ACC Board of Directors announces that it has endorsed a success incentive initiative that will begin during the 2024-25 academic year. The incentive will come solely from the performance of teams in revenue generating postseason competition.📰: https://t.co/lspVYaYCMa pic.twitter.com/UpiPcRRaa6— The ACC (@theACC) May 24, 2023
The Atlantic Coast Conference Board of Directors today announced that it has endorsed a success incentive initiative that will begin during the 2024-25 academic year. The decision follows analysis and discussions that have occurred throughout the past year.
The specifics of the plan are in progress and will be solidified in the coming months. Under this initiative, the implementation of the success incentives will come solely from the performance of teams in revenue generating postseason competition. All other revenues will continue to be equally shared as currently outlined.
IMO, the conference just signed its own death certificate. No conference that has ever gone to an unequal revenue sharing model has ever survived long-term. Hell, one of the biggest selling points about leaving the Big East and going to the ACC was because of the equal revenue sharing. Now?
If you fall behind, you're so unbelievably fucked in terms of revenue you'll have little to no hope of pulling out of it. This is absolutely one of the worst things that could have happened to VT in the short term. It is going to be devastating to our annual income. This will hurt us, there is no way around it.
The Fuente Era might end up doing far, far more damage to VT than we ever could have imagined.
Yep, this could get the "Magnificent 7" turned into the "Exiting 8" or "Nope 9" to allow for the ACC to be voted to extinction without financial penalty.
The Nein Nine!
One of the most underrated shows ever
Edit: I know this has nothing to do with this thread (it's happy talk), if you find yourself a big fan of Andy Samberg, Digman on Comedy Central is really smart and funny. It also has Tim "You sure about that!?" Robinson as a writer and voicing a main character.
It's humor isn't for everyone, but I die laughing every episode.
somewhat related, Mike Schur (writer/creative who worked on the office, b99, parks & rec, and the good place) has a new show out on Prime/Freevee called Primo, based on the life of writer Shea Serrano -- it's pretty good!
I find the content funny but the voice Samberg uses for Digman really really grinds on my nerves.
It's basically his Nicholas Cage impression from SNL
That's high praise
Interestingly enough, that argument is the same one used by proponents of breaking the GOR and leaving the ACC behind.
As much as I hate what Fuente did to VT, I fail to see how this is an impact of his tenure.
Basically, Fuente being bad happened at a very bad time. It's very possible that because the college football landscape shifted dramatically during his tenure (which wound up being bad) that VT gets stuck in a vicious cycle (decreased revenue = bad coaching hires = bad recruits = bad results = less revenue = more bad hires etc etc) and we never return anywhere close to our standing in the sport during (even the end of) the Beamer era.
VT football is down bad right now, and the main reason for that is just how shitty Fuente was at his job. Well, now with unequal revenue sharing announced, this means that teams who do better on the field end up getting more and the teams who do worse on the field get less. Our timeline doesn't align with being good before this goes into effect, so we're all but guaranteed to see a cut to our revenues, and that leads to a very serious threat of getting into a financial death spiral that could be all but impossible to climb out of.
Worst case scenario it's only 2 millionish less a year.
Not exactly program altering money. Bigger issue is the overall ACC TV deal being so much worse than Big and SEC.
I was about to chime in that it's only post season revenue so in a shocking turn of events making the Dollar Tree Porta John Bowl actually has some bearing now. Obviously the second biggest factor is MY needs to figure out how to get into the Tourney and make a respectable run
Yep- nevermind unequal how about NO revenue sharing for VT's hoops frat hazing into the big east for basketball? total fucking sham that should have been overruled by the NCAA at the time.
C'mon now, DCWilson is no bourbon street.
"Even worse than unequal sharing: remember when VT joined the Big East for all sports, and received NO basketball revenue sharing? That situation was egregious enough to warrant NCAA intervention."
I had no idea this was a thing. Brutal.
Depending on when this was, it was also justified. We were a football only member of the Big East I think for a couple of years while we were in the Atlantic 10 for all other sports.
The Big East was just destined to fail as soon as they started sponsoring football. You had all northeastern basketball schools, predominantly private, that formed the backbone of the conference from 79-the early 90s. Then they bring in a bunch of football schools so Syracuse, BC, and Pitt have some friends to play with and it's almost like you have two separate leagues with different interests. The snobby NE basketball schools wanted nothing to do with playing VT, WVU in basketball (Miami was given full membership from the jump as incentive to get them to join). If it weren't for Miami and VT's football success in the 90s, the Big East probably doesn't even get the BCS auto bid it got. And now we find ourselves in a similar situation 30 years later in the ACC dealing with the divide between football schools and small basketball schools with no viewership in football. Far too many small private schools in the ACC just like the old Big East.
