2024-2025 revenue numbers are out
The Big Ten is king with $1.47 billion in revenue for fiscal year 2025, followed by $1.11 billion for the SEC.
ACC: $862.5M
B12: $610.9M
ACC high: Clemson $55.1 million
ACC low: (other than new comers): Wake Forest’s $42.8 million.
B12 high: ASU $43M (it beat WF!)
B12 low: $37.9M
75 Replies
2mo
Still a gap but smaller. Divide the Big Ten number by 18, then multiply by 16 and you get 1.306. that's the number to compare to the SEC number.
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 5/24/2026, 7:55:01 AM
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
S
SMU Pony
2mo
The gap between the B10 and SEC is bigger than the gap between the gap between the SEC and ACC
And the gap between the SEC and ACC is *smaller* than the gap between the ACC and the Big 12
The ACC had almost as much TV revenue ($588M) as the Big 12 had total revenue.
ACC TV revenue was up just over $100M YoY with additions of Cal, Stanford and SMU.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
2mo
I think it makes a difference. But then, there's the travel.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
2mo
1. The BIG strategy of expanding across the country and focusing on large schools in bigger population areas was ultimately more valuable than the SEC regional strategy.
2. The BIG and SEC both have new media deals within the past two years. This is the single biggest factor of why they are growing faster and leaving the ACC and B12 in the dust. But I do expect the B12 to jump forward a lot more with their next deal and their expanded footprint. The ACC is just going to plod along and tout traditions and history and rely on the cable checks.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
M
Marooned
2mo
helps. Creating compelling conference matchups and competitive non conference games is what’s needed.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2mo
I don’t think they’ll be able to keep the B1G out entirely, but if they allow the B1G to gain major footholds in the south, then the difference might be too great that even they eventually lose members to the B1G.
I think Miami is eventually B1G bound, but the SEC should make sure they’re the only southern ACC school that goes there. Duke is apparently lobbying the B1G hard and rumors always exist about UNC, UVA, and GT having interest from the B1G. Maybe even FSU.
The SEC should protect its region, and collaterally ESPN protecting its premium college sports product, by taking 8 teams from the ACC at once: VT, UVA, UNC, Duke, NC State, Clemson, GT, and FSU.
If the B1G and SEC breakaway from the NCAA, then they’ll be leagues, not conferences, and they’ll need more teams to fill out the league play. Mostly blocking the B1G out of the south will help keep the SEC relevant and protected from poaching. The B1G has already communicated its desire to be national, only the SEC has the power to stop that.
** Edited by hokieball at 5/23/2026, 11:24:22 AM
** Edited by hokieball at 5/23/2026, 3:09:33 PM
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2mo
traditionalist, I am afraid you are right. I think that is why the SEC is so hot for UNC. Although, I think the UNC brand is overrated and I don't think it will be the game changer that the B1G adding USC was (For the record, I HATED the breakup of the Pac-12). I think the SEC needs to move beyond the ex-Confederate states and get into new regions and time zones. I'd start with their choice of the Arizona schools (or both). Then go get Colorado, and one of the Utah schools. If they want to get into California, there's slim pickin's, but SDSU or Cal and Stanford would be possible.
The SEC actually started all of this by taking Texas. So let's see if they want to counter the USC move, or if they will just hold.
One last thing, I know the odds are against this, but SEC making Notre Dame an offer they can't refuse would be a huge shot across the bow to the B1G. Part of me would love to see it.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2mo
not mess with them. They should instead try to get A&M from the SEC, and then add FSU or Miami. They then are in all of the major population centers that actually care about football. The BTN is the only conference network that is paying what was promised. Add Texas and Florida, and it's game, set, and match.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2mo
I think FSU admin WANTS to go to the Big Ten. And A&M should probably still be pissed at SEC for inviting Texas over their known wishes. I also think the B1G can't just bring these schools in in isolation. They will need regional partners.
Note on A&M: I never understood the grudge about UT following them to the SEC. UT scoffed at A&M when they went their own own way. But A&M was proven right, and UT followed them. Let by-gones be by-gones, declare victory, and enjoy the fact that the on-field rivalry is back. But the bitterness is/was there nevertheless, and the B1G would be wise to put out a feeler to the Ags.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2mo
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2mo
SEC to keep UT in check that didn't exist in the SWC or BigXII.
