More Realignment News

[tarheel0910]

The Pac TV offers are apparently very low, so low that there is now ay that Oregon an Washington can be expected to accept them for more than a very brief span. That pair have higher football TV ratings than all ACC teams but Clemson and FSU (in fact, both routinely draw more than UCLA and often surpass SC), so they obviously would drive the needle for the ACC. The Pac as it has been simply cannot survive very long. If nothing is changed, that deal taken will mean that Arizona also leaves for the Big 12, which will hurt Pac basketball quality and reputation (but surprisingly, Arizona does not come close to dominating Pac basketball TV viewers).

There is zero sign that the BT is ready to add Oregon and Washington. That means that that pair really need something better than a Big 12 offer. What is the ACC doing? There is no way the AC should consider adding Oregon ST and Washington ST, but Cal and Stanford have major valuebecaus they are supernElite schools in CA with hordes of rich and powerful alums. Utah and Arizona St (which now is AAU) both do well in TV football viewership any time they play anyone not a ratings dud.

I doubt Oregon and Washington see value in joining the fourth best league that will most likely not be around in it's current form a decade from now. Especially one that is across the country with no west coast partners. They'll be in the big 10 at some point. It might not be at a full share and/or take a few years, but it will happen.

 

[WoadBlue]

I doubt Oregon and Washington see value in joining the fourth best league that will most likely not be around in it's current form a decade from now. Especially one that is across the country with no west coast partners. They'll be in the big 10 at some point. It might not be at a full share and/or take a few years, but it will happen.

4th best at what? ACC football is better than everybody except the SEC and perhaps the BT.

Why are you certain the BT will take Oregon and Washington? The BT does not need that geography for any reason. SC and UCLA have no interests in helping them keep recruiting southern CA well.

And I believe the current ACC deal allows for doing up to 4 teams at the same pay rate. That means that really valuable pair could choose 2 from Cal, Stanford, Utah, and Arizona St. Plus, if we would wake up and cut dead weight, we could add 6, meaning 4 from the Pac and WVU and Cincy. That TV market with a huge state in a Major conference is worth more than all New England ever has been or ever could be.

I think you have expressed preference that the ACC just die. Doing nothing is the way to make that happen with no effort.

 

[WoadBlue]

FSU is smart. They are demanding that ACC revenues be based not on Ws but TV viewers: "The ACC recently changed its revenue distribution model to reward success on the field in football and basketball. But Florida State has also pushed changing the model to reward programs that generate higher television revenues and marketability -- areas where Florida State believes it has an advantage."

That way soft hearts can coo about their virtue at not booting Wake and BC, and the league may have a chance to survive with them.

 

[tarheel0910]

4th best at what? ACC football is better than everybody except the SEC and perhaps the BT.

Why are you certain the BT will take Oregon and Washington? The BT does not need that geography for any reason. SC and UCLA have no interests in helping them keep recruiting southern CA well.

And I believe the current ACC deal allows for doing up to 4 teams at the same pay rate. That means that really valuable pair could choose 2 from Cal, Stanford, Utah, and Arizona St. Plus, if we would wake up and cut dead weight, we could add 6, meaning 4 from the Pac and WVU and Cincy. That TV market with a huge state in a Major conference is worth more than all New England ever has been or ever could be.

I think you have expressed preference that the ACC just die. Doing nothing is the way to make that happen with no effort.

So is this where you admit you were wrong?

Big Ten eyes expansion amid Pac-12 instability

The Big Ten officially acknowledged it has started exploring the possibility of expanding to add schools from the Pac-12.

www.espn.com

 

[WoadBlue]

So is this where you admit you were wrong?

Big Ten eyes expansion amid Pac-12 instability

The Big Ten officially acknowledged it has started exploring the possibility of expanding to add schools from the Pac-12.

www.espn.com

If they add from states that do not produce large amounts of football talent, they are helping the SEC pass them even more. Adding SC and UCLA made sense in that regard because the majority of regionally grown talent in the Pac is from southern CA. There is more from northern CA than from Washington and Oregon.

Could the BT make a stupid move? Absolutely - see Rutgers.

But, it make sense for the BT to explore a whole bunch of possibilities, and talk about several of them publicly. It keeps everyone wondering just what it might actually do and when.

