NEWS: FSU Board of Trustees votes unanimously to file the lawsuit against the ACC, challenging its withdrawal penalties.— Nicole Auerbach (@NicoleAuerbach) December 22, 2023
If this goes through, the ACC is toast and we're officially in the end game. Major implications to the future of Virginia Tech Athletics with this move today.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
All the while costing everyone more money to boot.
Lawyers winning
The true undefeated, indisputable champion: billable hours.
The lawyers always win.
Getting paid $$$ by the hour = "winning".
FSU taking their ball and leaving lol
Going to try to anyway.
Thanks, FSU. Good lookin' out for the rest of us, you pricks.
Seriously fuck them. fuck them. What makes them entitled? If they are such a valuable property they should go independent- ND makes it work. Call the ACC's bluff and go independent you fucking dicks.
They have already said they don't want to go independent. I can't see the SEC taking them when they have the Florida Gators and FSU brings no additional TV market.
Now I would love for the SEC to be encouraging them to break the GoR, then playing switcheroo and taking teams from Virginia and North Carolina.
I don't see the B1G really wanting to incorporate anybody else. Washington, Oregon, etc were all added at reduced rates. Is FSU going to accept a reduced rate?
FSU going to end up going from the ACC to the AAC.
As funny as this would be, it ain't happening. FSU has 3 natties in the past 30 years. A brand like theirs isn't going to end up on the outside looking in when all's said and done.
Didn't help them make the playoffs.
It's cute you think they'll be left out
They aren't doing this without knowing they have an invite already in their back pocket, and they don't want to participate in sports with schools like VT, who are unworthy to meet them on the field.
B1G would take FSU in a heartbeat. Fox would love to steal ESPN properties and B1G would love to get into the Florida footprint for recruiting and tv exposure.
you all die hard ACC GOR fans or something? If FSU blows up the conference GOR then VT has a chance at a true money conference or at a real media deal.
Don't think you all are being very pragmatic.
Do I want VT to SEC? Sure. But unless that is guaranteed then I prefer the ACC to stay intact. It has been my position from the start, we would be at risk of being left out, so without a guaranteed spot in one of the Big 2 then I prefer the ACC to stay as is.
As a member of the ACC we are already left out- in terms of both $$ and inclusion in the natty discussion. Look no further that the enema that FSU got from the powers that be this year. I'd rather take the risk, cause we're dead in the water anyway if we just stand pat.
Yes
A chance but definitely not a guarantee. And I'd much rather VT play NC State Miami UVA GT etc for less money than make $15-20M more a year and play Purdue, Iowa, Indiana and Minnesota out in flyover country.
And in reality it will be more like a $5M bump if even that because everyone's getting partial shares now. Oregon and Washington are guaranteed basically half shares for the entire new TV contract. Which is less than ACC members are making. Not that I give a shit either way. I'm a fan, I care about fan experience and playing teams I can drive to for away games.
#1 we're already at the big boy table just seated on the fringes rather than in the main group.
How do you figure? They're getting like $70M per school now and we're getting around $40M, maybe a bit more with the new additions. Half shares are getting $35M + 1M each subsequent year. You think full shares for the B10 are north of $100M by 2030? I'll put a grand on that not happening
Wow! This is the big boy table? We are, (perspective from outside VA and behind Homers) way back. Did you see UCF and USF stomp the ACC?
UCF? GT is up 20-17 and inside the 10 according to my score tracker
27-17
Syracuse started a TE at QB and had like 15 players opt out all but two starters.
FSU went undefeated and 2-0 against the SEC, and didn't get a bid. Even in the 12 team playoff, they would have lost their first round bye.
We are not at the big boy table any more. We have been relegated.
I think B10 shares will be around $100m by 2030:
Also, the ACC (if FSU cannot leave) will not be able to renegotiate in 2030, while the SEC and the B10 will, presumably driving an even wider gap between the conferences.
Finally, the CFP is up for renegotiation in 2026 I believe. I'd bet that the autobid for 5(?) conference champions goes away then. The SEC and B10 will have all the negotiating power, and they have no incentive to give autobids to 5 conference champions. I bet that number goes down to 3, or gets take away all together.
I don't disagree with any of that. I really just don't care if it means we play those lame ass Big 10 schools, or interesting but too far away west coast schools. I'd much rather play the drivable schools like Wake Forest, Duke, NC State, Carolina, hell even ECU. I don't care how much money the athletic department makes because, well, I don't work in the athletic department. I'm a fan. I only care about fan things.
Furthermore on the per school payouts, I really don't think the Big 10 will be able to afford $100M+ per school on the renegotiation. Some potential reasons why not: 1) These projections are a huge extrapolation of current growth. 2) Those shares do not include Oregon and Washington. They are stuck at a half share plus $1M each additional year of the contract. (FACT: Virginia Tech will make more money in the ACC next year than Oregon or Washington will in the Big Ten). 3) The Big 10 is in a dying region of the country. Illinois, Ohio and Michigan residents are leaving in droves to move south.
But I think the biggest reason is by then the top schools will be tired of smaller schools diluting the payouts. Why should Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and USC be sharing the majority of their revenue with the midwest dead weight. Why would they further dilute payouts by giving Oregon and Washington full shares as well as the new schools they add.
Another factor is will TV rights value in general continue to increase by then? Will as many people be watching college sports, or sports in general. A lot can change in 7 years
A lot can change, but they have to play someone (and really, everyone) in order to "prove" they are the best.
You're right, though, I'm losing interest already in some of those teams. My interest is watching VT play, and I have less interest in the Alabamas of the world if they never play VT.
I want to play schools that are similar - both in profile and personality - to VT. So outside of Penn State, I agree that the B10 does not interest me. Of the schools you listed, only NC state and UNC interest me. When you look at the SEC though... Suppose UVA, UNC, and NC State came with us. Then we also played other Appalachian schools like Tennessee and Kentucky. Then we play a couple other land grant institutions. Then we play TAMU, which is the only other school with a Corps of cadets... suddenly that's a very compelling schedule, both for football reasons and for institutional reasons.
I don't care about winning the balance sheet, but you can't compete at a high level for a sustained period of time without consistently winning the balance sheet. You think FSU is worried about money just because they like having it? No, they are afraid that not having money will hamper their ability to compete for national titles, land good recruits, etc.
IF OSU, Michigan, PSU, USC, Oregon, Washington, Wiscy, and Iowa stay in the Big 10, then the B10 will make $100m/school. If two or more leave, then things change. We'll see what happens here. Anything could happen.
TV rights in general may not, but I think quality content - whether it's Game of Thrones, the NFL, the NBA, March Madness, or the SEC regular season - will continue to demand a lot of money, which is another reason I think VT needs to try find a way into the P2 (preferably the SEC) sooner rather than later.
And if there isn't a spot for us? At least we shot our shot. If there's not a spot for us now, then there won't be in 6 years, or 12 years.
Can't believe you quoted Rayo and didn't at least call him out for the blasphemy of
That school can get hit by a meteor after the bullshit they pulled. We should never consider playing them again.
Short easy drive and have tons of family and friends with Pirate season tickets. I wish we played in Dowdy every year!
The SEC is definitely way better than the Big 10 opponent wise. I would enjoy playing an SEC schedule with the schools you listed (except for Kentucky, UK football does not interest me in the least, they're like a more annoying Rutgers as far as I'm concerned).
My concern with the SEC is that we aren't built to compete yearly with Alabama, LSU, A&M, Texas, Florida and Georgia. Success for us would look like consistently beating South Carolina, UK, Ole Miss, Miss St, Vandy and Mizzou. While competing with Auburn, Arkansas, Tennessee and Oklahoma.
We would lose a lot of games and top half of the pack would be a successful season. Our fans would have to be okay not competing for conference titles
I agree... but I'm okay with that.
I think fans' attitude (across the sport) is starting to change since the advent of the playoff. Conferences are less regional, so winning a conference doesn't matter as much. It will be kinda like basketball - beat UVA and make the big dance, and it's a good season. In football, it will be beat your rivals, and make the playoff - that will be the new definition of a good season.
I'll add to this - I think in a decade or so, the idea of an undefeated football national champion will start to go away. Once the 12 team playoff happens, we'll see so many 11-2 Ohio State teams win it all, that the expectation that the undefeated champ won't be a thing. Fans' expectations will change.
Not saying these are good things... just where I see the sport going, and I think VT should (try our best to) hop on the wagon.
I'm with you, but then again I'd rather the P2 fuck off and the rest of the schools in the FBS go back to regional conferences.
The way things are going though, I would prefer to go with Chip Kelly's idea and have the top 64 teams in the FBS split off and create an NFL-lite league with revenue sharing.
Do you think that's reality?
Which part?
Regardless, I don't think that either option is possible. Pandora's box has been opened and CFB will die a long and slow death because of greed.
When it becomes unwatchable I won't even care when it gets (rightfully) banned because of CTE
Agreed- this will end the ACC - even if it is reduced a marginal amount- done- gone. Duke/UNC hoops, the acc basketball tourney, VT's glory years winning the ACC football title, great rivalries- done. Because FSU football is entitled to SEC TV money- everyone else fuck yourselves. VT better be working on a way to avoid being in a conference with JMU and Liberty. And I am being serious.
The weights on Pry's shoulders just quintupled. We NEED him to get VT back to competing for ACC Championships at a minimum by 2027 when ESPN's out clause is actionable. That's the most important thing on the resume when applying to one of the P2 conferences.
In terms of the B1G- I don't think on field performance matters as much as the elusive AAU status that VT seems to never be able to get. So that's out. In terms of the SEC, you are right - but even if Pry loses a heartbreaker in charlotte to Clemson or gets matched up with Pitt and gets beat down- both of which would happen in the ACCCG- we are still 3rd/4th in terms of football expansion for them at best.
As others have said before, the one thing we really have going for us is that the SEC doesn't have any schools in Virginia. Hopefully no one tells Liberty about any of this. Those corrupt shitbirds would fit in just fine with the SEC "culture"...
Competing for ACC titles? The whole world was just told that is a non starter.
per that tweet about swofford giving ESPN an extension on their deadline to decide on the 2027 option, ESPN has to decide in 2025 whether they're picking up the 2027-2036 option. (originally they were supposed to decide by 2021)
Phillips
He has been extremely unimpressive. Absolute wet noodle
I think the most hilarious outcome would be for them to win and then not get into either BIG or SEC with both conferences just poaching the VA and NC schools.
I vote for this. Go see how much you get per year in the AAC, you pricks.
Does the ACC counter suit for legal fees when they win? Nobody is beating the GoR. FSU agreed to it.
One other option- IIRC the GOR covers "home" broadcasts only? So FSU at VT, is VT's media rights? I -think- that's how it goes. So does FSU do the math on lost media rights to their home games for 12 years and make it up elsewhere? vs. paying 500 million to leave? Someone should be able to do that math.
Just play all "neutral site" games until 2036. Build the Warchant Stadium somewhere outside Tallahassee.
Or have the City of Tallahassee annex the football stadium (for an undetermined amount of time), making that not part of FSU's campus, and therefore games there would be neutral site games.
This seems very Floridian to me.
But it isn't just football tv rights, it is also their men's and women's basketball programs games.
I wonder if it includes bowl payouts and NCAA Tournament revenues as well, or if it's just the money from the ESPN TV deal.
That's not included, starting next season.
That's included in the estimated $500m. if I recall correctly, exit fee is is ~$130m
and drops ~$10m/year or something. The rest is the value of broadcast rights to FSU's home games.
It's super messy.
On first read, it's well written and sound. It bases the lawsuit in the complaint that the ACC failed in is major duties as a conference.
It has a chance.
So they went with the truth.
Novel approach in our court system.