(In response to this post by HokiesACC2004)
2mo
win the SEC in football and, after a few decades pass, assuming the SEC still exists, the move will be viewed as a big mistake by every measure except raw finances.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2mo
with Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri - the media contracts were about even across the board. All of those schools left, not because they would make more money, but it was a move to get away from Texas. A&M especially wanted to distance themselves from the Long Horns, and it wasn't just the fans. it was the administration, the president, and oh ya, the athletic department.
Texas was really that toxic, especially when there were talks about a B12 network, and Texas gave the middle finger to the conference and did their own thing. It isn't just a sports rivalry.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
H
HouClone
2mo
geographic rivals. They fit the SEC also. Texas actually fits the Big 10 culture better but they aren't moving.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
H
HouClone
2mo
Agree with VT ChemE that thought there would be more of a disparity between the top and bottom ACC teams to help out the brands. About $80 million per Big 10 team and will go up with their next contract in 2030. New SEC contract 3-4 years after but SEC is trying to go to market earlier. The gap is just too much for the brands to not jump ship provided the Big 10 and SEC will take them. North Carolina is a no brainer for Big 10 or SEC. Getting into Florida for the Big 10 would be enticing for them too.
If the ACC can get the gap to say $10 million, the brands may stay. ACC should look into an even more unequal revenue sharing model.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
2mo
tier ACC schools will make more than the lowest tier SEC schools. At that point it will become far less attractive for a top ACC football brand to jump ship. Yes, the best SEC schools will be making more money, but the odds of an FSU or UM displacing a Texas, Georgia or Alabama at the top of the SEC pile will be essentially zero.
(In response to this post by HouClone)
H
HouClone
2mo
I don't know but figured they all were equal.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2mo
the P2 will follow. The P2 might also become very miserly with new invites (half shares, etc.). It's a buyers market in terms of P2 expansion.
(In response to this post by HouClone)
2mo
establish the same success based payouts
(In response to this post by HouClone)
2mo
When the average BIG and SEC team is getting more than the top ACC team ($10-20m more per year), it’s only a matter of time before the ACC crumbles. The top ACC brands would be stupid to stay and it would be an easy financial decision…if they can get the invite.
** Edited by HokieAl at 5/22/2026, 3:18:40 PM
** Edited by HokieAl at 5/22/2026, 3:19:35 PM
(In response to this post by HouClone)
2mo
This is a buyer's market WRT the P2. Clemson--a great football program and a great place to go to school and the top ACC money maker--is not wanted by the B1G nor needed by the SEC.
For the record, I think the B1G is making a big miscalculation in their flirtation with going into the South. They are talking Miami, GT, UNC, Duke, and UVa. For my money, I am going big or not at all. FSU and Clemson would be my first choices--two SEC-like schools. AAU be damned. And it's not like these two places are community colleges.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 5/23/2026, 10:00:55 AM
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2mo
Maroon, I think that you and I are the only ones who see the 4 corners cluster as likely P2 targets. I would add Kansas to that list, as well.
The SEC needs to break from their stubborn identity as literally "The Southeastern Conference." I'm sure ESPN is urging them to expand their footprint. I don't know if ESPN is still extending pro rata benefits to The SEC for expansion. But if Sankey hopes to improve his media deal earlier than the 2034 expiry, he will need to compromise with his media overlord. He insists that he wants only limited expansion. Maybe so, but economic reality may move him from that position.
The B1G will have ample opportunity to poach The ACC. Questions for them are: how much to add in The East and; how much Out West. I don't believe they have any restrictions on size. They apparently intend to bring-on a major streaming partner to help take the product global.
ESPN cannot be happy with its diminishing coverage in the MST and PST tome zones: Calford, 4 corners, and The Big Sky (FCS). Of these, only The Big Sky is safe from poaching by The B1G.
Speculating on the consequences of The ACC Success Initiative" is impractical. Changes in this conference are incoming at warp speed. Heaven knows what it will look like in 2030. But it will be the force of media companies, not conferences that will secure the future for VT. No guarantees, but VT is still a valuable piece on the board.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
H
HouClone
2mo
as I don't think they have a new home in the Big 10 or SEC. It may sound weird but not sure if FSU does also if Miami keeps ascending.