 

[tarheel0910]

If they add from states that do not produce large amounts of football talent, they are helping the SEC pass them even more. Adding SC and UCLA made sense in that regard because the majority of regionally grown talent in the Pac is from southern CA. There is more from northern CA than from Washington and Oregon.

Could the BT make a stupid move? Absolutely - see Rutgers.

But, it make sense for the BT to explore a whole bunch of possibilities, and talk about several of them publicly. It keeps everyone wondering just what it might actually do and when.

LOL. You really just can't admit that you were wrong on this. You just want to say it's a mistake on their part. Where the talent is produced is irrelevant in this discussion. Just stop before you embarrass yourself more.

 

[WoadBlue]

LOL. You really just can't admit that you were wrong on this. You just want to say it's a mistake on their part. Where the talent is produced is irrelevant in this discussion. Just stop before you embarrass yourself more.

Wrong about what? Are you under the impression that the BT has already voted to add more Pac schools? That I believe that the BT would never add any more Pac schools? I can see the BT adding more than just Oregon and Washington, if the BT is fairly certain it has very little chance to see the ACC come apart, or to land any major ACC schools if it did break apart. But doing any of that right now will only make certain the BT has fewer slots just in case FSU can be the bomb that starts the process of the ACC faming apart. So the BT would be stupid to add even Oregon and Washington at this time. If the C is stupid enough not to make a move to land them, and thy go Big 12, that will never prevent them later from leaving for the BT. If BT leaders do not know that, then the BT is really in trouble vis a vis the SEC long term.

The difference between us on this 'news' is that you seem to think it is pure truth that means the BT is twitching to pull the trigger the very next second so it can bask in the glory of adding 2 schools in the Pacific Northwest because they are worth far too much to pass up, while I see the 'news' as just more talk, more mud splattered on the walls that may or may not reflect the BT's actual most desired plans. Disinformation is a key way to control narratives and hide what you are doing to try to get what you most want.

For example, I assume that you know that there BT really wants to punish the ACC for getting in its way of forcing ND into the BT. And that means that the BT is going to act to try to thwart whatever it thinks is the ACC's best move, or most likely move to try to strengthen its finances to survive as a Power conference. So, if the ACC has been told by ESPN that ESPN wants the have a team In OH, historically the most important BT state, as that will help ESPN against Fox, and that SPN will come up with some money for the ACC adding Cincy, the last thing the ACC would do (unless the leadership is triply stupid) is tell the press that it wants to add Cincy.

On the other side of that BT wanting to hurt the ACC issue, if the BT feels that the best mike the ACC could make right now is to add Oregon and Washington, the BT will try to keep that from happneing, and the best way is to keep Oregon and Washington thinking that if they just wait for the BT, the BT will save them from ever having to go MWC.

Now, think back about the BT adding Maryland. Did the BT go to the press and tell it that the BT was exploring the option to offer Maryland? Nope. Did any made report a growing BT desire to Maryland? Nope.

 

[tarheel0910]

Wrong about what? Are you under the impression that the BT has already voted to add more Pac schools? That I believe that the BT would never add any more Pac schools? I can see the BT adding more than just Oregon and Washington, if the BT is fairly certain it has very little chance to see the ACC come apart, or to land any major ACC schools if it did break apart. But doing any of that right now will only make certain the BT has fewer slots just in case FSU can be the bomb that starts the process of the ACC faming apart. So the BT would be stupid to add even Oregon and Washington at this time. If the C is stupid enough not to make a move to land them, and thy go Big 12, that will never prevent them later from leaving for the BT. If BT leaders do not know that, then the BT is really in trouble vis a vis the SEC long term.

The difference between us on this 'news' is that you seem to think it is pure truth that means the BT is twitching to pull the trigger the very next second so it can bask in the glory of adding 2 schools in the Pacific Northwest because they are worth far too much to pass up, while I see the 'news' as just more talk, more mud splattered on the walls that may or may not reflect the BT's actual most desired plans. Disinformation is a key way to control narratives and hide what you are doing to try to get what you most want.