This is probably an unpopular opinion, but the conference isn't toast and I dont think FSU is leaving. This is about $$$ and perception, not about leaving the conference. If the conference collectively can dissolve the GoR in its current form and take ESPN to the floor on the TV deal then FSU's move today has done what they needed to do. Nobody wants to leave the conference. What we all want is more money that is comparable to the Big 10 and SEC, and not allow the conference to unilaterally negotiate any future TV deals without votes from the member schools. The GoR proved successful in keeping the conference together, which was the entire point. What it failed at miserably was negotiating a competitive TV deal. The issue now apparently is that it is entirely on ESPN as to whether or not to renew the current deal - I think this is what the conference needs to wiggle out of as soon as possible and find a way to force everyone back to the negotiating table, whether that's with ESPN exclusively or bringing another network into the fold (personally I think CBS is saturated and ABC is already owned by the mouse, so that only really leaves NBC and their streaming arm Peacock as the next viable choice... which could, COULD, bring Notre Dame into the discussions as well).
I tell ya, that deal Swofford cut with ND has really really "helped" the ACC. I tell ya. I mean what a great deal for the ACC. No way ESPN would pay us pennies with "affliate" member ND in the fold.
So I don't get it, ND gets like 22 mil a year for their deal. How did the ACC not get them as a football member. We make way more than that. I guess they have enough money to like their independence. The ACC should go all in and offer them a 40 mil cut, take half a mil from everyone else and then make that money back on the next contract.
When every CFP spot or bowl game has " xxx conference champion or Notre Dame" tied to it there's hardly a reason to saddle themselves to a conference, especially now that we have a performance based revenue distribution. ND can get by on their NBC deal just fine by going 0-12 and i'm sure could still find their way into a bowl game.
That's gone next year though, so why weren't they part of expansion?
It's not static; ND gets paid for all games it plays with ACC teams. So ~6 games/year, half at home (NBC money) and half on the road (ACC money) is added to the ACC pot, and then shared (based on the number of the games played). Most ACC teams play 8 games; ND plays 5-6, so ND gets about 75% share of football money, plus an equal share of all other sports/post season payouts.
You answered your own question - ND likes their independence, and is doing fine financially, despite making so much less from TV money than OSU, Michigan, etc, because (supposedly) their athletic department gets more money in gifts than Oregon gets from Nike.
Imagine if someone on TKP boards foretold ND deal was total horse shit at the inception of the deal and would bite us in the ass in the future... That guy would be a genius 🤓
I'm glad VT has had the opportunity to play them, and I'm not at all convinced that was a bad decision.
Had the ND deal never happened, then the linear ACC tv channel the entire conference was clamoring for would never have occurred. Everyone went into this deal with eyes open. Would I have preferred that ND joined the ACC, of course, but ND has other thoughts. It is what it is.
I'd have preferred this, too, but like the song says, "You can't always get what you want."
No way they had a 38 page lawsuit genned up since that meeting. Lawyers brought that bad boy in as a talking point.
They forgot to bring the sheet that details the cost of losing the case. ACC should counter the suit including legal fees/damages to tune of an additional $130M on top of the $572M the GoR calls for
100% the "winner" here will be the side that doesn't have to bear the burden of the legal fees.
I don't see how FSU has any rational legal challenge to the GoR that they fully agreed to. Their hope is:
1. The legal fees force the ACC to cave
2. Other Programs *cough* Clemson and Miami *cough* join them with suits as well.
Meanwhile, the ACC could be using resources to try to improve their financial situation, but they're gonna be wasting that money litigating their own member. So FSU really is screwing everyone else royally here. Fuck them.
So what you're saying is that when you involve lawyers, everyone loses.
So what you're saying is that when you involve lawyers, everyone loses ....but the lawyers. FTFY
Yes, pretty much.
I am most definitely not a lawyer, but in reading the lawsuit, this paragraph jumped out at me.
If the GoR grants no new considerations for surrendering your media rights, then is that really a binding contract? Is this a potential crack in the GoR that can be taken advantage of?
Interesting.
Looks like the first three ACC members to withdraw after 1 July 2024 (when Stanford, Cal, and
TCUSMU join) are in the clear. Let's be one of those three.Edit: Fixed the list of schools joining the ACC.
Another interesting bit.
So FSU is asking the courts to declare the GoR and the Withdrawal Penalty void, because it the contract they're written into would be an illegal "...restraint of trade or commerce..." due to the reasons in the following paragraph:
However, their ask of the court is also that if the court does render them void, then that would trigger a formal notice of withdrawal of FSU from the ACC, backdated to 14 August of this year, which would make that effective in the 2024-5 academic year. Looks like they're raring to go.
FSU willingly signed the GoR, right? They were not coerced or blackmailed into it right?
Florida State deciding they don't like the terms of an cooperative contract they willingly signed themselves into doesn't justify a breach of contract on the part of the other entity.
These motherfuckers had no problem leeching off the success of everyone else when they were dogshit from 2003-2013 and 2016-2022. Fuck these motherfuckers for now thinking they are too good for the rest of us now that it's their turn at the top. Fuck them
There are some interesting details in the rest of the filing. Something like the ACC told its members that a GoR was required for the ESPN contract, but there seems to be no such mention of the GoR in the contract itself. FSU is arguing that the circumstances regarding the GoR were materially misrepresented (read: the ACC lied). Also, they make some arguments regarding contracts that contain no new considerations (School A gets a if they give b to Conference B, but A already has a, so nothing was given in consideration for b) can be deemed non-binding. They're saying the GoR was given by schools for an ESPN contract that was already in existence, and that no new considerations were made for signing the GoR.
I'm not a lawyer, but that does seem to be an interesting argument.
You had me at "The ACC lied..."
Seems plausible.
Bingo. They just went undefeated and didn't have a big enough brand to get a seat at the table. This aint 1998.
Seems pretty relevant to me.
Part of their argument is that a portion of what ACC was to provide was leadership and work to get members into the CFB Championship playoff.
FSU feels it can demonstrate that ACC failed in this contractual duty and therefore is 1 of the 4 duties that ACC was to provide under this contract.
In the other thread regarding the playoff teams, it looks as if many people here believe FSU is correct in this piece.
Don't tell that to a Tennessee fan. They think every year is 1998, especially from about June to September.
1. Surprised there is no clause requiring arbitration be the first step required
2. Curious as to citing Florida law as not sure the ramifications on where the GoR is deemed to connect the media rights. Is it ACC to E$PN so therefore Charlotte, NC or if due to this involving multiple states, ACC asks for case to be remanded to a Federal Court.
Relevant:
Thanks
This is going to be such a mess.
This! The GoR grants ACC the right to sell their live inventory to ESPN. It's really tough to quantify how much value FSU added to that bundle.
There's a bunch of ways this could go down:
I think bullet #1 is most likely, but this could get saucy, especially if FSU tries to go to the B1G (which is run by fox, not espn)
FSU's only real option is the B1G.
I agree
- or the court says the GOR is valid, FSU doesn't have $550 million in spare cash, and life with a malcontent goes on.
a couple of notes...
1) there is a look-in on the ACC television contract in 2025; two years before ESPN has to decide whether to extend until 2036
2) FSU has not filed a notice that they are leaving
Their lawsuit says that if the GoR is invalid, then they filed for leaving in August of this year. You remember them saying they were leaving, don't you?
lol...yeah, I saw they'd want to back date the application if they win..."we'd like to step into the pool but not get wet".
This does not settle the choice of law. Florida laws could still be applied.
Choice of jurisdiction is where it will proceed, not which laws will apply.
Discovery in one or both suits should be fun; I don't see how ESPN avoids being dragged in.
FSU isn't going to get any money from the ACC and obviously can't afford a huge buyout. But if they can get ESPN not to renew the TV contract, then the GOR off ramp moves to 2027. And there are at least few schools that won't mind that happening.
It would be a very good time for VT to get good at football again.
Speaking of ESPN extending the deal, discovery has exposed that ESPN has never had any intention of ever extending it, and strong armed the ACC into our shit deal in 2016
that isn't new or news...ESPN required the GOR to be extended to 2036 as a condition for creating the ACCN and justifying their investment. We knew that when the ACCN announcement was made. And the AD group (I think Radakovich led that one) that was looking over Swofford's shoulder (after his earlier dealings) were part of those discussions.
And ALL of them (and their lawyers) reviewed and approved the TV contract...not all deals are good ones.
I love it. Florida court is going to rule for FSU and North Carolina court is going to tell Florida court to pound sand as they have no legal jurisdiction to complain.
I think ACC would have problem attempting to squash the FSU lawsuit on the grounds that FL is the incorrect venue.
FSU can successfully argue that the contract that includes TV rights for FSU home games are a substantial portion of the contract and the lions share of the money. FSU also resides and is incorporated in FL according to FL law and therefore an acceptable venue for the suit.
It would not be required to shift to NC simply because the ACC HQ is in Charlotte.
even if remanded to federal court, the federal court would need to apply laws of a state . It is interesting that choice of law isn't clearly implicated, but there may be state laws that prevent such a choice of law.
For instance, I know Texas imposes on their state universities that their assignment of IP rights be governed by Texas state law and do not allow for a choice of law other than Texas. Similar laws could exist in other states, especially states like Florida that deem their state laws supreme.
FSU is claiming that the ACC is a collection of member institutions, and therefore exists in each state in which a member resides. Will be interesting to see how that argument is resolved with respect to the ACC and North Carolina.
Or 4 band together and agree to split the buyout of that extra "team".
Now the interesting thing is FSU will also have to help pay the ACC's legal fees in addition to their own in this court case as a member of the ACC.
BTW- how dare these FSU assholes steal the feel good national story that is JMU playing in the prestigious armed forces bowl? I mean what a great story. It would have been a national disaster had they not been invited to a fucking bowl game. National news. For FSU to piss on that landmark is pretty shitty of them. The armed forces bowl is super important - JMU football and all. After all their coach didn't just bolt for the worst program in the P5 either. We should be celebrating the national event that is a JMU bowl game vs. talking about FSU
The fact Minnesota, Jacksonville State and JMU are in a bowl game and Army is at home is fucking bullshit. ESPN was at the root of that too. They said since your game against Navy is past selection Sunday if you aren't at 6 wins by Selection Sunday no bowl. Didn't matter that both teams were at 5-6 on Selection Sunday so they knew winner would be bowl eligible and they could easily have said winner gets the second Armed Forces Bowl spot. Fuck E$PN.
This x1000
If there are any kids that are truly deserving of a bowl game at 6 wins, its the service academies.
I'm going to toast the literal zero rating that the Armed Forces bowl will draw. Christmas re-runs will kill it in ratings. Why? because Pat McAfee and others screamed into the camera about how it was a national fucking crime if JMU missed a bowl- OMFG... yet in their bowl- exactly zero people will watch. None. Great job asshole media. Nobody fucking cares if JMU misses a bowl- nobody.
Here we go again. Who the hell does the bookkeeping for these universities?
This is actually probably the least surprising thing to me, speaking institutionally
Reminds me of Rutgers.
According to an article, the original is at ACC headworks and is not allowed to be copied or leave the premises. Schools and lawyers can come and examine but it has to be there.
Going and playing Indiana, Iowa, Purdue and Michigan State sure would make a lot more sense and be so much better than playing Georgia Tech, Duke, Miami and NC State. Man can't wait for us to spend millions of dollars to make that happen
It does if it comes with $25M more a year in TV for just football. Then they have B10 Network money for other sports.
Yeah but it's dumb as fuck that it does. Indiana Purdue and those other midwest garbage schools are getting an elevator up because the Big Ten will overbid on Ohio State Michigan and Penn State
Unfortunately, thats not what this is all about...
It's about having enough TV money that even as a perennial bottom-dweller (Indiana) you can afford to pay a massive contract buyout to a coach that was a COY candidate 2 years ago.
And its about having enough money to buy every 17 year old with 3* on 247 a new sportscar or SUV so they will come play for you---even though NIL Collectives are completely "independent" of Universities...lol
College football is a business run by Massive Corporate Conglomerates at this point. They will continue to ruin it until there is no money left to be squeezed out.