I predict SEC offers NC, Duke, Va Tech, and Kansas. Big 10 offers GT and Miami. NC and Va fit the Big 10 better but SEC has more room and Va Tech fits the SEC culture better. Can't see both Big 10 and SEC going more than 20. Big 10 teams already complaining 18 is too much.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2mo
Duke follows unc to Big.
I think SEC very well could take ncsu and vt.
(In response to this post by HouClone)
2mo
I'm not sure how it will all go down. But just sayin'.
(In response to this post by HouClone)
2mo
of the SEC schools. VT is a better fit for the SEC than KU, and while I'm sure KU would not refuse an invite to the SEC, they have actually been vetted by the BIG. After that vetting process, all of a sudden KU gets a new football stadium, and initiative's to up the budget and buy into the NIL (player payment) era. KU will be competitive in football moving forward, but it's an uphill climb. Indiana brings inspiration to the blue blood basketball schools, but that is a LOT of planets that need to be aligned.
(In response to this post by HouClone)
2mo
Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, and Texas A&M are all natural fits with them.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2mo
It does not. How does the gloom and doom help any of the ACC schools?
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2mo
We have public statements from schools.
We have lawsuits.
We have playoff snubs.
We have yearly financial statements.
We have weekly and yearly tv viewership.
We have media contracts.
We have past examples of conference realignment, including the ACC.
All of this is known data that can be assessed to create reasonable predictions of the future.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2mo
I asked you how the implosion of the ACC solves any of these problems. How does the elimination of the ACC help its member schools?
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2mo
"How does the elimination of the ACC help the zero value tomato cans that the brands are subsidizing?"
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2mo
You and few others are predicting the implosion of the ACC as if this is some kind of amazing insight. You and a few others also act like you are the only people with the rare ability to see the future and you need to keep beating your drum. Here is a fact for you - no one is arguing with you. I don't see anyone saying that the financial structure of NCAA sports is not in flux.
What I am asking is - now what? Those who say the B12 and ACC are doomed to failure need to recognize a simple fact. If there is not a better option, they are not going anywhere. So far, you and your ilk have been unable to paint a picture of the future that demands the disintegration of the current players in order to be realized. Here are my observations and conclusions.
First, Division 1 FB will be divided into 3 tiers. The top tier is currently represented by the SEC and B10 schools. The second tier is currently represented by the ACC and B12 schools. The third tier is everybody else.
Second, I am highly doubtful that Tier 1 adds more than a couple schools from the Tier 2 pool. In this process I also think that the Tier 1 conferences jettison a few schools to Tier 2. Consequently, the media rights for the Tier 2 schools will remain where they currently are - a significant notch below Tier 1, and well above Tier 3.
So, there will be a significant number of Tier 2 schools (30-40) that will need buying group representation. The ACC and B12 could merge or remain the same. One thing they will not do is disappear. Colleges need conferences for a lot of services they are not interested in providing for themselves. The ACC and B12 have the expertise and relationships. What business entity could come out of nowhere and replace them? I don't care what they are called eventually. What they currently do, will be provided in the future. Full stop.
My opinion is that the ACC and B12 will likely remain in the future. The Tier 2 teams will shuffle back and forth a bit, but this is inconsequential from a business strategy standpoint.
Do you have anything to add to these scenarios that would change this outcome? If so, I am listening and I am sure the board would love to hear something from you other than the ACC is in trouble. We know. We get it. Now what?
** Edited by VT ChemE 1986 at 5/26/2026, 12:00:28 PM
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
2mo
is untenable long term to the top brands, and it is, even with the success initiatives/uneven revenue share, there's only one remaining play that isn't complete independence, which also isn't tenable - the brands that are currently subsidizing the bottom tier members of the ACC and Big 12 will leave and consolidate in a new conference/league/whatever we're calling it then. They're not going to stay in a conference where they're having to keep subsidizing Wake Forest and Boston College.
I can already hear you - but, but, but....the ACC and the Big 12 are INSTITUTIONS of the SPORT! Disney, Fox, CBS, etc. won't want to do business with a STARTUP - they'll want to stay business partners! Yeah, OK, and the Pac 12 was a major institution to; things change. Disney, Fox, CBS, etc. are middle men who are taking the product from the conferences and distributing it to the consumers, and they're not doing the business they're doing distributing Boston College, Wake Forest, and SMU games. They're doing it distributing things people want to watch. Consolidation of the remaining brands elsewhere puts all that money into one bucket instead of several, with less people to split it with. If these non-P2 brands know they're not getting into the SEC or Big 10 circa 2028-2030, and there's no reason to think they will, then you can bet your bottom dollar that's what's going to happen. It's the only play where they get more money, more autonomy, and can disassociate from the tomato cans.
