David Hale has a great twitter thread on ND/the ACC. It's a series of 20ish tweets, so I'm not going to embed everything.
TL;DR:
8 teams need to leave the ACC at once for the GoR to not matter. And it's unlikely that anything happens before the new playoff structure is finalized.
ON NOTRE DAME POSSIBLY LEAVING THE ACC
- ND probably isn't making a decision about joining a conference until the new playoff structure is finalized
- ND's ACC revenue was ~$10.8m in 2019-2020. For other schools, it was about ~$32.3m.
- There's a lot of unknowns, but based on public information, leaving the ACC in 2024 would cost ND somewhere between $55m-112m. This is about a third of what it would cost any other school (because ND makes about a third of the money that other schools make).
ON BREAKING THE CURRENT GRANT OF RIGHTS
When it comes to the ACC Grant of Rights these 2 tweets are telling:
Another aside: adding new teams or opening up the TV contract would *NOT* void the existing GoR. They are separate documents. If new teams joined the ACC, they'd have to sign the same GoR as everyone else. Same for departing teams - unless > 50% leave.— 💫🅰️♈️🆔 (@ADavidHaleJoint) July 11, 2022
Really want to emphasize the second half of that first tweet:
The ACC owns the broadcast rights for all members until [2036]. The rumor mill has largely ignored how big an obstacle this really is -- and it's enormous
More highlights that come later in the thread:
- Hale exiting the GoR will cost $120m-$150m, plus an additional ~$300m for the school (not the ACC) to keep the rights.
- The fact that no one has yet challenged the GoR (and Hale believes that programs have been considering this for years) means no one has come up with a good way to challenge it yet. He also points out that Texas and OU are waiting for their GoR to expire before leaving, which also leads him to believe that lawyers are no confident about challenging a GoR in court.
In summary:
Long story short, there's not an obvious path for anyone to depart the ACC in the near term without a massive & expensive legal battle. In the longer term, the equation changes. We'll have playoff certainty, knowledge on NCAA/oversight. Revenue gaps ⬆️, GoR length ⬇️.— 💫🅰️♈️🆔 (@ADavidHaleJoint) July 11, 2022
Comments
Insert Gif:
"We suck again"
Seems like the GoR is serving its intended purpose very very well. The stability of the ACC membership is very solid. Unfortunately for the members, that is increasingly looking like a bad thing. Whoops! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
GoR would have been good if there was any hope of the conference getting a good TV deal to keep us on equal footing as the Big Ten and SEC. Instead, its effectively allowing the likes of Wake Forest, Boston College, Syracuse, and Duke to hold the bigger schools hostage while they continue to rake in more than they're realistically worth.
I think Pitt and Georgia Tech are also in that group.
It's not like VT, FSU, Clemson, NC State, etc signed it unwillingly. The ACC member schools chose to prioritize stability above all else. Additionally, the member schools clearly didn't think that the SEC/B10 would get $100m/school/year - This was a huge mistep, both by ACC leadership, as well as school presidents.
I mean it really is doing what it's supposed to do. Any team that can't find its way into the two megaconferences will get a financial windfall. If VT is in that group, we'll appreciate having it, but if we can move on, we'll pay for it. Working as designed.
Without some teams voluntarily leaving for the BIGXII, it's not happening. In a wild scenario where the SEC and B1G expand to 20, ND is likely taking one of those spots, which means assuming Oregon and UW aren't invited, that's 7 potential spots available.
Other than a few eager Pitt fans on Reddit who seem excited at the prospect so they can be back together with WVU, I just don't see it happening anytime soon. Would a UL wanna jump ship to the BIGXII for example to get ahead of realignment? Maybe, but I feel like most people here wouldn't like for tech to pull that very much, so I doubt they would either.
This would be a blockbuster Movie heist level scenario with the amount of closed door conspiracy required to make it work. It's simply not happening. But if it does, at least we would get a fascinating 30 for 30 out of it.
(Meant to reply to the post below.)
Sorry if I'm missing the obvious, but what is "it" that you're talking about?
VT leaving/ACC imploding. Would likely need the Big XII to take 4-6 ACC to basically nuke the ACC
I could see 4 teams trying to leave at the same time. Hard to get to 8.
What if, and pretend just for a moment, that the ACC kicked out Wake, BC, Pitt.... could we get 8 then? A man can dream, I guess.
So it sounds like 50% needs to leave in order for GoR to no longer apply.
SEC - NCSU, VT, Clemson, FSU, Miami
B1G - UNC, UVa, ND, GT
That's 9 teams. Coordinate the moves to happen within 24-48 hours of each other. Boom goes the GoR. In fact, its probably the ONLY way that this all happens, and yet very realistic that it could.
I agree. That's pretty much the way I was seeing it when the USC/UCLA move was announced. Not sure GT makes the cut but the other 8 we're my guess as well.
Agreed, Hell you could even throw Duke to the B1G, or replace GT.
I don't think that scenario is realistic
So this has 7 schools leaving the ACC, one short of what is necessary for the GoR to fall apart, but possibly enough to nudge it a long.
It really all hinges on Notre Dame and the B10. If the 12 team playoff format proposed last year comes to fruition, ND will remain independent, and no one will leave the ACC.
Nobody is leaving the ACC for the Big XII unless the ACC crumbles, first. Its foolish to think that's even on the table.
I disagree...
The B12 is just as well positioned as the P12 or the ACC to be the third most attractive conference. Clemson could easily find the B12 more attractive than the ACC.
I repeat, nobody is leaving the ACC for the Big XII. Their payout wouldn't cover the GoR buyout (its debatable whether or not the SEC or B1G would even with their super inflated values), and not only that the Big XII is in far, far worse shape than the ACC. Nobody is risking that financial hit to make at best a lateral move to the Big XII.
The ACC might suck, but that conference is a tire fire.
In his scenario, enough people would be leaving to dissolve the grant of rights, so this point isn't really valid here. It's in a defined scenario where certain schools might be willing to exit with everyone else leaving for the SEC and BIGXII to get ahead of the realignment mess. Not a likely scenario at all, but not impossible either.
Nobody is going to leave for the Big XII if they can just not do so and either force the ACC to stay together or get those GoR payments from the schools leaving.
This plan requires schools to basically voluntarily fall on the knife so that others can prosper. That's not realistic.
Stanford is much less valuable than many ACC schools. They are not a big TV draw and that's what matters.
And I doubt coming without Cal
and he's probably wrong about 8; bylaws are pretty clear about needing 2/3; i.e., 10.
the Transformation Committee is dealing with the issue of compensating players. Their ultimate recommendations could push some members out of the top football tier. Committee is/was due to be finished in August but I expect that date to get pushed well into the fall. No useful info from them has come out in quite a while; if their work was easy, they'd already be done.