I mean it wasn't for lack of trying. We wanted to be a full member of the Big East from the moment we were allowed in for football, but they stonewalled us because they didn't want us. They squeezed the shit out of us to admit us into the conference fully, applying some absolutely ridiculous rules on us (like Syracuse basketball never having to play in Cassell, among others), which is why we were so willing to fuck them over when we bailed to go to the ACC. We were only in the A10 because we were desperate to not be Independent and the Big East was only using us for our football.
I cannot for the life of me understand Bourbon Street haha
Thank you. I guess my confusion was first, that I'd never heard of us being withheld revenue. Second he says frat hazing and that always piques my interest, but I had no idea what that reference is.
Yeah, I read "frat hazing" as commentary on it being an unfair screw-job that we took in order to join their club.
The moment I read the headline, my thought was the same. This is not good for us.
I assume when they say "revenue generating postseason competition", the biggest examples of that are bowl games and NCAA tourney "units"?
We have improved our sports across the board really, but I can't imagine womens softball postseason games for example are considered revenue generating?
Yep - so if the first round of the NCAA tourney generates $250m, and their are 8 ACC teams, then the ACC earns $31.25m (8 teams out of 64 total teams is 1/8, thus 1/8 of $250m = $31.25m).
This kinda broke my brain but then I think it must be --
So according to my googling, a team will make 6 mil if they make the CFP. Doesn't this still leave Clemson at a financial disadvantage compared to SEC/B10 schools? I feel like it will just piss off the smaller schools of the ACC lol.
It will be a lot more with a 12 team CFP
I kinda hit on this here, but it depends on if schools keep all of their post season money or just some percentage of it. If schools keep everything they earn, it could make a team like Clemson competitive (revenue wise) with an SEC school.
Again, it depends on how the uneven revenue share is organized. Are schools keeping all the money they earn in post season events or is it split 50/50 with the school who appeared in the post season keeping half of it, and the other half going into a shared fund? Or is it going to be 100% eat what you kill?
Edit: based on the term "Solely" used in the press release above, I'm going to guess that it will be 100% eat what you kill.
I think solely refers to that there will be nothing other than on-field performance that factors into the computation (like TV ratings or attendance numbers or something).
Gonna just edit out this speculation until I have time to sit down and do the maths.
This honestly makes no sense to me.
So basically, if you are a non-FSU/Clemson school, and you agreed to this, either:
Why anyone would opt for option 2 makes zero sense to me. I must be missing something, or maybe there's some detail the public is not privy to, or these presidents are completely over confident and unaware of how college sports work (or maybe I am)? I'm stumped by this.
Or (c), they don't have X number of schools in the conference to go along with whatever scheme is necessary to break the GoR. In which case, as soon as enough schools are dissatisfied enough and have landing spots in the SEC, the B1G, or the Big XII-II-II+II-II+IV.
Italics emphasizing new information. There were probably no schools looking to join the Big XII-II-II+II-II+IV before this announcement, and may be none at this time, but there will be, as dissatisfaction with the unequal revenue model increases.
It seems built to appease (in the short term) the schools that have realistic CFP hopes (only Clemson at the moment, but I suppose FSU as well) and those schools with consistent March Madness appearances and success (Tobacco Rd.).
So basically the schools that the ACC views as the most valuable. I agree that it doesn't really solve anything, as the conference seems headed to the trash heap eventually one way or the other.
I agree, but I don't understand why you'd appease those schools? Unless Basketball schools + Football schools is > half of the conference?
Football (traditional ACC champions or at least former powers):
Syracuse (they are a traditional power even if they have sucked for a decade)
That is at least eight teams in the conference.
You consider us a traditional basketball power?
I mean I went to go look and our record isn't as bad as I thought it would be so they've got that going for them.
Loserville, Wake, and Pitt belong on that basketball list before we do.
And it isn't close! I love the Hokies as much as the next guy but we don't belong on that list lol
This is nothing more than a last-ditch effort by the ACC to appease Clemson and FSU. But it won't be enough.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Everyone knows it won't be enough. So why are you doing it?