For example, I assume that you know that there BT really wants to punish the ACC for getting in its way of forcing ND into the BT. And that means that the BT is going to act to try to thwart whatever it thinks is the ACC's best move, or most likely move to try to strengthen its finances to survive as a Power conference. So, if the ACC has been told by ESPN that ESPN wants the have a team In OH, historically the most important BT state, as that will help ESPN against Fox, and that SPN will come up with some money for the ACC adding Cincy, the last thing the ACC would do (unless the leadership is triply stupid) is tell the press that it wants to add Cincy.

On the other side of that BT wanting to hurt the ACC issue, if the BT feels that the best mike the ACC could make right now is to add Oregon and Washington, the BT will try to keep that from happneing, and the best way is to keep Oregon and Washington thinking that if they just wait for the BT, the BT will save them from ever having to go MWC.

Now, think back about the BT adding Maryland. Did the BT go to the press and tell it that the BT was exploring the option to offer Maryland? Nope. Did any made report a growing BT desire to Maryland? Nope.

You can't keep digging to get out of a hole.

 

[andrew jones]

I will reiterate, you guys need to be on premium. I am regualrly dropping intel on this. Don't pay attention to 95% of the crap that's out there. Few people have displayed an actual understanding of what's going on.

My friend and colleague Brett Friedlander gets it. We have shared our intel almost daily on this over the last week, and often before, and he nails it in this column:

 

[tarheel0910]

I will reiterate, you guys need to be on premium. I am regualrly dropping intel on this. Don't pay attention to 95% of the crap that's out there. Few people have displayed an actual understanding of what's going on.

My friend and colleague Brett Friedlander gets it. We have shared our intel almost daily on this over the last week, and often before, and he nails it in this column:

View embedded media

I think the FSU admin knows it's going to be around 10 years before they can get out. Their reasoning for doing this, in my opinion, is to get more money from the ACC through changing up the way revenue is distributed. That, along with other schools quietly complaining, seems to be working. If it takes publicly complaining by FSU to get more money for UNC, then I'm all for it. Maybe you have some intel about FSU, but I can't think of another reason for them to complain.

I don't take any of the ACC talk too seriously, though. For me, it's more of a thought case. A way to look at what ifs instead of what is. I've always thought a business school class based around TV money in athletics would be a good idea. It's had such a huge impact both in college and professional sports.

 

[tarheel0910]

Thoughts about beating the Big to the table and offer Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal? I think that would allow us to renegotiate the ESPN contract. Oregon and Washington wouldn't get a full share from the Big, so maybe the new ACC contract would be close to the partial share. Some outside the box thinking, which is what the ACC is going to have to do.

 

[WoadBlue]

For once, the usually awful Heather Dinich has something on ESPN not totally worthless. Then article is about Colorado leaving the Pac and features this anonymous quote allegedly from a Big 12 AD: ""We were on the other end of that barely two years ago," a Big 12 athletic director said. "What we're trying to do is just change our position. You're either growing and you're moving to try to best position yourself, or you're vulnerable."

My emphasis.

 

[tarheel0910]

For once, the usually awful Heather Dinich has something on ESPN not totally worthless. Then article is about Colorado leaving the Pac and features this anonymous quote allegedly from a Big 12 AD: ""We were on the other end of that barely two years ago," a Big 12 athletic director said. "What we're trying to do is just change our position. You're either growing and you're moving to try to best position yourself, or you're vulnerable."

My emphasis.

You can't grow just for the sake of growth, though. There has to be a value add. That was easier for them, because they were at the bottom. There are really no good options for the ACC unless they want to do what I mentioned and go west. I think that's really the only chance left. Apparently that didn't add much when they ran the numbers, though. Situation might have changed now. I could see ESPN wanting to make sure Oregon and Washington didn't go to a Fox conference and making ACC teams feel better so they don't go to the Big in 10 years.

 

[WoadBlue]

Thoughts about beating the Big to the table and offer Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal? I think that would allow us to renegotiate the ESPN contract. Oregon and Washington wouldn't get a full share from the Big, so maybe the new ACC contract would be close to the partial share. Some outside the box thinking, which is what the ACC is going to have to do.

Surely everyone in the Pac knows that the Pac as anything other than name is not long for this world. It now looks like it may be dead before this next school year ends. There is nobody to add. SDSU, Fresno St, and Boise St cannot add to the per team TV deal offers. Neither SMU nor Tulane nor Colorado St nor New Mexico can help even a little bit. The Pac simply has missed many opportunities over the years, usually with a flourish of hubris. The Pac assumed that its isolated geography combined with its academic stature meant protection forever.