I hear there's room in the pac12...just sayin
FSU might be in over their heads here
given the players on FSU's end; seems like it's almost an extension of the Disney stuff.
The part about recency bias is particularly hilarious when you consider where FSU was just a couple years ago. They are acting like the entirety of the SEC that they have always been good (the crap years never count)
We should add Oregon State for their gymnastics team. All other reasons are secondary.
I'm not really even mad about this. I'm just so fascinated. I never thought anyone would actually challenge the GoR.
I don't really think this matters for VT. Either we have a landing spot, and we'll reach our eventual destination sooner, or the conference will stay together til 2036, and we'll reach our destination then.
Many say timing is what makes it a miracle. Like the song says Timing is Everything
What about the third option, where we don't have a landing spot, but the ACC doesn't make it to 2036. Or even 2030. I think that's a terrifying and not-too-unrealistic option.
If we don't have a landing spot now, we don't have one in 2036. That's my point.
To clarify, I think the acc is falling in 2036 no matter what.
I think that's a very unlikely option.
A lot of people seem to think there's some magical number of seats at the table for the ultimate "P2" conferences, or whatever the megaconference(s) ends up being called.
The reality is that every nearly every team that is currently in a major conference has enormous value. That's why they're in the Big 12 or ACC, etc. If the ACC dissolves, it's more likely that VT would be invited to BOTH conferences than invited to neither.
Both the B1G and the SEC? I find that very difficult to believe. If the ACC goes down, we end up in a shitty conference with no real regional interest and where our most interesting (only interesting) yearly game is WVU.
Crazy talk. Regardless of what the media would have you believe, Virginia and North Carolina are big growing TV markets that the SEC and Big 10 are not in and would be incredibly lucky to have
Oddly enough, the B1G and SEC sort of need other teams if they want to maintain the illusion of being the best. If all the other teams form their own independent league, that is absolutely competition for the P2.
Honestly, I am on board with CFB being bifurcated (that's for you GGC) from the rest of college sports. Keep the ACC intact for all sports except football and then come up with whatever divisions or leagues you want for football. It honestly feels like the only logical option at this point.
I agree that they best thing that could happen for Virginia Tech is D1A of 64 teams that has one media deal. I just don't see the B1G or $EC being willing because it likely diminishes the overall payout per school average and they would be the ones that suffer most. Doing it though would blow up all the Conference football/media contracts which would be great for Hokies.
ACCN would take a huge hit though I imagine. They would be stuck broadcasting all the non revenue sports with the basketballs the only remaining revenue sport.
I mean, if loluva added a fan, they could point to 50% annual growth and make this claim.
Weird that one of the least valuable ACC schools is sucking off ACC leadership /s
How so? They know if ACC implodes they are likely headed down so getting on knees for ACC leadership is preferable to trying to figure out what's best between AAC or Big East.
Sorry, still new to posting I should've put the /s
That's what the real unequal revenue sharing should be. Redistributing the majority of the Wake Forest, BC, Duke and Cuse's football shares to the top 7 programs (Clem, FSU, Miami, VT, State, Carolina and Louisville). It's basically what we're doing w SMU Stanford and Cal. If we included those other 4 it would close to fix the revenue disparity tbh
Please get me out of the ACC, please. Give me a break, Wake.
Can't wait to give away conveniently located away games and regional rivalries in order to help the athletic department bottom line, an intangible benefit to anyone not directly associated with it
VT has more in common with Auburn (a land grant institution with a tens of thousands of undergrads, most of whom focus on technology-related degrees) than it does with wake (a private school with a couple thousand undergrads, no engineering school and limited technology degrees offered).
I don't want to come off as dismissive, but Wake is a prime example of why the ACC will fail - the institutions aren't aligned:
BC/Syracuse/Wake don't - and never will - have the athletic department infrastructure they need to be a 'power' conference in 2023+
Looking at the ACC:
Compare this to the B12 or the SEC - every school/program has the same priorities. Spending levels may vary, but almost all of the institutions are aligned. Tennessee, Florida, Alabama, Ole Miss all have the same priorities. They might have different abilities of achieving those goals, but they are all chasing the same thing.
It's just not the case in the ACC.
I wonder if this will be a feature in NCAA Football 2024?
"FSU has forced the dissolving of the ACC. Please apply to a new Conference. " /s
No idea how reliable this is, but it's worth keeping an eye on
All I want for Christmas is VAs and NCs to the SEC?
PLS
As long as VT ends up some where...
If this is true, you've got to love the irony of NC State being the one who flipped to let SMU, Cal, and Stanford in making it harder to break the GoR just to turn around a few months later and try to file a lawsuit against the GoR...
FWIW the tweet cites Greg Swaim as the source and the consensus on r/cfb for his and this report's reliability was "not very", with requests to mods to remove that post due to lack of credibility, which presumably happened because I don't see it there anymore
Ooohhh shiiit ... Here we go y'all!!
A Commentary piece from the Orlando Sentinal that I think many here will appreciate: FSU is suing ACC instead of looking in mirror and taking responsibility
My more controversial opinion: This kinda sums up how I feel about the ACC in general. We can bitch about ESPN. We can bitch about ACC leadership. We can bitch about university leadership. But at the end of the day, three of the four flagship ACC teams - FSU, Miami, and yes, our dear Virginia Tech - have completely dropped the ball for at least a decade (or two decades if you're Miami) by (a) making bad hires and (b) resisting the inevitable arms race.
The issue exists at the mid-level of the conference too: NC State, UNC, Georgia Tech, etc have all had decade long stretches of mediocrity, and seasons littered with losses to G5 teams and blowouts to P5 OOC opponents.
When you look at the bottom of the league, you see that the floor has been lowered too far. As Chris so eloquently stated:
FSU failing to keep Jimbo so that he and Dabo could go head to head for a decade while VT figured out their shit post-Beamer completely screwed the ACC in hindsight. It's so hard to get a good coach to backfill a legend, and FSU got one, and fucked it up.
Miami is a whole other can of worms, in that i really don't think they have the desire to compete anymore. I don't believe that program has the support of the school's administration and they're content with letting it remain a middling program that had its glory say 30 years ago.
VT, we've never really been there. We dipped our toe in the water 25 years ago, but decided we didn't want to play a national game. I think the current administration and staff are trying to fix it, but the Fuente fuck up set us back a decade or 2.
The real problem with the ACC is that every other name school prioritizes basketball over football in an era where basketball doesn't pay the bills anymore. UNC, UVa, UofL, Syracuse, Duke, etc... These schools would cut football if they had the option in order to maximize basketball spending. And that mindset has fucked the conference from the start, because the networks simply don't care about and don't care to pay for basketball coverage outside of the tournament, and CBS has that deal through the NCAA.
I think UoL as much as I despise them has seen the light in terms of where the revenue comes from. Brohm seems to have an open checkbook to bring staff and players in.
If UoL was really stuck on the basketball focus Kenny Payne would already have cleaned his office out (although they are close to pink slipping him.)
Loserville currently has losses to 2-7 DePaul, 4-7 Arkansas State, UTenn-Chat, and squeaked by UMBC 94-93 and Bellarmine who had a lead in final two minutes. They also lost by 19 to rival Kentucky. I will be surprised if he makes it to February.
They have had the "I don't want to play because you don't have my favorite tights".
They also had the player who they officially announced he had entered the transfer portal come out to completely rebutt it.
I am all for Loserville remaining a dumpster fire but they do seem focused on football now.
Fuente didn't set us back a decade. He pushed to modernize everything. He set our talent back a few years, but we had 1 recruiter prior to Fuente and he pushed to hire more.
To be serious about football now you need an army of people all working football. Pry has I think 11 more staff than Fuente and Fuente grew the staff count If we were serious about football the staff would have been upgraded under Beamer. We needed an AD that brought way more money that Weaver. We can't think that the weights don't matter because we can just outwork everyone. UGA has 80 people trying to outwork everyone, you're not competing with that with 20 people people.
Competition in college football is less about the players and more about the machine that's sole job is to win; win recruiting, win oppenent scouting, win NIL, win cheating, win nutrition, win medical staff, win every little thing. Once you have the machine running then you just need to make the right coaching decisions in the 5% actual game time that matters to the top teams.
Bingo. The problem with the end of the Beamer Era and the entire Fuente tenure was that outside of Shane we really didn't have a guy on either staff with P5 experience.
That is, none of those guys really knew what it took to run a P5 program, because none of them had worked at one for any meaningful period of time prior to VT.
Pry and several of these assistants can say otherwise. They know what it takes to run a legit program in 2023 and it looks like they're trying their best to build one in Blacksburg
And even the ones that weren't P5, like Price worked for coaches that knew what they were doing (Doc Holiday)
An interesting take I have not heard before:
I agree. As a non-lawyer but being involved enough in contracts to speak fluently, I think this is about to get interesting. Greenberg Traurig is a top-tier law firm and I have some familiarity with them. They are really damn good. Second, I think them trying to paint the ACC as incompetent and breaching fiduciary duties will lead to painful discovery, and, saying the penalties have no ties to actual economic harm is a really smart ticket. I really don't think the ACC wants its dirty laundry aired in public. John Swofford was as good old UNC boy as it gets, and I think some dirt can come out. And they even already point to some of it from the Maryland exit and before. And frankly, the ACC keeping this agreement and the ESPN deal out of sight and inaccessible in Greensboro makes the unconscionable angle even stronger. I strongly think this case has more that enough to survive motion to dismiss.
Worked with some of GT's folks (I'm not a lawyer but I have a lot expertise in a couple laws they deal with) for 2 decades plus. They are typically outstanding; but they will also do what the client asks and they are interwoven with much of the political activity in Tallahassee because of who they represent. Getting state approval on something often means getting GT's approval ahead of time...been there, done that.
Anyway, what is the saying? "If you have the law, hammer the law. If you have the facts, hammer the facts. If you have neither the law nor the facts, hammer the table"
In this case, I think they are mostly hammering the table and making some influential people in Tallahassee happy.
You can't be a party of the contract without a full understanding of the contract. While it is absolute nonsense that none of the Universities had a copy the fully executed contract with all signatures, every University would have the full knowledge of the contract language. So, there is no new information there.
If it is true that no one had copies of the Multimedia Rights Contract (i.e., the contact between ACC and ESPN), then that's a huge issue, but would be such a huge issue that every 1st year law student would issue spot that on their contracts exam. I find it extremely unlikely that the Universities did not have a copy of the media rights when they initially signed. If that's true, the Universities and their counsel are idiots. But, the Universities are clearly not that smart because they gave away their rights for multiple decades without any checks on the ACC.
Isn't the reason that none of the schools have a copy of these docs is so they can't be FOIA'd?
Correct...and none of this is new info or surprising to any of the members of the conference. They all reviewed everything; it's just FSU playing to the crowd.
They have a copy of the GoR. They just didn't have a copy of the one with every signature.
I have no idea why a University would not want to be fully informed on how their media rights are being used or maintain any control of how their rights is used. FOIA would be a pretty dumb reason to operate in the dark. Why would it better to operate in the dark without any control when the value is of the contract is $500M+? If that's due to ESPN wanting to maintain secrecy, then bargain with another media outlet for better visibility and control.
And that's the problem. The GoR gives away the right for the universities to have a say in it so that the ACC can collectively bargain on their behalf knowing they are contractually bound to be over bulk deal until the end of the contract. Having a TV deal that ends 9 years before the GoR does sucks, but that's not a violation of the process here.
About the only way that FSU has some standing here is if they can prove that the ACC intentionally acted in a way that was detrimental to the schools. Forcing these GoR to be extended without telling the schools it was so we could take a low-ball ultimatum of an offer from ESPN without going to market world be a good argument there. But outside of that, they don't have much to go on.
Doesn't using Raycom sports prove the ACC acted in bad faith /s
Daniel Snyder is no longer owner of the Skins / Comanches. I NEVER thought I'd be saying that. Anything can happen and that gives me some hope here.