My guess similar to others here - kind of puts the ACC in the position where they have no solutions for the revenue gap, sows discontent among the members, and frustration eventually boils over into a vote to dissolve the conference.
Maybe positioning for when teams do try to break GOR and the legal battle ensues, the ACC can point to this as trying their best
the ACC can point to this as trying their best
Losers always try their best. Winners go home and fuck the prom queen. - Capt. John Patrick Mason
The Rock is probably one of my guilty pleasures - it's not a great film, TBH, but it's exactly the type of film I love. And I love Sean Connery (RIP)
It's a quintessential TNT film.
Side note - 'Favorite TNT Film' is a great offseason message board topic.
So only NCAA tourney and Playoff will add any money. Teams routinely still make very little or lose money on bowl games.
I would say this is the beginning of the end, but really, it's more like the middle of the end. I think adding Pitt, Cuse, Louisville and ND to the league was the beginning of the end
All we can do now, I think, is just wait for the ACC to collapse and hope it happens soon enough that we don't get left so far behind that we won't have a shot at the P2
Yep see East, Big 2003
Big 2003 East, babeyyyyyy
Big East basketball is doing pretty good.
It's a lot easier to field a competitive basketball program than a football program. And even then, look at how some SEC and B1G programs have emerged or sustained success as revenues have exploded
Haven't read the fine print, but I'm sure ND gets caveats/special considerations in this deal as well.
They always get out with some special treatment. ND never loses on these deals it seems until someone forces them to actually join a conference.
Hot take - with this taking place in 2024 - 2025 (so not this year), what are the odds the conference somehow blows up prior to this even starting? It's definitely not 0% chance.
Maryland was part of an ACC grant of rights, and they said fuck you, we are leaving, sue us. I could see that as a precedent
Maryland was not.
There has yet to be a legal challenge to grant of rights from any school in any conference. It might happen but hasn't yet.
OU/Texas 'broke' their grant of rights one season early (source). If I recall correctly, they paid ~$43m each (in addition to an exit fee) to break the GoR one year early. Part of that is because the B12 wanted to part as well and didn't want to battle.
It was negotiated as you said. There's a pretty good chance that if the Big12 wanted to drag their heels OUT would have had to stay
It's not zero. But how high it is depends on the BIG. There was an interview last week from the Nebraska president where he (surprisingly) said he expects more conference expansion within the next couple of years. They've already passed on U-Dub and Oregon so you would think they would be looking at Notre Dame and ACC schools.
Very low. If someone had a way out, they would've gone by now.
100% and I believe that is entirely the point. Clemson, FSU, and Miami want out, we probably do too, but aren't as certain to have a good landing spot.
It's the perfect out...if the "Big" schools are successful and get more $$, then they piss the little schools off. If the little schools i.e. Wake Forest make the NY6 and get excess money, then the Big schools get to whine and claim they are being mistreated (even tho this was their idea).
This is the solution they came up with to get around the GoR...this will lead to enough discord that there will be no choice but to blow the conference up.
Unfortunately, this is IMHO both selfish and short-sighted as however long this takes to cause a conference divorce, the conference only gets weaker which only makes each school less appealing to the B1G and SEC. There have already been whispers of offering lower TV revenue to new members, so this could end up backfiring miserably.
One lesson that the SEC should have taught us is that solidarity can be a strength. As nausea-induing as the "it just means more" Ads are, there is a much greater level of cohesiveness there and it is a fundamental strength. And it's not like there aren't outliers in the SEC as well--i.e. Georgia and Vanderbilt have about as much in common as institutions as cake icing and soy sauce, yet, at least publicly, appear to be totally on the same page in regards to conference goals.
History says unequal revenue sharing ends conferences, so this sorta seems like a way the discontented schools can serve the ACC a poison pill.
yep you both are correct.
the meetings had informal reports of near physical altercations. the two sides could not agree to dissolve/remove Grant of rights nor could they agree to continue status quo. This is the compromise and it is the first step to Grant of Rights ending and potential conference changes.
I'll take the effects of this with a grain of salt. All this does is shows the importance of the hokie club and getting kids hooked early. If hokie club can expand enough to allow bigger donors to go NIL then this doesn't matter. Revenue is kind of pointless when you can accept as many donations as you want. You just have to convince people to donate. Now VT has sucked at this for decades, so we need to get better.
I think this is just trying to get everyone pissed to break the GOR.