There are grave warnings in this sad story for the ACC. The simple fact is that the ACC has more value than the Pac did even with SC, which is the reason both SEC and BT are desperate to de-stabilize the ACC.

Our two problems can come together, but the ACC can't save the Pac as such. The ACC cannot take on the dead weight of Oregon St and Washington St. And I do not think we could get Oregon and Washington as just a pair. If ESPN has enough sense to want to keep a big part of the West watching, it needs 6 or 7 Pac teams still together and serving to provide Friday and Saturday late night games. And the more that those games feature a team from the ACC as visitor, the more people who will watch. If ESPN sees it that way, then it should agree to have the ACC absorb the with something or worth a lot 7: Oregon, Washington, Cal, Stanford, Utah, Arizona St, and Arizona. The least valuable of that group is Arizona, which will shock most hardline ACC basketball fans. The Wildcats simply have no traction with football TV viewers, and unless the basketball team is great, SU's basketball TV numbers are as good.

The BT and SEC each have enough wealth that each could take that 7, but neither needs to make any such move. So the ACC is the only way that as many as 6 or 7 Pac teams can be in the same conference after this next year, maybe 2 years. If Arizona leaves for the Big 12, nd there is no such deal with the ACC, you can bet your last dollar that ASU and Utah both will love the Big 12 for taking them as well. And then the Pac is truly dead.

So they either wish to work with us, or they will see a dead Pac with everyone scattered, the largest number in the Big 12.

And I am opposed to taking any of them unless Oregon and Washington come. We need their value to make the others as valuable as possible.

 

[tarheel0910]

Surely everyone in the Pac knows that the Pac as anything other than name is not long for this world. It now looks like it may be dead before this next school year ends. There is nobody to add. SDSU, Fresno St, and Boise St cannot add to the per team TV deal offers. Neither SMU nor Tulane nor Colorado St nor New Mexico can help even a little bit. The Pac simply has missed many opportunities over the years, usually with a flourish of hubris. The Pac assumed that its isolated geography combined with its academic stature meant protection forever.

There are grave warnings in this sad story for the ACC. The simple fact is that the ACC has more value than the Pac did even with SC, which is the reason both SEC and BT are desperate to de-stabilize the ACC.

Our two problems can come together, but the ACC can't save the Pac as such. The ACC cannot take on the dead weight of Oregon St and Washington St. And I do not think we could get Oregon and Washington as just a pair. If ESPN has enough sense to want to keep a big part of the West watching, it needs 6 or 7 Pac teams still together and serving to provide Friday and Saturday late night games. And the more that those games feature a team from the ACC as visitor, the more people who will watch. If ESPN sees it that way, then it should agree to have the ACC absorb the with something or worth a lot 7: Oregon, Washington, Cal, Stanford, Utah, Arizona St, and Arizona. The least valuable of that group is Arizona, which will shock most hardline ACC basketball fans. The Wildcats simply have no traction with football TV viewers, and unless the basketball team is great, SU's basketball TV numbers are as good.

The BT and SEC each have enough wealth that each could take that 7, but neither needs to make any such move. So the ACC is the only way that as many as 6 or 7 Pac teams can be in the same conference after this next year, maybe 2 years. If Arizona leaves for the Big 12, nd there is no such deal with the ACC, you can bet your last dollar that ASU and Utah both will love the Big 12 for taking them as well. And then the Pac is truly dead.

So they either wish to work with us, or they will see a dead Pac with everyone scattered, the largest number in the Big 12.

And I am opposed to taking any of them unless Oregon and Washington come. We need their value to make the others as valuable as possible.

Taking more than the four I mentioned doesn't make much sense. The others are just a drag. I'd be willing to bet the numbers work out better with just those four. I've yet to read or hear anything suggesting Washington State and Oregon state would have to tag along.

 

[Xlance]

Yes and no. The schools are committed to making it work, and the reality of the situation is the other conferences have not invited them to join. A couple have been invited, one by the Big Ten and one by both the Big Ten and SEC, but it might not be who people think.