However, I am worried if the ACC blows up, we get left out in the cold.
That is my big worry, I saw somewhere that Virginia Tech had the lowest # of people watching this past year for the entire ACC, Wake and Duke had more people watching their games.
Those numbers were low because a lot of our games were on ACCN this year which doesn't provide nielsen ratings so our numbers were significantly lower than they actually are. Don't worry about our viewer numbers, there is plenty of data that shows VT brings eyeballs to the TV and to the stands. We are a known football school to who it matters in realignment.
We just played a home game 5 or 6 hours from our home stadium. 5 out of 6 sellouts (i think) after a 3 win campaign the year before. I think we get plenty of eyeballs. No way duke, wake, BC had more viewers than us.
FSU NIL violations, sanctions coming
FSU really showing out to try to get that SEC invite
Sure, but most of that stuff doesn't work unless you ARE IN the SEC.
Of course. FSU is trying to advocate for itself and won't toe the party line.
Gotta smack 'em or everybody else is going to step out of line also.
The ACC is now suing FSU for breach of contract because turns out it's against the grant of rights to challenge the grant of rights per the grant of rights
Yea, there's this clause under section 6:
That seems unenforceable. A contract can never be the supreme law. But, I'm interested in seeing how all this plays out.
Well FSU and the other Presidents signed it.
Unenforceable is unenforceable. Doesn't matter if you sign it if that's the case.
Anyone can sign any contract. Just because there was mutual agreement and signature does not mean that said contract (or clauses thereof) is enforceable.
There are a lot of unenforceable clauses.
The easiest example is any contract that breaks the law is unenforceable. If you and I have a contract in which I hire you to severely injure Dabo Swinney the week before the Clemson v. VT matchup, and I pay you $5M and then you go on vacation and do nothing, I can't sue you for breach of contract, even though we both were in agreement at the time we signed said contract and I held up my end of the deal.
I mean, you could sue him. you'd just lose
It would not even meet the requirements for a lawsuit due to lack of redressability, so it would get thrown out before it ever started.
learn something new every day
I feel like a contract having this kind of language would give grounds for voiding the contract.
That being said, we have some pretty great law schools in our conference. It would be kind of crazy if our conference wrote a contract that wasn't air tight.
Contract severability is the concept that each and every clause is severable. Meaning, if one clause is unenforceable, it is severed from the contract and the rest is still enforceable.
So, unfortunately, that does not give grounds for voiding the contract as a whole.
Feels kinda like rental leases that say they can sue you if you leave a negative review of the apartment.
And 15 dumbasses signed said contract.
Not the same. A contract can limit the types of challenges, such as requiring arbitration, specific venue, choice of law, etc. A contract cannot outright prevent any challenge. That would, in fact, make it the supreme law of the land, which is not Constitutional.
A clause saying "X can sue Y" is just stating that the norm applies, because that's the baseline truth, assuming the requirements for a lawsuit are still met such as injury, redressability, appropriate jurisdiction, etc.
Interesting update. Apparently FSU has amended their complaint to specifically name Swofford and the crappy deal that he arranged for his son as evidence of collusion to undervalue the conference.
I mean...that is what happened....
If anything, would love this to expose just how messed up that whole situation was. Drag that fucker and his family through the mud.
I laughed when I saw that too. If there's anything that could implicate Swofford made the deal he made to benefit privately from the GoR, either himself of his kin, then this thing is going to become appointment TV... or at least really good message board fodder.
The Raycom deal was already message board fodder, is now turned into board room fodder and message board inferno as the TV deal slips further and further behind.
Let's goooooo
to the SEC.....
I mean, HOKIES!!!
Por que no los dos?
so I was correct
A source, for those curious.
While obviously written by an FSU source, this article makes some compelling arguments that the ACC has acted in bad faith to protect the family business (Swoffords) at the expense of the member schools. Shocking, I know. While I don't like the idea of the ACC becoming irrelevant, the mismanagement of the conference and its Tobacco Road bias begs for a remedy. I sure hope VT doesn't get stuck in the wasteland of the ACC's neutered form, but I do wonder whether the SEC or the B1G leadership would view us as a worthwhile addition, especially if we are joined at the hip by LOLuva. We could really use another ACC football championship to boost our resume.
I feel certain the SEC or B1G wouldn't mind if we used one of our OOC games to play UVa.
makes some compelling arguments
It does, as does the amendment. But none of it is news; and Wilcox (FSU AD) bought into the whole thing...tl;dr on the amendment..."we blew it but it wasn't our fault". The ACC changed its oversight over Swofford's media negotiations right after the Raycom deal and FSU was part of that.
For me, the most damning thing in this for the ACC/Phillips was the result of the look-in in 2021...zero new dollars and a giving ESPN more time to contemplate what it wants to do.
The 2026 look-in is the elephant in the room (and the extension for ESPN to 2025 may effectively make the look-in 2025 as well). The fact that it exists is bad for FSU's case...is the conference really locked in to a below market return? And it puts enormous pressure on the conference leadership to increase the baseline revenue. Meanwhile, ESPN is figuring out its own future while NCAA is doing the same.
Not sure where to put this and I don't think it needs a new thread, but in the alumni association call today when speaking on the future of VT, the representative said the next leadership of the school would inherit a VT that is in the AAU, in the best athletics conference, and winning national championships. Was spoken after discussing how things were changing. Read in between whatever lines you would like.
Hype train!!!!
We flexing our academics!
On one hand, they're probably blowing smoke and they really know nothing about what is going on.
On the other hand, I highly doubt we would have been a part of the groups who looked into legally challenging the GoR last year without knowing we'd have a better landing spot than where we are right now if the ACC broke up.
Until I see substantial evidence to the contrary, I'm going to believe they are just blowing smoke. I think Sands foolishly voted to add Stanford and Cal on an empty promise to get help from them with getting VT AAU status. I doubt those two schools alone move the needle to get us there.
I also could totally see homers viewing the acc as the best athletic conference because of all of Stanfords non-rev sports championships (not to mention all the other acc schools with a plethora of non-rev sports championships)
I don't think the ACC is the best sports conference but I totally believe lots of folks within the acc telling themselves it is. And Sands has probably told people that we're close to getting aau status because he helped a couple aau schools out that one time.
Until the acc collapses and VT winds up in the SEC I will believe exactly none of this garbage.
Florida judge dismissed FSU's case, gave them 7 days to refile but also ordered FSU and ACC to enter mediation within 120 days.
seems like a clear win for the ACC. The problem I have is that I hate both the acc and fsu so I want them both to lose somehow
FSU and ACC both forced to pay VT 300 million per year and VT immediately replaces espn as college sports dictator
I could get behind this
this is the only thing that's fair. I'll allow it
I'm starting to hope the ACC in some form survives. The shadiness and absolute stupidity of most of the SEC really doesn't vibe with me, and I think we would be a horrible fit in the Big Ten/would hate games in the Midwest. I really think geographically and culturally the ACC is the best fit, but the conference has to do something to bridge the revenue gap. My ideal at this point would be if 9 of the best brands in the ACC form a new league and add WVU. Wouldn't match the P2 in revenue but I think would still be a very compelling league with strong football and basketball. I'm wondering when the tv bubble bursts if these ridiculous contracts with the leagues are going to start drying up anyhow.
I am with you in that the bubble is going to burst on these contracts. I think the potential move to pay streaming channels, increased begging for donations (school or NIL), increasing ticket prices, combined with inflation is going to squeeze the regular middle class donors, etc. We can't pay for everything.
For a long time, the ACC was one of the best geographic conferences. It is still one of the most balanced conferences and that is one of the arguments they use against us when we feast on each other while still beating up on our SEC matches.
I disagree with the bubble. The next SEC contract they sign with ESPN will be bigger than ever. And Fox will do the same for the B1G- these contracts are going to get bigger, not smaller. ESPN prints its own money it seems, and if not, they will simply charge cable and streaming services more to air it. If you pull ESPN from your lineup now, it's suicide - so the companies will pay the fee. There are rumors that ESPN has buyers remorse on their NBA deal- lol, they will re-up it for 40% more- you watch.
We will know at the next contract renewal. Who is first B1G or SEC? Well, I guess technically the ACC is first if ESPN decides not to renew and the ACC gets to shop our rights next year. I personally can't wait to welcome our new Prime Overlords.
Depends on advertising revenue and though I have no sources, I'm hearing some of that Ad revenue is getting a little harder to find. A little more of the current rise in prices and interest rates to go with it and it really will get scarce.
FL judge dismissing this is the big news. Not sure what the ACC would negotiate.
You are correct, Judge ruled that they could refile but their lawsuit was too vague to stand. He ordered mediation as apparently he always orders that. But the ACC has no reason to step down from the requirements at this time.
The ACC should start the negotiations with, "ok, we will reduce the fee to $571,999,999"
The lawsuit is not dismissed and I don't think it will be, at least anytime soon. The major issue on Monday relates to personal jurisdiction, which was not established within FSU's complaint. FSU will be able to amend their complaint and establish the personal jurisdiction to keep the case active. This is a very small issue.
And mediation is often (nearly always) requested by the court systems to try and reduce their caseload (the courts have too many cases, not enough resources to handle). The judge ruling that the parties to try mediation does not mean that the case will not go through the courts. It just means, give mediation a shot, if the parties resolve their issues, then they'll drop the lawsuit, if they don't, the lawsuit continues. Mediation also helps reduce the court time, as a lot of pseudo-discovery and arguments are articulated within the mediation.
The decision on personal jurisdiction is "stayed" and not yet "dismissed" which just means the final decision on personal jurisdiction has not been made, giving FSU a chance to amend their complaint to properly establish they have personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is whether the Court has the legal authority to make a ruling on the parties (here, whether the judge can oversee a case between the ACC and FSU).
Regarding the personal jurisdiction issue, I think this is just a mere formality of how the FSU lawyers wrote up the complaint. Personal jurisdiction is generally really easy to establish. So, I don't think the case will be dismissed on this issue, but we'll see within a month or so.
There are a few ways to establish personal jurisdiction, including (1) citizens or residents of FL or (2) long-arm statute. It appears that the FSU lawyers were just relying on the ACC being citizens of Florida via the presence of FSU and Miami. The ACC argued that the ACC is not a citizen of FL and the judge is essentially agreeing, and thus personal jurisdiction was not established by FSU. Now, they need to amend the complaint to establish personal jurisdiction via the long-arm statute. Every state has one of these statutes and allows non-resident parties to sue (or be sued) in the state if the party (1) maintains a continued presence within the state and (2) makes direct contacts with citizens/entities of the state. So, FSU will need to show that the ACC meets those requirements with factual evidence, which should be pretty easy to do.
Note: made some edits to clean up my typos
I love it when our resident attorneys weigh in on topics like this
Wow, I can't believe FSU's legal team was that sloppy with the complaint. The ACC corporate is domiciled in NC, and even with the nerve center test, four Directors for the NC schools and all the executives are in NC. Could have easily used the long-arm statute, minimum contacts test, or even made a stream of commerce argument. Seriously stunned they overlooked something so simple. You don't get all the details from tweets but I assume the ACC's lawyers were smart enough to request a special appearance to contest personal jurisdiction as well.
I also guarantee that if they amend the complaint and refile, the ACC will immediately motion to remove to federal court.
Yea, at a minimum, it's definitely lazy. They argued that the ACC is made up of 15 citizens (I guess now 18) and two of those citizens are FSU and Miami, but that didn't fly. But, luckily for FSU it's decently common to allow the complainant to fix the complaint when it's deficient.
I also agree that ACC will want this case to be moved to federal court. The ACC will also want it to be combined with Clemson's case and apply North Carolina law. The ACC should be able to win all those motions.
Meh, there was chest thumping around Maryland, etc. And they fucking just left. FSU will do the same.