So what you're saying is that would take Ethically Spurious or Pliable ageNts to recruit, organize, and coordinate a coup of the type that could liquidate the ACC? Unfortunately, no such entity exists to my knowledge.
So I guess the ACC is just going to hold everyone hostage and lead their members' athletics budgets to financial ruin? I'm also starting to get the vibe that ESPN wants the ACC to stick together because of the ridiculously low ball deal they have to pay us through 2036. As long as they can keep ACC schools from bolting to the Big Ten/Fox they're content with them slowly decaying because they don't have to pay.
I really hope 8-10 schools get together and just vote to disband the conference at this point. Cannot stand the situation the ACC/Tobacco Road has put us in.
Upon a second read, Hale has a very party line tone to his responses. It's what ESPN and the ACC want us to think (GoR is ironclad, no home for 8 teams). Also I don't get what he's saying that it's not about making the pie bigger, it's about bigger pie slices. The only way the slices would get bigger would be booting teams out. You want the overall pie to get bigger so each team's proportion is still the same but overall more.
If the B1G is going to get $100 mil per school, then any school they look to bring would have to be worth at least that much to the TV deal. If you add a school that doesn't really move the needle, then the existing schools need to share their slices with schools who aren't bringing much to the overall revenue. IDK where exactly that line in the sand is, I'm pretty sure ND and UNC are over that threshold but a lot of other ACC schools not so much.
UT and OU will need to generate a total of $134 million more (combined) in annual revenue for the SEC to increase the revenue per school... so you can do the math
Source: https://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/16-team-sec-central-revenue.html
Totally get what you're saying, but when he talked about the pie slice getting larger (ie each schools share of the total revenue) that sounded a lot like getting rid of schools. In order for everyone's distribution to get bigger the entire pool has to get larger by whatever amount of schools you add in order to keep everyone's larger distribution at or above $100 mil which is the target. I guess just arguing pie semantics.
I understand what you're saying, but business decisions aren't all based on the current basic intrinsic value. I could easily see a conference bringing in a school which brings in less than a full share if it can add intangible value by increasing future stability, corner a particular market from competitors, add cache, economies of scale, synergies, etc.
The other thing I see is virtually all of the assorted analysis on realignment/expansion are rooted almost entirely in myriad past and current models. My guess is when this finally plays out, there is going to be "whoa" component to it which will fundamentally alter the structure and revenue models for college sports (and perhaps even touching academics) in ways none of the various writers, prognosticators and keyboard warriors aren't even dreaming of, let alone factoring into their calculations.
That's true - a school could catch an invite if they serve another strategic purpose. But given the that the Big 2 are dealing from such a position of power, I don't think they're desperate to snatch any additional schools just because. So Hale's point probably still stands that there aren't 8 takes from the ACC right now. If a few more dominos fall and both conferences race to 20, it's still unlikely unless as discussed above, some leave for conferences besides SEC and B1G.
And yes, the endgame here is really anybody's guess. Nothing would surprise me.
I agree that neither of the P2 might be in a hurry - but this is assuming all of the old school models and unwritten rules and ways of thinking apply. And, as I wrote, I suspect they don't.
I could just as easily see the B1G and SEC eyeing each other like a old western shootout and I would not be surprised at all to see another set of dominos fall relatively soon when one tries to beat the other to the draw.
Exactly, the value is not what VT holds now, it's the value they hold when playing Tenn, uga, bama, Florida, scar, and then line each year. What values are those matchups and does it increase the slice of the pie because they mean more eyes in new markets on top of added interest over say a VT vs GT matchup.
More than the football matchups per se, it's the value VT holds as being a big (and growing) enrollment, football serious, academically sound state institution on the upswing in a new frontier state with heavy connections to the nation's capitol, the nation's 4th most populous metropolitan area and 4 of the 8 wealthiest counties in the country.
This guy here is a salesman.
Also, he comes armed with fact.
As for the pie analogy, if the B10 wants each school to get $100 mil a year and currently Fox is willing to pay $90, any addition they bring in has to be worth MORE than $100 mil a year to help bring the overall average up, ND definitely helps in that regard, Clemson, FSU? Them probably as well; but UVA, GT, Duke? They don't demand $90, let alone 100+ so to bring in a school like that every B10 team gets less per year in the new deal which they won't sign off on
Edit: Nick M beat me by a couple of minutes
I'm just not sure why we're talking about bigger slices of pie when we could be talking about bigger slices of cake.
One overlooked benefit of cake is that you can grow the cake in diameter and in height.
When I consume lots of cake, I'm only getting the diameter growth.
Just how exactly are you calculating this diameter growth?
Checkmate - Team Pi(e)
I'm going to guess scale, but pies can do the same thing.
It seems increasingly unlikely that VT is going to find its way to the big kids table. Swafford and his homies really doomed the ACC...ACC schools are severely handicapped by this situation and I just don't see a good way out of it for any of them. Like I said in another thread, the ACC is weak, but stable. I think we can just expect the quality of the product to continue backsliding as the SEC and B1G run away from the pack. ACC is, effectively, a G5 league now. We may never see an ACC team in the Playoff ever again
Unfortunately I feel like this could be the likely outcome of all this, with or without ND remaining in the ACC. We will be stuck in the ACC with the rest of the current full member teams, and we are now part of the G8 for football with the now P2 controlling most of the play off spots. Maybe if we are lucky each of the G8 schools will get an automatic bid to a 16 team playoff.
Sounds like VT needs to lead the charge for the creation of the Atlantic States Conference.
Invite FSU, UM, Clemson, UNC, NCSU, UVA, GT/BA/Pitt and VT. The eight best teams from the ACC all jump ship at the same time to form a new conference. That kills the GoR and sets them up for a new contact that covers the eastern seaboard.
Throw in Notre Dame, and you got yourself one hell of a conference.
Not sure that this is any more valuable than the current ACC for football.
Just enhances the way the money is shared.
I think the pie shrinks enough to negatively impact revenue per school. On top of that, an 8 team conference loses its championship game (and that revenue) and each team needs to schedule 5 OOC games, which means they will either need to buy games against G5 or lower schools (higher cost) or will be home and homes with other "big" conferences (again losing revenue as TV will likely be given to the home team).
Oh, I think you'd replace them.
Not sure exactly which teams, but see Koolbreeze comment, below.
Make the changes, re-implement the GOR, ink a new tv deal. Turns out it's all about the Benjamins. Who knew?
Interesting concept. Could the top 8 ACC schools including ND, plus steal a Texas Tech and Ok State compete in revenue vs the "Big 2"? So I would have it as:
ND
Clemson
FSU
VT
Miami
UNC
NC State
GT
Pitt
OK State
Texas Tech
K State?, Oregon?