There is no appetite to depart from the ACC, but there is an appetite to increase revenue to better compete. The members are unified there.

By the way, FSU and Clemson are not looking to bolt, in part because the options people assume are there actually aren't.

As for eight teams departing and destroying the league, there aren't eight schools in the league that would find a better situation outside the ACC with any certainty. A few would, one being UNC. But most wouldn't.

The league is safe and the members want it to remain in tact, they just want to move things faster toward increased revenue.

I am going to go into much more detail about this on the premium board after I get back from my trip.

If FSU isn't looking to bolt, why are we hearing all of this rhetoric coming out of Tallahassee from the President on down?
Has something changed from the time of Amelia Island until now?

 

[WoadBlue]

Taking more than the four I mentioned doesn't make much sense. The others are just a drag. I'd be willing to bet the numbers work out better with just those four. I've yet to read or hear anything suggesting Washington State and Oregon state would have to tag along.

Now that Colorado is gone, the two least valuable of the current Pac 9 are OSU and WSU. The ACC is not going to take either under any circumstances. The other 7 all have value, but what is surprising for many ACC types is that Arizona will be the 7th, precisely because its football TV numbers are so poor - ASU always has had much better football support. Utah is more valuable than either Cal of Stanford,m excel that the norCA pair have major power as universities and because everybody out west needs to recruit norCA.

So what I see is that the ACC could take either 6 or 7, and have funky scheduling that allows them all top players arch other as a mini-=conference within a larger conference. That would maximize their regional value, and their game sis. the old EST ACC would help both parts of the expanded league draw a larger TV audience.

That is easily the best possibility for the ACC long term. The Big 12 has done such a fast and furious great job solidifying itself that the ACC now is unlikely to even be able to grab WVU. The Big 12 TV deal is less than, but not by much, and the Big 12 does not have network. But none of that makes the ACC more stable than the Big 12 right now.

The Pac is dead man walking now precisely because that utter fool Larry Scott led the league to assume it was set very well at 12. The Pac had the opportunity to take more from the Big 12 and thought itself too good and safe to want middle American farm schools like K-St and Ok St and so lost any chance to get schools like KU and OU. The price of stupidity can be death, as can be the cost of arrogance.

The ACC needs to learn that.

 

[WoadBlue]

If FSU isn't looking to bolt, why are we hearing all of this rhetoric coming out of Tallahassee from the President on down?
Has something changed from the time of Amelia Island until now?

FSU is definitely ready to leave and would do so in a snap if not for that GOR. But FSU also would be soothed with seeing that the ACC weak links are holding it down a bit less. Sand making at least a part of distribution be based on TV numbers will help inn that re\gard. The ASCC needs to do that ASAP. That also would help draw Oregon and Washington - they will make those high TV numbers.

If you do that and drop Wake and BC, then the ACC just might have permanently secured itself among a Power 3.

 

[tarheel0910]

Now that Colorado is gone, the two least valuable of the current Pac 9 are OSU and WSU. The ACC is not going to take either under any circumstances. The other 7 all have value, but what is surprising for many ACC types is that Arizona will be the 7th, precisely because its football TV numbers are so poor - ASU always has had much better football support. Utah is more valuable than either Cal of Stanford,m excel that the norCA pair have major power as universities and because everybody out west needs to recruit norCA.

So what I see is that the ACC could take either 6 or 7, and have funky scheduling that allows them all top players arch other as a mini-=conference within a larger conference. That would maximize their regional value, and their game sis. the old EST ACC would help both parts of the expanded league draw a larger TV audience.

That is easily the best possibility for the ACC long term. The Big 12 has done such a fast and furious great job solidifying itself that the ACC now is unlikely to even be able to grab WVU. The Big 12 TV deal is less than, but not by much, and the Big 12 does not have network. But none of that makes the ACC more stable than the Big 12 right now.

The Pac is dead man walking now precisely because that utter fool Larry Scott led the league to assume it was set very well at 12. The Pac had the opportunity to take more from the Big 12 and thought itself too good and safe to want middle American farm schools like K-St and Ok St and so lost any chance to get schools like KU and OU. The price of stupidity can be death, as can be the cost of arrogance.

The ACC needs to learn that.

