41 Replies
1y
Don't give an inch. They want out pay and get out.
(In response to this post by patit hoo)
12 votes (two-thirds) to approve?
(In response to this post by patit hoo)
1y
Source: literally every time it's been done in the history of college athletic conferences. I see they also want to shorten the GOR to 2030. Guess what happens in 2030? The B1G's TV contracts with FOX and CBS will be up for negotiation/renewal.
Everyone should know at this point how much respect I have for the people running the ACC and most of the presidents of the member institutions - little to none. If that bunch of spineless soaks goes for this absolute confidence job of a deal, which is basically paying a premium (to the detriment of every other member's bottom line) just to get FSU and Clemson to shut up for five years before they ultimately leave for the B1G anyway in 2030, they are going to look even dumber and more short-sighted than the PAC-12 leadership that turned a 100+ year old prestige conference into a sad little menagerie of left behind G5 mid-majors.
(In response to this post by patit hoo)
V
VTCALS72
1y
time.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
in all kinds of forms.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
T
Truthahn
1y
I hate to be on FSU's and Clemson's side, but they are generating most of the revenue, while only getting the same basic payout as Wake.
We should factor the estimated monetary value of each ACC member into our payouts, and adjust that yearly.
I'm not happy about it, but if that is not fixed, I don't blame them for leaving. We have to get distributions in line with worth, or the big teams will leave as soon as they are able to afford to do so.
Fortunately, we have until 2036 to figure that out, thanks to the GOR.
** Edited by Truthahn at 9/18/2024, 11:45:07 AM
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
is fine; that's fair and equitable. Unequal distribution of the conference media rights money based on Nielsen ratings is stupid.
If that's the way we're going to go, why even have a conference at that juncture? To stage field hockey games? That's an actual, serious question - what would be the point? This whole spat is about one thing, and one thing only: TV money for football games. Why would VT, or Miami, or UNC, or anyone else stay in an ACC where FSU and Clemson are splitting 25% of the media rights payouts, and the other 15 teams (16 if you count Notre Dame, who is getting some of that money) are getting a 5% share? When you stop and think about it, it would be really hard to think of a dumber idea.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
1y
It shouldn't affect the middle-of-the-road programs (VT, Pitt, NC State) as much as it HURTS the annual bottom-dwellers. But isn't that the same as saying "get rid of Wake and BC!") ?
Every program gets a standard salary and then they award bonuses for outstanding performance. I literally don't see what's wrong with that. And if you do it in basketball too, even better for the "basketball schools".
If the SEC wants to pay Vandy the same as Alabama and Georgia, good for them. But the ACC is trying to remain competitive and if this is one way to somewhat help in that venture, I think it makes sense.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
The beginning of the end happened when Maryland left. Canary in a coal mine
But to this topic, I may not be opposed to unequal distribution if it is based on merit.
But yeah, the total sum of TV money between the ACC and the P2 is the larger problem.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
Maryland athletic dept was failing... and no one in Greensboro had a clue and boom they lost Maryland....
Big 10 gave them a HUGE life preserver... financially. and now their "brand' is power 2 Big boy athletics. No matter what they do, they are the big 10, and have games with PSU, and get the name brands to come to college park.
Well, at that time, ACC was just happy to play the wonderful match of Wake versus Duke and sip tea.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
FSU and CU want out
UNC and Miami want P2 money and exposure
VT UVA NCSU just want to be included and not left behind
Cal and Stanford probably want an option for their future
ACC is probably just a bystander at this point. Too many competing interests here. This is not going to end well.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
it's ultimately not going to make it as a "power" conference. It's basically all the same issues that killed the old Big East, and those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
And, on that note, the bitter pill all the "ACC! ACC! ACC!" folks on this board will eventually have to swallow is that, very soon, in the grand scheme of things, the ACC is going to much more closely resemble the new look PAC-12 than it will the B1G or SEC.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
This is pure conspiracy hat now...
Reports are that the PAC is next targeting Tulane and Memphis for expansion to get 8 members (with UTSA third on the list and the top Texas option). That geographical footprint is clearly temporary when the conference is still small and most schools are out west.