That would be 12 quality schools with rather large followings. That's less schools than the SEC and BIG therefore less slices of pie. Gets everyone out of the GORs. Of course there would have to be some kind of new GOR type agreement that a school didn't just use a new conference as a way to go to the SEC or BIG.
And LOLUVA left holding their dick? Sign me up.
Seriously, what do they bring to the table? They have not been good at football for years and the fan base is non existent. If football is king then UVA is most likely out.
If basketball means something then Duke and Kansas are in and UVA is probably still out.
FWIW, a key number in Hale's analysis is out of date. ND did receive $10.8M in 2020, but that amount increased to $34.9M in 2021. Not sure how that impacts any conclusions, but FWIW...
ND got a larger payout in 2021 because of the 2020 Covid season where they played a full ACC schedule and shared their home media rights with the conference. It was just a 1 year exception.
Wasn't aware, thanks for clarifying.
So question.
Why does the Big Ten need Northwestern? Why does the SEC need Vanderbilt?
Sure, they've been in the conference forever but when people are talking about 'every slice of the pie becoming bigger', why aren't we talking about the minimal value some of the existing schools in the conferences actually bring?
It isn't like the Big Ten needs NWern to capture the Chicago TV market. NWern isn't a national brand so they aren't bringing in national TV revenue like ND would.
It isn't like the SEC needs Vandy to capture the Nashville TV market. Vandy isn't a national brand so they aren't bringing in national TV revenue like Clemson would.
What I'm thinking is this - say the SEC kicks out Vandy. They've lost nothing as far as local TV markets are concerned. Same if the Big Ten kicked out NWern. (As an aside, I think the Big Ten could have captured LA with just USCw without bringing UCLA along for the ride). As far as I'm concerned, on Saturdays when I watch ball, if, say, Alabama is playing Vandy I'm changing the channel to any other game.
Why doesn't it make sense for the Big 2 to kick out the teams that do not drive revenue and bring in, say, UNC instead of Vandy. LOLUVA instead of NWern? (Probably Illinois but let's not complicate the analogy at this point).
Some of the schools in these conferences bring nothing to the table. Opening the door to have a new conference member like UVA (VA/DC) and GT (Atlanta) in the Big Ten or UNC (Charlotte) and VT (VA/DC) in the SEC would make a ton of sense if the Big 2 dropped their dead weight.
Just spitballing here, but I have no idea why - in this new world of maximizing TV revenue - some of the long-time members of a conference are not on the chopping block so that each pie slice gets bigger.
Speculating, but:
"You need some easy games on your football schedule".
I'm 100% going with this as a key reason schools like NW and Vandy stay where they are. Academics and relationships as well, but really think a lot of top teams don't want every conference game to be a brutal battle.
which would be really interesting if the G5 schools banded together to not play the SEC because the SWC wants them out of the NCAA tourney. Which is why the SEC wants a bowl game for everyone because half the SEC wouldn't make it if they only played P5 teams
If this happens, every team not in the top 4 of their conference will be looking over their shoulder if they have a bad season. Nobody in the SEC wants to break precedence to kick Vandy out because administrations at UK Arkansas and many other schools would now feel like they are in a position to get kicked out after a few lousy seasons for a bigger name brand.
Much worse, in the B1G if you kick out NWST, Rutgers, Illinois, Indiana and Purdue are all gonna feel like they have a target on their backs.
Alumni bases.
Nashville is big and up and coming, and everyone is moving there, including SEC Alums. Chicago is the same for B1G country. So yes, they are bringing a the local market, but for Georgia & Tennessee, and vice versa for Ohio St and Michigan.
Chicago is also the local market for Notre Dame, and makes ND so very appealing
Has a major conference ever "kicked out" a school with a long standing membership because they weren't as good as the other athletic teams? Not sure I can recall that happening. Anyone?
Was the Big East a major conference at the time? ;^)
Temple
Better Article on the "why"
The stated reason:
They weren't putting money into facilities and were failing to even try and keep 85 scholarship players on their roster. Most G5 programs have no problem doing this.
Plenty of football programs survive poor play and attendance dry spells. Temple got straight up voted out for parasitism (raking in their conference revenue share while simultaneously failing to fund a football program).
Sigh, the same Temple team, which was 1-8 on the season, that almost beat Bryan Randall's Hokie squad in 2003 at the Linc. We won by one point. In overtime. I had the misfortune of being in attendance at that game, my only Hokie away game ever.
Well that was better than being in attendance at the 98 game in Lane. I was at that one.
What? We didn't play Temple in '98.
I was at both. Neither were good.
Was that the game we won in overtime on a missed extra point?
That's the one - I drove from Blacksburg and stayed with family in the Philly burbs for that one.
There is no chance in hell that Clemson, FSU and Miami are going to let the ACC hold them to a media contract that makes them second tier CFB programs. The GOR will die long before 2036 arrives.
Where that leaves the Hokies is anybodies guess.
There is no chance in hell that Clemson, FSU and Miami are going to let the ACC hold them to a media contract that makes them second tier CFB programs. The GOR will die long before 2036 arrives.
Bingo
Don't look now but they already are second tier CFB programs
Clemson is the only program not named Alabama to have won multiple national championships in the playoff era. They are nowhere near second tier.
Fair enough re:clemson. But fsu and miami are second tier. Norvell is basically fsu Fuente and miami hasn't been relevant in 2 decades
Miami still on honeymoon with Cristobal.
Recruiting looking good.
So maybe they're bak.
Rinse, repeat. Somehow they've managed to maintain this status for years.
FSU hasn't been themselves lately no doubt. But they have been nationally relevant much more recently than USC, Texas, or UCLA. FSU is a big dog no doubt. UofF may not want them in the SEC but they won't get left out. I don't think Miami does either but it is a possibility with them given their lack of fan base.
There's a significant difference in Texas and Oklahoma opting to ride out the last four years of a 13 year deal, and an ACC school wanting to bolt with 14 years left.
I just don't think it would have been cost effective for Texas and Oklahoma to fight the GoR. Either the fight would last 4+ years and thus be moot by the end; or they would break the GoR early, but not early enough for the extra windfall of the SEC money to cover the costs of fighting the GoR.
Teams in the ACC have a much bigger potential reward in escaping the GoR early.
Interesting thread, but everyone is forgetting the elephants in the room.
E$PN and Fox will get what *they* want, Grant of Rights be darned. Ultimately, networks are the *ONLY* group with the power and influence to leverage the conferences themselves. One simply has to look at how TV deals are expiring over the next four years to see how these landscapes can, and will change. CBS and NBC know the value of CFB. It wouldn't surprise me to see one (or both) of these two come up with a huge wad of cash to stay in the game.
