Here's my issue with any rumors of ANY ACC schools going to the BigXII
right now.
All this about private equity. I can't say I know much about it, but it sounds like borrowing money to keep up with the Joneses. It's either borrowing money, or selling off control of the conference and athletic departments. And in the end, let's say that the BigXII gets the best football assets in the current ACC. it still won't be enough to match the prestige, money and brands of the P2.
I respect the hustle and creativity of Yormark and the BigXII, but to me, this would be an absolute last resort for VT.
55 Replies
it's selling equity, not really borrowing, normally
You come to an agreement that your entity is worth $X, and then sell Y% of it for X*Y.
There are lots of strings attached normally, like guaranteed returns, board control, etc.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
V
Vippie1
2y
allowing for some guaranteed dividend payout-so likely might have characteristics of preferred debt. Given there is no obvious exit strategy (beyond selling your stake to another financial buyer) most PE firms will need to show short term returns to satisfy their LPs.
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
2y
network? That would be a tangible asset that could be sold, because if the B12 were to expand, there are only so many time slots for a 20 team conference (or larger). Best of the rest would be a compelling conference, and good TV.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
V
VTCALS72
2y
But not just like the ACCN is now as both would have to become much more. What I see is both the future ACC, the Big 12, future PAC and all lower divisions being forced to produce their own content as big media will stop producing it and buy the finished content.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
2y
to start a network is likely not a viable idea or good use of what would be relatively high cost funding and that is even before considering the real merit of using PE at all.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
with an asset that the B12 currently does not have. If they want to create a third conference, a P3 if you will, they will have to find value and revenue that closes the current gap. We have discussed adding ACC schools, but that is something the media companies would have to decide. A lateral move is a non starter I think. Either they create a conference that gets close to $20M more a year per school, or it will not make any sense for either the ACC or the B12 to expand. Increasing content inventory would also create other problems, for either conference members. That is unless ESPN/FOX allow a CBS, NBC, or other networks, streaming or otherwise, to buy, and or, bid on content could move the needle with said additional inventory.
A third party network that features B12 content, but also provides a platform for G5 schools would do well in my opinion. Something different that has never been done before, and could actually add revenue to the networks that own the rights to that content.
Just trying to figure out where PE would fit, and where they could make their money, WITH and exit strategy. Otherwise, I'm in your camp, and I don't see how selling 20% of the conference for a short term bump in cash makes any sense. There has to be a way to double the value of a conference for it to make sense, and I don't see it with the current make up of the B12.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
P
PFHokie
2y
Not that it means a thing. I think it’s a toss up between the following:
1). Stay where we are and let the legal situation drag on for years. Clemson and F$U won’t be able to do anything as long as the ACC’s lawsuit is in tact.
2). Break away with the six other programs and join the Big XII. Honestly, I don’t see a huge upside in doing this. There will be like 18 schools splitting revenue. It would be non regional and I don’t see much of a huge demand.
I think we stand pat for now. Hard to imagine that the Big 12 is the end game.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
W
WBGV
2y
contract.
It doesn’t seem that the Mag7 schools or any other block of ACC schools are working together at this point. It seems like it has become every man for himself and there is little to no trust between ACC members. No school wants to end up in OSU & WSU predicament.
(In response to this post by PFHokie)
V
Vippie1
2y
IMO they would more or less do the Mag7 (or up it to 8 or 9 if they need the votes) to breakup the ACC without penalty. And then bide their time. Ultimately they could pick off schools like WVU. and over time who knows, maybe a TV network could make the numbers work well enough that PSU wants part- and then 50 years later you got the East coast conference Paterno wanted.
The takeaway is as long as you can get away from WF, BC and maybe Duke , the numbers, and the flexibility for the future, are much better in a restructured ACC then in the B12.
** Edited by Vippie1 at 7/19/2024, 9:21:50 AM
** Edited by Vippie1 at 7/19/2024, 9:22:16 AM
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
V
VTCALS72
2y
It is more than raw attendance but takes into account the percent of stadium full/sold tickets etc. Yes that includes the falling of the Fuente term and COVID so it like any other "ranking" it has it's weaknesses but, it also has it's uses.
The ACC rankings are 14, 21, 25(VT), 32, 36, 39, 41, 44, 51, 52, 55(Cal) , 56, 61 (BC), 64 (Stanford), 72 (Wake), 82 (SMU) and 86 (Duke).