If you actually read my posts instead of clutching your pearls about the future of the ACC, you'd know I've been very clear about this many times.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2mo
This new tier will include the most financially attractive schools from the B12 and ACC. About 20 in total? All the remainder will either try to hold onto a level above the current Tier 3, or collapse into that pool. It's possible. It's also possible that a new entity drives this process.
There would be a lot of moving pieces to make this work. It would require something with enough power and scope to coordinate all of those pieces. That something does not currently exist and is nowhere on the radar screen. Also, the success-driven payout model in the ACC softens the driving force for this change. As such, I do not see this as a likely outcome in the next 5 years. But it could happen beyond that.
BTW, this is the first time I have seen you concretely describe your vision. You may have said it in the past but I have not seen those posts.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
2mo
18 at the very most, but I think it would stay at 16. I say this because at 18-20, you start to get brand dilution, and the primary idea in this case would be to keep the number of distributions low; there's also perfect balance and symmetry for scheduling purposes at 16.
The idea would be to have a smaller conference, but with little to no dead weight in the product offering. No SMU at Boston College or UCF at Cincinnati noon kicks. So, the overall content is better, and you're distributing a similar size payout to fewer members. I think you would also see conference scheduling, administration, etc. that was streamlined and geared entirely towards delivering a compelling football product, with everything else becoming a secondary consideration.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2mo
I am not have an image available right now for one of my scenarios (if FSU and Clemson made it into the P1/P2). And ignore the BIG and SEC part at the top. This is from a very specific scenario where the blue bloods leave others behind even in their own conferences.
But just looking at ACC and B12 teams, I can see a solid brand of 20 schools with a good geographic coverage and general commitment to sports success.
** Edited by HokieAl at 5/26/2026, 4:05:10 PM
** Edited by HokieAl at 5/26/2026, 4:06:21 PM
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
2mo
would need to step aside. It would require the 16 schools to meet in dark rooms to plan while they have current relationships with their conferences and media partners. I think the lawyers would throw a fit.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
2mo
be about to expire, the Big 12's in 2030, and the ACC's in 2036. The Big 12's current GOR expires for its members in July 2031. The ACC, in settling the FSU/Clemson lawsuits, also agreed to implement a staggered reduction in the fee for a member to execute a clean exit from the conference - by the 2029-2030 timeframe, that fee becomes entirely workable in the context of facing down an existential threat to your football program's future viability.
In that context, I don't think the idea of several schools deciding to do something else could be reasonably viewed as conspiring to do something in an underhanded fashion. The contracts will either be up, or there will be exit paths available. They would be making a decision to do something different by implementing options that are available to them.
** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 5/26/2026, 1:09:10 PM
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2
2hhoop3
2mo
of theories and opinions circulating and ALL of them have plausible reasons for and against. The certainty is that if not settled prior, 2029 - 2031 will be very volatile. I doubt very seriously that the ACC agreement runs its term to 2036. I also believe it is wise to watch all actions between now and 2029 closely and view them in detail as to what positioning that might portend for 2029 and beyond. The idea now is the same as it has always been, winning as much as possible and shoring up program weak spots is the best way VT can help itself.
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 5/26/2026, 4:56:12 PM
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2mo
from Big 12 programs very closely as we get closer to the 2029-2030 time frame. Programs like Utah will have immense leverage to demand concessions from the conference to re-up the media rights commitment. I expect public saber rattling and reticence to commit to a new GOR will be how that leverage is flexed. And for that leverage to be real, there has to be another option available. If public discontent from Utah and similarly situated programs in the Big 12 manifests, you can bet your bottom dollar that there's a plan brewing behind the scenes to leave. And, if they're going to leave, the situation will be ripe to make the move and form a new venture.
I doubt you'll hear anything from anyone currently in the ACC until the minute it happens.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2mo
with all of that. Any ACC posturing just tips the hand of those leaving given the 2036 ACC expiration. The tricky part will be reaching a new media deal for the combined new entity prior to announcing departures. Schools are unlikely to depart without a solid commitment from the new entity and media companies will be hard pressed on any commitment without firm assurance who they are committing to. The latter part of this decade is shaping up to be very interesting IMO.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
2mo
position. Look at the new PAC - the numbers were great until they weren't. Memphis, USF. Tulane - all were going to the new PAC, but the numbers never materialized.