I was in the Tower at Charlotte (Lowe's) Motor Speedway when ESPN had an LSU game running to multiple overtimes, interfering with the race start time (night race). The producer sent word the race would start on ESPNU. Mike Helton picked up the DirecTV remote control and asked what channel that was, and was told "It's an Internet channel". Thermonuclear is the only way to describe it. Hoots had them crawling at 35 mph stretching the pace laps out, and TV made the cut as the cars entered Turn 1. It worked out, but that night made it clear how much power TV could exercise.
If TV wants VT, Miami, or the University of Collinsville and Lower Axton in a particular conference bad enough - the deal WILL get made, regardless of the GoR.
Just my 0.2 cents worth... Inflation - even opinions are worth less nowadays.
Yes, this.
ESPN orchestrated Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC in order to secure those media rights going forward. ESPN was the driver behind that move, and you damn well know that FOX played a big part in making sure California (the most populous market in America) got locked in by the Big Ten.
The two biggest unaffiliated markets remaining are North Carolina and Virginia, and if you look at them as one large market, it would be equivalent to the 4th most populous state. Even though they currently have the rights through the ACCNetwork, ESPN isn't going to let that just walk over to FOX with a Big Ten deal, and FOX doesn't want ESPN to have the entire pie there. There are at least 2 major schools up for play that will drive ratings in each of NC and Virginia. If only one school from each state is invited to either the SEC or Big Ten, the other will quickly go to the other conference.
The big dick play here, and the one I think is intriguing enough to maybe actually happen, is one conference to grab UNC, NC State, Virginia Tech, and Virginia all at once to lock down that market and keep it away from the other.
And I've said it before, but I think this is the part that will be figured out before the obvious moves. Clemson, Florida State, and Miami would sell their left nuts to be in the SEC. The SEC knows they have those schools in their back pocket, and can just wait to bring them in, they're not going anywhere. So focus on securing the largest remaining market (NC and VA), then fill it will the guarantees.
I think you're living in fantasy land a little bit. This sounds great and all but until it actually happens I'm very skeptical. I would love nothing more than for VT to get into one of the big-time leagues (like, yesterday) but now that the SEC and B1G are at 16 teams each, and adding more teams figures to be very expensive, I don't see them in a big rush to pick up the VA/NC market. The GoR is doing exactly as intended. The ACC is stable. Weak, but stable. Importantly, the ACC is not a threat to either the SEC or the B1G so there's no really good reason for the SEC, B1G, FOX, or ESPN to blow a ton of money on changing it. When (if?) 2036 rolls around then FOX and ESPN will probably start jockeying for VA/NC but until then I imagine both networks are content to leave it alone.
The GoR is holding us hostage. We stand to make a hell of a lot more in either the Big Ten or SEC and the only reason we aren't already in one of those conferences is because of that agreement. Its an agreement that the football schools never should have signed, and now they're all regretting it. The only way at this point that it all blows up is if they all work together to get a big enough portion of the ACC to jump away at once in a coordinated gutting.
The ACC is not a threat to either of those conferences, but neither was the Big XII or Pac 12 and the networks still worked to gut them to consolidate power. The ACC is the only league left that remains untouched by the major empire building of those two conferences, and there are only 2 major markets remaining that are up for grabs. NC and VA. There will not be a scenario if and when this all happens where any of UNC, NCSU, VT, or UVa is left out of either the SEC or Big Ten. The markets are too big to let any of those schools end up going to waste. They might not bring California bumps in revenue, but there will still be enough of a bump per school to make it worth it for the conferences themselves. FSU, Clemson and Miami? Maybe, but that just depends on if the networks are willing to negotiate that those schools will always be marquee matchups. Adding NC and VA to the fold is a sure thing to get more money.
You make a point, and I respectfully disagree.
Time and time again, we've seen sports contracts renegotiated, involving more money than we're discussing, well before the "best by" date. The good reason is simply eyeballs on a device, which equates to revenue.
In NASCAR, we referred to this as the 'pockets' game. NASCAR owns the former International Speedway Corporation tracks, and also races at Speedway Motorsports tracks. The individual tracks compete for race dates, dates based on broadcast partners, etc. But at the end of the day - NASCAR, Fox, NBC, and SMI *ALL* have deep pockets, and ultimately the money gets into those pockets. Which pocket matters less than having someone else step in and mess with the money train. Ultimately -even though these are state/public institutions - the schools want the most money for their brand(s). Money wins the argument.
Don't underestimate the loss of viewers by CBS, NBC, etc as a motivation for change, and do something crazy. NASCAR's getting a $2.4B national TV carriage deal, replacing the patchwork broadcast schedule was viewed as absurd in 1999. Netflix is bleeding subscribers, but still has more than enough Brinks trucks to make a play, and Amazon is still tinkering with sports. I have no clue how this will pan out, but anyone thinking 31 national championships (yes, little brother -that's you I'm talking about) will get them to the next level isn't drinking the right Kool Aid.
All those tweets complaining about the ACC Network and a lack of coverage? That, on the other hand, matters to a network performing due diligence on which horse to bet on.
this is certainly an interesting take. I sort of view the ACC as an asset ESPN currently holds and the costs to keep the ACC are relatively low at the moment. ESPN, being one of the pockets, wouldn't seem interested in rocking the boat, or letting anyone else rock the boat. Frankly, I think the value of the ACC isn't as high as what ESPN is likely paying, even though it's much much less than the SEC. The ACC just doesn't have much going for it. The schools may want to get more money but they're secondary players here. They are stuck AF right now and don't have any leverage.
Let me offer another take. The ACC Network is NOT on par with the SECn, etc.
The ACCn has the rights, but they show replays of old content instead of higher-value new content.
The production investment, aside from that made by the schools themselves, is questionable.
Individual groups, such as VT Athletics / VT Sports Media & Analytics - are consistently higher-functioning in sports media across the board. Our good folks are sought after.
Why is the ACCn so, well, ACC?
Who benefits from multiple under-leveraged properties in this case?
If the ACCn had blossomed quickly, how would the current narrative have changed?
I'm not putting on a tin foil hat per see, but I am saying this onion has a lot of layers, and some folks are definitely going to be crying at the end.
BINGO - If the ACC could bring their current product to a free market tomorrow, I think we're AT MOST getting $5m-$10m more per school. That's not insignificant, but it also isn't enough to make us any more competitive with the SEC/B10 (which will soon be getting $100m/school/year).
How much value does that market overall bring to either conference? Could there be any realistic scenario where those 4 VA/NC schools are entertaining offers from both, with the networks effectively in a bidding war? Could networks step in and cover costs for GoR exit fees? Just spitballing with my O&M glasses on...
