Does anyone believe the ACC/ESPN contract has not been on the negotiating table since 2021 when Phillips took over? At this point ESPN knows what it wants to do moving forward with the ACC. They are not going to tell anyone.

That seems unlikely to happen before the re-up, and probably not for several years even, if not a dozen. So, I expect ESPN to just announce that they agree to the extension when it comes due.

stay in the ACC with a deal that stuns all the ACC naysayers. Maybe not but for sure all those who spoke about Phillips being less than a good commissioner should be need to hit the pause button. It sure seems he has the ACC putting up a bigger fight than the Big 12 or the Pac did.

He is going about his job like he's the administrator of the ODAC. He does not understand that his role is not that of a college athletics administrator. That is not his role. Frankly, it's not even Whit Babcock's primary role anymore. Phillips' role is that of an entertainment industry executive. He is the chief executive of an organization that exists to sell an entertainment product to generate maximum revenue. While his scale in magnitude is much smaller in the grand scheme, his role is no different than the CEOs of Warner Bros., Liberty Media, Lionsgate, Netflix and Disney. Phillips, as well as half or more of the ACC member institutions, clearly do not understand this, and are worried about water polo and field hockey programs.

He is just trying to keep everything together. Like the old Big East days with Mike Tranghese.

talk about inheriting a giant crap sandwich.

what they could have morphed into? He is not a massive failure because he is not an entertainment executive. Neither Philips nor Babcock were hired to be what you just laid out. That may well become a part of a job description going forward but is has not been and I can't hold either of those accountable for not being like the CEO of Warner Bros et al. What he has done is have the conference he is in charge of to be standing longer and will be a tougher take down than the Big 12 or PAC were.

has "taken down" the Big 12. The "new look" Big 12 will be in a much stronger position than the ACC without FSU, Clemson, and whoever else manages to get off the sinking ship. Everyone acts like the PAC-12 imploding was all George Kliavkoff's fault, but I don't think so. USC was always leaving, no matter what. FOX wanted UCLA too, so they were always leaving as well. The conference media rights contracts and GOR were set to expire, and the presidents of the other member institutions severely over-valued their worth and would not listen to reason. Kliavkoff could not make a deal that his client institutions wouldn't agree to. So, FOX walked. Disney walked. Other legacy sports broadcasters weren't interested. Kliavkoff did the best he could negotiating a deal with Apple (which I think, eventually, will end up being the new media rights model as legacy cable dies), but there was nothing to force the member schools to listen, so Oregon and Washington jumped, everyone else panicked, and that was that. Kliavkoff wasn't blameless, but it wasn't necessarily all his fault either. The primary parties responsible for killing the PAC-12 are (1) USC, (2) greedy university presidents, and (3) FOX in that order. Finally - I don't care what Phillips was "hired to do." His job, obviously, is to make the ACC the most desirable football product possible, and maximize revenue, otherwise, the conference becomes an afterthought on his watch. Instead, he pushed through the addition of three new members, two of which have DOA football programs located in California, and one of which is a G5 that hasn't been relevant since the 1980s. Clearly, he is either an imbecile, or he doesn't understand his job. I'll let you decide which one you think is more likely. Either way, he has a crippling lack of vision. If you think my positions on what a power conference commissioner's job responsibilities are, and that I'm way out of alignment with reality, just compare Phillips' resume and background with that of the commissioners of the B1G, SEC, and Big 12, sit back, and consider what the big differences are.

to the other 3 conferences who had contracts to negotiate. (?) It wasn't his contract. I am not sure how much he can do and would be interested in knowing what else is possible at this time.

Exactly my point about Philips. There are forces way bigger than Philips, Klavakoff or Yourmark in this. There are forces way bigger than the ACC, Big 12 or PAC. Philips should not be judged on fighting and beating windmills. And IMHO those "forces" placed those DOA Cali programs in the ACC. You are correct, way more stuff was dictated to Klavakof . Now you just need to admit lots of stuff is being dictated to Philips and Yourmark.

Cal, and SMU. I'm inclined to believe that ESPN is probably very pissed off that those schools are now ACC members. I know I would be, if my company was now on the hook contractually to pay for content that nobody wants to watch. No, it was done primarily at the behest of Wake Forest and Notre Dame, and you can read all about it in the Raleigh Observer in an article that I've already linked to on here many times that has FOIA'ed emails and texts from the NCSU AD and board. You can find it on Google. Just google "expansion" "ACC" and "Ben Sutton."

I see it as once the PAC took nothing rather than something, there were some teams (Az, Az St, Colorado, Utah, Stanford and Cal that ESPN saw a value in as opposed to WSU and OSU. So my opinion is they placed those 6 schools in the Big 12 and ACC as a place to hold them until big media needed to move them either to the Big (Stanford and maybe Utah and Cal) or the new PAC. If the ACC bluebloods had been taken before the Big 12, then the ACC would have done just what the Big 12 did, add several G5 teams within their region. But then, the ACC was going to, on paper at least, need numbers to replace FSU and Clemson and these PAC guys were just out there but with more value to ESPN than adding G5 teams.