B12 have 23, 24, 29, 31, 33(WVU), 38, 40(Utah), 42, 43, 45 (Colorado), 47, 49(UCF) 53, 59(Cincy), 71 (Kansas) 73 (Houston)
The point, whether it is the ACC or Big 12, there are teams in the 70s.
Another point on this that is interesting to me is that Kansas = Duke. For sure the the Elko years are not in this but neither are the current Kansas coach. Actually the downside and upside of those 2 are pretty equal and for sure VT fans can go to Duke a lot easier than they can to Kansas.
Would you really trade Duke for Kansas? or Wake for Houston? How about BC for Cincy? Same thing either place.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
O
ombandit
2y
you actually KNOW something…I don’t need more unsubstantiated click bait
🤬
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
(In response to this post by ombandit)
2y
no real football brands, unless you count Utah, help any top shelf ACC school? The ACC needs to cut teams and throw more money to fsu and clem.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
It will not help ACC in long term. They are going to leave at the first opportunity anyway.
(In response to this post by HokieKick`nBack)
2
2hhoop3
2y
at FSU and Clemson is the exact wrong thing to do. FSU in particular should receive no reward for their behavior.
(In response to this post by Atlee Hokie)
2y
It's way past time to be clinging to FSU and Clemson. They are leaving. If they get sidetracked to The Big 12, ESPN actually saves money and Fox & partners also get access to that content.
Even if these two get special treatment on payout, the burden is shared by both Big 12 media partners.
If this plays out, it will give The SEC and The B1G the "quiet time" they want for integrating their new arrivals.
It's a welcome solution for the P2 and FSU/Clemson. But will Yormark continue his pursuit of ACC properties? Will it it cause ESPN to act on the contract extension? Will UNC and/or ND consider a change?
(In response to this post by HokieKick`nBack)
2y
it won't matter which conference they go too. The ACC stands to lose money in the guaranteed playoff look in. They could easily lose $5M per school, per year. (that number is just a guess).
So, from where I'm sitting, the ACC schools are already throwing money at FSU/CU, but when they leave, they will get nothing for it.
Relying on the GOR and the courts is not a good business model. Maybe the ACC wins, maybe they don't, but what is it that you actually win? A shotgun marriage? A better media deal? More playoff spots? The ability to play games against the non mag 7? A ND game every blue moon?
IMHO the P5 will never come back. Also, IMHO, as long as you have the non mag 7, it will be difficult to get the ratings you need in both the media, and in the polls.
When the B12 added the 3 G5's and BYU, Things were cool from my fans perspective. Lets be clear, Arizona and Colorado were the only schools happy to join the B12 - Utah and ASU I would put in the category of any school in the Mag 7. They do not want to be in the B12, they want what the P2 has.
Frankly, I'd be way OK to send the ACC Utah and ASU. From my misplaced fans perspective, they just do not rise to the level of a B12 school.
I used to be excited of possibly getting some schools from the ACC, but unless they bring the value closer to the P2, I'd rather they stay where they are. Do you guys REALLY want FSU now? Do you really think you will get P2 money if you win the lawsuit?
Where is the money, and where is it coming from? Where does either of our conferences get the value to possibly double the conference payout?
The B12 will be good if the ACC stays together. We will have solid and fun football, we will be in the playoffs, and we will have a premier basketball league. So, we're good. Are you?
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
V
VTCALS72
2y
Yes the ACC could lose in the CFP look in but so could the Big 12. How about 1 bid for that conference with maybe 1 win during that time? That is as likely as the big 12 getting more than one entry.
The Big 12 is a conference with a number of solid teams but no one who flashes being able to run the table in the conference. It is not unrealistic to say that all but one Big 12 teams have 3 losses at the end of this and future seasons. sometime parity is a bad thing.
Where I am standing there could easily be more playoff spots for the group of Miami, NCU, Louisville, and VT. What does the look in look like if the ACC has more playoff entrants and wins than the Big 12 does?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
NCSU do not move the needle a bit in regards to the playoff money. Miami has a history, but after FSU and Clemson, it's a nothing burger.