Are you from the Martinsville/Henry County area?
I wondered if anyone would catch that.... Collinsville, originally.
From Martinsville and we used to joke about those abbreviations, too.
And in other matters, related to a Conference we're not discussing.
Brett Yormark was the guy NASCAR tasked with replacing Winston as the primary sponsor, and secured upstart communications company NEXTEL for $750M. He went on to become the CEO of the New York Nets and the Barclays Center. He's good, y'all. Damn good.
He's the new commissioner of the Big XII.
Brett Yormark named Big 12 Commissioner
At the end of the day, I think ESPN and Fox ARE getting exactly what they want, which is why I don't see anything changing. I don't think anyone (except the ACC schools) has much motivation to change the ACC's contract.
So if I'm reading it correctly, basically, we're going to end up left out in the cold in a more and more irrelevant ACC because of that horrible GoR
But as others have said, I believe the decision is 100% going to be what ESPN and Fox want, and they'll find ways to make whatever that is work
The problem isn't the horrible GoR. The GoR is doing exactly what it was designed to do, keep the ACC stable.
The problem was a the horrible deal for TV rights that was signed by Swofford and his son. Not only was it for too little money, it was also WAY too long of a contract.
I don't think anyone is putting enough relevance to the fact that the ACC is a basketball conference. I'm in NC and college basketball is huge here. People love football, but I think given the choice they would pick basketball over football.
The problem is that those are the type of people who were in charge of the ACC and these horrible media deals, in an era where it was obvious to everyone that football is king.
I find all of this to be fucking disgusting. Basically TV revenue is dictating the formation of conferences solely based on amount of viewers? VT had to build a brand on Thursday night football, slowly over time. How is the next version of that going to happen?
Schools, alumni, athletic programs are more than just content to be made money off of. This is putting the cart before the horse. The things that make it a good product are its soul, and its being lost.
I guess I'm just old.
Me too man. Met too.
At some point you have to wonder when it will be more worth if for ESPN to protect their investment in the ACC rather than just coast off the value they're getting from the original deal. The longer they allow the ACC to fall behind those payouts, the greater the risk that 1. Current ACC schools bolt for situations where they no longer make ESPN money and 2. The ACC as a product slips so far behind the "Power 2" that they are no longer even worth the money ESPN is locked into paying them over 14 years. I don't think they need to match the $100M each payouts that the SEC and B1G are getting, obviously there's a reason those conferences are getting more, but I think they need to at least get it well over $50M from the current $36M. Otherwise the product will continue to suffer and the schools will constantly be planning their escape. Would something in the ballpark of $60-70M/ea get ACC schools to stick with the conference? I'm not sure, I'm not even sure that would still be worth it on ESPN's end, but it sure would make it tougher to decide to leave than the current contract where they get well under 50% of what the other schools make.
I think ESPN is thinking relatively short term, since the new SEC deal is coming up soon and all are typically much shorter than the ridiculous deal the ACC inked. I'm starting to believe that ESPN for the here and now wants ACC schools to fear the GoR so they are stuck (mainly preventing any schools from leaving for the Big Ten) so that they can pay them peanuts and afford a huge deal for the SEC. I'm convinced there is some collusion going on here. I ultimately think some ACC schools will end up in the SEC, but why for the next 5-8 years would ESPN want to pay those teams SEC money when they have them on the cheap right now?
Best case scenario is some schools find the loophole in the GoR and just leave and implode the ACC, assuming they can get spots in the P2 right now. Otherwise I'm starting to think we are totally stuck right now.
The next move is likely a 12-team playoff where 16 team SEC and Big Ten get the majority of the spots each year. They'll pacify the rest by giving their champion an auto bid but it will be a massive cash grab for the P2, further putting everyone else behind.
via GIPHY
I'm sure that's their thinking in the short term, because right now, even though the discourse among fans says otherwise, the ACC is a P5 conference with (mostly) the same opportunities as the SEC and B1G that ESPN has for pennies on the dollar.
But long term, it's the only college football asset ESPN 100% has an investment in past the next couple years. Everybody assumes ESPN will re-up with the SEC and that's probably a safe assumption, but they could still get out-bid at the 11th hour and wind up with nothing but the ACC. Even longer-term, the way things are moving, the blue bloods will probably leave even the SEC/B1G and even the NCAA behind eventually to be their own thing if they continue to be as far ahead as they are now, and who knows if ESPN would have exclusive access to that.
I understand why they're not jumping to throw more money at the ACC right this second while everyone is anxious for them to do so, but it seems to me like it would be smart for them to do so at some point in the near future before things progress too far down their current path. The GoR has done its job to keep the ACC and ESPN's investment together for now but I think everyone can see that another couple years of this kind of financial discrepancy would really threaten that stability.
Notre Dame's endowment at end 2021 was 20.3 Billion. with a B. Not counting the money that networks will offset for them to join a B1G, 55 to 112M (if accurate) is NOTHING. For fuck sake they would make that back in conference payouts in just a few years.
All due respect to David Hale but this particular elephant has never had more than an a short and curly ass hair in the conference. It's gonzo whenever it decides to go. To think otherwise is laughable.
Sounds to me like if we stay, VT is likely to be $980 million behind the P2 schools by the end of GoR. If we leave, VT is maybe $500 million behind. Hmmmmm
scared money don't make money
This assumes someone wants us.
Got to hit the gym once you know you have to break up. Get that bod up to form. I think we started this in 2021 when it was clear we were going through the motions with Fuente.
Lottery is 490 right now. Win it in tech's name. After the lump sum cost and no taxes, we'd be halfway there.
That said, if my ticket wins, I won't be doing such thing.
Stupid question here.... What if 8 ACC teams got together, said we are making our own conference. This gets out of the GoR.
Then those 8 teams immediately say thanks and can split for whatever conference will have them without the albatross of the GoR around their necks.
Risk would be them all not having a landing spot?
So...basically what the metro conference did to tech?
So... It worked before?
Methinks everyone here is thinking small potatoes, which, well, we are in the ACC. There is a fella who does think big named Sankey, and if I were him I would be lining up the eight schools I wanted to pluck from the ACC to form his three eight team SEC divisions. He would pretty much crown himself King of College football with this move and leave the B1G in his dust which I think is his goal, and its a win win for the ACC teams that get the call (hey Whit, remember that long drive for 25? Would you like a short drive for 65M+ a year for thirteen years?).
Of course, like all these things, the key is getting ND to fall into line since they are the crown jewel in any of these plans but I suspect this could be next year's realignment move.
Of course all this depends on being able to charge SEC rates for the TV deals for those teams.
Seems like if this were possible, the ACC could have thought of it.
Swofford doesn't equal Sankey, unfortunately for us.