"paced". I think the B12 was in the right place at the right time to get the 4 corners. I also think that CalFord and SMU were added because of the wording of the ACC media contract. Did you know that the ACC asked Clemson not to sue until August? I don't have the link, but found it on the Clemson discussion board. Phillips added those three teams because he could, and he knows that FSU and Clemson are leaving. It could save the ACC as a power conference after the defections, and the move may guarantee the contract amounts until 2036. (all speculation of course). Phillips may come out of this as the smart one, and the ACC could survive this mess to fight another day.

at least on this board anyway, is how does the ACC surviving to fight another day help VT's football agenda, actually? Yeah, it's great for Wake Forest and Boston College, but how does it help VT? The answer is it doesn't; to the contrary, VT football has no tenable future in a post-FSU/Clemson ACC. The same is true for any other ACC program with a serious football agenda. If your program wants to play big time football, the ACC is currently not aligned with that mission, and that's why the conference, if it survives, is going to soon be stroking $7-10 million a year per school deals like the Big East just signed. That plane is about to hit the side of the mountain, and Jim Phillips is the pilot.

similar to VT football. Ask yourself, is K-State better of with an intact B12, or not? If the "P2" does not extend an invite, and there are a few good universities in the current B12 that were not, what is VT's best option. As much as i would like VT to be in the B12 (as a fan), the ACC schools, ESPECIALLY the BC's a Cuse,s of the world, need to have a stable and competitive place to compete with their athletics. Vt's demise will not be "not being invited to the P2" - Only the fans, alumni, and university itself can hold VT back. Media money is not the end all, but in this environment, the numbers are concerning. Phillips may have saved the ACC by adding the 3. They are all extremely good universities in their own right, and they will be competitive in the ACC. Don't think for a second that CalFord didn't get the message. Also, look for BC and Cuse to show up on the field as well. Always strive to be the best, but understand that there are others that will always make more money. It's been like that since the beginning of time, and it will be like that is the future. I'm a KU guy, but I'm also a Toledo guy. As long as both those universities have a shot at the title, then I couldn't care less that Texas makes more money, get's on TV more, or any other metric that makes Texas better. They still have to play the game on the field's and courts.

most prominently: 1) If VT isn't going P2, and all indications are that the preponderance is they won't, VT would frankly be better off in the Big 12 than in an ACC without FSU and Clemson. You're neglecting to consider that when those two leave, they definitely won't be the only ones. 2) I don't care even one single iota about Boston College and Syracuse, and whether they have a stable and competitive place to compete with their athletics. Nor do I care about any other similarly situated ACC member's wants and needs. And, why should I? THEY are causing the problem - they're leeches. They get the same amount of money but bring to the table little or negative value. They can drop down to D3, or eliminate athletics, or just rot for all I care. You really don't have this problem in the Big 12 - who are the leeches there? Pretty much every Big 12 school is a large, state university, the 3 private schools (BYU, TCU, and Baylor) are still high-attendance institutions that are serious about football, and while some schools do have better programs than others, but even Kansas TRIES and can put more than 250 butts in seats on game day. 3) Toledo has no shot at a football title. Kansas maybe has a 0.5% chance at a title. These days, VT may have a 1% chance, any given year. All that notwithstanding, it's magnitudes better for VT to be playing Kansas as a conference football opponent than South Florida, Tulane, or ECU - because that's primarily who they're going to end up with in a "new look" ACC.

and the guaranteed playoff monies. If the ACC and b12 have comparable deals, there would be no way any schools would pay an exit fee to be in the B12. If more than two leave the ACC, all bets are off, as everyone will be looking for a landing spot. Toledo will never have a shot at a national title - that I will concede. But, not differently than in the NCAA tournament, if they are in the dance, they will have to be beat on the field - as it should be. The ACC is not a dead yet. Contingency plans are being made, but if the monies are close enough, and the auto's stay, the ACC would still be a better fit for VT. Lets see how this plays out - but if KU ever plays a game in Lane, I will be there with a smoker, cold beer, and some good old fashioned football. ** Edited by Big12 guy at 6/28/2024, 4:42:43 PM

Redskins. About 1968 I think, And KU won on another back who stepped out of a shoestring tackle leaving his shoe in the defenders hands and housed it.

confusing the Hokies with the Cavaliers. Kinda like those in Mid Atlantic states confusing the Wildcats with the Jay Hawks.

Just another example on why lower Midwest and mid Atlantic don't mix. :-)

Played for Kansas and the Skins.

Came to the Skins as a free agent, I think. Or it could have involved a trade.

it was as a free agent. The Jets were paying him peanuts, like $65K or so. When the Skins tried to stiff him, he sat out a year until Gibbs "persuaded" him to come back.

that's why "persuaded" was in quotes. Word at the time was Gibbs wanted to sign him and then trade him for other needs and Riggo turned the tables on him.

Powerful runner who probably played a few years too long as he had significant pain issues later in his career.

and that's what they got. Nothing in his resume suggests he'd know how to run an entertainment-related organization and that's not the job he signed-up for. So IMO the fault lies with the ACC for not recognizing the type of person that was needed at this moment. Its a general lack of situational awareness, which is been a hallmark of ACC leadership since before VT joined.