All you did is retype everything you said in the previous post. If it would have maximized value by taking that many schools, it would have been done the first time. The way this works is you take the best left. The best left is Washington and Oregon. Everyone else is mid tier and unnecessarily cuts into the pie. The only reason to bring Stanford and Cal is because you need a west coast pod and they are in a prime location.

 

[andrew jones]

If FSU isn't looking to bolt, why are we hearing all of this rhetoric coming out of Tallahassee from the President on down?
Has something changed from the time of Amelia Island until now?

I have detailed this in-depth on premium, but will say here that FSU is trying to escalate the next wave for the ACC, which I reported more than a year ago is unequal revenue sharing; not just postseason money, but ALL TV money. That was the next step following the postseason approval in the spring. After unequal revenue sharing is in place, then minimum football spending mandates are next. Squeezing a couple of schools out of the conference is the goal, which would then significantly increase revenue for the remaining 12.

 

[WoadBlue]

I have detailed this in-depth on premium, but will say here that FSU is trying to escalate the next wave for the ACC, which I reported more than a year ago is unequal revenue sharing; not just postseason money, but ALL TV money. That was the next step following the postseason approval in the spring. After unequal revenue sharing is in place, then minimum football spending mandates are next. Squeezing a couple of schools out of the conference is the goal, which would then significantly increase revenue for the remaining 12.

And cutting Wake and BC loose is necessary. I don't like that such is the reality, but it is the reality.

I do understand basketball value, which is the reason I have never advocated cutting loose Dook and Syracuse. But football value counts much more.

Many are now posting that Oregon is likely to stay in the Pac, perhaps even sign a GOR, now that the BT has cooled somewhat. This is the ACC's big chance. There is nobody the Pac can add to add to its value. So long term, being kin the Pac will be a killer, far worse thanking in the ACC if it makes no moves.

 

[tarheel0910]

I have detailed this in-depth on premium, but will say here that FSU is trying to escalate the next wave for the ACC, which I reported more than a year ago is unequal revenue sharing; not just postseason money, but ALL TV money. That was the next step following the postseason approval in the spring. After unequal revenue sharing is in place, then minimum football spending mandates are next. Squeezing a couple of schools out of the conference is the goal, which would then significantly increase revenue for the remaining 12.

Do all teams have to agree to the revenue models or just a majority?

 

[tarheel0910]

And cutting Wake and BC loose is necessary. I don't like that such is the reality, but it is the reality.

I do understand basketball value, which is the reason I have never advocated cutting loose Dook and Syracuse. But football value counts much more.

Many are now posting that Oregon is likely to stay in the Pac, perhaps even sign a GOR, now that the BT has cooled somewhat. This is the ACC's big chance. There is nobody the Pac can add to add to its value. So long term, being kin the Pac will be a killer, far worse thanking in the ACC if it makes no moves.

Sounds like Oregon is just trying to get a bigger share. No way they would sign a GoR for $20-$30 million. We both agree that the ACC should have made an offer, though.

 

[andrew jones]

Do all teams have to agree to the revenue models or just a majority?

If you're Pitt, Wake, BC, GT, VT, State, and Cuse, do you really have a choice but to go along with it? If it ever comes to a vote it will be because everyone is on board.

 

[tarheel0910]

If you're Pitt, Wake, BC, GT, VT, State, and Cuse, do you really have a choice but to go along with it? If it ever comes to a vote it will be because everyone is on board.

Why would they want to go along with it? It's most likely going to cut their share. Are you thinking they would go along to try to save the conference?

 

[tarheel0910]

The more I think about this, the more I'm irritated at the ACC for not making a move. There needs to be some out of the box thinking to have a chance to save the conference. While I don't think bringing in the top Pac teams would ultimately save the conference, it would have at least improved the situation until judgement day comes.

 

[andrew jones]

Why would they want to go along with it? It's most likely going to cut their share. Are you thinking they would go along to try to save the conference?

Becuase their share anywhere else would be much less. If the ACC dissolves, there won't be a very good landing spot for most of the ACC's current schools. It's better to have a bit less and remain in the ACC than having MUCh less and not be in the ACC and find new home in a much less relevant league.