ND has a separate playoff agreement, so they don't count. Cincinnati has done better than all of the schools you listed, and they did it without "power conference" money. Lil Ole private TCU beat the undefeated Big 10 champion Michigan a couple of years ago, and that was when K-State won the conference.
Me thinks Y'all sound like the fans of the PAC before they choked on a large slice of humble pie.
Those teams you listed are on par with the B12 teams, top to bottom. Who in your conference has playoff experience if FSU and Clemson leave? Who would you add that has playoff experience? It's time for some (not all) of you guys to face some reality.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
played a game yet? The Big 12 has no attendance and viewership numbers that are not heavily influenced by teams that are no longer there?
Having watched a number of podcast, I am well disgusted by all the chest beating Big 12 fans who think they are the heir apparent to a 3rd power conference. Hey I have no rose colored glasses as to what is going to happen to VT in all this. All I know is that the Big 12 has way too high a chance of being a disaster.
Please do something first, something more than a team that has an outlier year then falls back to mediocrity.
And get off your high horse of thinking anyone not in the P2 is going to be nationally relevant.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
V
VTCALS72
2y
Instead I see full out offense that the Big 12 is better than the ACC minus FSU and Clemson. That ignores everything but IF scenarios assuming that the Big 12 will not lose market share in Texas and Ok to the SEC but the ACC will lose tremendous market share by losing 2 teams. The position I hear you promoting is that the Big 12 is definitely better for VT. Hey it could end up that way but that has to go through a whole truckload of IFs.
And again, I am not dissing the Big 12 as a solid mid level conference in the lower midwest. I am disagreeing with the idea that they can become relevant on either coast. So let me say it again, the ACC minus FSU and Clemson and adding no one else is a much better option for most ACC teams than going to the Big 12 is. Putting together a new PAC is a much better option for AZ, Az St, Colorado, Utah, Stanford and Cal than either the ACC or big 12.
I still hold to the idea that below the P2, regionalism matter a whole lot.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
FSU and Clemson. They are different in geography and makeup, but better? The B12 is not a P2, by the measures that count, which include media money, blue blood programs, playoff and national championship experience.
What I'm trying to convey, is that there seems to be an Atlantic Coast bias, especially from our conversations. You have been saying, and implying, that the current B12 is closer to a G5 conference, than they are to a P2 conference. I also think that you count FSU, Clemson, and ND when you compare the two conferences, and that currently is a fleeting argument. With the top schools in your conference, there is no argument from me that the ACC is the better football conference, but things have changed.
We are discussing media money, playoff money, and yes, future performance on the field (recruiting). In my opinion, Cincy, Houston, and Baylor are the bottom 3 (weak links) - the rest are mid tier P2 schools. You will disagree with that, but I believe it's mostly because you have never followed any of the programs in the current B12.
The ACC has more weak links than mid tier P2 programs, where that line is, is my personal bias. SMU, Wake, Cuse, BC, Duke, CAL and Stanford (in that order from worst to best). Not on the field or court, but for placement in a P2 - which seems to be the measuring stick. Pitt and GT could be swapped out for Cal and Stanford, but all four of those programs could be a mid tier P2 program as well, if they would just get their stuff together.
So, if we were to create a third conference by merging schools, I'd only drop 3 from the B12, but would drop 6 from the ACC. Since history shows it's easier to expand than contract, for a host of reasons, Cincy, Houston, and Baylor might be the lucky ones.
** Edited by Big12 guy at 7/20/2024, 9:42:02 AM
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
It is not ACC or east coast bias, it is the regionalism I have been saying over and over. The Big 12 is like a FSU/Clemson less ACC would be is a solid mid level conference. But they are/will be conferences whose influence diminishes as it moves further and further from it's core and is more like a G5 conference once it gets to areas far from it's core. We have agreed on that point in earlier exchanges. Is it ACC bias to say the above? Or is it Big 12 bias to say the Big 12 is more than the above?
My views on this is strongly affected by VT history. I remember VT being an independent fighting the conference darling of the area, the ACC. The ACC was so ingrained in the state of Virginia that even though we were the biggest school and the most successful football program, the lure of THE conference was a huge impediment. It got a little better once we were in the Big East, which could boast of more top 10 teams than the Big 12 can now. But even though the BE was stronger in football than the ACC was at the time, the BE in and of itself did very little for VT. We did most of that ourselves.