The B1G and SEC are not playing the same game. I do believe that Yormak with the Big XII understands, and is doing what he can; his strategic moves have been nothing short of masterful, given the cards he was dealt. Compare how Yormak has responded to recent realignment with Jim Phillips' approach, and you will have taken the first step towards really understanding that Jim Phillips just doesn't get it, and is in about six feet over his head. The ACC, clearly, is not on the same page with its "peer" conferences, and that's why the ACC as we know it is ultimately going to implode, and the "new look" ACC is going to end up being little more than the AAC with 100% more Duke. The question all the ivory tower types here should be asking themselves is whether or not they want to see VT play in what is basically a G5 conference, except with Duke and Syracuse. ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 6/27/2024, 12:46:28 PM

about Phillips and the ACC, however, the masterful moves of Yormark you are slobbering over amount to little more than his willingness to be the public stalking horse for B1G/FOX and SEC/ESPN.

he added Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State, and Utah to a Big 12 conference that had already been shored up with BYU, Houston, UCF, and Cincinnatt. With the exception of Arizona, who at least tries, every single one of those institutions has demonstrated, and demonstrated recently, that they are all-in and serious about football. And the conference is now, for all intents and purposes, raid-proof. No Big 12 school is going to jump ship to the dumpster fire clown show that is the ACC, even if it makes historical and geographical sense to do so. Instead, the inverse is true - I'm inclined to believe that the Big 12 is going to take whatever it wants from the carcass of the ACC after the SEC and B1G take whatever they want. Now, that's Yormark - what did former-Northwestern athletics director Jim Phillips do when the ACC was facing an existential crisis to demonstrate that his conference was serious about staying relevant? He bowed to pressure from Wake Forest (which brings less than nothing to the table when it comes to value) and Notre Dame (which has played the ACC like a fiddle for next to nothing in return) and added....................Cal, Stanford, and SMU. The two worst, least supported programs in the PAC-12 that also happen to be in California, and a G5 school in Texas, already passed over by the Big 12, that hasn't been relevant since the early 80's. Nobody's slobbering over anybody - but you have to play the hand you're dealt. There is absolutely no question that Yormark played his cards like a pro, while amateur hour Jim Phillips must not have been able to even read his hand because it was soaked in flop sweat. ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 6/27/2024, 3:30:08 PM

would use the card analogy as in order to play the cards you have to have them. The cards Yormark played were largely given him by Big Media and he was smart enough to realize they were his allies because that conference neither currently possessed nor were projected to possess in the future many, if any, schools that would be a threat to media plans. You claim Phillips could not read his hand, perhaps you can tell us what you believe that hand was?

the play was not, "add Stanford, Cal, and SMU." There is no possible scenario where the answer to the ACC's problem (not enough football brands) was, "add Stanford, Cal, and SMU." In his push to add Stanford, Cal, and SMU, Phillips has demonstrated that he does not intend to solve the conference's football problem, but that he chose instead to make sure Wake Forest and Boston College can keep cashing $40 million dollar checks for as long as possible at the expense of the schools with a serious football agenda, and that choice, in retrospect, will prove to be a major, if not THE reason the ACC implodes as a nationally relevant conference and becomes a glorified G5.

and can act on their own best interest. I still believe the situation drove things and the ACC had to react vs be proactive. Heck, no way they get those 2 Cali teams without them being in the situation they were in. I would really like to hear your view on how Jim Philips (which is what this thread is about and not Swoffard) could have come in and done much different. What slam dunk is out there that was available? Before you answer, remember just about all ACC teams were dead set on getting the ACCN. In all probability the media contract would have been significantly larger if ESPN did not have to make the investment in the ACCN. But everybody wanted it and it was a little slow getting up to speed but it sure seems media deal + ACCN return could put the ACC a big jump ahead of all the 30-40 mil the ones who want the ACC gone have been saying. What else? Kick out some teams? There is this composition clause. Go after other teams? The ACC could not offer a significantly better deal to anyone you would want. Unequal revenue sharing? No one else was doing that and it would have been voted down, down, down. What could Jim Philips have done? Be like the PAC implosion before the PAC implosion and overplayed the worth of the product and had the media companies walk?