Now we have Wake Forest making schedules with Oregon State. And we have reporting of ACC presidents bringing up the concept of a shortened GOR.
If we assume the Mag 7 all get a P2 or B12 landing spot, then this sets up for the remaining schools having either a B12 or PAC landing spot if the ACC were to implode (nobody wants to drop down to the American). All that speculation aside, I think there are a LOT of back channel discussions happening right now at all levels.
ok, tin foil hat off.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
trying to head the ACC off at the pass by pushing to add Tulane and Memphis, and they're clearly leaving themselves room for expansion by only adding the four MWC schools they did, as opposed to taking more. In fact, the reason OSU and WSU moved when they did (basically a complete surprise) could only be responsive to their realization that they definitely were not going to get a Big 12 or ACC invite in enough time to mitigate the crippling damage to their AD budgets.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
If they get Memphis and USF? You might be on to something, but to head off the ACC? OSU and Washington would have been considered if the ACC were to expand again. It would make sense for a western "pod". The timing of this is clearly to retains, and spend their new found wealth, and creating a conference that will clearly be a top G5 with that payoff spot dangling out there.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
over who got to keep it. From the second they found out, that money was earmarked to mitigate the damage to their AD budgets (remember, they went from the stability of the PAC-12's media rights payouts of ~$33m a year to basically nothing, overnight, and also lost their scheduled conference games for football and every other sport) and, if necessary, paying for exit fees to rebuild the conference. OSU and WSU were clearly hoping for a life raft to the Big 12 or the ACC, and that the latter wouldn't be necessary.
That wasn't the way things worked out. They both became aware that a life raft wasn't coming, at least not in the time frame necessary to avoid devastating financial disaster for their ADs, so they've now joined the "game of thrones" that is conference realignment - the continued viability of the ACC, especially a post-exodus G5 ACC, is now a direct threat to what they're trying to build, so they're being aggressive and taking the ACC's potential future moves off the board. In other words, the idea is now, if/when an ACC exodus and scramble to back fill spots happens, the PAC-12 wants to ensure that all the best G5 expansion candidates are already off the board and locked into the PAC-12.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
S
Stech
1y
Especially if the Mag 7 leave. The ACC could build a nationwide Basketball powerhouse. Once they expand the NCAA basketball tournament, the Sweet 16 schools will be paid like the playoff schools. There is almost a billion dollars earned in the NCAA basketball tournament, but about 85% goes to fund Olympic Sports. IMHO, once they expand, the early rounds will still do that, but schools in the Sweet 16 will make big money.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
The ACC is the most eclectic conference in the country. Distribution based upon value generation is the only long-term play. I believe that this approach is sustainable as opposed to previous models where certain schools got more money “just because” (Texas and ND).
(In response to this post by patit hoo)
1y
because it's based upon the results you actually produce on the field. You win your games? You get to a bowl? You get to the CFP? You progress in the CFP? You (heavens to murgatroyd!) win the CFP? Great, here's an extra 25 million dollars. Even if it's Boston College or Wake Forest. Hats off, that's an accomplishment, you did great, here's more money. Fine.
But paying FSU (who is 0-4 so far this year, and has been terrible for most of the past ten years since Jimbo won the last BCS title, and was terrible for pretty much the last 5 or 6 years of the Bowden epoch) and Clemson (who just got absolutely embarrassed by Georgia to start the season and has been little more than a journeyman football program for 90+% of its existence) a disproportionate amount of money, just because? It's stupid.
Here's a little secret: yes, they have followings, but FSU and, to an even greater extent, Clemson have been driving TV ratings recently because they've been winning football programs recently. Nobody was watching Clemson games in the 90s or the 2000s, and, if Dabo keeps doing what he's doing, nobody's going to watch Clemson games in the late 2020's and 2030's. And, let's see what a huge draw 2-9 FSU is later in the year. I bet they'll draw absolutely insane numbers *fart*
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
1y
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
Syracuse could go on a run and produce a ton of eyeballs. So could Virginia Tech or Miami. It's not static.
And presumably this would be a new source of funds. No member institutions would agree if it's a pay cut.