Fighting the darling conference is an uphill battle and the Big 12 will never be the darling of the DMV/VA/NC region. But the SEC can be. And I fully believe the SEC will fairly quickly become the darling of the TX/OK area. That is P2 football ruling.
No disrespect to the Big 12 for what they are. It just does not have the cred to help east coast teams. The bias you perceive is more your bias that the east just doesn't see the Big 12, its current solid competitive state and potential like you do. And you are amazed that there could be any reason other than east coast bias that the non blueblood schools shouldn't just be drooling to be a part of the Big 12.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
They have been just as irrelevant as UM and VT for that matter for the last 10 years.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
they wen, or what criteria they used to determine the playoff money. I know with the B12 they didn't use Colorado or BYU' national championship because they were too far in the past. I'm also assuming the same for Miami's championships, but I really don't know.
Maybe someone on the board could shed some light on that.
(In response to this post by cvillehokie92)
2y
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
V
VPI_1998
2y
the SEC in men's basketball. Way better. SEC has been totally propped up and hyped in men's bball and have done absolutely nothing in over a dozen years
** Edited by VPI_1998 at 7/19/2024, 5:34:43 PM
(In response to this post by manassashoo)
H
hokieZ71
2y
Kansas, Arizona, Baylor, Houston give the B12 all the heavyweights it needs. And then, between TCU, Kansas State, Iowa State, WVU, Cincinnati, Texas Tech, etc.. there exists the likelihood of a few additional quality hoops teams rising up.
The Big XII also knows how to game the NET system in its favor. Honestly that’s now a component of being a “premier basketball conference”. And the ACC has failed in that metric.
(In response to this post by manassashoo)
2y
the idea that it is a conference against a conference. I do not buy into that logic, unless you are talking media money. I tend to migrate to the field and court for bragging rights, and while I appreciate the money that other B12 teams get the conference in tournament units, and it validates the polling through the season, I root for my school, not for my conference.
National Championship, or bust I say.
(In response to this post by manassashoo)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
...who (a) have a passionate fanbase, and (b) who invest in football. There are more than two schools in the ACC who fit that description, and if you just throw money at CU and F$U, you will create a "mini-P2" within the conference that will implode the ACC quicker than any outside influence.
(In response to this post by HokieKick`nBack)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
Looks like dozens, maybe more?
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
S
Stech
2y
Basement Podcasters to do it. If you don’t have a problem with following that, you should love the guy.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
W
WarHog38
2y
Everybody headed to the SEC or B1G does not work because those conferences have historically been very selective. When the Big-12 took those AAC members they became a conference that would possibly take anyone. Good Click-Bait.
This summer is passing just like last summer. However new developments that are big in college football like the $22 Million yearly apparent price tag on athlete revenue sharing. A shocking development for many schools that survive not even getting 1/2 that much money and have budgets that are likewise. This all just helps push the panic button for schools to get where they can possibly afford those revenue sharing expenses.
The courts in the ACC are still arguing about venues more than anything else as the months drag on. The ACC surely has a lot more to lose in court than gain. So the pay by hour attorneys & ACC are ready to drag on for years which is surely the clear direction those courts are headed. It is going to take a long time.
I think the biggest issue on ACC expansion ever discussed on this board is the revelation the ACC TV Contract needs re-signed by ESPN to go past 2027 onward to 2036. That information was revealed by FSU attorneys and is huge. If true, that issue will decide this. Not the courts which may still dragging on as 2027 nears.
If that ACC TV Contract does expire in 2027 and ESPN never resigns it. We are going to get a replay of what happened in 2023 to the PAC happening to the ACC in 2026. That will be 100% caused by ESPN and was planned years ago. I am no fortune teller but I believe the future can often be judged by the past.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
V
VTCALS72
2y
as is. IMHO the biggest driver by the media in all of this is that media does not really want to work with, pay, produce content, and promote but a few teams. BUT IMHO they also know that there are a lot more hours of profitable air/streaming time that there is profit in. The thing is, getting to their desired end is not going to be easy as moving Texas and OU or as moving USC and UCLA. Again just an opinion but ESPN's plan went terribly wrong when the PAC chose to die rather than take the ESPN paltry offer. I really think ESPN's plan was for 2 teams to go to the BIg and for the other 10 to continue as the PAC for a few more years.