that, for the 10,000th time, the ACC did not HAVE to add Stanford, Cal, and SMU. It was an entirely unforced move. The ACC was not in the same position that the PAC-12 was in. They were not then and are not currently facing an imminent, "do or die," have to immediately act to save the conference scenario. It was a panic move that was, again, verifiably and demonstrably pushed by Notre Dame (which obviously does not have the ACC's interests first in mind) and Wake Forest boosters (who really only care that Wake Forest can continue to cash $40 million media rights checks as long as possible.) Yes, the ACC was and is facing a big problem - they do not have enough viable football brands, the schools with big football agendas no longer feel the conference is a good fit, and they want out. VT isn't making the noise the Clemson and FSU are, but I cannot see any viable future for VT football in an ACC where Clemson, FSU, and more teams leave. It will become akin to a G5. That problem could be solved by expansion, but NOT by adding schools that have little or negative football brand value, which is the move that Jim Phillips pushed for and achieved. That move was not made with the "football first" schools in mind, it was made almost exclusively for the benefit of the schools that are causing the problem in the first place. It didn't help to solve the problem, it reinforced and made the problem worse. If expansion was going to happen at all, it should have been with FOOTBALL BRANDS, not two California schools, with zero football agenda, who were the very bottom of the barrel in the PAC12, and a G5 beggar, from Texas, running on fumes from the early 80s, that two other power conferences already passed over, that could only win the AAC once in a decade of membership, and had to agree to take no media rights payouts from the ACC for nine years. That lands entirely on the shoulders of Jim Phillips, he pushed for it, he got it, and ultimately his reputation is going to pay for it. The ACC as a "power" was going down, one way or the other and sooner or later, but now, when it comes time to rebuild and rebrand the ACC, now Phillips is going to have a giant mess of his own making to deal with. Even with a downsize, the ACC could have been rebranded to be the southern basketball competitor to the Big East, which was basically the branding when it was founded in 1953 - the premier southern basketball power. Now it's just going to be AAC 2.0 - a G5 conference with no clear homogeneity or brand. And, do you think Stanford and Cal are going to stick around to play Boston College and Wake Forest when the times really get lean? Laughable. On the other hand, the ACC will never be able to get rid of the SMU virus, for better or for worse. I will never figure out why so many of you posting on this board are so frothy at the mouth to play white knight for Jim Phillips. He is clearly working to PERPETUATE the problems that are an anchor around the ankle of VT football, not solve them.

schools was at least strongly pushed by ESPN AND with the ACC knowing that FSU was scheming to get out that they needed to protect the composition clause. Who else was available? SMU was more of an ACC proactive add but that took a whole lot of hurdles. Think about this logically, other ACC adds have literally taken years to complete. Why would the ACC do it in such a rash manner? Yeah I know some will say the ACC leadership is just that stupid but I don't buy that at all. Certainly not dynamic but not stupid. ESPN wanted it and most likely agreed that the Composition Clause would not come into play if several left and the magic number dropped below its minimum. I also believe that before this is finished, big media has a place for Stanford, Cal, and the 4 corners schools and it is not the temporary harbor they are now docked in. ESPN wanted it and it solved what could have been a big issue for the ACC. IMHO that is why they are in.

to wit: I don't think Jim Phillips is stupid. I've never said that. I think Jim Phillips lacks the vision and the cunning necessary to be the commissioner of what is supposed to be a "power" athletics conference, and he has reinforced that with me time and time again. Lastly, the agenda he is executing is not meant to benefit VT and the ACC schools with football aspirations. It is clearly meant to benefit Boston College, Wake Forest, Duke, and the other similarly situated schools. We just flat out disagree that ESPN "wanted" the ACC to add Cal, Stanford, or SMU. Look, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if that's your opinion, there is nothing that exists in objective reality to support it. They bring no value to the table for ESPN. Nobody watches Stanford, Cal, or SMU football games. Frankly, if either of Stanford or Cal were attractive additions for media rights partners, then there's little to zero chance that they end up in the ACC at all. And, SMU was just a lousy addition by any discernible metric, they were added primarily because they agreed to not take any media rights payouts for nine years, and they will be very difficult/impossible to get rid of when they're no longer a short-term convenience and become primarily a logistical headache.

asked before, who and where were these schools that solve the ACC's football problem? If schools like that are not available or attainable what is the play? Maximize revenue for the conference through all available means? Phillips is the commissioner of the ACC, not just those with a serious football agenda, and he must balance the concerns and realities for all. He likely recognizes that while you and I sit on a message board playing woulda, should, coulda. You MAY be right about the implosion but, very likely wrong on the reasons. This thing is playing out far above conference commissioner's offices, with the possible exceptions of the B1G and SEC. That has been true for a long time and well before any of the current commissioners came to power. They are just the guys sitting in the seats at the moment.

Adding three football programs with zero name brand value did not help to solve the football brand problem. It helped to solve the "make sure the negative value schools can keep cashing their media rights checks as long as possible" problem. Look, if you want to go to bat for Wake Forest, Boston College, and Notre Dame's interests, and talk yourself into accepting that the commissioner of the ACC should be primarily interested in making sure the Stanford swimming and diving team is taken care of and gets to remain in a "power conference," then be my guest. That's your prerogative. More power to you. My opinion remains that VT is best suited to get the heck out of dodge ASAP, because its football agenda and its overall interests are clearly no longer being represented by the membership majority or the conference administration, to the extent they ever really were.

and the board can evaluate your responses in light of the comments we each made and the questions asked, whether answered or left unanswered.

and who not to add. It seems to be a consensuses that it is ESPN and FOX pulling the strings. While they are cutting the checks, the contracts with the conferences are a two way street. I think the B12 got lucky with the 4 corners, but the contract stated they could add "power 5" teams, and they did. I also think that 4 was the limit, but as you know we can not read the contracts. I DO NOT think ESPN gave the ACC a blessing to add the 3 schools that they did. I think that the contract was written in such a way that the ACC could - and they did. Phillips got a two for - added two power 5 teams, and got them at a % of their contract value so that the existing members in the ACC would get a bump in revenue. I also think that he added them to satisfy the existing ESPN contract with the # of institutions, and it was a defensive move, not a value play. Phillips has said that he is negotiations with ESPN as we speak. What are they negotiating? The B12 came out of their mess, arguably stronger than they entered it. THAT doesn't sound like slobbering to me - it smacks of jealousy on your part.