Honestly think it's fine. Bowl payouts go to the teams instead of the conference? Fine. It's a nice bonus if you have a good season, doesn't mean a whole lot in the long run. Doesn't really help the overall situation with the conference either
The thing that I don't get is that FSU just came out of a serious down-turn in football. They sucked goat dick for the last five years. They have one ten win season, their first since 2016, and all of a sudden they are a juggernaut. Before JF, HOFer BB had a shit last half of the fist decade in the 2000's. Why are they are driving force in anything? I get that they were a killer team in the '90's, but that was 2 or 3 lifetime's ago when you are talking about college football. I'm pretty shocked that they aren't just being ignored.
Definitely..FSU football has largely been a mess since Jimbo left but now they are (at least seemingly) on an upswing so they are puffing out their chests. We thought we were headed for great things after 2016 too...and we see how that turned out.
Truth is, FSU, Clemson, and Miami (their AD Radakovich is an overpaid buffoon) all see themselves as better than the rest of the conference. They are going to continue to try to sew the seeds of discontent until the Conference falls apart. That is their goal because they know they don't have a reasonable chance of defeating the GOR.
I, for one, hope it works. Quickly. The ACC is not a good place for VT to be. At this point, I think we would be better off in the BigXII. Obviously, I hope we land in the P2 when the ACC inevitably falls apart but just about anything will be better than the ACC 5 years from now.
Maybe, maybe not.
I think a "healthy" ACC would likely be a better place than the B12, but the chances the ACC is going to be healthy again are rapidly going from slim to none.
The SEC would likely scoop up Clemson no questions asked, and presumably want a 2nd for the purposes of alignment and symmetry. FSU and Miami would be most likely..my thought is Miami as the winner mostly due to its market, NIL opportunities, ect.
That leaves everyone else to scramble.
So, VT joins the B12, but...
#1 there is no guarantee that VT would get an equal share of TV revenue and its not like we would be in a position of strength in negotiations
#2 that revenue gets eaten away rapidly by chartering planes to fly your non-revnue teams to Lubbock and Provo multiple times per year
#3 you lose so many natural rivalries or at least games of interest...I know the idea that conferences should function as groups of similar, regional universities in order to promote competition rather than simply as TV Ad-revenue generating machines is so old-fashioned, but most WVU fans I know are less than excited about being B12 members.
Truthfully, I don't know what the "right" answer is..and VT isn't in a wonderful position in many scenarios but I don't see that blowing up the ACC leads us to a better place.
the way I see it, if VT doesn't end up in the P2 that means most other ACC schools will also be looking for a place to land and the P2 aren't interested in being any larger than 16 teams each. The Big12 will probably happily gobble up the ACC scraps to build the first real super conference to try to challenge the P2. In said conference, they will likely have to structure pods and it would make sense for them to create a pod in the east (comprised largely of ex-ACC teams + WVU) so that each teams' travel costs are minimized.
True, VT and the "ACC leftovers" could make for a reasonable division within the B12, which would mitigate some of the issues.
Still, one of my lingering concerns with the B12 is that their relevance seems heavily reliant on the assumption that Cinci and/or UCF are going to be consistently competitive CFB programs on a National level i.e. in contention for the CFP...and I'm not very convinced that is going to happen.
every conference outside of the P2 will struggle for relevance. I think the Big12 gobbling up ACC teams when the conference collapses and becoming a superconference may be the only chance a non P2 league has to stay somewhat relevant. I don't know what is best but I do know this: The ACC is heading for irrelevance faster than any other league and by 2036 we will be lapped and surpassed by everyone
Any conference that isn't in the P2 will eventually see all their schools de-emphasize football in the next 20 years because they're so far behind financially there's no hope in ever competing. The financial gap between the haves and have nots has never been this drastic, and if you're on the outside, you have no hope of ever being relevant again.
Correct. All largely because we went from "it would be nice if Johnny can get some jersey sales money" to 7 figure pay for play. Pro football with marching bands. Nothing less. So now we have to eat it- make gobs of money or die.
I'm not even sure that we ever entered the "Johnny jersey money" stage...went straight to pay for Play.
Which is the frustrating part because that's where many of us saw this going all along. NIL and the Transfer Portal have become and I think were always (at the most basic level) intended to be methods to consolidate talent (and more importantly $$$) into the hands of a chosen few. In that regard, they have worked fantastically.
I dont know if schools would de-emphasize football when it is the cash cow of the athletic department. They will definitely be 2nd tier, but I imagine the emphasis on football (as compared to the other sports) will be the same.