If the SEC poached 8 teams from the ACC to form a 24 team mega conference, they wouldn't field 3 divisions of 8 teams each, because playing an 8 or 9 conference game season would make it so that you wouldn't hardly ever play anybody outside of your division. They likely would do the 3-5-5-5-5 format where you have 3 main rivals you play every year and play the remaining 20 teams once every 4 years (5, 5, 5, and 5). Could have:
- VT: LOLUVA, NC St, Tenn
- LOLUVA: VT, UNC, NC St
- NC St: UNC, VT, LOLUVA
- UNC: LOLUVA, NC St, SC
- Kentucky: Tenn, Vandy, Missouri
- Tenn: Vandy, VT, Kentucky
- Vandy: Tenn, Kentucky, GT
- SC: Clemson, UNC, Georgia
- Clemson: SC, Georgia, FSU
- Georgia: GT, Clemson, SC
- GT: Georgia, Miami, Vandy
- FSU: Florida, Miami, Clemson
- Florida: FSU, Miami, LSU
- Miami: FSU, Florida, GT
- Alabama: Auburn, LSU, Miss St
- Auburn: Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss St
- Ole Miss: Miss St, Auburn, Missouri
- Miss St: Ole Miss, Auburn, Alabama
- Missouri: Arkansas, Ole Miss, Kentucky
- Arkansas: Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas A&M
- LSU: Alabama, Texas, Florida
- Texas A&M: Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma
- Texas: Oklahoma, Texas A&M, LSU
- Oklahoma: Texas, Arkansas, Texas A&M
Damn that's a lot of teams!
I think it is less likely that expanded conferences keep the conference schedule at 8 games. A lot of rivalries which were OOC, will end up in conference (e.g. Clemson/SC, Florida/FSU).
If the SEC went 24 they'd have 4 divisions of 6 teams and just set up scheduling very similar to how its handled in the NFL. Division champs would advance to the SEC tournament and the overall conference champion would move on to play for the National Championship in a scheduling agreement with the Big Ten after they both split away to form their own organization.
You could even include wild card teams to the division champs to get a conference tournament of 6 or 8 teams to make more people happy.
Saw an FSU site report this morning that the ACC is allegedly talking with...SMU about joining the conference. I guess the ACC wants to try and completely kill their program for the second time.
Seems like there would be better targets for the ACC.
I would think given the $$$ at SMU and the NIL stuff they would be someone tk keep an eye on moving up the pecking order quickly
Well we call it Southern Millionaires University here in Dallas. I live about a mile from Campus, and the only reason I would ever want to be in a conference with them is so I go go to games when VT came to Dallas, and tbh that might not even be enough.
When it comes to SMU kids, think UVA levels of pretentious then multiply that times 10.
So 10 times infinity?
Tenfinity to be exact
So they'll fit right in with UVA, UNC, GT, Wake, Duke, and BC. Great.
Who needs the NCAA when the ACC can just give themselves the death penalty
I will wager all of my monies that this report is bullshit and SMU never joins the ACC.
Damn we're really going all in on the "small private school in big market" strategy huh
Well, the article also adds that SMUt is also talking to B12 and PAC12.
They are well lined up to be a part of any conference, given history, church following bringing eyeballs (sort of, not Liberty or BYU, but BC), and it's Dallas. Could they bring TCU with them?
Article also says the Dallas market is an opportunity for ND to join. I disagree. ND will only join if joining makes it palatable to ND's playoff chances. This has been publicly stated by ND.
I would think ND would bring more from the NYC market than Dallas. There are a lot of subway alumni out there.
Maybe I'm misreading it, but I think he's saying Dallas brings something to ND, not the other way around.
Yes. ND gets to access Texas more often for recruiting. There's also a large alumni base Dallas.
Whatever the ACC does now (wouldn't be surprised if they do nothing which is the ACC way), it's just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The only move that actually cements the conference and brings more money in is ND joining which will never happen. Scheduling arrangements with the PAC-10 or trying to grab left over Big 12 schools or G5 isn't going to move the needle. What it's going to take is several ACC schools to form a bloc and go ahead and challenge the GoR and leave. Some smoke out there that Clemson and FSU are done with the ACC and working on a way out of the GoR. VT should do what it must to work with those two and find a path to the SEC or else we may miss the boat.
I don't think the ACC hunkering down is such a bad option and maybe the only one legally. The ACC P12 and B12 need to start fighting back dirty though.
Establish and unwritten rule to refuse to play the SEC and B10 in games unless they're good matchups or ones where mid/low level teams have a shot at a big upset. G5 teams should refuse playing them entirely (an easy sell because P5 autonomy, started by those two, is threatening G5 existence). G5 schools should hold them hostage and not play unless for exorbitant amounts, I'm talking 4-5 mil+ per game. No free rides/wins, make sure to claim your stake of that gravy train. Make them play 2 or 3 FCS games a year that don't count towards bowl eligibility.
That will either force them to A) Move to more conference games: Good because they beat up on each other more. Or B) Break away entirely: Which will be bad for the sport but I don't think the end of the world everyone else does. If they leave as they are now, 32 teams total, they will lose money plain and simple. The national brands are no longer so national. They make money from college football and that would no longer be college football. The rest of the league would be hurt by it, but not hurt as bad imo, and our championship would definitely be viewed as more legitimate.
Either way we aren't joining the Big 2 anytime soon and the only way to fight back against them is stop playing into their hands. All attempts to expand the playoff with no cap on teams per conference need to be met with fierce resistance. Expanding the playoff and capping teams at 2 per conference should be the #1 goal of the ACC/P12/B12 and the G5 right now
If tech and the acc dont play inter league games with the b10 and sec, acc football will fail. I really dont think there is a reason to watch more than 4 or 5 acc Non tech matchups . the acc just isnt very good. I watch tech play, then typically will watch sec matchups . I want to see the best, and the acc just doesnt cut it. Stop playing the best, and tech will fall further into mediocrity.
So 1) there are ways around it, obviously Clemson, FSU, UofL and Gt will still play rival games. But Clemson vs Bama/UGA/UF, etc makes a lot of sense because if Clemson wins it is good for the ACC, also Duke vs Bama is really good because Bama fans get really upset losing to Duke at half time (I was there). What doesn't make sense is anyone from the ACC playing Vandy, or Missouri, or Kentucky, or Tennesee. Playing USCe for anyone other than Clemson makes zero sense. Don't let the low level teams get decent schedules. Let them struggle to find schools to play, make them pay a lot of money for opponents so the SEC TV money is spread around.