however, jealousy of the Big 12 is a laugh.

the networks? Is that based on wishful thinking, or is there at least an article that backs it up? You kinda stated that as a fact, not an opinion. At least you took my comment on jealousy as an opinion, or in your view, a joke.

of the way things played out would seem to support the Big 12 as the stalking horse. Both the B1G and the SEC got the teams they desired with minimal PR blowback or legal repercussions and as a fortunate by product, the Big 12 got propped up with additional schools and money.

ESPN give that "propping" money to the ACC for example? And you really didn't address my question except by stating that the way things played out seems to support your position. I call bull on that.

you like but, surely you are not naive enough to believe that Big 12 contract was the result of the remaining 8 and the G5 adoptions? Or maybe you are that naive, if you do not believe Big Media and the boys who sign the checks are calling the shots. As far as who and why ask yourself a question, when breaking up a west coast conference what makes more sense in terms of throwing them a bone, a Midwest or East Coast address? And your next question is Stanford and Cal end up in the East, at least for a short time because shipping two schools cross country is easier than 6 or 4. Not really sure what question you say I did not address but, if it was the request for an article on the direct question, that was never going to happen as no outlet is looking to pick a fight with ESPN or FOX or their respective protoges. You can find discussion on various talk shows on the possibilities and most lead in with "the Big 12 took the money the PAC 12 left on the table."

that contract when the PAC was still intact. It wasn't their money, and it certainly seems that Yormark stepped up to the plate, and didn't wait for the PAC to finish haggling. That is what happened - you are implying that it was the plan all along. There was no grunted that the PAC would fold like it did when the B12 got their contract - you seem to think that it was planned. Those are the types of conspiracies that get clicks for sure - and it is certainly OK to conjecture, as i have done often - but to imply it's fact is disingenuous, and smacks of hypocrisy.

your timeline and the events that actually happened. To claim the PAC was still intact, in anything more than name only, is, what was the term you used, disingenuous.

was a conference. When OUT announced, the B12 was still a conference as well. It will be no different when FSU and Clemson announce - the ACC will still be a conference. I followed the timeline very closely. As this board was writing the B12 obituary, I was most definitely engaged. It was no different for us, as it is for many VT fans on this board.

the timeline perfectly here are some questions for you. When did OU/T announce their intention to leave the Big 12? When did Bowlsby send his cease and desist letter to ESPN? When did USC announce they were leaving for the BIG? When was the PAC 12's original demand of $50MM per school rejected? When did Yormark begin courting the PAC 12 schools? When did Yormark approach ESPN and FOX about the new deal? These are the starters. Depending how well you do there will be more. Just so you are clear, the crux of the matter is not a conference but, a conference intact and most logical people would not call a conference whose membership is in flux to be intact.

B12 was propped up by, nor why. But, I'm not a stickler for making a point - so I'll take a stab at your questions. OUT didn't "announce" they were leaving the B12. It was leaked. They had an agreement with the SEC, but were waiting to announce when the existing contract is up, after this season. he sent the cease and desist letter after it was leaked about OUT. USC announced 2 years (one season) before the contract was to end - No way to know when or if there was ever a formal refusal with the PAC in their negotiations. it's info that has been reported by sources. The PA 12 schools contacted Yormark when their contract negotiations started to deteriorate - Colorado is the only school that made that info public, but there were reports that Arizona were in active talks as well. This happened as the PAC were in contract negotiations. Yormarks "we are open for business" comment was taken out of context, and was one of his first public statements as a commissioner. The timing of that comment made the headlines. There is no evidence that I could find that the B12 was actively courting the PAC schools - just a LOT of talking heads, media, click bait, and fans on social media. The exact date of when Yormark called ESPN/FOX? hell, I don't know. It was when the "new" PAC was in active negotiations. Do you know the date, or are you just throwing this stuff out there because you can not back up your earlier statements about the "slobbering Yormark" and the "Big 12 being propped up"?

I will say it again the Big 12 was propped up by ESPN and FOX because they and their commissioner were useful tools to an end to get them the schools they desired. Now let's get to your perfect timeline understanding, semantics not withstanding. The OU/UT departure leaked summer of 2021. Bowlsby's letter followed in July 2021. Their departure was complicated by the leak and the departure date and negotiating plans fouled up with the leak. USC announced June 2022, 1 day I think before Yormark was introduced as the new commission. The talks with the B1G reportedly began late winter/early spring 2022. The reality is FOX/Warren likely made the move far sooner, perhaps while they were on the ZOOM conference with Kliavkoff and Phillips.;-) Yormark's quote, that you claim was out of context was part of his introduction and your claim it was the PAC 12 schools reaching out first is not wholly accurate.. The PAC 12 $50MM demand was rejected prior to the USC intent to leave announcement. Yormark slid into the negotiating queue in August 2022 and the deal was "reported" October 2022. I believe I have not only backed up my slobbering Yormark comment but, my propping up the Big 12 comment and provided the timeline for how it came together. If you care to share more of your understanding of the timeline I will be happy to see if I can fill in your holes for you. ** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 6/27/2024, 5:25:38 PM

I will contribute. There is no evidence in your claim that the B12 is Propped. It is your opinion, and while you are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to state it as fact. Someone on this board made a point on several different occasions to point that out to me, and many others. - can't remember who though.

