The Pitts, Louisvilles, Syracuse, etc are not going to vote for it unless their baseline is equal to our above where they can get elsewhere. Now, how many options do they have? That is an interesting and open debate. But I think Big 12 base payout has to be the minimum. So I think retraction needs to be part of the solution. You kick out Wake, or talk Wake (and BC?) into dropping football, and you have lots of money to redistribute based on metrics that reward fanbase size and investments in football/basketball.

If there was some major shift in college sports that created a situation where the ACC would disband, those 3 would not be in a position to hold out for much more than a free bowl of soup. They are obviously not going to vote for anything that isn't in their best interest, but they have little or no leverage beyond the small number of votes they have. Their minimum is the most someone is willing to pay them, which I doubt is very much.

at the ACC/big 12 level? I don't think anyone has asked that question. I would think the G5s would bring more attendance/football day fans but as we see, there is a lot more to a viewer choosing to watch a ball game. Of course $$$$ is the big one and I would think BC, Cuse and Wake are way ahead in knowing how to raise $$$ than the G5s unless the G5s have a sugar daddy. BC, Cuse and Wake may be more like SMU and have the ability to apply lots more $$$ if they choose to. Rather than kicking teams out immediately, I think there will be some sort of annual "investment in operations" minimums.

be a double edged sword. VT needs to take care of VT. It's the only thing they can control. I say this, because my school just went through the same exercise. Overall athletic budgets might be a better measuring stick.

premise of measuring this with all sports, is just a article to help Louisville, which is understandable since as they succeed, he succeeds too, living in Louisville and covering them. ** Edited by Stech at 7/24/2024, 8:03:15 PM

not kid ourselves.

That's ridiculous if altruistic.

The directors cup standings will be calculated in according to comments I read. Good for Stanford. But non-revenues should not be rewarded with extra revenue. Hopefully, football will be heavily weighted in the calculation. Duke and UNC will ensure basketball gets rewarded heavily. ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 7/25/2024, 10:12:26 AM

to calculate what UNC and Duke have brought the conference in post season money. As a matter of fact, post season money generated for the conference should be weighted far and above all other metrics. Leave the media rights and other revenue alone. Use the post season money to reward those that bring home the bacon. I would love it if the B12 would implement a different revenue share based on post season money. Why even include the non revs? They will be budgeted on the revenue the schools already make. The post season money is a different story. When was the last time BC made an appearance in the NCAA tournament? How much have they added to the pie in regards to bowl revenue? It's my contention that if you take 1/2 of the post season revenue, and distribute it to the schools that generated that money, it would be enough. 1/2 of the post season revenue with the new playoff money would STILL give BC more revenue than they currently receive.

Make more in another conference where it’s even

There already are completely uneven revenue streams. Compare Clemson gate $ to Duke. Compare parking $ of FSU to BC. Compare donations. If they do this, then there will be less likely cinderella stories and thus the product gets even more boring that Clemson vs Samford in early November. I swear to god, people will f*** this entire sport up and then wonder what happened.

For years the ACC has been Clemson and the next level beating each other up hardly ever having a less than 3 loss team among them. That IMHO became the media's drum to beat about the ACC being not good. The point, at this time of less than round robin, everybody play everybody, it becomes more of what the media can spin it any way they want to. Remember the basketball selection committee with Coach Seth? Always a different reason but the same result. Along that same line, it is going to be interesting to watch the B12 this year. There is more parity or competitiveness in that league than any other. but will that result in a 2 loss champion and everybody else with 3 losses? Or how about the ACC where the scheduling for this year gives VT an easier path to the ACCCG than most others?

your conference is in danger of imploding like the B12 and PAC did. Then what? The more power conferences we have the better. College football with kids now getting paid has already been altered forever. Cal, Stanford, and SMU are already in your conference, and last time I checked, it wasn't with equal revenue. On one level I agree with you, but the game will never go back to where it was when we were kids and fell in love with the game (it doesn't matter how old you are). Maybe you have a better idea on how to deal with what is going on, because the rest of us are grasping at straws trying to figure out how to make this work moving forward. It's already jacked up MrBayAreaHokie

Then they switch over to equal sharing. Kind of a buy-in. So it's a delayed equal sharing. But unequal sharing might be an alternative to contraction. However, the ACC will mess that up. They will calculate performance in too many non-revenue sports.