If you really stop and think about it, why wouldn't ESPN want to keep the Washington/Oregon in the PAC and have a 10 team PAC for a lot fewer $$$.
The ACC/ESPN contract for 10 more years is a very profitable money maker for ESPN. If FSU and Clemson are allowed to go to the SEC then not only would a reluctant SEC have to agree, Assuming the SEC teams get $40 mil more than the ACC teams, Clemson and FSU in the SEC for the remaining 10 years of the ACC Contract would cost ESPN $800 mil.
IMHO, ESPN appears to be better off if the lawsuits are withdrawn and the contract runs it's term.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WarHog38
2y
Over all it is logically cheaper to put yourself in a position to be negotiating three large media contracts instead of four large media contracts. Then you have 16 ACC Schools that are paid $40 Million each. I hear that $40 Million figure most often. 16 times $40 Million is $640 Million or nearly 2/3 Billion. 2/3 Billion is the overhead content cost for ESPN to operate the ACC TV Network each year.
That 2/3 Billion will more than cover the increase in payouts that a few ACC schools get by moving up to the P2. By a long shot. You then have better game match-ups in the P2 with higher TV ratings that ESPN can sell more expensive advertising.
There will be a few other ACC schools that still get right at that $40 Million by making a lateral move to the Big-12. However probably at least 1/2 dozen ACC schools will be relegated down to the G5 level, where yearly payouts are about $8 Million. At 6 ACC schools, ESPN would save several hundred million right there. That is how the accountants look at all this. They are just given exact numbers to crunch. Not the round figures I used.
** Edited by WarHog38 at 7/19/2024, 6:52:38 PM
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
option will give the better RoR.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
H
hokieZ71
2y
Think they can also re-examine the $$ they are giving the ACC during that Feb2025 date as well.
So we are going to know something after the football season ends.
To add to that: I think the FSU hissy fit to leave could be the catalyst that all this needs. It could very well be true that the B1G and SEC have to say they are put off by FSU’s actions but could also simultaneously be said that the B1G (Fox) and SEC (ESPN) even being able to add member schools from the ACC any earlier than 2036 is only made possible if a school does what FSU (and Clemson) are doing.
** Edited by hokieZ71 at 7/18/2024, 5:27:30 PM
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WarHog38
2y
Phillips came up with that date back in 2022 when the window for ESPN to resign the ACC TV Contract first opened up. ESPN has now not resigned for at least two years. If ESPN fails to resign by next February? What will Phillips do besides just keep on extending? The ACC will not lawsuit ESPN because they do not resign by Feb. 2025. June 30, 2027 is the date the ACC TV Contract dies if ESPN does not resign.
We are back to everything hinging on the GOR to get to 2036. . If the ACC TV Contract expires on June 30, 2027. That GOR would be the only thing left. However the ACC GOR has ESPN listed as the only Media Provider all over it.
Here is what I think will happen in 2026 or less probably in late 2025. Clemson & FSU will just announce an exit from the ACC. Adding a court filing to their current lawsuit stating that the ACC has now failed to provide a media contract. ESPN would give that lawsuit further basis by publicly announcing they have no intent to extend that ACC TV Contract past 2027, because FSU & Clemson just left. This question then becomes the big one. Will the courts enforce a GOR that has no attached Media Contract? I think ESPN will then use their wallop with Disney to get a rapid judgement on that issue from the courts.
Money is ruling this, nothing else. Anybody that thinks ESPN is interested in televising the BC's, Dukes & Wakes until 2036, is barking up the wrong tree. This is all going down in the next several years.
** Edited by WarHog38 at 7/18/2024, 6:20:59 PM
** Edited by WarHog38 at 7/18/2024, 6:22:54 PM
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
H
hokieZ71
2y
Just 3 years. So completely realistic to see any ACC members state the same now in 2024 to join another league in July 2027.
That would force ESPN’s hand for sure. Extend the deal and hold the ACC teams to the GOR through 2036, or fold the deal in 2027, and the conference dies when everybody leaves free of charge in 2027.
** Edited by hokieZ71 at 7/18/2024, 6:24:39 PM
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
D
dayooper
2y
They said they were leaving in 2025 when the new Big12 contract became in effect. It was t until USC and UCLA announced they were joining the Big10 in 2024 did they negotiate leaving a year early in 2024.