It's also worth noting that these P2 contracts will also have a significant risidual effect on the other sports, especially ball and baseball.
Yeah dude we'd definitely be better off making less money and traveling to Texas for every other game 🤠
there is a world where we can join the Big12 without having to travel to Texas at all in a season. The Big12 will be making more money than the ACC in 5 years anyway
Do we know that? The ACC makes more now (than the non Texas OU schools) and has been steadily increasing (just not getting the skyrocketing boost the SEC but really mainly the Big 10 got with their latest deal). We have a TV network, they do not.
If we drop Wake and BC that's another 6-7 mil per school yearly. Doesn't make up the whole difference, but that is a very significant chunk. The ACC brands are valuable, there are ways to increase our payouts.
Also supposedly the ACC has restructuring scheduled for 2025 (should get a bump from that), the same year ND's NBC deal runs out and a year after the first 12 team playoff where ND cannot get a bye or automatic bid unless they join a conference. ND joining may be a long shot, but it's not 0%. They like playing ACC teams and would see it as easier playoff access than the B10. Prob would have to let them make some side money with NBC, but it would definitely be worth it for the boost they provide.
In 20 years (maybe even 10) I believe the ACC TV market will be much more valuable top to bottom than the Big 10 (minus LA). That conference is in a dying part of the country and changing demographics will make NC, FL, GA the premier states in the country not named Texas and California. We want to be associated with teams in those three states (and we would want to anyway because those are our traditional rivals and recruiting footprints)
lol this won't happen. I have a better chance of winning the lottery without buying a ticket
first I have heard of this - do you have a source? Can you share more on this? Everything I've heard is we're locked in until 2036
If you really believe this, why do you think they wouldn't be better off in another league? I think the only way the Big12 survives is by expanding aggressively and gambling that a superconference is the way to go and being the first to do it. By gobbling up the ACC's "valuable brands".
ND is never joining the ACC for football. That ship sailed a long time ago. I'm not convinced they will ever join a league but if they do it absolutely won't be the ACC.
I don't know if anyone is arguing against this. But I think this is why we WANT to be in the SEC. The ACC won't exist in 20 years.
Assuming SEC snaps up Clemson and FSU and ND is off the table, Big12 11-team divisions could look like this. Kicks the following teams to the curb:
I'd imagine the pitch would be something like this:
-no increased travel costs for most of you (F you, Louisville)
-Clemson and FSU are leaving you high and dry anyway
-Maintain (and re-establish) historical rivalries
-No GoR issues because 10 teams can dissolve the ACC and the others can do nothing about it.
I originally laid this out with 9 team divisions, but couldn't justify leaving out teams like NCSU or Pitt while saying we'd be worth bringing along.
That would be one hell of a basketball conference
If we're doing a best of the rest conference: I think UNC is gone. Swap Wake for Cuse (huge fan base). Move Cincy and Louisville to the East. Add the Arizona schools and Utah to the West
In UNC and UVA are free agents, the B1G will take them in a heart beat. yes.
ND not being able to leach off the ACC's TV contract tit, might be what forces them into a conference. They can't compete with the B1G or SEC on their NBC deal alone- not even close
Best case scenario is the ACC survives because the TV bubble bursts and the B1G and SEC can't just print their own money and maintain that advantage. Worse case Clemson and FSU leave and the ACC tries to stick around and becomes an AAC with better basketball
Do Clemson and FSU even have a guaranteed landing spot in the next 10 years?
The SEC will take both yes
I've said it ad nauseam here, but I really disagree with this. I don't think the SEC is interested in Clemson/FSU right now (or at least until streaming becomes the primary money maker for broadcasting, and we are not even close to that right now)
well on one hand yes Texas and Oklahoma beat them to the punch. on the other hand football is lord in the SEC- Clemson and FSU are huge football brands... arguably the best 2 out there NOT already in the SEC- that has to be appealing to them
I think UT and OU are two of the 8 blueblood 'brands' that break all of the rules (OSU, Michigan, USC, Alabama, Notre Dame, Nebraska, OU, Texas). Clemson and FSU are 'just' nuevorich.
As an aside, here's my favorite illustration of blueblood status:
I like your wording that Texas is a blue blood brand, as it is a much better way to catagorize them, I dont think of them as a blueblood from historical football winning standpoint, they just have more money and following that everyone else.