UMD didn't have to break a GoR to leave - it's completely different.
True- FSU has a GOR, and they too will call a press conference, leave and let the courts sort it out. Maryland laughing to the bank and seat at the adults table every day.
Eh...I've been an adult for 40+ years (well....at least PHYSICALLY)- there are definitely times in my life when I have yearned to still be at the kid's table.... kinda s/ but not totally...
I wouldn't label having a good likelihood of winning procedural motions as chest thumping, but sure, why not.
I hear Clemson just won a right to see the ESPN contract that the ACC has been refusing to show.
Apparently a SC judge gave the order for ACC within 7 days to give a copy to Clemson an unredacted copy of the ESPN contract but they cannot show anyone else.
I saw it on Tampa Times by Matt Baker but I expended my free article limit and cannot find it to post a link.
probably a solid guess that this won't be subject to FOIA?
EDIT: Also maybe uva could be useful for a change and use some of their fancy pants lawyer grads to take a similar case up in Virginia on behalf of all the public ACC schools in the state.
Lol. The secretive nature of this ACC contract with ESPN and how they don't even want the schools to see what they agreed to just has red flags all over it. Live look at Clemson's legal team reviewing that contract
I agree, this is astounding to me that the members are not allowed to see and maintain a copy of the contract for their own use. A non-educated opinion but given the amount of money involved, I suspect this is the weak point of the ACC argument.
There was rumor from the FSU side that it gives ESPN and the member schools a ton more flexibility than the ACC says, and that the "sign this long term GOR or else no ACC network" crap that Swofford claimed is completely bogus. The first big bombshell that came out was that ESPN actually has no obligation to continue the ACC deal beyond 2027. I think that deal if it went public would be the smoking gun that the ACC acted in bad faith when negotiating and establishing the GoR. Basically they induced the schools to sign under false pretenses, which amounts to misrepresentation or outright fraud.
If Phillips had held to ESPN signing the extension in 2021 then there would be less issue but he gave them until next summer without consulting the schools on the extension. ESPN used Covid as it's wedge on not wanting to commit in 2021.
Jimbo Fisher claims ACC, Big 12 teams are becoming 'glorified junior colleges'
I'm pretty sure that's what the SEC hopes will happen.
More $$$ for them.
And when it's just the B1G and the SEC competing at the highest level, CFB will have lost a lot of what made it great. They're destroying the game in their competition for the almighty dollar.
don't you worry...CBB will follow soon enough...
Jimbo sure did a lot with his 5 stars at A&M and going up against goliaths like App State... he's admitting he's a JUCO coach for sure
Exactly. Pretty bold statement for someone whose seat is a red hot poker at the moment. He'll likely be coaching at one of those "Junior Leagues" very soon. And with Texas and Oklahoma debuting in the SEC, the pressure on him to show something is going to grow exponentially. 🤣🤣
umm Jimbo is no longer the coach at aTm.
Well, this is awkward.
Sounds like he got a great gig:
Asked specifically about the duties of the role, Kiffin offered, "[Fisher] doesn't even have to leave his ranch, he just has to get on a Zoom once a week and tell us which plays we should run. Last week, I'm pretty sure he was out on the lake during the whole call. I was having trouble hearing him."
Sad state of college football for this Tech fan. What we've taken great pride in,
"They took that three-star guy or that four-star guy you missed and they developed him into a heck of a player",
Is now the definition of junior league.
Who's transferred out from football? Strong, Delane, Holloway and others have been developed by this staff and have chosen to stick around. It's not just money; work place culture plays a big role.
Not to mention, VT has taken a lot of players developed by other programs and got them to come to Blacksburg (ODU, MTSU, Duke, etc.)
I'm not naïve enough to think that it will never happen to VT. But thus far we are the "bad guys" in the poaching homegrown players scenario (and I like it!)
I just heard the Rolling Stones in my head singing, "It's only poaching homies, but I LIKE IT!"
and when other teams come knocking for our guys it's "Hey you get off of my campus"
I'm not used to this feeling at all, and I hope it stays that way
This is why culture matters. People rarely leave jobs where they have a good manager, good coworkers, opportunities to advance, and good enough pay. It seems like that's where VT is right now.
Well I guess the football culture is better than the basketball culture then
I prefer to think that CMY has done a good enough job that the players are leaving for more money primarily.
I sure think it seems that way.
Or the compensation was dramatically low.
Another interesting piece - FSU believes the ACC has to release it's contract with ESPN. The ACC - along with the B12, SEC, and B10 - say nah, because it contains 'trade secrets' (specifically methodology around choosing TV time slots, advertisers, etc) that they believe provide ESPN/The ACC/ACC schools a competitive advantage.
However, this articles suggests that the agreement potentially impacts the cost of a potential exit:
I can hear the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee getting warmed-up...
Chazz will jump in and correct me, but I'm pretty sure the whole idea of a trade secret is that it allows a business to protect proprietary information and maintain a competitive advantage. Trade secrets can be recipes, business plans, manufacturing processes, algorithms, etc. I don't think congress will try to take this down like other anti-trust issues.
I'm confused, can the ACC not see the contract? Cause the ACC is who would use thr info to be competitive, so it's odd that one signer of the contract can see it.
This also feels very shady business dealing. FSU has a contract with ACC so that ACC can do negotiations on be half of FSU, but FSU can't know anything about the deal so FSU can get sued and the ACC can be dissolved and a new exactly same conference stood up so no one goes to jail.
There's two contracts:
FSU believes they should have access to The TV Deal, but the ACC does not. B10, B12, and SEC (which are all structured the same way) have each voiced support for the ACC in this matter, and do not want TV Deals made public.
Right, FSU and the other schools entered into a contract (GoR) so that the ACC can negotiate on behalf of the schools the TV deal.
So the ACC says we're doing our job and you have to trust us. But there is no recourse for schools to verify the ACC did its job. I think I got it. Still feels shady.
I agree it feels shady. Surely an NDA could be used? Or the 'trade secrets' could be redacted?
Def seems shady to me, a lay person who knows nothing about the law but reads about college sports on the internet.
FWIW per the May 3 update on https://www.tampabay.com/sports/2024/01/09/florida-state-acc-lawsuit-fsu...
The unredacted contract is currently available to Clemson, and presumably could be to the other schools, subject to a confidentiality agreement.
This is factual. To expand, any entity can have a trade secret, which is pretty much any information that the entity takes an effort to maintain secrecy within the entity.
Trade secrets are well respected, but whether something is a trade secret or not is the key issue. The entity needs to take diligent efforts to establish and maintain the information as a trade secret. Ideally, the entity has some registry or database that establishes the particular information is secret, the people who access such secret within the entity is limited, the information is not just general knowledge, and has not ever been publicly disseminated.
I guess the idea here is that ESPN/Disney is keeping their specific agreements on the use of the media rights and the associated costs secret such that it is difficult for CBS, Apple TV, etc. to out negotiate. It's akin to when a seller buys a house and they have 3 buyers provide offers. The seller does not want the information of each offer be known to the other buyers, and each buyer would likewise not want their offer disseminated to the other buyers. Whether or not the contract terms are a trade secret would be whether it meets the factors.
Has no one at ACC and ESPN ever heard of an NDA?
Yea, it does not seem like they had one or else they would cite the NDA. Maybe they had one in place during negotiations that didn't carry over to the contract itself.
And an NDA is more appropriate way to keep secret. When you have two contracting parties, the argument that the trade secret remained only within the entity is much more difficult by the fact your establishing a contract with an outside partner. An NDA would both (1) serve as the primary reason to not allow release of the contract and (2) establish the business practices, terms, etc. therein was intended to be a trade secret.
After seeing the executed contracts of the ACC and VT, it is pretty clear to me that collegiate athletics do not get the best counsel. I'm sure the counsel for Disney/ESPN was good though, so it is definitely an oversight on their part. The Mouse pays top dollar for legal services and it shows when they make their own laws and rules for their own benefit.
I'm not a lawyer. Just....not an idiot....
Well no shit... ESPN wants to bid against themselves and purposely pay ACC teams 40% less than SEC teams for not 40% less of the product. No fucking shit.
I think they're claiming that Fox or Amazon could compete better, not talking about undercutting themselves.
But if they say the ACC can't have the contract, that sounds weird. I'm sure there are legal distinctions, but my employer can't refuse to let me see my employment contract on the grounds that I might get a better offer from another prospective employer.
Don't we basically already know the terms of the deal as it currently exist? Like - you just take the schools yearly budget reports and can back calculate to determine what they get from the conference? I get that it wont be an exact number for *budget* reasons. But it would at least get Fox or the B1G or whatever other entity into the ballpark for negotiations, right?
There's supposedly other stuff in there - renewed dates and opt out dates/rules and stuff like that.
The support of the ACC position by the SEC/B1G/Big 12 really undercuts FSU's criticism of the contract secrecy IMO.
"We need these contract details to be made public as part of our legal strategy to leave this conference and immediately join another conference that will continue maintaining their TV contract details as a trade secret, until we later decide we want to leave that conference."
-FSU, probably
Interesting article on if ACC breaks up with data regarding schools that consider UVA and Virginia Tech peers academically.
https://cardinalnews.org/2024/06/11/why-virginia-belongs-in-the-big-ten-...
SEC ... 🤮
I think that most of us as VT fans see us more in the SEC. More rabid fanbases and more sports focused. The SEC might be hated but if we are honest with ourselves, we would definitely be a better fit.
It's 2024. Lets go where the most money is. Period. Nothing else matters. If we get more TV money annually in the Big Sky, let move there. The whole SEC is great for tailgating, rabid fans, classic schools- fuck that. Maryland was genius- go get that money. Everything else will work out. Oh we don't play Duke hoops every year? who-gives-a-fuck- They have 40 mil a year more than we do now. MONEY- Only factor.
Totally agree. Sell some arm patches while we're at it 😤💪🔥💯
Awesome- Cookout patches on the sleeves of our new uniforms. I hope they match the O&M. What's really awesome is that the deal will be 200K for 6 years. To look like clowns.
sounds like someone could use a fancy shake!
Hmmmm, I wonder what a Hokie shake would be made with?
How would an orange and boysenberry (maroon) shake taste?
♫ "Shake some oranges and boysenberries and churn them all around, that's what it's all about!" ♫
It's interesting seeing what schools think they're like other schools. Lots of schools in the SEC thinking they are like UVA when it's Vandy, UF, and Texas. While the next group of SEC schools rank all around VT.
For the Big Ten, there are schools that are better than UVA (northwestern) and then Michigan and UCLA that are similar to UVA, but then the next best Big Ten Schools are all right head of VT in the rankings.
It's just odd to see programs reaching. Also FSU is ranked better than a lot of acc schools.
FSU might be ranked better by some reports but does not have a good reputation academically. Might be untrue, but they don't have the rep.
Yeah it's not Duke, UNC, ND, GT Cal, Stanford type, but cuse, pitt, Clemson don't really have room to talk
Who the fuck in their right mind claims they are peers with a bunch of brie cheese eating douchebags?
This is why I think the folks that see us as very aligned with the Big Ten schools are nuts. There is major hubris in those Midwest school circles. I personally don't think we have much at all in common with the likes of Michigan, OSU, Wisconsin, MSU, Illinois, etc. and want absolutely no part of games in the Midwest. We would be a total afterthought in that league. I think the SEC culturally would embrace us much more.
Agreed across the board. We'd get a real rivalry going with Illinois
Michigan is the best at literally everything. Golf, Surfing, Basketball, Wrestling, Football (duh), baseball, long summers, engineering, architecture, theatre, business school. Ask ANY alum. They will tell you. Best at everything.
I've worked with some Michigan types in recent years. I didn't fully understand it before, but they are some pretty arrogant blowhards. Want nothing to do with that entire league TBH.
