impacts the ACC. I am not sure if he is right or wrong, but it will be interesting to watch, since he has been so adamant about it.

potentially impacts when and/or how much they might have to pay to leave. Up until they filed the suit in December they were doing what FSU has always done, which was whine and stomp their feet in a tantrum until they either got what they desired or were told no soup for you now go sit down and be quiet. As far as the poster we have been discussing goes, he has been adamant about a lot of things until he was no longer adamant. I doubt that regardless of what happens you will be able to say his stance on composition clauses was accurate and there are several reasons for that, not the least of which is the contracts will still be secret or heavily redacted and any changes good or bad may just be the recognition of a change in the circumstances of the business.

Bloviator.

if not all of the posts should always be taken with a grain of salt. Giving the benefit of doubt also goes a long way in discussing the unknown, or unprovable.

to come across when definitive statements and words like 100% certainty or guaranteed are used. Benefit of the doubt, like respect, is earned not given and demonstrated history is a big part of that process, IMO.

The Oracle

and not the number of members. A conferences’ value to their TV partners changes based on who are members. I remember reading that it was the loss of two or more schools that triggered the composition clause which probably caused people to erroneously focus on the number of conference members. Losing Wake Forest and Boston College wouldn’t affect viewership significant, but losing FSU and Clemson would drastically hurt viewership and lessen the value of the ACC media rights with ESPN. It’s only logical that ESPN would include a composition clause in their contract. ** Edited by WBGV at 6/21/2024, 11:56:24 AM

As of August 2, 2024 the ACC will have the media rights of 17.5 members. Sounds like the composition clause argument won't go anywhere since there will be 3 new schools under the ACC media rights umbrella.

the size of the Conference if I understand him correctly.

and not simply a tabloid-style out of context claim by FSU? It's not like their first filing wasn't replete with that stuff. I think Phillips' description; i.e., this is a look in, is much closer to accurate than FSU's claim; and it may have more to do with the ACCN than the overall deal. Also, ESPN approved the addition of the 3 schools, i.e., how they would be handled within the framework of the TV deals. Finally, if ESPN is pulling the plug next Feb, why are Clemson and FSU suing the conference? Why not just wait until Feb when the TV deal and GOR are no longer impediments and they can do what TX/OU/USC/UCLA did? ** Edited by daveinop at 6/21/2024, 8:51:04 AM ** Edited by daveinop at 6/21/2024, 9:01:16 AM

is going to be more of a problem than a look-in/extension. That's assuming two teams leave and the contract gets reopened to negotiation.

We are about to add three teams so if it is a change + or - of at least two teams then the composition clause will be triggered this summer.

but like, if BC and Wake get picked up by B1G, the ACC can negotiate for more more money? : ) actually, unless ESPN is already on board with paying in full to the ACC after the changes, this is a big reason why the ACC will make leaving a living hell for FSU and Clemson. there is no incentive to take any other course...and ESPN may as well help them

Yes, absolutely. If any two ACC teams enter or leave, then both the ACC and ESPN can ask for a renegotiation of the contract. Doesn't mean they get it. Would go to arbitration if they cannot agree. As an example, if the ACC picked up TCU and Notre Dame full time...you can bet the ACC is asking for more money. Although those type of deals usually come pre-approved by the networks -- including the CalFord Ponies. The ESPN two team change Composition Clause is in the contract for both additions and subtraction of members. Point being that the ACC is not as valuable without you know who. The ESPN contract will change when it happens...quickly. ** Edited by INSIDE99 at 6/21/2024, 11:44:05 AM

"Although those type of deals usually come pre-approved by the networks -- including the CalFord Ponies." Yes, ESPN is absolutely in on the deal; so there is no reason to expect any composition clause issues. And ESPN is quite happy to have that late time slot. I

Adding CalFord Ponies without paying them is not the same as losing FSU/Clemson for networks. Networks could care less about academics as well. That late time slot is going to be one of the few prime time slots the ACC gets moving forward. 3:30, 7:00 and 8:00 just went P2 with ESPN, FOX, CBS, NBC. Even the noon prime slots will slide to predominately P2 coverage outside of FSU and Clemson versus top competition, which only supports network movement. It is what it is. FSU is pre-approved by FOX for the B1G. So is UNC and ND. Not sure about Clemson. That is how pre-approval usually works. Conferences don't suddenly add opponents then seek network approval. All of this has already be choreographed. FSU didn't all of the sudden just decide to sue to be an Independent or join the Big XII.

it actually intends to cancel because of soon to follow changes in composition? I don't gamble but if this proposition was on some Vegas board, I might make an exception. If FSU/Clemson find their way out before February, I don't think ESPN will reduce the contract by more than the pro-rata share for those two schools. And the ACCN portion is self regulating, ESPN and the ACC split the profits, no matter how much or little that is. In fact, pro-rata might even go up a little (or perhaps the 4.5% factor will bump up) if the ACC can show it's payout is as far below market as, for example, FSU claims it is.