Clemson hasn't had sustained success and could easily be nothing without Dabo. FSU doesn't really help bring in the money because UF is already SEC and Miami is a much flashier name that it would be better to pick them over FSU.
P.S. if Shane beats Clemson this year the rest of the SEC will be pissed if Clemson is in the talks cause they already own the state.
Bro Texas is #5 all time wins wut. They are the bluest of blue they've just been a meme for the past decade
I think the TV bubble bursting and the ESPN contract to the SEC going up in smoke is more likely than some of the other alternatives out there. The numbers are too high for the revenue actually received for the games especially as more and more people cut cable.
There is talk that ESPN is going to be available on its own to stream- which it is not today in its entirety
Not happening any time soon. ESPN (and ESPN2, SECN, ACC, etc) get around $10 per cable subscriber per month regardless of if those subscribers watch a minute of ESPN.
There's currently ~70m cable subscribers in the US, which give ESPN ~$700m/month of revenue, half of which is being subsidized by households that don't watch sports. That's a lot less than they were making 10 years ago, but it's a lot more than they'd make streaming everything.
When you enter the streaming world, you don't get subsidized by non-viewers (which means you either make less money or charge your subscribers more). You also have to deal with people canceling during slow months (which happens to other subscription services, but not cable, outside of YTTV).
Great point. I guess there are less hard corps sports viewers than we collectively think
Fwiw, there is industry talk that ESPN will offer a direct streaming service within the next 2 to 3 years. They'll still be part of cable/sat packages, but a more direct offering is coming sooner rather than later
If they would give me entire field views and no announcers I would love this.
3 of the more annoying hoops teams too. Hamilton somehow recruits 6'09 guys for every position, so they are tough to match up against. Brownell is a bottom 5 type coach, but beats VT regularly, and Miami openly cheats with their nursing home coach. Annoying AF those 3 in hoops.
The brand is worth a lot and the team unless they suck absolute goat dick brings a ton of eye balls, either to watch them eat a shit sandwich or feed UF one with extra shit.
I think the big thing that everyone is missing is the fact that no single addition to the SEC or BIG from the ACC would add enough revenue to the conference to justify the huge payout that schools in that conference are currently receiving (the kind of revenue a new school would receive). I'm not entirely certain there's a landing spot for anyone atm.
I've seen/heard a lot of people (Stephan Godfrey, Nicole Auerbach, Max Olson) all suggest that NC/VA would be a huge boon to the SEC. On a recent Andy Staples Show/Power Auer episode, Nicole mentioned that there could be a 'bidding war' over schools in VA and NC, but it doesn't matter because the ACC GoR appears unbreakable.
Edit to clarify: In the context of the conversation, the phrase 'bidding war' was not intended to say that NC/VA schools would get special treatment or financial bonuses beyond any other member school. Just that as soon as the schools become available, they would 'come off the board' very quickly. I *think* this was the episode where they discuss it.
If that happens I think we should listen to both sides, let them bid as high as they can, study both offers, then choose the SEC. Because the Big Ten is a f-ing snooze fest outside like 5 teams
this coming from the guy pushing the ACC to stay intact when the ACC is a snooze fest outside of like, 1 team
I would rather play every one of Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, UVA, NC State, Louisville, GT, and even Duke and Pitt than Rutgers, Indiana, Iowa, Purdue, Northwestern, Maryland, Minnesota, Illinois. Wisconsin is even in the discussion as well because there's no reason to go out there for recruiting and the brand doesn't sell itself like OSU, PSU etc
The schools that have the best chances are the ones that aren't currently in states with an SEC or B1G team.
When the SEC Network launched, the out-of-market rate was 25 cents per subscriber. The in-market rate was $1.40. I don't know if those numbers are still accurate almost a decade later, but I'm pretty sure the ratio is about the same.
In other words, if VT or even uva join the SEC, my cable bill goes up $1.15 per month.
And since those amounts are paid by everyone who has access to the channel, regardless of their viewing habits, that's basically passive income. On some level, the conferences don't care what school they get, as long as they can get the in-market rates spread to another state. That's why the B1G grabbed Rutgers -- the ability to charge "in-market" rates to New York state.
But that money doesn't go to the Conference...it goes to the Cable Co. and ESPN.
Andy Bitter explained the idea in pretty clear terms on the TSL Podcast. The current SEC and B1G deals are believed to net each institution about $70mil. If they add a school, they then would need to negotiate for an additional $70mil (assuming there isn't a clause in the contract that deals with this).