Clemson and FSU are throwing a tantrum and are finding out no one wants them, other than maybe the B12. Nothing but tantrums from crybaby boozebag hicks...i am yawning

no longer exists. The B12 isn't the B12 anymore. The Big 10 and SEC are very different this year than last. Maybe the ACC will be the power conference equivalent of the MAC. Steady, no one leaving, institutions that all have about the same athletic budget, and so forth. If you are yawning, and think things will remain the same in the ACC, then you haven't noticed you now have 3 new members, and the P2 is looking over your conference, and will in all likely hood take your top producers. Good luck with that.

or anything like that. The situations that you are applying are just so different. If this was 2034 or 2035 then the situation would be way more like what the Big 12 and PAC went through. But 10 years is a lifetime with the changes going on the ACC may never face the same situation as the Big 12 and PAC did. As all this has unfolded, I have changed as things have changed and I now have come to believe that none of the Big 10, the SEC nor big media wanted FSU to open this can of worms at this time. I now believe that everybody wanted time to settle down and let all the changes mature a bit before taking any further action. FSU is trying to force the timeline and I do believe that is a major factor in both the Big 10 and SEC backing off. I think you are correct that when the Big 10/SEC comes calling the ACC can do no more than the Big 12 did. But that is not now.

I guess the timeline. It appears no teams will move from the ACC this year, but that 2027 thing is looming. pretty much, it's in ESPN's court in regards to the contract, and we are finding out that FSU didn't have as much sway as we originally thought. It's a fluid situation, and is one official announcement from changing. The uneven revenue is a good idea for the B12 though. If a Utah or K-state (examples) separates themselves from the field, and become perineal playoff contenders, why shouldn't they get rewarded? Both schools have invested in their respective programs, have outstanding facilities, and have shown a propensity to recruit and develop players. Exactly the kind of schools you would want in your conference these days. The same thing goes for the basketball programs. If you want to make the big bucks, and get paid like a blue blood, then have the kind of program that is making the post season year in and year out.

an unreasonable hope, absent some other unknowns at present subsequently coming to light. If it gets another 6-8 years for the ACC it will likely have achieved its original intended purpose. I agree with you that the agreements and timeline make the ACC's current situation different than either the Big 12 or PAC 12. Where we disagree is that I believe the BIG and FOX, maybe the SEC and ESPN, and maybe others were not against opening this can of worms at this time and may have even encouraged/created the situation. These entities, including FSU and Clemson, quite likely underestimated the resolve of the ACC and the financial realities of the existing agreements, and felt they could undermine/fracture the conference and they would turtle and curl up in a fetal position like the PAC 12 and its members. They may have also underestimated some underlying and behind the scenes relationships that impact the decisions as well. Right now they are scrambling, walking back and/or trying to distance themselves from previous statements and actions likely to prove problematic both from economic and PR perspectives if the fight escalates further. People should view Greg Sankey and Tony Pettiti through the lens of their previous actions, words and deeds and that includes the former B1G commissioner Warren who quickly retreated to a cushy position with the Bears.

Yup, we’ve talked with Clemson and FSU and let them know we want them and they should find out how to get out of their GoR, what do you think will happen? 1 - A big fat collusion and interference lawsuit on what ever conference said that. 2 - That conference has just lost all leverage in their negotiations. USC and UCLA came in full shares because they had options. Washington and Oregon came in at half shares because they had no other acceptable paths. They won’t get full shares from the media partners so they need to get the schools as cheap as possible. Will those 2 move? Probably. When? Couldn’t tell you, but this is more than a tantrum. What FSU said last summer was a tantrum. As soon as the lawsuit was filed, it became more, imho.

there is no freaking way the Buddy Garities of the world could keep any of this quiet. Sorry, Clemson and FSU threw a tantrum thinking the P2 would beg them to join. They were wrong.

contract with the B12 expired. That deal got leaked, but there was no call of lawsuits or collusion back then. What has changed?

there absolutely was talk of collusion and suits. Bowlsby even sent a cease and desist letter.

Bowlsby cease and desist letter if you want more details. All the major outlets from USA Today to WAPO to NY Times etc. discussed it in great detail. ESPN denied it but, they never threatened any action and, more importantly, that was a big arrow in the quiver of Yormark in future negotiations. Damning allegations that soured the Bowlsby/ESPN relationship but, gave his successor a solid head start.

media contract negotiations? "We will sue you if you don't give us a good contract" kind of scenario? I don't know, ESPN holds a lot of the cards when it comes to the money part, and it doesn't explain how FOX gave them a good chunk of money for second choice of the games. It is possible, but I'm not sure that is how it went down.