 

[WoadBlue]

Becuase their share anywhere else would be much less. If the ACC dissolves, there won't be a very good landing spot for most of the ACC's current schools. It's better to have a bit less and remain in the ACC than having MUCh less and not be in the ACC and find new home in a much less relevant league.

At the very least, if the ACC comes apart, neither Wake nor BC has any, meaning no more than maybe .5% of a chance, of being in a Major/Power conference. Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, and GT have better shots, but very far from enough to count on. Dook's only chance is that the UNC-Dook basketball rivalry is the most important and most valuable in the sport. NCSU chances are slim because neither SEC nor BT may care to have 3 NC schools, and they may not care to split such a state and UNC always should prefer to take Dook. Miami is far from assured, as is VT right now.

So the meaning of all to me is crystal clear: 1st, the ACC should be acting to get rid of Wake and BC ASAP, but factoring in ease and helping them land elsewhere that they might find less than a train wreck; 2nd, everybody listed above should be more than willing to again alter ACC funding to reflect TV numbers drawn, because that may be the only way to calm FSU and Clemson for the time being, and the ACC needs that to make the best choices going forward; 3rd, we must stress to ND, hard stress, that the only way ND is not 'forced' into BT football isif the ACC survives as a viable confere3nce, so it is in ND's best interests to help the ACC do just that. ND can a little bit by agreeing to play 6 games per year rather than 5. That alone should mean we get ESPN to the renegotiating table; 4th, we need to run all the numbers of WVU TV numbers, and factor in how much they lose by playing all league games at least 600 miles from campus - WVU would outdraw Wake and BC in virtually every game played in both revenue sports. WE need to see what Cincy offers for long term growth in a new state is already football crazed. There are enough football obsessed people in OH, even just within the Cincinnati TV market, to have Cincy become a semi-major TV force playing local rivals in a Power 3 league, which also would include getting ND at least once every 3 years.

 

[tarheel0910]

Becuase their share anywhere else would be much less. If the ACC dissolves, there won't be a very good landing spot for most of the ACC's current schools. It's better to have a bit less and remain in the ACC than having MUCh less and not be in the ACC and find new home in a much less relevant league.

Seems like the only way the top tier teams would stay was if those bottom teams get a lot less. I'm not sure if those bottom teams would take a big enough cut to satisfy who they need to satisfy. You would know better than me, though. Question for you. This might be something you cover on premium, so you don't have to answer if you did, but what are you thoughts on the ACC not making a move on the top Pac teams? Seems like it would have been a good way to renegotiate the contract for more money. I know going that far west isn't ideal, but if that's what it takes.

 

[WoadBlue]

Sounds like Oregon is just trying to get a bigger share. No way they would sign a GoR for $20-$30 million. We both agree that the ACC should have made an offer, though.

There is one report (maybe Pat Forde) that says the ACC did talk to Pac schools, but that Oregon made the decision to pursue the BT hot now. And if we could not get Oregon and Washington, it is not in our finial interests to take any others. The bad about is that it means that the Big 12 now has easy pickings of valuable properties. Utah and ASU are both more valuable than Arizona. Th Big 12 adding them is stronger in every sense. And it will be stronger than the ACC if we lose even just FSU.

 

[WoadBlue]

Seems like the only way the top tier teams would stay was if those bottom teams get a lot less. I'm not sure if those bottom teams would take a big enough cut to satisfy who they need to satisfy. You would know better than me, though. Question for you. This might be something you cover on premium, so you don't have to answer if you did, but what are you thoughts on the ACC not making a move on the top Pac teams? Seems like it would have been a good way to renegotiate the contract for more money. I know going that far west isn't ideal, but if that's what it takes.

It is long past time to stop treating Wake and BC, and others, as of they are too delicate to hear the truth. And the truth is that the ACC easily could be dead, for all practical purposes, several years before that contract ends in 2036. They must face the fact that is aint 1953 nor '63 nor '73, nor even 2003. And today, they very clearly are major liabilities to the league's very survival. This is an existential crisis, not some cheap play by FSU and Clemson just to cheat poor, innocent Wake and BC of their money that God ordained was to be fully equal.

 

[tarheel0910]

If this is true, it says a lot about how other teams/conferences see the ACC. ACC could have easily paid more.