Everything you post makes total sense. Not sure if realignment makes much sense sometimes however when Mon E. Greed is the driver. I hopefully don't come across as a person who claims to know all answers - quote me on that haha, especially hard details. No one does. I can only speculate by using what we hear and "connect dots" to see if it adds up. So we all speculate. I gather that when Phillips said recently his ACC office was currently in discussions with ESPN over a "Look in" clause, part of that had to do with the additions of Cal/Stanford/SMU. No chance should anyone ever state that ESPN has intentions to do anything. That would be silly. My concerns for the ACC future actually have little to do with FSU/Clemson leaving. It's what happens with the other members that is about to be chaos. There are approvals from other conferences for other ACC schools and those ACC members have spent money on that study, bet on that. This whole talk about what legally constitutes an approval / offer / meddling isn't an issue. Institutions don't just up and move without prior acceptance and lengthy study. Proof of that is in recent realignment history, whether it was Maryland, OU, Texas, Pac 12 or the many other G5 realignments that have been taking place. In regards to keeping the ACC together, it's for sure possible, but won't be easy when the money talks and NIL reality of getting the best players really kicks in and prime time televised slots become dominated by two conferences. Sorry for the longer rambles, I type super fast.

some of these theories are nuts. In their combined efforts, neither FSU nor Clemson has even a first down against the ACC and yet people are already moving pieces around. You'd think FSU would have at least filed to withdraw; or is there a scenario where they wait a few years? My gut says that ESPN doesn't have an opt out clause on it's 2036 basic TV contract deal. Oh and how would FSU not know what is in the contract but, oh yeah, there's this clause in the contract. Really? I could see how ESPN MIGHT have an opt out on the ACCN (given their experience with LHN)...but they just got full distribution relatively recently (that would make sense why they waited beyond 2021 wouldn't it?) and those contracts don't run out next winter. If there is any back room talk it's more likely to try to figure out how to deal with FSU. But until a judge says otherwise, the GOR is a pretty pricey stranglehold. I'm not sure Clemson actually wants to leave. They can recruit anyone they want and aren't even playing the portal game. What advantage would they get in another conference that they don't already have?

in the event three schools leave.

I am referring to has nothing to do with how many teams are in the ACC. If two or more teams leave the contract can immediately be voided or reopened to negotiation. FSU/Clemson leaving changes the contract and its value. E$PN is going to protect itself, which is why these clauses exist.

Everyone says our contract is undervalued anyway, so even if they leave, I'd expect it to stay where it is.

offset up to three losses and thus not triggering the comp clause. The ACC just needs to maintain a composition of teams equal or more to the number when the media contract was signed.

One becomes a member in a week and a half, and the other 2 in about 40 days. ESPN isn't going to blow up their deal with the ACC because FSU is throwing a temper tantrum. The ACC Network is generating total revenue to Disney that is the equivalent of a Marvel blockbuster film every year, and they get to keep half of that for themselves. Also, the amount that they pay to the ACC is close the equivalent of what their share of the ACC Network carriage fees are, so they are in essence getting the ACC total package from the carriage fees just from the ACC Network. If the ACC was an albatross around Disney's neck, then Disney would not have launched the ACC Network in 2019 and would have just cut the check for the penalty instead of starting the network, and then encouraging the ACC to add Stanford, Cal, and SMU. Why is Disney/ESPN "dragging their feet"? Because that is what all media companies do, they wait until the last possible moment to do anything that they are contractually bound to do.

I ask because to me there is a huge difference of 3 teams already voted in and will be full members by August at the latest and a team leaving between now and August as opposed to teams leaving with no approved replacements on the way. As I have said, I believe the 3 newcomers were added, not by ACC initiation but by ESPN urging. And, is is to change by 2 schools or is it a specific number? But really is there going to be a "race" to the P2? We are already seeing the P2 back off pretty much all realignment talks. The P2 is going to dictate who they want and don't have to use any uniform standard. They will do just whatever tickles their fancy at the moment. Of course it will be $$$ driven but there are dozens of ways to look at that. I don't see a mad rush out of the ACC when FSU leaves and I am still not convinced Clemson is going to leave. FSU has already burned the bridges, Clemson has not. No doubt most of the ACC teams, and Big 12 teams for that matter have put out feelers and made sales pitches to either the Big or SEC. But how many will they take? Some say up to 6 but is that really likely? So if 1-4 teams leave and at least for the present there are no other offers, what are the non P2 teams to do? VT is in one of toughest positions because the door to the P2 is still slightly cracked so we cannot be very decisive having to prepare for 2 possibilities.

