53 Replies
Lotta towns crushed by our response to Covid
We shut down businesses, unless you were a major chain, and didn’t protect businesses from riots that first summer.
Not sure when retail will recover in a town like Berkeley. My thought is ten more years, until a new generation of business owners gets sick of their corporate jobs and wants to strike out on their own.
Btw, I was in old town Alexandria last weekend…it seems 100% back. That certainly was not true when I was last there in winter of 2023.
(In response to this post by HOKIEGOBBLE)
I
INSIDE99
2y
Clemson complaint verifying the Composition Clause exists in the ACC/ESPN contract. There has been a change in the ACC membership. This opened the door for contract changes with ESPN. Not uncommon.
(In response to this post by HOKIEGOBBLE)
W
WarHog38
2y
Just like ESPN & FOX colluded to destroy the PAC. Some here like to champion the Big-12 akin to a much better oiled machine in this expansion circus. The Big-12 just got a comparable TV Media Deal that the PAC was denied. Who did the denying? ESPN & FOX.
You keep seeing the Fact that the SEC & B1G & Big-12 all made a point of publicly backing ESPN in all that redacting of supposed Trade Secrets in the ACC TV Contract. Was that really necessary? NO It is just publicly flaunting the fact that all the major football conferences are in bed with Big Media.
Clemson does have a point. How can you legally challenge aspects of the ACC TV Contract in court when you cannot mention those aspects in court? Which begs another question. How can the ACC legally enforce that TV Contract against Clemson in court with all those redactions?
Looks like wie have Compositions Clauses & Contact Extensions Look-Ins that only benefit ESPN throughout that ACC TV Contract. Those are the Trade Secrets that all the P4 want to stay hidden from public view. Why? Because the ACC is going to be destroyed by ESPN while ESPN publicly acts like they were backed into a corner by the greed of everyone else instead of themselves. That ACC TV Contract would show how ESPN had it all planned out over 10 years ago.
(In response to this post by LonghornHokie)
2y
as you state, the "big networks" want to destroy the ACC, that would cost ESPN close to $140-150 million in lost net revenue without the conference as a moneymaker. ESPN IS NOT GOING TO KILL THE ACC when it brings in net profits like that. Some folks in this room need to find a grip on reality and basic finance before making ridiculous, factless statements like we see in here, and on other boards.
Will the ACC want a look-in in 2026-27? Possibly, but you don't eat the cow that gives golden milk!!
As for your "legal interpretations" on the ACC GOR, I suggest you talk to 8-10 corporate lawyers and get their opinions. You obviously have no law degree, as do 99% of the posters and turd polishers with blogs.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WarHog38
2y
Probably 1/2 from all the television statistics I have ever seen on the ACC. That will be $62 Million - $70 Million lost right there if both leave. How much more would ESPN make if they had FSU & Clemson playing an SEC schedule with Alabama, Texas & Oklahoma instead of BC, Wake, Duke & Syracuse? Your response is the only thing comical. Never heard anybody claim that high an ESPN profit on the ACC.
Would ESPN really mind stopping those $4O Million yearly payouts to BC, Wake, Duke, Syracuse & Louisville & Pittsburgh? That is well over your $140 Million right there with some ACC schools with low TV ratings still left that ESPN would likely also cut loose.
(In response to this post by ancient alien 2018)
V
VTCALS72
2y
Media Rights deal, The answer is they may not be able to at all. The first question is whether the GOR is valid and whether the ACC overstepped the powers and authorities the GOR, even broadly, granted from the individual schools to the conference.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
H
hokieZ71
2y
The PAC 12 was killed when 4 schools left for the P2 and ESPN pulled funding, causing 4 more schools to leave for the Big XII. (Stanford and Cal to the ACC is immaterial) This is 8 schools total, killing the league.
The ACC will be killed when 4 schools leave for the P2 and ESPN decides to pull funding, causing 4 more schools to leave for the Big XII. This is 8 schools total, killing the league.
What do you think will happen next? The P2 just accept the Big XII as an equal sized partner, still making enough money to pay the same wages that the P2 pay? Nope. That ESPN/Fox will pay the Big XII more money to be an inferior product to the P2? Nope.
The P2 will be at 20 schools each and need to add 7 schools + Notre Dame to hoard all the CFP $$ to itself. They take 7 of the top Big XII schools/TV Markets/fanbases/elite hoops programs and, gee…….ESPN/Fox pulls funding….and it dies. At least as a power conference. Just like the Pac 12, just like the ACC.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
T
Truthahn
2y
I assume the GOR holds, and we will avoid the big jailbreak by allowing teams out one by one, at a time best for the ACC, not the other parties, starting with FSU replaced by USF a few years after ESPN extends our TV contract.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
2y
the entities involved wanted to kill off the PAC. The Big10 wanted a better media contract, and USC could give it to them. It was all about the money. OU and Washington took partial shares, because they saw the writing on the wall. The SEC was not involved in the collapse of the PAC, and lets be clear, the SEC is an ESPN property.