Try this sometime... let me know how accurate it is. 1. Identify Michigan alum or very hard corps fan in a bar/golf course/work. Step 2. Bring up something-anything- a college or your college does. Let's take VT. Bring up the drill field, duck pond, and the Vet school. Step 3. Listen to Michigan alum tell you that their drill field, duck pond and vet school is far, far superior.
Michigan alums are proud of their school because it is the model for what a large public educational institution can achieve. They are top 10 (if not top 5) in nearly every graduate level academic discipline that matters. Culturally there is a strong sense of public service. Massive endowment and long list of successful alumni, championships in every sport... the list goes on. What's not to like or aspire to?
You can be proud of your school without being an asshole about it.
Most UVA (and UM) alumni aren't capable of this.
I live in a town that's full of UM alums (literally thousands of them) and that has absolutely not been my experience. Sure there are exceptions but normally they're good Americans who like sports, pizza, hotdogs, beer, who work hard in meaningful careers. That's broadly been my experience with most B1G peeps. You know who the assholes are? In order: 1) Yale, 2) Stanford, 3)Berkeley, 4) GW, 5) Duke. UVa may not even make the top 10.
Emory gotta be up there
My wife went to Med school. At the very first social, sponsored by the school so that the students and families could meet, I walked in, saw a guy across the room and whispered to my wife, "That guy went to Duke."
She asked me how I could know. I said, "Just look at him."
I was correct.
Ha ha ha. Still laughing.
This is so correct.
I think I was at the same party....
Living in CA, I've met and worked with a lot of Stanford and Berkeley alums. I can't think of one that I would consider an asshole. But, that may be regional as I could see alums outside of CA would be more arrogant about being an alum. (This is generally true about Californians that move to other states.)
I attended USC for law school and I met a lot of assholes there, and many more alums since graduating. USC is where rich douchebags go to school, so it comes with the territory. A popular shirt that of USC undergrad students read: "U$C > ucla" and the c of ucla was the cent sign. Because wealth and going to private school is much greater than getting the same quality of education across town at a better ranked but cheaper public school.
I agree with everything you say. then I remember that IT WAS A CATCH! And my brain immediately says, fuck Michigan.
The first time I read over this thread, I went "Yeah, but none of that should distract you from the fact that Danny Coale caught the ball."
Unfortunately, I didn't have the time to actually make the comment. I'm glad someone did.
Perfect match for the Wahoos. Well, except for the football part, lol!
I don't understand this view at all. To suggest the hubris level of the SEC is somehow less than or less off-putting than the B1G makes me wonder if people have ever spent any time near literally any SEC fan, let alone SEC alums. And what's worse is that the SEC hubris is just a mask for deep seated insecurity over being southern. Whether VT would be more or less of an afterthought in either league is entirely up to the VT leadership. Expecting "southern hospitality" to simply roll out the red carpet seems like wishful thinking to me.
Some SEC fans are trash, its true, but:
Expert .gif deployment. 10/10. No notes.
Weird take.
The SEC IS the more natural fit for VT, and they'd likely welcome VT at least as well as the B10 would.
Living in Savannah I encounter a ton of UGA and SEC fans in general, the one common denominator I experience is a respect for VT. Just yesterday I mentioned to someone I went there and his first response was "man I really want to get up to Blacksburg for a game someday". The SEC really leans on history and tradition (for better and for worse) so the Beamer years are still held in very high regard and VT is respected as "man would love to see y'all put it together and get back to the national stage".
That's all well and good when we're not a threat. When we're on the cusp of an at-large bid to the CFP and there's an SEC team with a worse record, it'll be all "VT ain't played nobody Pawwlll"
They wouldn't actually love to see us put it back together and get back to the national stage.
Same thing in ATL. Thought the younger generation definitely doesn't think about VT the way the 30+ crowd does.
This right here. SEC would hype up the program and regional southeastern rivalries with VT far more than the Big Ten. VT is a mid Atlantic, southeastern school. Us going to play games in the corn fields of Iowa and Indiana just makes zero sense. Y'all seriously don't understand the academic hubris of a lot of the Big Ten research schools. I think VT has a lot of respect on the east coast and southeast. I don't get a sense we have that at all in Chicago. Penn State even is a big outsider still in the Big Ten.
Regional identity still matters to me, and if we have to choose, I would rather the SEC lock up Virginia and North Carolina and control the whole southern footprint rather than take a huge gamble on a coast-to-coast venture with its power brokers in Chicago. Yeah we may never consistently compete with UGA or Bama, but I get a sense VT as a brand would be more embraced there than the Big Ten. It's not like we are going to compete with Michigan and OSU anyway - literally no one else has on that level, even PSU.
This is the main rub for me with the B1G. But regionally speaking, VT is firmly an east-coast mid-atlantic institution... and most SEC alums/fans still say things like "Virginia ain't really southern" (wink wink) and "all them yankees up there in NOVA."
I don't see a real rivalry ever developing between VT and any SEC schools (Tennessee maybe, but unlikely).
Virginia Tech is a southern school, and was in the same conference with the teams from the SEC in the 1920's.
So while either would work today, there is more precedent for that association with those schools than with the likes of Michigan and Ohio State.
I don't always talk to Michigan grads, but when I do, I remind them that...
...it was a catch!
EVERY damn time...
I think if this conference expansion stuff truly does happen, VT, Tennessee, Kentucky, UNC/NC State, and South Carolina would be a sweet SEC North pod. Those are some extremely good potential rivalries. Then factor in we get regular matchups with UGA, Florida, Auburn, Bama, and some of the more western schools like LSU, Texas, OK, Arkansas, that's a really solid schedule.
I look at it this way - I would rather be one of the northernmost SEC schools than one of the southernmost BIG schools. I don't think recruits flock to the B1G like they do the SEC - they flock to OSU, Michigan, and PSU also somewhat. But look at what Shane Beamer is doing in recruiting this year at South Carolina. He could very likely get fired this year and he's luring a ton of top talent to Columbia, and a good chunk from VA, because of the lure of playing in the SEC. I think the SEC recruiting advantage for DMV talent would be very noticeable if we moved there.
This is where I'm at. Lean into the geography at the division/pod level.
They talk about Georgia Southern that way too.
I had many many OH St fans tell me they wish we played more often. They came away impressed with the VT gameday atmosphere and how we showed in the 'Shoe. Penn St seems like a nice rival for us and MD overlaps our footprint. A whole lot to like about Big10 ball. SEC probably ties us to Tenn, and that sounds sucky. I wouldn't mind either though.
Had anyone ever heard of the Chronicle for Higher Education before this story? I certainly hadn't, but then again I'm not involved in higher ed (and my grades at Tech would suggest I wasn't ever really that involved in higher ed...ever)
Yes. Yes I did.
It functions as a niche indeed for faculty and staff positions. Those 'databases' are always mostly crap, but the chronicle is a real thing.
The reason for academic standards to be relevant for an athletic conference went out the window when conferences stopped requiring student athletes to meet the same acceptance qualifications as other students. Now it's just some snooty BIG presidents trying to keep their share of the pie over teams that would bring more revenue to a conference. The SEC gets it - like DC said: It's all about the money now. The BIG has been trying to straddle the line and be proactive, but if they let academic standards get in the way of net revenue generation the SEC will pull farther away and they will be the next ACC.
Exhibit A:
In our lifetimes there will be kids playing for Virginia Tech football and basketball that are not students or enrolled at Virginia Tech. Why? Because in the united states high school and college age athletes are entitled to money, privileges, perks, benefits because americans love sports. They love sports to the point that they will pay for cable, streaming, tickets, beer, etc. which feeds the money machine. In real life of course, Bezo's brings in more revenue than the SEC and B1G does, and he pays people 10 dollars an hour to seasonally pack christmas goods in a warehouse. Those employees are simply that. They aren't entitled to a larger share of the pie, special perks, benefits, etc. Athletes are.
No, we will see kids playing for VT that aren't students because the adults in the room wanted to extract as much money as possible by exploiting kids and not making an actually minor league for football. We've built stadiums bigger than the pro leagues, we build locker rooms that are more high tech than our class rooms because the money has to go somewhere that's not athletes. We pay coaches of amateur athletes playing in a non profit league more than most of the coaches in the professional for profit league.
We pay Pry more money than the most valuable professional sports team (cowboys) pays their head coach. How wierd would it be for Jerry Jones to ask for donations?
The adults took the money and wasted it instead of doing things to help the kids on the field actually playing the game we all love to watch. Why did we add a juice bar when we could have put money away to provide post college health career to the athletesnthat tear up their bodies for you entertainment. What about a funds to help kids further education past their playing days for a masters or PhD. Hell, the VT library was built with excess athletic funds, that will never happen again.
The adults screwed this up and the kids are just trying to get what they can because that's what they've learn from the adults in this system.
Good Post... I will refute a couple of points. 1. "by exploiting kids". I disagree- we've been over this a thousand times. You can't call for tuition reimbursement on a national level to the point of crisis, yet in the next breath saying covering the total cost of college is exploitation. Unless athletes are entitled to more money and perks than doctors or lawyers. Also the exposure that football player X gets for playing for Alabama, you can't put a price on. How many players would have been dead, homeless, playing in the UFL if not for the platform that Bama/GA football gave them. Ask John Thompson if he exploited his players when he first got started at a top 10 school in the country giving those kids a chance at that education via basketball. Its disingenuous to say it imo- the notion that VT athletes are exploited. I would argue the opposite. Many would be in community college without a football scholarship. Most would not get into VT if not for athletics. Let's be real here. And the cowboys example is a bad one. Jerry never pays his coaches. Why? he runs the team, he is smarter than they are. Look at his coaches over the years. Other than Jimmy- who he fired because he was a great (read expensive) coach and Parcells- what great coaches has he had? Campo, Garrett, etc, etc. bad example, IMO. Pry ranks only above McCarthy you mentioned and Stefanski. Harbaugh makes 4 times what Pry makes to coach the chargers. Shawn Payton makes 19 million per. Bellichick is making 20 million to not coach this year. Jerry Jones is a bad example there.
McCarthy is actually making $7M this year. His five year deal escalated annually from $4M to $7M.
To be fair, the B1G does have that whole academic collaboration thing going on. VT has created several academic collaborations with ACC schools since we joined. That doesn't mean academic standards for athletic conferences are all-important, but they aren't irrelevant either.
As far as I know academic collaborations are not tied to a conference affiliation. I believe they are made based on common interests, location, and other things that used to matter before conferences became all about $$$.
Last I recall, Virginia Tech met every requirement for being a AAU school except for being sponsored in and accepted.
Which, a lot of people think, may have factored into the decision to throw Standford and Cal a lifeline. Conferences' academic standards are definitely a moving target, but do indirectly play a factor in how they are made up.
I know only football matters, but Stanford has the best athletic program overall in the country. It was not only an academic move. And Harbaugh and Shaw showed, you can win (and murder VT) in football if you want and commit to it.
I think it's funny how much people dog Stanford football. I think they have proven they are only ever 1-2 seasons away from a breakthrough. Cal, on the other hand seems like a lost cause.
Look at Stanford recruiting, VT would kill for their talent right now.
Stanford 86.81 avg recruit on 247
VT 87.23 avg recruit on 247
Right now we are 86.93.
In the 5 class 2020-2024 that would compose a roster they have year use 4 of the years and have two top 25 classes.
So I will still say they have a lot of talent that we'd like because the 2025 class isn't signed.
Having a future pro QB star helps most programs have a breakthrough year or two.....
Yes, and rampant steroids (not tic)
Reads like a junior high dating wish list.
Speculation continues!
are you saying the ACC has figured out a way to breed even though we, scientifically, shouldn't be able to?
Seriously, in the Twitter thread on that post, Pate hints that significant league contraction is coming. Whether that's some schools leaving for other places or multiple schools being removed is unclear.
Florida judge just ruled in favor of FSU's amended complaint, FL court has personal jurisdiction over ACC. Case will stay in Florida.
Can some lawyer types tell me what the impact to this might be?