provide insight into possible leverage. As far as the second chunk of games and FOX goes I believe the compensation was part for the games, part for assisting with the four PAC 12 to the B1G and part payoff to the four corners to ward off potential collusion litigation threats associated with the PAC 12 breakup. WSU and OSU would have been 2 voices versus 10 after all the movement. One other item of note Bowlsby's threats against ESPN alleged they(ESPN) conspired at one time with the AAC to take Big 12 teams. That couldn't have anything to do with explaining the four G5's to the Big 12 with full shares in the new contract could it? One day there will likely be some very interesting stories surrounding realignment from the ACC/BE through wherever we end up and you can bet ESPN's and FOX'S hands will be all over them.

hateful 8 back then. I don't see how you connect the dots to 3 AAC teams being invited to the B12 with BYU and the contract that was inked with ESPN and FOX. That is a LOT of collusion, and conspiracy. Remember, that contract was inked when the PAC 10 were discussing adding SDSU and SMU. There are other media companies besides ESPN and FOX, but the PAC just couldn't get an offer that was acceptable. The timeline doesn't support the collusion to bring down the PAC either, but you have been consistent in your belief that is was planned. As usual most of the time, we disagree. If what you say is correct, wouldn't the same things be happening now with the ACC? While there is a LOT of speculation from B12 You Tubers, they are all over the place in their predictions, just like they were with the 4 corners. I see it as human nature, not collusion. I also can not connect the dot that somehow, the mighty B12 is colluding with ESPN and FOX to bring down the ACC. I honestly believe none of this was planned the way it went down. The SEC and Big 10 just wanted more money, and they got it. The rest has yet to be played out.

specifically how you believe the timeline doesn't support/fit the collusion to bring down the PAC. I believe it to be a pretty good fit. Also, as I have said before, for the plan to work they banked upon the arrogance and stupidity of PAC 12 leadership. I think there are far too many convenient coincidences for all of it to have been unplanned. I do not believe the Big 12 is in collusion with ESPN/FOX to bring down the ACC. That does not mean Yormark is not an observant opportunist and having done it once, familiar with how to disrupt to his benefit. One additional clarification. I am not saying how things turned out was the original plan but, I believe it was a plan adapted and modified due to changes in circumstances. ** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 7/24/2024, 8:01:38 PM

Almost all of the PAC schools wanted to be included in the Big 10 deal, that was no secret. There was entirely too much lobbying by Phil Knight for there to have been a preconceived outcome for Oregon. They, at the time, were the FSU of the remaining PAC 10, and you could put Washington as the "Clemson". Utah as well was trying their best to be invited to the BIG as well. Cal, Stanford, and ASU could not have been that dumb. They never even reached out to another conference, as they thought the PAC would stick together. I'm not even sure if they even cared what the media deal was going to be. It wasn't until Oregon and Washington took 1/2 shares did the dam break. That certainly implies that FOX was not part of a grand scheme to take down the PAC. Those schools would have got full shares if that was the case. Colorado and Arizona were the only schools that wanted in the B12, like the ACC, none of the other schools wanted anything to do with the truck stop league. All that is just the same way of saying what you said. It was the arrogance and stupidity that brought down the PAC. For your theory to work, as you also said, they had to bank on that arrogance and stupidity. I'm not sure how one conspires and colludes to take down a conference counting on arrogance and stupidity. It just doesn't fit from where I'm sitting. I think it's just that the PAC was arrogant and stupid, and that had nothing to do with the B12 or the B12's contract.

rethink your timeline. USC and UCLA to the Big 10 was reported in June 2022 and contacts between USC and the B1G trace back to early spring/late winter 2022. The Big 12 announced their deal in October 2022 so your claim of the announcement a full year prior to imploding is highly questionable as the implosion began with the USC/UCLA announcement. Your understanding of the timeline has holes much like your understanding that there was no call for lawsuits or discussion of collusion. You either just missed it or conveniently misremembered.

Of course there have been conversations with FSU/Clemson with the Big10/SEC/Big12, but they all have been done via 3rd party reps. IIRC, Texas and Okie leaving for the SEC was still a shock to most of the college football world. Just like USC and UCLA to the Big10 was. Everything was done back door. Even when UMD and Rutgers joined the Big10, the Big10 met with both schools in DC at different hotels so the 2 schools didn’t know who the other was. They both had been talking to the conference through intermediaries until it was go time.