I think it's the same thing with the mythical new conference with the best of the ACC and B12. Where is the beef? It is certainly possible, but they will have to reveal the numbers to the institutions before any of them will move.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2mo
It’s up to the individual schools as to whether they can come out better if the ACC were to break up.
And I’ll be specific because it is important for discussions like this. I know my earlier post said the ACC could crumble, which was a bit genetic and open to interpretation. My detailed view is that the ACC will survive as a conference similar to how the PAC and BIG East have survived. They exist, but they are not at the same level of prestige and value as they were at their peak. That’s the future I see for the ACC, a G5 football league with teams like Wake and Syracuse and BC that don’t have lots of fans and are not national brands.
The ACC success initiative COULD help teams, but it puts a lot of pressure to produce playoff results each year. It’s hard to strategically plan when you don’t know what budget you will have each year. So my hypothesis is that a stronger and more stable alternative (e.g., B12 or P2) will long term be a much more valuable option for the bigger ACC football brands. The ability to make that change is the problem solving you asked about.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2mo
I don’t see the B12 as a step up from the ACC. IMO, Whatever the remains of the B12 and ACC are called, those schools will continue at a level between P2 and G5.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2mo
from the ACC IMO. Whether that changes or not has is yet to be determined, but if no one leaves the ACC I don't see the B12 overtaking it in any meaningful way - ever. Keep the blue bloods until the next contract, and you have a chance of getting a better media contract. The problem with that is, the bottom 2/3's of the conference must take a financial hit - and it's the middle schools that you will have to worry about. Louisville, Pitt, NCSU, Virginia, and even VT will not tolerate a UCF making more money for an extended period of time 2036 is a long way off.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2mo
"Louisville, Pitt, NCSU, Virginia, and even VT will not tolerate a UCF making more money for an extended period of time."
Bingo.
But, let me make it even more 1:1 to the virus that's going to kill the ACC as a "power":
"Florida State, Clemson, and Miami will not tolerate a Vanderbilt, Purdue, Mississippi State, or a Maryland making more money for an extended period of time."
The demise of the ACC is crystalized in that sentence. The sooner folks on here grasp that, the easier it will be to understand what's happening and anticipate what's coming next.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2mo
But the hard part is to get the invitation.
(In response to this post by HouClone)
2mo
money shares cut by adding more teams? It makes no economic sense.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
R
RJHokie
2mo
But greed is the underlying inevitable real reason.
** Edited by RJHokie at 5/25/2026, 4:55:16 PM
(In response to this post by ancient alien 2018)
R
RJHokie
2mo
Once they get what they want, then the squeeze begins.
We shall see…….
(In response to this post by ancient alien 2018)
2mo
Also surprised at the narrow range of ACC payments. I thought they would be wider than that. Since they success initiative uses a 5 yr average I am guessing the highs and lows will broaden over time.
** Edited by VT ChemE 1986 at 5/22/2026, 1:07:54 PM
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
2mo
They received pro-rata shares based on the media deal post addition Cincinatti, BYU, UCF, and Houston. Given the large advantage the BigXII has in television ratings over the ACC and TV deal renegotiation coming up for the BigXII we can all draw the conclusion that the next BigXII deal will exceed the ACC's deal. However, the latter point is based on static trends and we don't really know which programs are going to be where in 2030/2031. Who knows it the ACC or the BigXII will even exist in 5 years.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
S
Stech
2mo
and the large ratings advantage of the B12. I have heard the opposite on both, but maybe I missed something.
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
2mo
https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/15c2m4n/williams_bi...
This is a thread (I know I know, reddit lol) relating the what I'm talking about, not so much proof. If you google around I'm sure you'll find a better source but I'm plowing away at my desk at the moment and sorry but I don't keep 15 years worth of conference realignment and media sources saved in my browser.