Not a lawyer type, but I imagine next step will be arguing which case has more relevance, if they should be combined and then where. ACC suing FSU in NC or FSU suing ACC in FL. It doesn't make sense if a court in NC finds for the ACC and then a court in FL finds for FSU, which ruling stands?
yea, basically my thought.
This was expected (as noted in an earlier post of mine). It just means that the case will move forward in FL for now.
I'm guessing the ACC's next move will be to request joinder with the Clemson lawsuit and the ACC countersuit, and upon joinder request the suit be moved to federal court and apply NC state law. I don't know enough about court procedure to know the likelihood of that happening, but seems reasonable.
One of the things that's just wild about realignment is that we all know there will be a domino effect, but we have no idea how it will impact us.
So if FSU/Clemson bails, between 2 and 8 schools will be better off, between 3 and 8 schools will be worse off, the rest will be competing at the same level that they were before (although likely with more travel and less tradition).
It's like there's this dam that's about to break. And we all know it's going to break. And it may/may not ruin all of our homes. And there's nothing we can do about the breaking dam. And we can't evacuate. So we just have to sit there and watch the dam get a little bit weaker every day.
It's just a wild experience being a VT fan, being so invested in our program, and just not knowing what the future holds.
Very much agree there is a huge domino effect looming. These lawsuits or any settlement that results from them are going to set things off. FSU and Clemson want out badly. With the amount of time and money being spent on these lawsuits, they have to feel pretty good about where they end up. I'm still holding out some hope that this could be a power play by the Mag 7/8 schools and we get a restructured ACC out of this with new media deal. But kicking out schools (which this would require) could involve a lot of settlements and lawsuits. Just might not be in the cards.
I really wonder if UNC is a bigger factor in all of this. If FSU and/or Clemson can get out and break the GoR, you have to think UNC might be the bigger prize for both the SEC and Big Ten. Untapped market for both leagues, national brand, AAU component for Big Ten which is big.
I think a whole new conference would be more likely than a restructured ACC where certain schools are kicked out. Then the question would be which teams and would it really be a better TV deal with the reduced number of schools. I just don't see the BIG or SEC adding too many more schools given the size they already are, so unless Clemson and/or FSU has a handshake deal with either of them then it would likely lead to a new conference. Goodbye to the ACC network in this case, and I wonder if ESPN would have some kind of legal argument/recourse here against the ACC.
There is a part of me that is waiting for FSU and Clemson to break the ACC for the SEC and B1G and then lose big time. I think they are convinced the grass is greener without a firm landing spot.
They are going to break the GoR and then the SEC is going to say South Carolina and Florida said no, so sorry no landing spot for you here. You don't bring any new markets or fans. The reality is for the SEC to add any school they have to be convinced that TV revenue with 1/18th of a pot is going to be bigger than 1/16th of the pot.
Then they are going to the look at the B1G and they are going to say no way, where is your AAU accreditation. Not only that, the B1G is already adding teams on part shares.
As a result, I really hope FSU and Clemson are forced to go to the B12 for admission for less money than they are making now. After all, they wanted out of the ACC.
Once the GoR is broken, I can see UNC being the prize of the conference unfortunately. The SEC wants the market, so would the B1G. For culture, SEC would be better off taking NC State for rabid fans.
No way Clemson and FSU are pushing this hard without an under the table invitation to either the SEC or B1G
Like I said, an under the table invitation is completely unenforceable. I can see the B1G and the SEC heads agreeing to lead on FSU and Clemson in order to break the ACC. I really hope this is the SEC playing to their EGO's to get at more valuable properties like UNC, NC State, Miami and Virginia Tech.
Fsu and Clemson ARE the draws. It is all about football. Nothing else matters. TV viewership- no. 1 NFL, no 2. College football, pro basketball and baseball are not moving the needle. the big games in college football matter, not the crap conference games. Acc may have less than 10 per year that are big games. Football equals the money.
But are FSU and Clemson draws to the SEC? The SEC already have viewers and ESPN coverage for their conference in Florida and South Carolina. The SEC Network will want new states and new money.
My last comment, we can agree to disagree.
I think the answer is the SEC is not seeking out FSU and Clemson, but will take them to keep the Big 10 from taking such valuable properties off the board.
If the SEC takes FSU and Clemson, I would expect the Big 10 to respond by taking UNC, UVA, Miami and GT. If this happens, the SEC will need to respond by taking Virginia Tech and NC State to have a spot in VA and NC.
The alternative to this scenario is if the Big 10 somehow gets FSU & Clemson or if the SEC gets UNC. The only way this happens is if one of the conferences can pitch a higher medium term TV payout (UNC would rather go Big 10 so the SEC would have to convince them their payout will be higher there, for example).
Looking at inventory, the SEC will make far more in the long term than the Big 10. That's the safest bet for all of these schools imo. So it's a very real scenario that FSU Clemson and UNC all end up in the SEC. I would assume in that scenario that they also take Virginia Tech. NC State likely gets screwed in this scenario because I'm not sure the Big 10 has any interest in them
Carolina could easily influence Virginia over Virginia Tech. I can see them preferring the Wahoos, sadly, and they do have leverage because they'd have a choice between SEC and B1G. Hopefully, they take Virginia to the B1G so that NC State and we can go to the SEC.
I totally get the arguments about the big draw games and drawing the most casual viewers and eyeballs. But at some point, you're cannibalising your viewership. The SEC is already the top draw - is adding FSU and Clemson who are already in your geographic footprint going to yield that many more viewers? Or are you just shifting eyes from your lower/mid-card games to something else. There are only so many time slots on a Saturday.
I'm secretly hoping that the SEC has their sights set on NC and VA schools - new states, lots of new eyeballs that could be watching SEC games. I know we say cable is dying, but the subscription fees for SEC network are still enormous with adding two new populated east-coast states like VA and NC. The networks know what new eyeballs they can draw in. They know the Charlotte, Raleigh, 757 and DMV eyeballs they could bring in.
I would laugh to no end if Clemson and FSU spend all this money to break the GoR thinking they are shoo-ins, only for the SEC to swoop in and take VT and UNC before them.
I think you're putting too much stock in the cable TV channel model of new states bringing in more money. That was definitely the thing 20 years ago (!) in an earlier realignment era, but I'm not so sure that holds true now during an era of declining cable subscriptions. I think what's more important now are total eyeballs (for football), and FSU/Clemson are definitely more valuable in that respect.
That's what makes this round of realignment so fascinating. Back then, we were given quotes of $/cable subscriber for in-footprint and out-of-footprint viewers, and we could use that to calculate the amount of money a new school would bring to a conference. Now, we really aren't sure what the metrics are for determining a school's value to a new conference, nor are we certain of the relative weight between them. It's fascinating, and maddening at the same time!
Apparently UVA is a super hot commodity and sought after by the P 2.... because...
Someone has to finish last.
And not all will gladly do it.
I don't understand it either, but a not insignificant contingent of media members seem to think UVA is the most attractive VA school due to their (a) superior academics, (b) their larger athletic donations, and (c) their basketball prowess.
A lot of folks connected to the SEC however have mentioned VT when talking about football culture fits for the conference. I think UVA does have the overall better athletic department and funding, but these decisions will be about putting eyeballs on the tv for football and a compelling product. Regardless, I think both UVA and VT will end up getting into a P2 conference.
With the massive amount of NIL money going towards football, and schools now allowed to participate directly, I think "overall athletic department" is about to go out the window as soon as someone gets Title IX'd.
The sports that UVA has nattys in are gonna go club reeeeeal fast.
Agree. That's why I think most of the talk saying UVA is a top P2 target is bogus. TBH, I think most of that is driven by the idea that UNC is very likely a hot commodity and thinking they will pull UVA along with them. Academic prestige, Director's Cup standings, none of that matters in this new college football landscape. I think VT and UVA are very likely going to be a package deal with any conference move, but I could honestly see UVA just say screw it and focus on basketball and non-rev sports in a smaller conference.
The only team I can think of that has intentionally done this is UConn. UVA is not going to do this. No P4 school is doing this unless they are forced to (a la Wazzou and OrSt)
I just think about what could likely happen to a school like Duke in this new landscape, one that UVA would consider a peer in many ways. Duke basketball is not going to carry them into the P2. I see them ending up in the Big East for basketball and non-revs and an associate football membership with a smaller conference. Same with a school like Wake or Syracuse. Could that be attractive to UVA rather than going the moneyball route with football? They just don't have a football culture there. Watching the VT-UVA football game this past year, the gap in speed and athleticism between our players and theirs stood out to me. Frankly, they looked like a G5 team and are recruiting like one too.
I also strongly suspect if the ACC implodes, ND will bring basketball and all their non-rev sports back to the Big East as well.
I imagine UVA sees themself much closer to Carolina than Duke.
It's interesting that you compare UVA to Duke, Syracuse, and Wake. Duke and Wake both have enrollments ~10k (including undergrad and post grad) while Syracuse is at about ~20k. UVAs enrollment is at ~27k and UNCs is ~28k.
I imagine loluva doesn't look at enrollment, rather the esteem and mystique of things. In that way, they would never been seen slumming it with UNC. They are "The" University in their opinion, and Duke fits that air more then the cheaters at UNC.
UVA frequently compares itself to a lot of private institutions and touts itself as a public ivy. Not saying they don't view UNC as a peer in many ways as well, but UVA doesn't have the brand appeal in the same way UNC does and has a more private school atmosphere and culture about it. A lot of UVA law and medical school grads would certainly view themselves as peers with Duke in many ways.
UNC to me has always been willing to "play the game" with respects to football. They have continually invested more into football, staffing, recruiting, etc and actually seem to want to compete at a top level there. I don't sense the same desire whatsoever from UVA - they would rather compete in basketball and the non-revs above all else.
Interestingly enough, UVA's athletic income is really similar to UNCs (data from the Knight Commission). It's interesting that UVA gets way more in donations than UNC.
For what it's worth, their spending (by function, not by sport) is very similar. Both schools spending about $30m on coach compensation. I'm not sure how to measure investment in Football vs olympic sports, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was similar too.
Obviously, don't have this information for private schools, but these universities and athletic departments seem very similar. I'm pretty confident that neither school will willingly leave Power-whatever football, and they will all fight as much as they can to either get an invite to the P2 or keep the ACC in tact.
I would be interested to see expenses by sport as well. I could be wrong, but I would be willing to guess UNC is putting more money toward football by a significant margin. UNC hires different caliber coaches and is recruiting a different caliber player generally than UVA. We are in far more recruiting battles with UNC than we are UVA these days which is telling.
Only message board rumors and such, but I did read that when UVA let go bronco, they cooled on Elliott and were actively trying to bring Anthony Poindexter in for the job. But I heard he basically made some demands - ie the university had to invest far more in football and recruiting if they wanted to be competitive, and they didn't want to do that, so he walked away. Could be all smoke but was interesting to hear some of those rumblings at the time. This was around the time Pry had just been hired and there were some big rumors he was looking to also bring Poindexter with him to VT from PSU to possibly be DC. Then UVA caught wind and tried to make him an offer for HC.
All of these numbers may be the same. Heck, VT is ranked ahead of loluva in some publications. But it's about THEIR perception...and they, being who they are, refuse to believe they are similar to other public institutions. It's about their feeling of who they feel their peers are...and that's Duke. That can be measured.
If basketball mattered at all, the ACC would be a P2 conference with a better TV deal. The academics are a LOT closer now- this isn't 1985.
ACC is arguably the third best basketball conference behind the B12 and SEC, no?
According to NET conference rankings
2024 4th best (and natty came from the 5th best)
2023 7th best
2022 5th best
Yah because conferences gamed the NET
RPI rankings:
2024 - 5th
2023 - 6th
2022 - 7th
ELO rankings:
2024 - 5th
2023 - 5th
2022 - 5th
Point being the ACC isn't top 3 in basketball as of late...