2) I rarely like to see the best play, it's boring. I don't want to watch Bama and UGA destroy the rest of the conference. I want to see games like in the ACC where I have no clue who is going to win. If I can't have VT win every year then coastal choas is WAY better. I don't know the last time I watched a game with an SEC team in it, probably 2019. Atleast the big ten you get unranked teams beating anOSU.
The only thing that needs to be done is limit their power and influence - first limit their influence on the committees by diluting them with more members from other conferences. For example, if every conference is represented on committees equally, and leadership is required to rotate, the P2 influence is diluted.
Then allow only ONE representative from a conference in the football playoffs. Allow EVERY Division 1 conference in the tournament. Limit the number of reps from a conference in the NCAA basketball tournament. Require a number of out of conference games for both football and basketball so that conference schedules are limited, and require that a lot of them are played at away sites. That pulls money out of the conference and into other conferences.
Everything that is done should make it harder on the teams that DON'T win the conference. That pits most of the conference against 2 or 3 powerful players. Break them up internally, since you can't externally.
The problem is, that would also hurt the networks. If the networks decided to fight back, everyone would fold and we'd be back to where we are now, but worse.
They've already acquired all the power. Every power that be that has skin in the game in football is in either the SEC or Big Ten, outside of Oregon, Washington, Clemson and FSU, and their demands will be met with a chuckle and a 'bless your heart' before the discussion moves on.
The time for any kind of hedging against the SEC and Big Ten empire building is over. We lost. There are a lot o people out there, and quite a few in this thread who refuse to accept that fact, and think that there is some convoluted way that the ACC can still maintain its spot at the big boy table, but that's just not the case anymore.
Our finances cannot keep up with those two conferences. In a couple years we'll be operating at over a $50m per school per year disadvantage to them. At this point the only way forward is to either accept our fate as being in a very literal second tier conference with no legitimate hope of vaulting up, or to take matters into our own hands and do what we have to in order to get into the SEC or Big Ten. And every year we delay action, we fall even further behind.
We really need to be hitching our wagon to Clemson and FSU right now. Lot of rumblings that both are eagerly working on a legal avenue out of the GoR and trying to get in with the SEC. We need to move with them and find a fourth partner (Miami or Nc State) and start the process. I don't think sitting around and waiting on the ND domino to fall is a good idea. By then it's likely too late.
The ACC making demands to the SEC and B1G will go over about as well as the Sun Belt making demands to the ACC and Big XII.
Nobody will care
Doubt this is true but if the Meme fits.
interesting article with former AD David Braine, and his thoughts & concerns on conference expansion.
https://cardinalnews.org/2022/07/14/former-tech-ad-colleges-and-universi...
everyone will love his comment about practice :-)
point well made and received regarding practice, but
he also hasn't been an AD in 25 years and he's 80 years old and a lot of the comments just kinda come across as "back in my day"
Thanks for posting, but I learned absolutely nothing from the article. Braine's thoughts in 2022 are about as insightful as the guy at the next barstool - maybe less given his old school biases.
Question, how does the Grant of rights work for ND? Does the ACC own them for all other sports? Or is the GoRs just football only in the ACC?
Has ESPN thought about the fact that a higher payout on the contract (and therefore more competitive ACC schools from a resources standpoint) will ultimately lead to more views for the ACC Network? It's more than a little messed up that ESPN is maintaining a below-market contract which will ultimately diminish the product (ACC media) that IT owns the rights to. It's like they are using their media rights ownership to slow-roll us to the grave in terms of relevance while sucking what little profit we will offer as a soon-to-be relatively poor conference from a resource standpoint. That said, in ESPN's eyes it is all about their net profit instead of their revenue, and throwing money at all schools would almost certainly reduce their net profit and therefore be a non-starter. In some odd ways ESPN and Fox picking the winners and losers in NCAA football is essentially what this has come to. Those networks have blinders on if they think each brand maintains the same level of TV value without most of its rivalries on its schedule (looking at USC and UCLA). With the way things are evolving, I feel like our Hokies are 5-7 years away from what G5 schools are today.
Many of us will eventually tune it out. If the Hokies feel like they have zero chance of ever being nationally relevant (meaning just top 15, not championship caliber), I will continue to watch them and how they're doing in their conference (on tv and in person), but will absolutely watch less (maybe none) of the SEC and Big 10. The reason is that those games will feel way more separated from us than they do now. It's kind of like the impact of our decline in national relevance from 2011 to now, but at an entirely greater level.
Most of us still watched and cheered for VT when we were a G5 school. Also if G5 school means I can play WVU, UVA, and Miami every year then I'm down right now. Let's do this. I want our rivals every year.
I dont think college football is as fungible as people are making it seem. The SEC has a better deal because they have more fans than the other conferences, but just because I watch college football doesn't mean I watch the NFL. I watched Big Ten and SEC games because they matter to VT, if VT isn't on their level(like the NFL) why watch. I am not going to become a UGA fan, or a UMD fan because I'm a hokie. So ESPN and FOX are going to lose a lot of casual viewers if they aren't careful.
Exactly, I don't care about games in those other conferences if there aren't implications for my team(s).
I think most people would absolutely watch VT if we got "left behind" in a weak G5 level ACC. I also think our brand is big enough that if we did get left behind we could be proactive and go independent, just playing our own schedule rather than Wake, BC, Cuse, and App or whoever else got added.
Possible Independent schedule:
Primaries: UVA, WVU, Miami, GT, Navy;
Rotate three: Maryland, Tennessee, Penn State, UNC, Pitt, NC State, Clemson, Florida State
FCS, local G5, 2 randoms
VT can't go independant.
First of all, VT isn't a national brand. To successfully be independant, you have to be a national brand, that recruits nationally. I think Oregon is the lowest level school that could do this, in part because Oregon's tradition is that they have no tradition, and going independant would fit there. But outside of service academies and religious schools, there hasn't been a single team that was better off as an independant in the last 3-4 decades.
Another challenge with going independant is finding schools to play you late in the season. PSU, MD, GT, Tennessee, UNC, Pitt, NCSt, Clemson, and FSU aren't going to schedule games with us in November; they're in the middle of their conference schedule, not to mention they have games against their current rivals during that period.
Finally, TV contracts become a challenge when your independant. ND's NBC contract is ~$15m/year. ND might be able to shop around and double that, but they will never be able to get close to what B10 can offer them. And that's fine for ND; their fundraising arm is so enormous that they can get a mediocre TV contract and still compete inside the top 15. VT is not ND. We will demand ND money, and we do not have the resources to make up for that lost revenue.
TL;DR - VT would be better off in the B12 or some other tier 2 league than being independant.
The thing is, there are a lot of people (myself included) who say they watch college, not NFL, but the numbers say otherwise - there is a huge overlap between NFL and college fans.