I could be completely wrong on that, though.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
D
daveinop
2y
up a year. They also gave Big 12 pro rata for the four G5 adds to solve their legal vulnerability (recall that Big 12 had threatened to sue). Their current TV deal was negotiated independent from all that.
(In response to this post by dayooper)
W
WarHog38
2y
Texas & Oklahoma both had their agreement to leave the Big-12 a year early in less than 6 months in early 2023, it cost both school $50 Million each. Yormark said he wanted to get the Big-12 that $100 Million and holding them another year, the Big-12 would get nothing. Yormark also said, letting Texas & Oklahoma leave would make everybody happy.
Bob Bowlsby who retired in August of 2022, was royally pissed off at both Texas & Oklahoma. Both had nixed Bowlsby's earlier attempts at expansion and the Longhorns had led Bowlsby around by the nose for the decade he was commissioner. Bowlsby would have surely held Texas & Oklahoma in the Big-12 until 2025.
(In response to this post by dayooper)
H
hokieZ71
2y
(In response to this post by dayooper)
2y
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
W
WarHog38
2y
& GOR's in three years. The ACC schools are looking at a much more less clear future for the next three years. A future that depends on actions by ESPN that could drastically change it. However I think ESPN knows exactly what they are going to do and that will clarify over the next several years.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
2y
VT (and UVA) are all aware of the situation and handling it. We keep things close hold and maintains secrecy... Not like our acquittances in Tallahassee or Clemson (who are disrupting elements)...
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
C
CoolJCPA
2y
One of the main drivers of PE is to infuse cash into a business entity and get it operating more efficiently and do things it couldn't without the funds. Here's the big rub, in most cases the businesses will end up making less money in the short term while the PE recoups some of their investment. The business then makes money in theory 5 years down the road when it is sold. Ask yourself, what is the market for a college sports conference. The answer, no one really knows, other than current TV contracts. Also, who is going to get that money the business (conference) or PE, when it is packaged and sold. Rest assured, the PE firms wouldn't do this for philanthropic reasons. This is a huge gamble and could be a stroke of genius or a colossal failure. The other problem is, college sports is a house built on sand right now. Who even knows what it may look like in 5 years and that big pay day you are hoping for may never come.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
Obviously the huge risk for any PE deal is you might lose a Florida State and Clemson, which would totally undermine the value of your entity
(In response to this post by CoolJCPA)
M
mjfhokie
2y
The payback to the PE firm is the expectancy of a Big future increase in revenue - which goes directly to the PE firm - NOT the schools. If successful, the schools in the league will end up with something similar to the current ACC contract. That is a very long contract term (think decades) with future earnings per team falling behind the conferences that did not have PE and are eligible for full payments. It is very reasonable to assume that the annual PE take of the overall annual conference earnings would be several million per team each year in the future. After all the future value of TV revenue does not increase for a conference because the there was private equity funding was used 10 or 20 years before.
Not to mention, the current ACC GOR will be much less restrictive than a GOR required of a PE firm is investing in a conference. Teams would need to sign a GOR that would span the length of the contract (i.e. decades) with even more obtuse penalties and no loopholes. So much for Big 12 being a stepping stone to SEC or BIG (which is still FSU's, Clemson's, and others desired out come and end game).
The ACC risked possible future earnings increases for a roll of the dice on the ACC Network revenue and is stuck with a bad contract over the final 15 years of a 25 year GOR. A PE firm is rolling dice on a conference with the expectations that extra money up front over a 3-5 year period will turn into increased revenue over an even longer that 25 year term. Private equity knows the risk and will make the conference pay for it with a long contract period. That is the only way they know they will be successful since there is no hard asset to sell at the end.
** Edited by mjfhokie at 7/18/2024, 5:26:43 PM
(In response to this post by CoolJCPA)
2y
take the risk, or fall further behind. As I've been saying about the B12. When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose. No one wanted the hatful 8, so they rolled the dice together. The B21 shouldn't even exist, but they are now right in the middle of all of this, and very well could be the last resort for schools that want to remain serious about competing for the National Championship.
If they actually pull the trigger with PE, it will be boom or bust. If they don't? A slow death (bust).
(In response to this post by CoolJCPA)