About FOX refusing to pay PAC schools $50 Million before USC & UCLA had even announced for the B1G. That pretty much seals what was obvious to me at the time the PAC folded. The PAC was intentionally destroyed by FOX & ESPN. Why would both FOX & ESPN deny PAC schools $50 Million each (before USC & UCLA left) and then give Big-12 schools $40 Millions each after Texas & Oklahoma had already announced leaving? That makes no business sense unless both FOX & ESPN were in collusion together to destroy the PAC. Then you add in the way the PAC was denied any type media deal in the many months that followed. It became even clearer that the PAC was shafted by Big Media. The Big-12 was therefore chosen by Big Media to be the survivor of those two conferences. I think centralized location is what made the Big-12 the winner. A theory that the ACC will have their ESPN TV Contract extended past 2027 with an ample increase if the ACC allows FSU & Clemson to leave for the SEC. That would probably end expansion for another decade. I have doubts that major college football with the rampant changes ever progressing will even last another decade. What is going to stop the over the last several years always accelerating train of destruction?

but I'm not convinced that the B12 got the PAC money. I think that the PAC's numbers were that dismal, and their time slot doomed the conference - not their athletics. If the PAC had expanded when they had the chance, we would not even be discussing the B12 today. Neither FOX or ESPN wanted to take on the flailing PAC network, and keep in mind, ESPN offered the PAC a reported contract in the $25M range - the same range that the B12 got from ESPN. We do not know how the PACN fit in to those negotiations, but I speculate that like the ACC, a long term contract to promote a network is expensive - which makes it risky. The B12 got the contract they got because both ESPN and FOX paid for content. It's the only major FBS conference that has both FOX and ESPN. There is speculation that is because of the basketball content, which should not be ignored, but the football games were divvied up between the networks as well. There is no doubt that the location and time slots of the B12 was a factor, and continues to be a factor - but even the 4 corners except Utah, struggle to fill their stadiums. The PAC without USCLA was still a better conference than the new B12 in many areas, and it is the passionate beer drinking fan bases of the left over B12 that the networks bought with their money, not the perception of the PAC. We might be watching the demise of college athletics as we have known them. I hope not, because those kids on the non revs, the band members, and a host of careers not associated with big money are on the table. It's easy to blame the media companies, but they are the ones with the actuarial numbers that determine what is worth what. of course, we as fans, with the history and traditions, think differently. No one was watching an ASU vs, (pick a school) game.

the board can judge from this exchange your perfect understanding of the timeline as well as your other arguments. You asked me who I THOUGHT propped up the Big 12 and I told you, which is an opinion not a statement of fact. The timeline speaks to the plausibility of that opinion and just because you do not like it does not make it any less plausible.

thinking skills can understand some very simple mental stepping stones that are, again, easily verifiable by doing even the most superficial amount of research: - Even during negotiations for the new PAC-12 media contracts, USC knew it was leaving. Some have even openly accused the USC administration of sabotaging the negotiations for its own gain. - PAC-12 presidents, using their own consultants and projection models, either overshot their projected media rights value or otherwise floated a counteroffer to ESPN that was so high it caused ESPN to leave the negotiation table completely. FOX was never a player for PAC-12 media rights, as it was already invested in the B1G and Big 12. - George Kliavkoff hired his law school buddy's consulting firm to assist with negotiation the PAC-12 media rights contract instead of more reputable, proven options, and he did not do a good job, resulting in a high risk, performance-dependent deal from Apple that came with no linear broadcast and a $100/year subsciption model to access conference content. Literally nobody from the PAC-12 wanted this. - After ESPN walking but before the Apple deal was announced, USC and UCLA announced they were leaving. Colorado then jumped to the Big 12. The literal morning the rest of the schools, basically under duress, were set to sign the Apple deal, Oregon and Washington had enough of the BS and bailed to the B1G. Everyone else panicked, and the Big 12 took the rest of the four corner schools. - The Big 12's media rights deal with FOX allowed them to add up to 4 current power 5 programs with an automatic pro rata increase in payout from FOX. The Big 12 took Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State, and Utah because that's where the FOOTBALL BRAND VALUE was. You'll notice that the Big 12 did not add WSU or OSU, and definitely did not add Stanford or Cal. Why, you ask? Because they are all WORTH LESS FROM A FOOTBALL BRANDING STANDPOINT than the schools they took. - The ACC's media rights contract with ESPN allowed for similar additions, but did not have the "power 5" requirement. In a panicked response to FSU's saber rattling, partisans from Wake Forest and Notre Dame convinced conference leadership and the swing vote at NCSU to add Stanford, Cal, and SMU. - This was NOT done add FOOTBALL BRAND VALUE to the ACC, it was done defensively to flank ESPN so that it could not immediately step in and dictate changes to the media rights contract if FSU and Clemson left. Stanford and Cal were chosen because of academic snobbery. SMU, already passed over for membership by both the PAC and Big 12) was chosen because they were so desperate they agreed to forego media rights payouts (and what does that tell you?) Neither were chosen for FOOTBALL BRAND VALUE - if that was really the criteria, the ACC would have tried to raid the Big 12 or added WSU/OSU. But that would have been aggressive and visionary, two things Jim Phillips knows nothing about. - Yes, there was a slight increase in payout for ACC members, but it's temporary, and it was a drop in the bucket. And now the ACC is stuck with two schools in California with football programs nobody cares about, and SMU, a G5 program in Texas that hasn't been relevant since the 80's and that also nobody cares about. The move did not help the actual problem, and solely benefited the low- and negative value programs in the ACC that are causing all the conference's problems in the first place. There, that's it. Feel free to fact check any of the above, the facts are all easily verifiable, and anyone with the ability to process information can put together why it's entirely bad news for VT and any other ACC school with a serious football agenda.