The conference is going to have to have a pretty damn compelling argument to get that much more cash from their Broadcast partner...and they're simply aren't many schools who are gonna move enough viewers to nearly be worth $70mil. Clemson...might...FSU...ehh maybe....Miami...only if they are actually good which they haven't been consistently for 20+ years.
Otherwise, taking on new schools is just shrinking the pot for the existing members which makes very little sense.
So I don't think geography is necessarily a huge value at this points...what matters most is the Conference being able to sell that adding "School X" will help the Network fill Primetime slots and sell Ads to companies like Hyundai and Coca-Cola instead of the Spurtle.
Also ESPN controls the ACC and SEC media contracts. Why would they sign a contract to pay more for two programs they already get at a cheaper rate (Clemson and Florida State).
Can guarantee a fractured ACC will cost ESPN more money than it will gain by have 4 or so of those ACC teams go to the SEC. Networks are driving the bus here, can't forget who's pulling the strings
This is what I was trying to articulate above... You did a much better job. VT is absolutely a valuable brand, even in this long season of suckage. However, I'm not entirely certain they are valuable enough for ESPN to give the SEC, for example, that much extra revenue for a school like VT.
Maryland jumping the acc ship doesn't seem so dumb now !!! Your school will have to produce 70 mil + at a minimum to get in the dance. We dont seem to have a chance in he'll in getting into a premium conference. Whit rode the Fuente horse a tad too long, and now we have sucked eggs in football for a little too long. We don't have legacy, blue blood, or the ability to produce the monies to get into the big boy conferences
Maybe an attempt to add Notre Dame as a full member?
Yeah I thought this too. Giving them the playoff access and now the ability to keep the revenue from it, definitely gives them good reason to join the conference
I don't see it personally. If ND were to join a league, the Big Ten money would be very hard to turn down. Plus being in a league with historic rivals like USC, Michigan, MSU, Purdue.
Of course if the M7/8 did break away and formed a new league to cut some dead weight, that may be attractive to ND and viewed as an easier path to the playoff each year. The top drawing brands from the ACC + ND with fewer slices of the pie may be a good alternative if they can pull it off. I just feel like odds are slim to none ND joins the current iteration of the ACC.
Notre Dame has made clear over the last few media cycles they prefer playoff access to money. If they wanted to be in the Big Ten or they wanted to chase money, they'd already be in.
What's changing? The ACC offers them an easier path to the playoff, and the opportunity to earn autobids and first round byes. It's also known that their donors and university higher ups like playing ACC teams, that's why they joined the league. The one concern would be money but now 1) They can pocket whatever money they make from the playoff/postseason and 2) Maybe we can offer them a Mtn West Boise type deal where they can join the league and get locked into the GoR but can sell a percentage of their rights to NBC or whoever to make some extra side money.
I'm not saying it happens, but I am saying the chance is >0% we have a pretty good pitch that works in both party's best interest
Edit, this should be in response to bar. The top 9 plus ND would be a very interesting proposition.
It could work but the annual payouts would need to be in the ballpark of the SEC and B1G for it to make sense. Maybe not on par but probably double what the ACC is currently getting at least. We get in that $50-$60 mil per team range with the opportunity for teams in the postseason to keep their bowl/playoff revenue and we might be on to something.
Question is 1) could the top 7-9 teams in the ACC plus ND generate enough through a new tv contract? And 2) would it keep Clemson and FSU happy enough to stay onboard? It would be great if somehow through ND this new league got an NBC package which could certainly drive up some value. Maybe some prime time night games at ACC schools since the Big Ten thinks it's too cold.
The only way ND would relinquish their independence would be if the CFP required conference affiliation. And even then, I wouldn't be surprised if ND took legal action to prevent it.
Well byes and autobids already do so we're kind of halfway there and they haven't tried to sue. That's why I think there's a good chance the do join a conference. If I'm the ACC I have a pretty good pitch to make them
I don't think Notre Dame cares about a first round bye in the playoff, because they're getting a week off while all of the conference title games are going on.. They have better odds than any other team in the country to host a first round game, because they are shut out of the top four seeds.
Meanwhile, a team like Georgia can also go 12-0 in the regular season, but all of their postseason games (conference title and CFP games) are all at neutral sites.
If they want to win it they should. I doubt we see a first round team win it all for a long long time. Winning 4 games is so much tougher than winning 3. Especially in football where injuries are so common.