The only problem I see is shortening the GOR. I don't think that's accurate.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
T
Truthahn
1y
Especially since nothing else in the article is a positive for the ACC. Why would be give more money to FSU and then shortening the GOR timeline? Who is negotiating that, Hunter Biden?
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
1y
money? Until the contract is extended, renegotiated, or upped, I think you have to assume it's within the money they already have.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
When regional conferences were formed, they made sense because there wasn't
a lot of money at stake. They worked best for a long time.
Now, with the huge money involved, we really need conference membership to be based on symmetry that is based on the value each team brings.
But even the P2 conferences are still built with foundations that were laid when regionality ruled. They still are very lopsided as it pertains to the value each team brings.
So now, here we are watching all the conferences rearranging the landscape in an effort to become value based symmetrical conferences.
We don't need conferences with unequal payouts. That fixes nothing. We need conferences that are value balanced. That is slow and ugly work. And in the end, even the P2 will not be immune to the pain.
(In response to this post by patit hoo)
1y
conference, only 1/2 of them would have winning records. That doesn't work in college football. The brands were built on decades of winning records, not even competition.
The P2 need their Vanderbilt's and Purdue's. I look at schools like that as pay in games. UMass gets almost $2M to go to Michigan. Conference pay in games are just more expensive.
(In response to this post by Femoyer Hokie)
I'm all for revenue distribution based on results, especially football
And hoops. Payouts per school based on their brand valuation and tv ratings seems very "participation trophy" like.
If the ACC caves to FSU and Clemson, I'd like for VT to find another home.
(In response to this post by patit hoo)
1y
decimated the conference over time.
I'm not sure that the ACC has any good choices here. I have to think that if the ACC is moving toward a settlement that makes FSU happy, then there is real risk that the ACC could lose these court battles.
BTW, the B12 would have done better with OU and Texas in regards to the media contracts in my opinion, but they ended up OK without them.
(In response to this post by HokieObsession)
S
Stech
1y
the College Football Playoff expansion, the likely NCAA Basketball Tournament expansion and the Billions of Dollars coming in from these things, means many things that were pertinent in the past, are not pertinent now.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
H
Hokie83
1y
Time will tell if anyone is correct on this situation
** Edited by Hokie83 at 9/18/2024, 7:49:27 AM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
win win solution, for both sides, I will tip my hat. They are threading the needle with uneven distributions, but that could be the way of the future, not only in the ACC, but in the P2 as well. I'd say the B12, but there isn't really much of a gap anymore between the top schools, and the bottom schools.
(In response to this post by Hokie83)
H
HOO86
1y
ESPN can sweeten the pot some to keep the status quo if they want to. The part about shortening the term of the GOR makes me think that ESPN has to be involved.
** Edited by HOO86 at 9/17/2024, 11:24:49 PM
(In response to this post by patit hoo)
D
daveinop
1y
still think they should start by having schools own their OOC content. I don't know of any logical objection to that.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
1y
will be a lot worse than things are now for everyone involved except the Walt Disney corporation. This is the ACC we're talking about here, not the SEC. There are no "helping hands" at ESPN when it comes to the ACC.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
1y
My speculation is that ESPN is leaning towards not extending the contract in 2025. And that would rightfully make all the ACC schools concerned. It certainly doesn't help that the ACC is not off to a great start this year with FSU looking bad, Clemson getting beaten bad, and teams like VT losing to Vandy.
So a compromise by both sides would be to shorten the GOR/ESPN agreement to just 5 more years with 2030. This would give everyone a defined timeline to find a new home or figure out what to do with the ACC.
This could be a very real thing and is something to keep a watch on.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
1y
balking at the 2036 date? With the shifts in conferences, there is just too much uncertainty moving forward to make decades long decisions. ESPN could be hedging their bets.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
There could very easily be some behind the scenes agreements or concessions that reduce the long term profitability of the ACCN.
I don't think anyone wants a seismic shift right away. But a 5 year window that is agreed to by both ESPN and the ACC...well that sounds much more like both sides prepping for change. IF it were to happen, since this is just speculation off of early reporting.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
S
Stech
1y
(In response to this post by HokieAl)