fact check because most of what you said, your obvious errors notwithstanding, I have said multiple times before, so thanks for confirming. Keep talking, while I do not necessarily agree with all of your positions I think there is more common ground than you might think. Where we have differing opinions is in what we believe Phillips could have actually done, not necessarily what he should have done. ** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 6/28/2024, 12:23:32 PM

Just for my own edification. Also, I'm interested in hearing from you how exactly the additions of Stanford, Cal, and SMU helps VT. I understand how it helps, if nothing else, perpetuate the existence of the conference. I also understand how it benefits the small and negative value football brands. Please help me learn how it benefits VT, and VT's football agenda and aspirations. I really want to understand. Thanks.

glaring errors are that USC was gone well before Apple discussions and likely even before ESPN left the table AND while you are correct FOX was not bidding directly on the PAC 12 they had substantial indirect interest through courting USC/UCLA/Oregon and Washington. In the TBD category you contend the money from the ACC additions is a drop in the bucket and, at present, unknown until the in state carriage fees are known. I have already said the three may not promote or solve the ACC football branding issues or VT's footballagenda. In reverse order, likely nothing other than the ACC staying intact or a P2 invite solves VTs issues. I have asked you who was available and attainable. Your reply was to say a visionary approach would have been some Big 12 schools. I would call that tilting at windmills because of their just recently signed media agreement and GOR and the fact the numbers do not work. Fact is demographically the ACC has been running uphill since its formation. They have always played the long game of survive and advance. It has served them well to outlast better resourced peers, if not thrive, and that is the game Phillips is playing now except that long term existence may not be a viable reality but, allowing ALL conference members a shot at a reasonable landing is still on the table.

but it's apparent to me you're not very well-informed on the topic at hand, so I think I'll just leave it here. That said, just so you're aware: - USC was definitely, 100% gone before the Apple deal was presented to the rest of the PAC-12 schools. - Fox didn't "bid" on Oregon and Washington, they picked them up for half price, after it was apparent that Kliavkoff could not present a deal that included linear broadcast. - ESPN (likely begrudgingly) is paying the ACC an increase of $72 million in media rights revenue for the addition of Stanford, Cal, and SMU. Stanford and Cal are only (temporarily) getting a 30% of member payout, and SMU (also temporarily) is taking nothing. That creates around ~$55m of additional revenue annually for the ACC to distribute. Not all of that is being distributed pro rata to current members, some of it is going into the competition fund, etc., but let's assume all of it was just being distributed evenly, every year, to the other 15 (we won't even count Notre Dame here.) That would be an additional $3.6 million dollars a year, per member, in a landscape where the SEC and B1G will be paying out $30 - $40 million dollars per member more than the ACC. Especially when taking into consideration that the conference is now stuck with 3 additional members that have little to negative football brand value in Texas and California, and the fact that all 3 new members will be getting other payouts from the conference (bowls, CFP, ACCN, etc.) that would otherwise be divided among the previous membership, that's EXACTLY what I would call a "drop in the bucket." - The ACC has not been "running uphill since its formation," nor have they ever been involved in any game of "survive and advance" until very recently. That is an absolutely untrue, completely out of left field take that indicates that your positions and opinions have no historical context. The ACC was a gold mine from the moment of its inception in 1953, was THE brand name in basketball until the Big East had been around for 20 years, and as late as the mid-aughts, was the most valuable and wealthy college athletics conference in America. All of the above is easily verifiable; I'm not making it up. If you want to have a productive back-and-forth discussion about all this, then I suggest you return to this thread after you've become better informed. ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 6/28/2024, 3:47:38 PM

you reread and inform yourself better before you return to this discussion. I said they have been running up the hill DEMOGRAPHICALLY since inception and they have as a collection of smaller public and privates versus the large publics of the SEC and B1G. There is nothing out of historical context about that statement nor the survive and advance strategy employed since the early 2000s.

you would still be wrong, on both counts. The portions of the country the ACC schools are located in are not protracting, population wise, and there has been no "survive and advance" until ESPN decided to give the SEC double what it does the ACC and FSU started sabre rattling - there certainly wasn't in the early 2000s, when, again, the ACC was the HIGHEST PAID AND MOST WEALTHY CONFERENCE IN AMERICA. You're completely wrong on the facts - don't believe me, look it up. Just take the L, man. We can still be friends. ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 6/28/2024, 4:01:45 PM

the facts. I know what I said. I know you need to reread, probably a little slower, less emotionally and with hopefully increased comprehension. There is NO L to take on either side .