To imply that ESPN conspired to implode the PAC is missing something. The PAC imploded because they were not going to get a media contract that would give the 10 teams left the money, or the exposure to compete on a national level moving forward. So, the next 6 schools left to preserve what they could.
You can not conveniently dismiss CalFord. Just because they were the last to find a landing spot, does not mean that the ACC was not complicate in the PAC's demise. For all we know, the 4 corners went to the B12 because the ACC's offer wasn't good enough.
If they wanted a break away league, we would already have one. The NCAA settlement changed that dynamic, but the moves of the PAC schools were before the proposed settlement, and "revenue sharing" for students was even a concept.
We may get that break away league, but I don't see that it was or is a preconceived goal. All the Big 10 and SEC want is their money and competitive advantage. A break away league of 48 schools would negate that.
This experiment to consolidate the top football brands has not played out yet, and I see the Michigan's, USC's, Oklahoma's, and Alabama's of the world getting tired of the 8-4 records moving forward. The marque matchups of the blue blood programs will turn into just another regular season game, and we will have a lot of Nebraska type fans asking what the hell just happened.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
H
hokieZ71
2y
They’re paying fair market price for the product they’re putting on TV. The better the product, the more they’ll pay. The worse the product, the less they’ll pay. The fact that leagues fall apart when their media payouts are not competitive with other leagues isn’t ESPN or Fox’s problem.
And that 48-team breakaway is easier to see than you think. And it’s because of how the realignment process is slowly churning along. The P2 has slowly added 2 teams at a time every few years, slowly shifting the power structure of college football.
The ACC is dying now because its death has now been discussed for years upon years. Finebaum, Brett McMurphy, the Athletic, Dellenger, Herbstreit, Cowherd, etc… (but not ESPN per se). When the ACC dies, there’s only one other conference to talk about dying in the future. And the Big XII has already taken its biggest hits, losing its 4 elite football programs. (Who cares if Nebraska is no longer relevant) It just needs to be finished off. Between 2026 and 2029, when you hear for 4 straight years how Kansas, Arizona, Arizona State, Oklahoma St, Miami, Baylor, and whoever else are looking to leave the Big XII, the Big XII is dead as soon as they get snapped up before the next Big XII contract gets signed. At that point the Big XII ceases to be relevant for the CFP, because we all will spend years getting prepped for it by the media, just like the ACC. And because ESPN and Fox won’t pay it enough in media rights to be able to field competitive football teams. Because of fair market value.
** Edited by hokieZ71 at 7/7/2024, 12:17:21 PM
** Edited by hokieZ71 at 7/7/2024, 12:18:54 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
considered is more of a game changer than "conference realignment". It really doesn't matter what happens to the ACC or B12, or the P2. It may be far off, but if there is a breakaway, ........
I'm not convinced however, that it is what the networks or the P2 wants.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
H
hokieZ71
2y
And if they do it right, it could completely work. Find a way to get the largest college fanbases invested in a football league with a structure and playoff model similar to the NFL and it could be incredible. Or it could backfire in their faces. What they can't do is alienate the collective fanbases of large schools like Oklahoma State, NC State, Colorado, Kansas, UVA, Virginia Tech, WVU, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Miami, Texas Tech, Louisville. They don't need a Cincinnati or a Wake Forest or Duke...or a Houston, SMU, BC, Syracuse or TCU because...they're either small enough or they've been on the outside looking in long enough that they're not really going to take away from your ratings.
So, in my opinion, 48 is the number where they pull in enough of the large college fanbases to their collective in order to be insulated against the backlash of the fans of schools who are excluded and they just separate. If there's 60 teams in a P2 + B12 scenario (likely VT's landing spot, btw) where the Big 12 schools get paid half what the P2 schools get paid....I just don't seeing that persisting in the long run. Because the B12 would still have value and this is ALL happening because the P2 are snatching up all the value they can find for themselves.
Ask yourself this, which leagues still have a GOR? The ACC and Big XII. Why? Because they have value that can be taken by other leagues. When there are no more leagues with GOR's, this ends.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
breakaway league - and there are still GOR's in the conferences (if they even still exist in their present form), they will be negotiated down, paid, and everyone will move on. The ACC GOR rulings will be key on that point.