 

[tarheel0910]

FSU talking with JP Morgan about the possibility of a private equity partnership to get funding for a buyout and cover any money lost because of the GofR if they move. Seems like a long shot for many reasons, but I like that they are thinking outside the box. That's what UNC is going to have to do to survive.

 

[IUCrazy2]

If this is true, it says a lot about how other teams/conferences see the ACC. ACC could have easily paid more.

View embedded media

There are other benefits outside of athletics as well. The Big Ten Academic Alliance being the main one. UNC would be a major target to join if you all were not tied into the agreement with the ACC.

 

[WoadBlue]

The Big 12 adding Utah and Arizona St means that if FSU and Clemson were to leave the ACC, then ACC football would be lesser than the Big 12 in both football quality and football TV numbers.

Just awful leadership. The ACC needed to execute a whole bunch of major basketball boosters 40 years ago.

 

[andrew jones]

At the very least, if the ACC comes apart, neither Wake nor BC has any, meaning no more than maybe .5% of a chance, of being in a Major/Power conference. Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, and GT have better shots, but very far from enough to count on. Dook's only chance is that the UNC-Dook basketball rivalry is the most important and most valuable in the sport. NCSU chances are slim because neither SEC nor BT may care to have 3 NC schools, and they may not care to split such a state and UNC always should prefer to take Dook. Miami is far from assured, as is VT right now.

So the meaning of all to me is crystal clear: 1st, the ACC should be acting to get rid of Wake and BC ASAP, but factoring in ease and helping them land elsewhere that they might find less than a train wreck; 2nd, everybody listed above should be more than willing to again alter ACC funding to reflect TV numbers drawn, because that may be the only way to calm FSU and Clemson for the time being, and the ACC needs that to make the best choices going forward; 3rd, we must stress to ND, hard stress, that the only way ND is not 'forced' into BT football isif the ACC survives as a viable confere3nce, so it is in ND's best interests to help the ACC do just that. ND can a little bit by agreeing to play 6 games per year rather than 5. That alone should mean we get ESPN to the renegotiating table; 4th, we need to run all the numbers of WVU TV numbers, and factor in how much they lose by playing all league games at least 600 miles from campus - WVU would outdraw Wake and BC in virtually every game played in both revenue sports. WE need to see what Cincy offers for long term growth in a new state is already football crazed. There are enough football obsessed people in OH, even just within the Cincinnati TV market, to have Cincy become a semi-major TV force playing local rivals in a Power 3 league, which also would include getting ND at least once every 3 years.

Zero percent. Most of the ACC would be screwed.

As for getting rid of Wake and BC, they can't simply fire them, and Wake isn't going anywhere viluntarily for a while. But they could be priced out of the conference: Minimal revenue, little chance for postseason revenue, and high minmum spending mandates.

It has been discussed for a while.

 

[andrew jones]

The Big 12 adding Utah and Arizona St means that if FSU and Clemson were to leave the ACC, then ACC football would be lesser than the Big 12 in both football quality and football TV numbers.

Just awful leadership. The ACC needed to execute a whole bunch of major basketball boosters 40 years ago.

You need to be on premium. I have been going into detail on this for two years, and especially the last 14 months.

 

[WoadBlue]

There are other benefits outside of athletics as well. The Big Ten Academic Alliance being the main one. UNC would be a major target to join if you all were not tied into the agreement with the ACC.

I tell you what: You persuade the BT to expand to 28 total. That means you could add 10 from the ACC: ND, UVA, VT, UNC, Dook, NCSU, Clemson, GT, FSU, and Miami, That move would mean the BT is truly nationally nd that it finally has roots deep in major football recruiting country, which would elevate BY football moire than adding SC and UCLA can do. The BT also would totally control basketball.

 

[tarheel0910]

So now that the Pac is basically dead as a P5 conference, if not completely dead, how does the new playoff system work? The winners of the P5 conferences were guaranteed a spot in the playoffs. Will the playoff committee just make that another SEC at large spot? Or maybe guarantee it to another G5 school? They only have a year to figure it out.

 

[tarheel0910]

ACC should change it's motto to "A Day Late and a Dollar Short." Seriously, why would you not call an emergency meeting if you were going to consider something like this.

https://www.si.com/college/georgiatech/football/report-acc-seriously-explored-adding-5-7-pac-12-teams