Think we'll just have to leave it here then, with respect. All kidding aside, thanks for making my Friday a little more interesting. I hope you have a good weekend.

part of your charm.

Maybe some of the ACC Presidents are putting on the breaks and saying, lets continue to be an amateur league with good academics and good athletics. I hope so ** Edited by VictoryTurkey at 6/27/2024, 11:02:42 AM

"an amateur league with good academics and good athletics" is welcome to drop down to D3, stop cashing $40 million dollar/year media rights checks, and, most importantly, stop dragging everyone else down with them.

I won’t say he has been bad, since that honor goes to the PAC leadership (corruption and incompetence). But Phillips had the chance to strengthen the ACC and struck out. He also didn’t improve football scheduling (no VT Miami). He let the ACC get pushed around for NCAA tournament selections and football playoff selections. At best he has been ineffective.

UNC has been the boss and the job description is to make UNC better first. How did he let the ACC get pushed around? Only way I can see is what he did not do and that is to take to X and whatever to try and mount a social media campaign. Does anyone really think that taking those kind of public whinnings really gain anything? And, all any of us know is what is public. Heck if we listen to what is public we would believe that FSU is kicking the ACC around with fail proof legal public utterings. So we have no way of knowing if he had a chance to strengthen the ACC and didn't. As for scheduling, you are pulling the UNC mindset there in that you are judging what is best for VT. To Miami we are not a rival. They have won 5 or 6. For Jim Philips to have pressured Miami for something that was big back around the year 2000, Do you really think that even an enormous public effort would have gotten a quarterback less FSU in over other bluebloods? I don't.

From Heisman and Belitnikoff voter Todd Helmick. He’s a former FSU player. NETWORK HORSE TRADING ESPN will end up sublicensing more future CFP games, including some semifinal games, in exchange for a handful of financing. On the flip side, ESPN will be able to carry some B1G games, in particular on the new Venu Sports package that's about to debut. Venu is a sports streaming service joint venture between Disney/ESPN, FOX and Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD). It is scheduled to launch this fall. The capabilities include high level DVR programming for such things as pause, rewind, save, etc. for sports carried by all three partners, including TNT. This product has been called a sports television game changer for everyone including the NFL. The CBS and NBC folks are cautiously watching. The realignment legal horse trading is quite confusing to those not in the network industry because fans don't have access to the performance indicators used to generate profits, especially between multiple partners sharing content. The networks are utilizing corporeal data to determine how conferences function best for the networks. Conferences are no longer in control. The price ESPN paid for the CFP rights came in much lower than most experts anticipated. Speculation exists to where those negotiations were part of the process in exchange for FSU and other possible income producing ACC members being re-slotted for maximum gain to all Venu partners. WBD will also broadcast some of the CFP games in 2026 that will be produced by ESPN and their on-air talent. With TNT cable now in more homes (70 million) compared to ESPN this potentially provides a different demographic numbers reach for ESPN. I have mentioned in the past that for FSU to enter the B1G, don't be alarmed if ESPN is permitted to broadcast some of those games. Well apparently, here it comes. The realignment world is waiting on FSU to announce. This announcement comes before kickoff 2024. More likely any day now. The ACC/ESPN contract renegotiation is for another topic. Obviously, he’s biased, but the idea that Fox held back on the CFP is something I haven’t heard before.

Very little on the site at this moment. I found this to be interesting: “Launch is conditional on receiving regulatory approval and is expected for Fall 2024. This site is owned and operated by a subsidiary of FOX Corporation.” ** Edited by WBGV at 6/27/2024, 12:42:35 PM

very similar to what this board's @INSIDE99 posted but, yours has attribution.

we won't bid against you if you will give us some content "Speculation exists to where those negotiations were part of the process in exchange for FSU and other possible income producing ACC members being re-slotted for maximum gain to all Venu partners."

become simpler or more complicated? Is "horse trading" a more sterile term for collusion and a precursor to restraint of trade claims? Seems like there might be some lawyers getting ready to take another bite of the apple. It will be interesting to see where things go in the coming weeks, months and years. Also, this might be a clue as to why the big fight over privacy and trade secrets of media rights contracts. It also gives me the thought I might need to look at the ACC, FSU and Clemson lawsuits from a different perspective.

lawsuits. If they have made "deals" like this, discovery would be poisonous.

You have got to give Phillips some credit for that. What you state could be the outcome that occurs in the next several months. It all probably all depends on UNC. Does UNC really want out of the ACC now or in several more years? Probably comes down to just how much political pressure can be applied to UNC within North Carolina. I really have little knowledge on that.

Three teams named the Tigers already - LSU, Auburn and Mizzou.