There will be so many other moving parts with the Olympics, baseball, basketball, and other issues, that it's not a slam dunk that the top 48 teams (pick a number) just pick up and start over.
There may have to be some sort of anti trust because of title 9, athlete compensation, and a host of other issues. It seems common sensical to just take the top teams and bolt the NCAA, and looks easy to us fans. In practice, especially with the legalities and possible civil actions, "not so fast".
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
H
hokieZ71
2y
And when Oregon St and Washington State sue, I’ll believe litigation is possible. Nobody has a better case than them.
** Edited by hokieZ71 at 7/7/2024, 5:44:47 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
W
WarHog38
2y
ESPN & FOX wants the best product possible to fetch the highest possible advertising income and subscriber totals. If that means Conferences or University football programs biting the dust? That is just collateral damage of obvious little concern to ESPN & FOX. Label that however you wish.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
are other entities like CBS that will want live sporting event content - especially football.
I think the SEC were in negotiations with ESPN, and wanted much more money than was being offered. I also think that ESPN said that maybe if you had Texas an Oklahoma in your conference, we would pay those amounts. Take that to the Big 10 - and you hace USCLA in their conference.
So here we are today, and the PAC imploded, and we will have some sort of settlement +that will play players. The conferences may stay intact, and there may not be a separation - but if there is .....
It will be the P2 and others not yet included that will form the new league - NOT ESPN and FOX. It will be that group negotiating the media deals as a package for the break away league, and conferences as we have understood them historically will be gone. I don't think that is what the networks want, but if the schools are undervalued as some suggest, and the players will have a say in their pay, all of this back and forth with the former P5 may be a moot point.
For now though, there are 4 "power conferences" that will compete for the national championship until these contracts run out - so the competition on the field will be fierce. There is more at stake for a lot of these schools then there was before in my opinion.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WarHog38
2y
For years CBS broadcasted a weekly Saturday afternoon SEC football game. CBS got first choice of the content or SEC football game that they broadcasted each week. I did notice that CBS showed more than a casual attempt to showcase multiple SEC teams throughout the season. Arkansas would usually get at least two games each season shown nationally on CBS. The way that Razorback football has stunk over the last dozen years, I think that definitely shows that CBS wanted variety over quality to some degree.
I have no idea about the arrangement that CBS will now have to broadcast B1G games. Beginning this year in 2024, ABC will now broadcast that weekly SEC game. ABC is owned by Disney just like ESPN. That means Disney & ESPN have all the broadcasting rights to SEC football games. CBS is owned by Viacom. FOX is owned by FOX.
Disney, FOX & Viacom are therefore the prime & virtually only three media giants involved in televising college football. it suffices to label Disney as ESPN in this instance.
I agree with most you say. However money rules everything in high finance. Televising college football is definitely high finance. ESPN wants an all powerful SEC to enlarge Disney's bank account
A lot of dead weight in the ACC as Vandy in the SEC. I have seen grafts that show similar viewing ratings for many ACC games as a Vandy televised football game. That is the weakness of the ACC in the stark terms of today's business reality. ESPN just wants to shed that dead weight. ESPN surely feels that largely increasing payouts to a few ACC football programs will still put them well ahead by paring the ACC dead weight. I think FSU & Clemson are headed to the SEC. I think ESPN is demanding that.
I think FSU would choose the B1G over the SEC, due to over 50 years of real bad blood between FSU & SEC. If FSU goes to the B1G? I will bow to your theory that the schools & conferences have the last word in all this, not Big Media.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
S
Stech
2y
or lack there of by Larry Scott killed the Conference. Can you imagine if Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State “had “ gone to the PAC years ago? They were the very first to try to be the first 16 team power conference.
That not happening has made for monumental changes in the Conference. Six big ones that moved Monday. Texas, Oklahoma, USC-w, UCLA, Oregon and Washington would likely still be in the PAC, and would have gotten one heck of a TV deal too,
(In response to this post by HOKIEGOBBLE)
W
WarHog38
2y
The Longhorn Network TV Contract with ESPN. It was reported that Texas refused killing the LHN.
Something that Texas did a decade later to enter the SEC. Greg Sankey would not accept the LHN any more than Larry Scott. The LHN had an initial twenty year contract solely with ESPN as I remember. The LHN had never been a money making project for ESPN and had very redundant programming that never drew subscribers in large numbers.
My point, ESPN was actually making the pivotal decisions on that 2012 attempt for those Big-12 schools to enter the PAC. It was blamed on the Longhorns when ESPN could have easily held the Longhorn's feet to fire about reneging on LHN Contract. A LHN that always had poor ratings. We will probably never know what actually happened.