If the SEC/B10 completely breakaway, I may stop watching those leagues, or at least watch less, but what if it's not a complete break? What if the B10 and SEC still play against the ACC, compete against us in bowls, but just at a lesser rate? What happens if an ACC team has a path to a playoff, but it's a significantly harder path than the SEC/B10? Do fans of ACC schools tune out? I think a small, relatively insiginificant percentage will. But not most people.
I think that, at the end of the day, no one knows what the future of broadcast sports will be - will the cable bundle remain a steady product, or will it be overtaken by streaming? If so when? What will the mix be?
Given the unknown, media companies (like Disney/ESPN and Fox) are unwilling to place bets on anything that isn't a 'sure thing'. The ACC is not a 'sure thing'. VT is not a 'sure thing'. The SEC is a 'sure thing'. USC is a 'sure thing'. These are brands that are iconinc and lasting.
So, to your point, is ESPN possibly canibalizing (for lack of a better term) the ACC in favor of the SEC? Yes. Because the SEC is a predictable product, and frankly, the ACC is not.
The best thing ACC can do for it's self is get good before the money gap gets too wide. The primary reason that the ACC is in this prediciment is because most of the teams in the league are mediocre and boring. In any given week, the 5th best SEC matchup is usually more entertaining than the 2nd best ACC matchup. Pry, Diaz, and Norvell need to step up big time for this conference to be good.
You are correct, but "getting good" will become increasingly difficult the longer we stay in the ACC.
We will not have the funds needed to compete with B1G or SEC schools, and neither will our ACC peers. Those financial gaps are going to result in on-field results that only further the idea of there being a P2 instead of a P5.
As the gap continues to widen, winning ACC games will be viewed as less valuable, just like winning AAC games viewed as less valuable. I expect we'll start seeing that bias explicitly stated as soon as this fall on TV.
I say this as a VT fan, but it rings true for most ACC schools, maybe even all ACC schools: Absent some change to the playoff structure, or miraculous contract re-negotiation, if you're playing football in the ACC 5 years from now, you are officially a G5 school.
I think we agree, but I'll continue to yell (type) into the echo chamber.
I agree - Pretty soon (in 2024), the 16-team SEC will be completely on ESPN. That means that there will be 8 SEC match ups each weekend during conference play. ABC has 3 time slots (noon, 3:30, 7:30). ESPN has 3 timeslots (noon, 3:30, 7:30). If the ACC does not get competitive quick, there will be weekends when there is not a nationally broadcasted ACC game - they will all regional broadcasts on ESPN2/RSNs, or they are on WatchESPN/ACCN. This is bad for the ACC - it will hurt fan interest (you think it's hard to find the game now? just wait), and more importantly, it will hurt our brand/image with recruits. We may need the ACC to start putting good games on a Thursday night again - but this won't happen because ESPN doesn't want to challenge the NFL.
This is why it's so important for the level of play in the ACC to level up NOW. We need the ACC to look good in OOC games and against bad ACC teams. As I said above:
The ACC will need to do everything they can in scheduling. For example:
The gap between the SEC and ACC will remain manageable for now - within 2-3 years of the new TV contracts, that's no longer the case. Brent Pry wins 10 games 2-3 years straight? Ole Miss can offer him 3x what VT can. Recruits won't recognize us because we're playing on ESPN the Ocho each weekend instead of ABC/ESPN. The league has to get good now.
This is the one place I will disagree with you. I don't think the ACC will become a G5 team, because I think G5 teams will have a lower ceiling than the ACC. There will be the Power 2, the Mid 3, and the Remaining 5.
The P2, Mid3, and G5 are a difference of degree.
If things keep trending the way they are, the mid 3 will absolutely need to do more than P2 teams to get into the playoffs. The ACC may be looked at more favorably than the Sun Belt, but they'll get similar treatment when it comes down to it come playoff time.
Also, the Pac12 and Big12 appear to be better positioned to make moves over the next five years than the ACC because they don't have a 20 year GOR like we do. It wouldn't surprise me to see
P2, mid 1, and everyone else.
Let's see. If ND was the biggest property and can control CFB re-alignment, etc, wouldn't the current ACC TV deal be bigger than the sun belts? Tough question, I know.
The current ACC deal is obviously bigger than the Sun Belt's. At the time the ACC signed the current deal, it was competitive with the Big Ten/SEC. The fact that it's set at the same rate, while the other conferences can negotiate new deals with exploding payouts is the issue. And either way, Notre Dame isn't part of the ACC's football deal, so your comment has nothing to do with anything.
That's incorrect. All ND home games are broadcasted on NBC, and apply to ND's TV deal. However, all road games against ACC schools fall under the ACC's TV deal, and ND is compensated by the ACC for those games (at an equal rate per game as every other ACC school) .
Fair point, but that's two or three games a year, and not a full share. I guess I should have said it has little to do with anything.
So with the king of media rights a full member for all sports but football and associated with FB TV package, the king, the top dog, the domino that controls everything and the ACC can't renegotiate its deal? Makes total sense.
No, because their main value only comes as a full football member. If you don't have that you don't have the full weight of their brand, you can't use it to negotiate.
I don't know if they are the absolute number one brand for media rights, but their full football membership is apparently worth a lot IF you have it. The ACC can't negotiate with something it doesn't have.
Latest news says talks between the Big 12 and PAC 10 have broken down (couldn't find any way to increase revenue through merger). Wouldn't rule out any individual schools from defecting still. Now seems to be some chatter from ESPN talking heads that ACC offer top brands from the PAC (Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal). The thought is interesting but outside of Oregon I don't know that it really moves the needle enough, and scheduling/travel would be a nightmare. I think this is really the only move the ACC can make but is it even worth it?
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-12-pac-12-nix-talks-...
Would Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal increase our tv revenue in football? When an exploratory finding showed that they wouldn't increase revenues if those schools joined the Big 12?
Have to believe the answer to that is a big fat 'no'.
No. Because I think if you take Washington, I think you legally have to take Washington State as well. The cost of non-football matchups travel expenses is more than the added revenue. Not to mention the logistics of 3 time zones away. You know Oregon would be scheduling all their home games against ACC opponents at 8 or 9 pm PT.
Since Notre Dame has stated their cost for remaining independent Notre Dame targeting $75 million, it's worth asking if Notre Dame as a full time ACC member would be enough to make the ACC remain competitive.
On the one hand, the answer is clearly "No." If Notre Dame is only worth a $75MM contract, then what other team in the ACC is worth more?
On the other hand... "Maybe?" Notre Dame, Clemson, FSU, Miami, VT, UNC - it's likely that among this group (and an occassional sprinkling of Pitt, NCSU, Louisville) would maintain the viability of the ACC with the B1G and SEC, likey 2-3 competing for the title each year.