Just tell VT survives. I give not one rats butt other than that. Actually tired of all this ruining of college athletics!

Is it P2 only? If so the odds are not real good. Is it to get out of the ACC no matter what? If so where? Nowhere outside the P2 can pay enough to make a net return to VT if there is a 250-350 mil exit fee. And that is a real possibility. FSU knows that everything but the cold hard reality that they signed a contract and have benefitted from it, is just an illusion. They also know that if a Florida judge allows them exit, they leave and every remaining team has decreased TV revenue then they have grounds to sue for breach of contract between the schools in their own states or federally. IMHO FSU is ready to pay a whole lot of money just to get out. So much so that maybe even Clemson can't come up with it and certainly VT won't be able to.

If the per team per year payout remains the same, then VT can keep pushing all resources to football (and some to basketball) to try and keep up. That gives us a path to get and keep players and coaches, which hopefully leads to winning on the field. This is survival if VT remains in the ACC and the money stays the same. And it should get us into the playoffs every few years (especially if Clemson and FSU leave). BUT, if the ACC money drops, then survival in the ACC becomes much harder. We can still do well within the league, but there is no way we will be nationally relevant on a consistent basis if the money gap gets too big. In that case, survival would mean either accepting a lesser athletic existence or moving over the the B12 to keep getting the current levels of money.

IMHO all current level for the ACC or Big 12 is about the best going forward either league can expect. In fact I expect revenues for the P2 to go up and everybody else to go down significantly. Maybe the only way the ACC survives is the exit fees.

are the question. Men’s Basketball will survive, but will the endowment help pay for players in other Olympic men’s Sports like they do at Stanford, Duke and even public ivies like UVA and UNC. Title IX will take care of the Women, but Men’s Olympic sports would be much better off money wise if they were in a P2. So, people don’t need to sweat Football, unless the P2 break away and we are left out. IMHO, that is not probable.

Out of your head. Not in any way even remotely like the schools you list anyway. That's need-based aid and needs to be applied the same across all students. It's not like VT is choosing to not to support *athletes* that way and the other schools are. It's really just not an option for VT

I get the private schools are different, but why can public schools like UVA and UNC do it, but Virginia Tech cannot?

First, my assumption is that you're talking about institutional aid, not NIL. The reason UVa and UNC can do it, but VT can't is simply a matter of money. Whatever institutional aid you offer to athletes has to be offered to non- athletes according to the same criteria/guidelines. VT can't choose to give more financial aid just to athletes. So loosening the criteria for athletes means loosening for everyone. That takes a lot of money that VT doesn't have.

a very small portion of that to support athletes like UVA and UNC do it (at a smaller level)? I realize like UVA and UNC, whatever the rules are, it would have to be applied to other students too, but if that is what you are saying, WADR I have a hard time buying that. For instance our Men's Golf Team had ~3.7 GPA this last semester, so I would think that they could work those student athletes into endowment money. That doesn't mean they will do it, but if things change, I think some donors will target their contributions to help a team like that. However, maybe that is just me.

But take athletes out of picture and think about it. If VT *could* offer more aid (in a fiscally responsible way) to students, don't you think they would? Lack of aid is a significant problem for VT admissions yield. I know the endowment...even though VT's is relatively small compared to many others...sounds like a huge pile of cash burning a hole in the university pocket, but a lot of that funding is earmarked for things... let's say there are 100 endowed chairs and professorships...how much money does that require every year? And that's just one category of draw on the endowment. And back to athletics...think about what amount would be meaningful aid for what number of athletes...multiply that chunk by what to calculate what that means to support the whole student body? It's not insignificant.

easily be cut if we don’t make the P2.

Application of Title IX to college athletics isn't restricted to protecting *women*

I’m all for Women’s Sports too, I am a big fan of them too.

Similar (no idea how close that means) to the student body gender proportions. Swinging too far toward women is no different from too far toward men. Presumably, if VT is in balance now, dropping just men's sports puts us out of balance at some point. Depends what the tolerance for equity is. Possibly the 85 is too much to allow a swing too far

ago, and KU didn't have a landing spot either. Today, both schools are competing at the highest levels, and playing football. VT will land on her feet, and be competitive no matter what happens, or who they play.