Again, they will be playing the same total number of games as any team that plays in a conference championship game.
Unless you think that there will be a team that is second or third best in their conference that misses out on the conference championship game but still manages to get a first round bye.
Yeah winning 4 games straight in the playoff is harder than playing in a conf championship then winning 3 in the playoff
You make such bold statements with incredible conviction but without any basis in fact. It's kind of amazing.
Winning 4 football games is somehow harder than winning 4 football games?
Especially now that a conference championship game is the top 2 teams, not a weakling from the other division.
Not necessarily by much but yeah everything else equal I think you can pretty definitively say winning 4 games in 4 weeks is harder than winning 4 games in 5 weeks. Is that so hard to believe?
Also decent chance that your first round opponent even if you're hosting is talented SEC team # 3 or 4
I disagree. I can think of two OSU teams (2016, 2022) and UGA 2021 that I think were good enough to win a title despite not winning their conference (eg; not earning a bye)
Notre Dame has never had to share their CFP/NY6 bowl revenue with the ACC. They're only included in the pool if they don't make the NY6.
ND has zero incentive to join the acc full time.
Zero? There are two pretty big obvious ones that I listed in my reply above
So here's a thought... And, to clarify, I have no idea of the legalities and timelines and those sorts of things, but...
What if the Magnificent 7/8 simply broke away and said, "Damned the GOR!" They negotiate a TV deal (again, can they do this?), preferably with FOX over ESECPN and get to work as a smaller conference sharing revenue with each school getting a larger piece of the pie (I know this has been discussed above) than they currently receive being in the ACC.
Let the GOR thing hit the courts... It will take years to sort out, during which time the Magnificent 7/8 are bringing in more revenue than they had been while in the ACC. Negotiate the number down (again, is this possible?) and work towards a 10 year payoff or something like that.
I've been saying it for over a year now, but the ACC is dead. Nothing can save it. Just get out as quickly as possible.
If it doesn't go our way in the courts and we have to pay back 1,2,5,7, etc years of media money it will bankrupt the athletic department. Plus no one is going to strike a deal with us with the potential payback looming over our heads. The only and best way is an ironclad destruction of the ACC with the legal teams of all 7-8 schools in agreeance it's bulletproof
Well this sucks.
we've been in the darkest CFB timeline for a while, but it just keeps getting darker
Another newsbit on the overall impact of the difference in the media rights between the SEC and everyone else and the trickle down effect....
The SEC is hosting 8 of the 16 Regional sites in the NCAA Baseball tournament this year.
That is impressive but most of the SEC schools have been good baseball schools for a while. It's not like the SEC just took over soccer or lacrosse.
Yeah but TV rights and the 'fan experience' played an absolute part in who was hosting these regionals and who was not. If it was about purely the resume, then Campbell would be hosting, but instead they are traveling to Greenville.
That's the beauty of college sports, it's never been about resume. It's the greatest life lesson, no matter how good you are, you can easily get fucked over for some one that has the right name. It's a tale as old as time.
Some interesting comparisons and food for thought regarding VT's fit in the Big Ten and SEC in terms of research and academics:
Very interesting to see how we stack up research-wise. We are much more competitive here than I thought!
BIG10 and SEC to VT:
The only factor that would rank us low in the B1G was the amount spent on research. Sands has been trying to fix that aggressively as well.
That probably relies on steadily improving the Carilion School of Medicine and Fralin Biomedical Research Institute NIH grant fundraising. That's how most schools beef up their research grant dollars. Because the med school and research institute are still really young, it'll be a long process to ramp up those funding numbers.
Last I checked we weren't that far off the mark for research funding required. It's still a chunk of change, but I don't believe we're off by a large percentage. It's do able if Sands keeps working at it. Pry could also help by going to a national championship game as that helps money flow in.
I've never heard of research dollars being affected by an appearance in a national championship game. If you look at the list of the top schools with R&D expenditures , most of the top schools wouldn't be considered major players in football (Ivies, UC-system, etc.). Even UAB (which has a good Med school and research institute) is way ahead of Alabama in research dollars.
The best way to improve funding is getting top-funded and top-publishing faculty, and top-notch facilities. Academia funding is a chicken-and-egg scenario.
I mean we already know our future expenditures are going to increase significantly in the coming years once the DC campus is finished and the partnership with Amazon gets going in full. That partnership is going to be huge for the profile of VT, and we have only scratched the surface on it.
SEC might not want us, we might be too smart for them.