(In response to this post by Stech)
2
2hhoop3
2y
the difference was the numbers didn't work for either side. The LHN despite bleeding cash had a long time to run and Texas was not willing to walk away cheap. ESPN was not essentially willing to bite that bullet along with meeting PAC 12 demands. The next time around Texas gets SEC money, ESPN dumps the LHN network albatross around their neck and UT/OU walk a year early with ESPN sweetening the pot for the Big 12. PAC 12 could have made the deal that time or closer to contract expiration just without UT and OU for a little less money but, by that time FOX and the B1G was already bending USC's ear.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
would make bank when Texas and the PAC were dating. The last part of your response is interesting speculation, but just that. The PAC was not courting Texas and Oklahoma "the next time around". That, and ESPN didn't want to pay or the PAC after the top 4. No different than what the B12, and now the ACC have or are going through.
It's not that they aren't willing to pay for Cal's or K-States content, they were just unwilling to pay the conference what it would have taken for the top schools to be content - so the top schools are now in the "P2".
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
R
RJHokie
2y
what a stupid 💩 Larry Scott was wrt his decision making and his handling of the PAC 12 conference, particularly the conference network while lining his own pockets and distributing less and less to the individual schools. The linked article demonstrates how that decision not to expand basically killed the conference. It’s been 13 years since he made that ill fatal decision and the schools going right along with him.
However, there’s no assurance that the annexation of 4 Big 12 schools in 2011/2012 would have preserved the Pac 12 through this latest go round o conference realignment, but I believe it would have made it more difficult.
** Edited by RJHokie at 7/5/2024, 7:13:39 PM
Link:
Pac 12 Expansion?
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
along with making fun of Larry Scott's PR guy chuckd4vt. Scott was at best a moron and at worst an outright criminal. I do not know whether Jon Wilner or some other PAC beat writers will ever report on the whole mess and while Larry Scott would deserve a starring role there are a number Presidents and ADs that deserve their own starring roles starting with USC leadership. There should also be a special section for that crook Carol Folt and her minions who assisted the PAC 12 suicide behind the scenes as a B1G agent. Folt was a POS during the UNC mess and she took her act to USC. Wherever she shows up sliminess is sure to be found.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
H
HouClone
2y
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2y
(In response to this post by HouClone)
2
2hhoop3
2y
says disgustingly immoral, dishonest and obsequious which would seem to describe the organization's operations and selection process for its members, at least in more recent times. Despite what most would term an egregious and duplicitous no classes scandal UNC is still a member.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
Could one look at the decision to keep UNC as a member as "immoral"? I guess. As an academician, I was disgusted by what happened in Chapel Hill with that, but I also think that the reaction (particularly around here) was pretty overboard with respect to how that practice—which was, in reality, a fairly isolated deal—should reflect on the university overall. Makes me think people ought to be careful about where they throw stones.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
supporting the strategy was dishonest and her subsequent appointment to an AAU leadership role is at best questionable judgement. It likely will also do us little good to debate the consistency of their application of the organization's selection criteria and the strong odor of cronyism. We will just have to agree to disagree.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
How did Folt "approve and support the strategy"?
In some specific way beyond "she was chancellor at the time"?
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
has the oversight over strategy and more importantly spending, including over $20 million on legal fees. As an academician, I do not believe you would in good conscience sacrifice your academic integrity and programs for a defense strategy that ostensibly says spare our athletic program because EVERYBODY was doing it, not just the athletes, an argument which on its face would seem to dispute your earlier contention that it was "in reality, a fairly isolated deal."
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
1. Defending the life of your athletic department due to something that I actually agree was not necessarily truly an NCAA issue has little to do with academic integrity overall. Spending $20 million on it, I will agree is questionable. Until maybe you look at the other money schools spend (and bring in) via athletics. And there's a lot of "$20 millions" in a muti-billion dollar big university budget.
2. "EVERYBODY" wasn't doing it. Some non-athletes (and not all athletes) were and that's essentially why I don't see it as an NCAA issue. While it was clearly started to help athletes, it didn't actually benefit *only* athletes. "Your classes are too easy" is not an evaluation I want the NCAA making. Not their job.