If the ACC is going to continue to be a mix of diverse schools, it will need to begin rewarding schools differently based upon the value they create. Consider the following example: We establish a baseline of $20M per year. We then establish an incentive pool based upon 60% football, 20% men’s basketball and 20% everything else. Schools are lumped into 3 tiers in each and paid accordingly. Bonuses are paid for conference championships and play-off participation. In such a scenario an FSU could earn $70M in a good year while a BC earns $25M. Problem solved!

would probably have to remain the same, as all the institutions will have to budget. The newfound playoff money however, is different. As is the post season money contributions in the NCAA tournament. Each member of the ACC is projected to receive about $13M more per year from the playoff money. That is about $221M additional for the conference starting next year. What I would like the B12 to do, is disperse 1/2 that amount as a guarantee every year, and use the other 1/2 of that amount to disperse to the schools that out perform in what ever metric that the conference determines. For instance, if it's winner take all, and only one team qualifies for the playoffs, they get about $110M for that year. Of course that is ridiculous, but if you use that as the starting point, it isn't a stretch to get to $25M additional per year for the playoff qualifiers. That also leaves a LOT of money left over for all of the other sports, or other metrics that might be used. The existing members that do not qualify continue to get the media contract payout, AND more revenue from the bump in playoff money. You could also very easily separate basketball, and simply let the teams that qualify for the tournament keep 1/2 of the unit payouts, with the rest being dispersed as they always have been. Same thing with the Bowls, let the schools keep at least 1/2 of the additional revenue. As 2hhoop3 mentioned in an earlier post, you want to incentivize all conference members to improve their football, and other parts of their athletic departments that bring value to the conference, whether directly, or indirectly. There are many metrics that could be discussed, especially for national championships in all sports. The idea that everyone gets a trophy just because they are there needs to be set aside, especially for the smaller private schools that will never get the national following drive the media numbers. They still however, have an opportunity to be competitive at a high level, and lose nothing. Both the ACC and B12 should seriously consider a move like that. If the ACC did that, but the B12 didn't, then, and only then, does it make sense to change conferences (assuming the media money is about the same).

unequal revenue sharing is not a bad idea. The challenge is in the details and formulas used to arrive at the unequal shares and the motivations for the formulas chosen. Do you merely reward results? Do you reward investment for trying to compete? If winning is rewarded do you penalize rulebreaking that contributes to those results? There are many considerations that could impact the formulas and there is still the base responsibility to conference members to ensure a reasonable level of competitiveness for all members both within and outside the conference. The formulas must balance reward AND incentivize behaviors aimed at increasing competitiveness. In the long run a conference known as School A and the 15 dwarfs is not as attractive as one with a competitive top tier of multiple teams and the realistic possibility that lower tier schools can be competitive from time to time.

Lets say WF wins the ACC football championship and goes to the playoff. They will be rewarded handsomely. Now if they win the ACCCG, and get excluded because they aren't a well known program (or considered too small of a school for the playoff), it will be screwed up.

when dependence is on outside selection. With auto bid to highest ranked conference champs somewhat less a concern in football but, probably much more problematic in terms of hoops and the bubble. For me, it is more how heavily it might be weighted to winning versus incenting behavior to raise competitive level. Some of it absolutely needs to be tied to performance and some of it needs to absolutely be correlated to the sport and revenue produced. There are a lot of alternatives depending upon goals and priorities and there is the rub in getting agreement across an entire conference.

results oriented approaches. Miami could come up with $600M and build an on campus stadium, which helps the conference indirectly. Then they could miss the playoffs for another decade, so you do have a valid point. I'm not sure how you could find such a formula, let alone, get the required amount of schools to vote it in. The thing is though, those that have invested in their programs over the years, did so without uneven revenue. They also did it without the new money from the playoffs (none of us have received that money yet) It would be interesting to me if FSU and Clemson joined the B12 (I don't think it would actually happen), then the next look in for guaranteed playoff money would show what they were actually worth using whatever formula that was used. In other words, how much was FSU's and CU's success in the playoffs worth to the ACC? If they got that money, would it be rewarding them for bad behavior?

In that case Stanford and Cal would always get a high cut. Needs to be based mostly on Football and Basketball success. Best solution would be a relegation model for football if you don't perform. I like the 60m 20m split based on current 40m distribution.

wants it based on viewership and brans type stuff, but there really isn't any way to quantify that. It's easy in the basketball tournament, as they are paid in units based on making the field, and subsequent advancements. Guaranteed playoff money (which I think is stupid) would be more difficult to quantify. How about 50% of the playoff money going to the team or teams making the field? Same with basketball, 50% goes to the conference, but Duke for instance, and keep the other 50% for their athletic program. I don't even know how much a team gets for playing the the college baseball world series, or if any of the other Olympic sports make a payout or not. 1/2 for the conference, and 1/2 for VT makes a lot of sense to me.

benefit VT. Especially, if it is heavily weighted toward football as it should be.