Basically the nuts of what I'm saying is the average payout per team value is based on the mean value of the original 12 schools and the 4 corner schools are getting a pro rata share based on those 12 teams, not an average of the 16. Also the deal was undercut to beat the PacXII to market which was (probably) a less than perfect deal, however, in hindsight I'd argue that it was a great move by Yormark.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2mo
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
2mo
That's really unfortunate that you think you have the right to assign me homework but when I give it back you believe you're above the repercussion of the same. Stech, you and I are above it. If you give me data, I will accept it. If I give you data, I don't really care if you accept it. I'll give you a strike here but I really don't appreciate the hissy fit. The lack of promise on your (or my word) word is something you're going to have work through. It's okay if you don't take this on salt but I don't really have to give a rat's ass. Take the strike or learn how to rebut with actual data rather than demanding data from the opposite position. You're the one challenging in this situation. You have to prove me wrong, not I you.
Do you understand?
** Edited by thebluelot at 6/1/2026, 11:43:11 PM
** Edited by thebluelot at 6/1/2026, 11:44:35 PM
(In response to this post by Stech)
2mo
The payout disparity within the ACC will be (much) larger in 2025-2026 due to brand initiative.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
H
HouClone
2mo
due to the brands. Big 12 had them too and they left. Pac had the brands - they left. When the ACC brands go, well, the ACC will be like the Big 12 but worse. The Big 12, in a weird way, were fortunate to be the first to lose the brands as they got the best available teams for an overall deep middle tier of teams.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
2mo
the better football conference hands down - only with a sucky media deal. Lose those brands and ND? VT becomes a B12 school in a heartbeat.
(In response to this post by HouClone)
2mo
gain.
The ACC may lose schools in 2030 but the contract continues until 2036.
(In response to this post by HouClone)
2
2hhoop3
2mo
ignoring the Big 12 and WVU trolls that inhabit this board at varying times.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
2mo
You can source every piece of material and give every fact that proves your position flawlessly and he'll just resort to name-calling and never make a real challenging argument. I'm not sure what's up with the Stech though, typically he's pretty reasonable. Mem Day Weekend traffic maybe?
The pro rata part of the contract (offered only up to 4 teams if they were P5) I mentioned can be found on every corner of the internet (plus the obvious timeline of the deal being struck when the 4 corner schools where still in the PacXII). However, these people want me to keep 15 years worth of conference realignment and media deal news bookmarked in my browser, apparently. They never offer to disprove my points with their own proof. You send them the data and they just ignore it. "Can I get a source" on most boards is never a real attempt at genuine discourse but instead a hail mary attempt to end a founded position they dislike. They never rebut when I spend the time to get the data or source they're asking. I thought my attempt to accommodate Stech was overly generous but he didn't take it that way.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2mo
media contracts in hand. A simple AI search - one sentence - shows that the 4 corners were added pro rata. Proof???
Tough crowd today for sure - but it is what it is. Thankyou for the post.
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
2
2hhoop3
2mo
you and Big12 have posted in the past with facts, explanations and or clarifications. You just refuse to face reality and cannot see past your nose and the rims of your blue and gold eye shades. Pro rata became a part of media rights deals as conference realignment became prominent. It was done to avoid having to renegotiate deals with significant additions and to protect media companies from overpaying for less than comparable product additions and the math is derived from the number of teams in the original contract at the date of signature.
Your assertion that the Big 12 deal was undercut to beat the Pac 12 to market is absurd. The Big 12 did slide in the Pac 12 slot but, they didn't take a haircut to get the deal. If anything, they got a slight premium to help ESPN and FOX solve their own realignment challenges. Your attempt to rebut Stech was nothing more than a lame spin attempt like most of your posts here.
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
2mo
about you show some fricken proof for a change?
I guess you think that you are more intitled to your opinion than I am. Shame on you.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2mo
for themselves and the only shame is on you.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2mo
I had to deal with them on other message boards. What I didn‘t expect was that I had to go through the exact same process even on TSL.
Apparently, Cincinatti, BYU, UCF, and Houston didn't get the pro rata increase in the B12 previous deal (prior to 2025). In other words, they were not strong addition.
The addition of 4C schools was pro rata for ESPN. As far as I know, it's not confirmed Fox would pay pro rata for all four schools.
Regardless, the ACC will maintain the revenue advantage at least until 2031 ($5M+). Will the B12 get a better deal in 2031 than the current ACC deal?
Possible but very unlikely given the market condition. The ACC contract runs through 2036 and I predict the ACC will keep earning more until 2036.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2mo
the guy above doesn't have a clue what he is saying and what has transpired so far is exactly what you tried to discount before, to name just 2 examples.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)