3. Yes, it was "isolated" in the grand scheme. It wasn't "EVERYBODY" just because some non-athletes took those classes as well. The Wainstein report said 3,100 students participated in "paper classes" over the course of 18 years. Even if that is truly 3,100 individual people and not "enrollments," that's only 200 students/yr. How many people attended UNC over the course of those 18 years? How many people earned degrees without taking a single "paper class"? How many legitimate credits did those 3,100 students who benefitted from fraud earn in addition to fraudulent ones? People have reacted as if tens of thousands of people earned UNC degrees without ever going to a single class, when the reality is that there was a rogue element in one department that practically no one had ever heard of helping athletes (and others) stay eligible and progress toward graduation. Reprehensible behavior for sure. Heads directly (and some less directly) involved absolutely should have rolled. However, it's not something that should tarnish the academic reputation of an entire university and all those who ever earned a degree there or worked there the way some here seem to relish the narrative being.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
to your opinion. If you believe that what they admitted to was the complete story and that the investigation was complete as opposed to their first try to cauterize the wound that is your choice. UNC is a big school but, $20MM to defend a scandal and cover up is significant. Like I said we will agree to disagree, especially when it comes to academic integrity and the role that fraud, any fraud, plays in damaging that integrity.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
Sure, that report may not be 100% accurate, but what else do we have to go on? I'm all ears.
How many students? How many credits? How many tainted degrees? Which other departments?
I said $20MM is questionable.
I am not saying academic fraud is "ok." I tried to state very plainly that it's not. The question is what the relative scope is and the reputational ramifications of that.
And, of course we're all entitled to our opinions.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
would satisfy you. You have made clear what you believe and are willing to accept. Like I said, we will disagree.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
I am open to believing different from what I've stated. I just haven't seen you offer anything about the scope of the scandal other than claiming that the facts I'm basing my opinion on aren't accurate. I acknowledge they may not be (I'm surely not an expert on what happened...thus my "piques my interest" post) and I'm fully prepared to alter my perspective if there's some viable alternative version that's credible. If "trust me, it's more than that" is the alternative, then, yeah, no discussion can happen.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
in this thread give a good indication of what satisfies you, what you are willing to accept and how disingenuous you are willing to be in your replies. You did admit $20MM was questionable and turn right around in the same breath and tried to minimize it and that is just one example. Anyhow, this thread began about slimy and our back and forth will allow readers to form their own conclusions on that.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
Agreed on cronyism...I guess I just see that as different from "slimy," especially since there really aren't significant benefits to AAU membership. I liken it to being named to some sort of honor society. Sure, it's nice to be recognized, but whatever.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2y
** Edited by Atlee Hokie at 7/5/2024, 9:27:35 PM
(In response to this post by HouClone)
T
Truthahn
2y
That seemed really weird back then.
(In response to this post by Stech)
V
Vippie1
2y
at the time I thought those schools in the PAC was absurd- but of course it is a lot more sensible then what we got now.
If that had actually happened I assume the B12 would have been toast a decade ago- maybe the B1G moves on Colorado and Utah? The ACC likely would be the 4th fiddle but the revenue gaps may be a little less wide, and maybe (no certainty) things would be a tad more stable. The USC/UCLA to the BIG is what put this mess on steroids , and if that never happens then the world is still imperfect, but markedly better IMO.
(In response to this post by Stech)
T
Truthahn
2y
IIRC, OK wanted to bring along OSU and the PAC did not want them, too. I guess the same goes for Texas Tech (Texas wanted them, too, and the PAC did not?).
I assume USC and UCLA caused it to fail, out of self interest of course (similar to FSU voting against SMU to the ACC).
The non-big dogs really should have revolted until they got that addition done. That would have been a great 14 team conference.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
2
2hhoop3
2y
they would have likely been one of 4 and the realignment game looks a lot different. By the PAC 12 imploding under a combination of self inflicted wounds and with help from ESPN and FOX the shift in the balance of power created essentially a two horse(SEC/B1G) race. It would still be a two horse race but, one would be a B1G/PAC 12 partnership and the other would be a SEC/ACC partnership.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
2y
How in the world they didn't end the Big 12 when they had the chance. They have made Yormark look like a genius.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
for FOX/BIG and ESPN/SEC. ;-)
(In response to this post by HokiesACC2004)
True, The Pac-12 screwed up royally...
They could've expanded and looked something like this:
Northwest - Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State
Golden State - California, UCLA, USC and Stanford
Four Corners - Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah
Southwest - Oklahoma. Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech
The Pac-16 would've had 6 major brands. Instead, you have 4 West Coast schools playing in a traditonally Midwestern conference and 2 San Francisco Bay schools playing in the ACC. Only the 4 Four Corners schools to the Big 12 make a little sense.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
T
Truthahn
2y
A little colluding with the ACC to rip up the B12 just after Texas and OK announced they were leaving would have easily left the PAC still standing. Just WVU to the ACC, and OSU plus maybe just one Texas team to the PAC might have done it.
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
O
obguthr
2y
It was a bastard conference from its inception. But alas, the Pac-12 gave its life so that the XII could survive. Such altruism.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2y
(In response to this post by obguthr)