Until post season and then there is no argument ACC and BE are tops
UVa doesn't know how to run a football program. They never have and never will. They'll be another Vanderbilt or Northwestern in a P2 conference.
VT can run one, we just need money. Give us P2 funding and at worst well hold our own in the 2nd tier of P2 programs, bringing actual value. And basketball can be good, we just have to make financial decisions right now based on our TV revenues. That wouldnt be an issue in the P2. And we have shown we can be good in softball, baseball, soccer, wrestling, track, etc.
Big 12 will take Louisville or Pitt. Duke football doesn't add enough, but they'll get plenty of basketball only invites. For all sports the Big 12 is probably their best option
VT will get a bid to the SEC. The Football culture and persistent fanbase that is so trustworthy as a mass that shows up, gets us into bowl games one tier better than we should get.
Everybody likes to play against us because we are awesome to host and are awesome hosts.
Our outsized TV audience and ever-presence all over the place tip the scales and mean butts in seats. We were a net positive to the ACC ESPN contract. There are just too many other drains.
I hope you're right dude
speak it into existence, I say. The SEC was proclaiming that they were the best conference in the world 20 years ago when they weren't but now they are. They spoke it into existence. Wouldn't hurt to follow suit.
The sad part is the metrics that some executives will look at say that UVA has a bigger TV audience than Tech. They don't include all of the ESPN+, ESPN3, and ACC Network numbers in the count a lot of the time.
I'm absolutely sure that (a) the execs will have access to the data that they need to make the decisions they have to make, and (b) they're data-savvy enough to understand the impact of the network stream choice on eyeballs.
The SEC wanted us before, and I think they will want us again. If UNC could drop the hubris, sit back and think. VT vs UNC was very sneakily becoming one of the hottest rivalries in the ACC over the last 10 or so years. I was admittedly circling that game over Miami or UVA. It was that real. We are fighting for the same recruits, and we just can't stand each other.
I could see the SEC making it the Mayberry rivalry or something. Frank Beamer from Hillsville, Andy a big UNC alum for Mt Airy just right over the border. I think there's some awesome potential there if UNC is willing to embrace it.
I hope the brass in Chapel Hill aren't as out of touch as we think and realize this. VT and UNC would be the steal of the century for the SEC.
"The South's Newest Rivalry"
There's so much heat to draw upon too. UNC bailed on us in the 1986 peach bowl because they thought they were above us, had NC State take their place. They voted against us in expansion. They tried to hire away freaking Frank Beamer. They beat Frank at home in his last game in Lane. There is a ton of heat between the staffs.
If UNC is smart, this could be a big coup.
And more recently, Mack Brown existing, the hurricane game, 6OTs, the lady that'll never return to Lane 😂.
I mean if I'm trying to book a WWF event in the 90s, this sells. Which is what CFB has become. There's heat, there's an audience. Just need to set it off.
We need to start having a wrestling-football terminology thread
Heat=animosity, there's some hatred there
Sell=push it. Sell the rivalry by the networks
I will agree to disagree that they beat Frank at home. The refs were tired and wanted to go home they called the game for UNC. Look at those last plays, we won that game more decisively than the "Catch" against Michigan.
Absolutely! That game still rankles me but it got overshadowed by being Frank's last home game. Either the refs were tired or ESPN made the call to hurry the game up so they could switch over to the next game.
Wonder if the Diamond Sports bankruptcy proceedings play into this at all. Just read on the Athletic that MLB is wanting access to the carriage deals with the distributors, but the cable companies and Diamond Sports are asserting it's a trade secret like the ACC/ESPN.
I want nothing more than MLB teams using these bankruptcies as a impetus to offer their own streaming service for $10/mo or like $50/yr. You get all 162 games on their app and replays and condensed versions of previous games. Just one team, that's it. Funds go straight to your favorite team.
They're going to need to break the carriage deals to stream in-market games, first. And if they do that, they're just going to package them into the $150/year MLB.tv package. Oh, they might offer some sort of one-team deal, but I doubt it will be with funds going directly to the team. They know how the NFL model works, and they're most likely going to distribute the funds more evenly.
I pay 100 bucks a year to get every Diamondbacks game through MLB TV... because they aren't on "local tv" in the 7th largest media market in the United States. I don't see why they couldn't do that for every team. Blackouts are so 1970's - especially since the % of road fans at games has skyrocketed the past 5 years in all sports. It's a "vacation" now to go see your team on the road.
I despise blackouts... I just don't get them. Why would you limit viewing when you could charge for it?
The logic is clear (and super super dated) if the game is not a sell out, then force people to go in person- because there are seats available. This used to be a "thing" in the NFL as most raiders games were not aired in LA due to blackout rules. Those rules still exist, but NFL owners have skewed what the term "sell out" means. They have also added so many "national" games not subject to blackout- such as thursday night, sunday night, etc etc. Today I would guess perhaps Jacksonville, Tampa, Miami, Charlotte, washington would be affected by black outs. For MLB hardly -any- game sells out thus its a real problem.
There are multiple definitions of blackout as applied to local sports media rights. As DC noted, it used to be when the game wasn't sold out, the local channel would blackout the game on local TV, forcing people to buy a ticket and go to the game to see it. These have been for the most part done away with. (At least, I can't remember a recent instance of a local game being blacked out due to low ticket sales.) Blackout can also refer to preventing transmission in a local area by alternate distribution methods (streaming).
Back in the day, when you only had the big 3 (ABC, CBS, NBC) and maybe a local channel or two, there really wasn't any way to get the game other than the local rightsholder. And absent the occasional national Game of the Week, there wasn't any way to watch another team's games. Come the advent of cable tv and streaming (especially streaming), now there are other ways to get a team's game into your TV. With cable, you could theoretically watch the Braves every night no matter where you were (thank you TBS!) but you could also see when they were playing your local team. And the same would go for the streaming package. But MLB had sold the local carriage rights with an exclusivity clause, so that nobody else could show the local team's broadcast. Per Wikipedia (Braves TBS Baseball)
Preventing competition creates a more valuable product, and ending the local blackouts (the second kind), would require some sort of (a) consent by the primary local rightsholders and (b) compensation. And since this exclusivity is written into various carriage rights deals between the individual teams and their media rightsholders, MLB would either have to get the rightsholders to agree to a contract change, or wait for the contract to expire while passing some sort of rule that allows for bundling streamed games into a local area that ignores the exclusivity agreements in rightsholder contracts.
TL,DR: Teams gave exclusive local rights for more money back when there weren't multiple ways to watch a game. Now that there are, rightsholders don't want to give that exclusivity away, so MLB is waiting for contracts to end before ripping those streaming rights back.
Before you dismiss the thought of VT being a desirable school in the P2, just note that ESPN doesnt say this kinda shit about the likes of UNC and UVa...
Love it, that's awesome!
F()ck Yeah
FTFY
I don't think anyone is dismissing the thought of VT being a desirable school in the P2; more like we're just admitting that we don't know exactly what the P2 are looking for, or when. I certainly think VT is attractive to the SEC, but the SEC might not be interested in expanding.
Yeah, I agree with this. Everyone seems to be talking like it is a given that if the ACC breaks up, that somehow the BIG and SEC would automatically pick up at least a couple teams each. There is no guarantee that this will happen. It feels like a lot of the folks rooting for the ACC to fall apart assume we will get picked up by one of those two, when in reality we are just as likely to be worse off than we were in the ACC.
I think there's like an 80% chance we're worse off after an imploded ACC.
I don't even know how you ballpark this. I could find facts to support a narrative that we are better off, worse off, or the same after the ACC implodes (which could be next year, or could be 2036). There's just so much uncertainty.
Meh, depends on what we want to be, really. If we want to win a national championship in football, our chances are much much greater having a seat at the table. Yes. That would hurt us if we landed in a further bastardized ACC or worse. Outside of that- meh. If we want to have a competitive mens basketball program, we could if that's what we want- UCONN is back to back champs. VCU has had a ton of success over the years. Creighton, Villanova, Houston, etc etc - I could name 50 non P2 programs. Womens hoops?- same thing. Everyone thought that VT and Miami leaving the big east would be the end of WVU athletics. They survived just fine, and won some BCS games, and huggy bear had them competitive in hoops. It all depends on what we want to be. If that is a natty in football, yeah we must get in the Big 2
I think the reality is the share of 1/18th of an expanded SEC has to be greater than the current 1/16th they are getting now to agree to add two teams.
The B1G is already limiting newcomers to partial shares (Washington, Oregon, etc.) or limited access (Maryland) to funds for the first several years.
I agree those conferences are under no pressure to expand except to possibly keep somebody else from grabbing the teams.
I think the TV contracts expand as number of teams expands. They're written as X dollars per team. Thus, if the SEC adds teams, no team is diluted and that new team instantly moves up to the same level. But as you noted, a new team may be forced to sign a deal like the PAC-12 teams and SMU where they forfeited their some or all of their media dollars for acceptance.
I don't think we know how they're written. Yes, the TV contracts should expand as the number of teams expands, but by exactly how much, we don't know. It depends on which team and how much more revenue they might bring in (new conference territory, eyeballs on games, who knows what else they're looking at).
Its interesting you think that the SEC would say no if ESPN, the entity that pays their bills, wanted them to add VT.
When it comes to the consolidation of the P2, ESPN and FOX are calling the shots. And what you're seeing right now is the host of ESPN's top college athletics show specifically naming Virginia Tech as a premier program that is worth saving in the sport. If and when the ACC implodes, there are going to be schools that will end up in either the Big Ten or SEC, and you don't talk about schools like this without it being on that short list.
I do not think this is any way, shape, or form, nor did my comment suggest this.
Each conference/TV Network combination is going to work in their collective best interests. I'm saying that based on the stuff I've read/listened from a variety of sources in the college football industry, the broadcasting industry, and higher ed, I just don't feel like anyone knows enough to confidently say that VT-to-the-SEC would be a net positive for broadcasters, the conference, or the individual schools. I'm not saying it's not... I'm saying I don't know.
Correct. When you hear UVA being mentioned before VT in every area, there is certainly no slam dunk. I think they would be the preferred choice of both the B1G and SEC over VT if it's one school from Virginia. Hell JMU shits gold right now in whatever they do, maybe they get the nod too.
Where do you get your news, The Cavalier Daily? The Breeze?
UVa having an Olympic-caliber tiddlywinks team doesn't make them a slam dunk in football.
The SEC already has an Auburn. It's Auburn.
"there is certainly no slam dunk"
I beg to differ!!!
I feel like all this realignment is just leading to the inevitability of re-creating FBS that includes profit sharing.
* Why are OSU/Michigan/Alabama/Georgia/Texas/Oklahoma/etc sharing profits with teams like Rutgers/Vanderbilt/Missouri/etc?
* Big10 and SEC already don't want to bring in teams that don't get eyeballs, when will they drop teams that don't get eyeballs in their own conference?
* Why save an Alabama vs OSU game for the playoffs when you could have that, and a few other HUGE games like that throughout the season? Keep the season shorter while making more money than the playoffs would bring in.
* There are going to be injuries (potentially big player injuries) from extending the season for the playoffs. It wont be long before folks start poo pooing (with good reason) how long the season is. If you don't have this big playoff bringing in big bucks at the end of the year, why have it at all?
Just pull the top 50 teams for "FBS" and another 100 or so for "FBS II". Do a general media agreement with espn/fox sports/etc. Profit share for all scholarship players. Add in relegation for the bottom 10 FBS/top 10 FBS II. Then you have something better than it is now that rakes in a ton of money with a bunch of games people actually want to see.
This is logical, clearly articulated and would benefit everyone, from schools to players to fans. All things that college football has never been and has actively resisted becoming. If you could revise your proposal to make it worse in every conceivable way, then we might get closer to a more realistic (and more lamentable) path forward.
Except that several of these things would require some sort of overarching leadership (e.g. College Football Commissioner), which is unlikely to happen, as it would require a cession of power from university presidents.