Talks between Clemson, Florida State and the ACC have ramped up in recent weeks, according to sources, on a proposal that would allot a greater share of revenue to schools based on brand valuation and television ratings, as well as potentially alter the expiration of the league's grant of rights -- which currently runs through 2036 -- in exchange for the Tigers and Seminoles dropping their lawsuits against the conference.
The proposal, which was formulated by Clemson and Florida State and discussed by the league's presidents during Tuesday's regularly scheduled meeting, includes additional money going to schools with better ratings success in football and basketball.
IMHO, net positive for us, especially if brand valuation and television ratings are used in the distribution model. I would venture to guess VT is in the top 30 schools overall in both valuation and TV ratings and easily in the top half of the ACC.
Comments
While I agree this would most likely benefit us..... wow does this seem like a bad model to adopt.
1) this feels like a screw the little guy proposal. No way Wake Forest is going to compete with Clemson in brand and viewership when their alumni base is what, 10% of Clemson's. Despite it costing (roughly) the same to field a football team. I know there's differences in coaching staff sizes, stadium ops, NIL, etc. but still the conferences goal should be parity.
2) Is this not straight up entrenchment? Guaranteeing if you have a successful/wealthy FSU program now you'll be better off to stay in that position of power. Again, parity does not happen if you give the haves more to have and the have nots less.
Just gut feelings in this seems like FSU and Clemson being skeezy
F$U groveling to get any money after suing to leave and then going 0-3.
Been on mobile all day.
But F$U this summer:
And now:
All in all, I don't get why the ACC would do this. Makes no sense to me.
Clemson and FSU are basically trying to say "I'll stay if you let me have a threesome with you and your bestie or else I'm leaving" and the ACC is desperate enough to keep the relationship going to say "ok, just make sure you pay attention to both of us."
I don't get why the ACC would do this. Makes no sense to me
This is exactly why I would not be surprised to see it happen... #goacc
Oh man, you beat me to it. I was, literally, going to post something like the reason the ACC would do this is because the ACC is stupid.
To stop paying legal bills... ACC would bargain for lawsuits to be dropped.
It's easy to create a false level of merit. Certain teams games get put on ESPN. Certain teams land on acc network. And certain teams end up on the app. If the same teams are always on the lower tier programming, then they'll always get fewer eyes. Some non-fan watchers just go to certain channels out of convenience. Fans will actually seek out their teams. If your game is hard to get to, no one is watching except a fan.
I've never bought into the narratives when people are boosting brands by showing viewership, without also illustrating the context of viewability. ESPN everyone the SEC is the biggest brand is them being able to create a self-fulfilling prophecy by selectively showing sec games over acc games on premier networks.
This is an excellent point right here. I would add that there is an additional long term benefit/circular logic to a team that ends up on big networks routinely in that all the fan exposure finds them new fans
SEC dominance has always been a self-fulfilling prophecy.
When you do this, your conference is dead. FSU giving money back for sucking this year? for example.? conference is dead if you do this.
This is a horrible idea and I hope the presidents shoot it dead on arrival. It benefits UNC, Miami and Florida State more than anybody else, and Clemson/Duke on the second level. It could also be manipulated by ESPN/ACC to focus the teams they like the most to get better viewership and put teams they don't like in horrible timeslots and channels. If I was the ACC chair and this passed every Clemson and FSU game would be on the ACC channel. Then they could tell those schools they don't get an extra money because they didn't have viewers.
Guess it all depends on how much they are paying the lawyers or project to pay the lawyers with no guarantee of reimbursement.
If it's a significant amount and the lesser schools don't fight it I can't get too up in arms anymore since I don't get a say regardless, Tobacco Road is going to do what it wants regardless and honestly I don't care if the ACC survives at this point. It's so poorly managed at every turn, if it was a real business, the third party equity companies would have bought it out long ago for stripping and "restructuring".
Only caveat I would insist on is that FSU and Clemson eat their legal fees to this point. Might take them 5 years to recover that.
Only question I had was what the restructuring/reducing of the GoR could be that I saw mentioned in an ESPN Article. If ESPN picks up the next contract, then ACC is locked in until 2036 anyway. That's one thing I don't think should be entertained.
One other thought on reducing the GOR. That correspondingly reduces the buyout. I can could see FSU or Clemson agreeing to a reduction of the length and then saying okay we are leaving anyway thanks for reducing the buyout.
Yeah that's why I see the GoR as a non starter in this whole plan. No need to gift wrap it.
Its not really merit based if it doesn't relate to on field performance.
This is just Clemson and FSU now wanting it to be based on being popular because they both have been getting their ass handed to them in the early part of the season, making them aware that the previous plan of basing it off of on field performance was going to cost them money.
This would be closer to an MLB model. I think that's a good thing. I think payouts of 20% based on tv ratings/valuation (how much did your team bring in), 20% of based on performance, and 60% split evenly would good. Plus the normal payouts for attending the ACC championship game, winning the ACC, etc.
You want to keep your hype machines "hyped up" so to draw more national attention and dollars to the league, you want to reward for actual performance, but it's important for at least the bulk to be split evenly.
This would simply be a means of expanding the popularity contest that college sports has become. By and large, popularity is the byproduct of success and size of a school's alumni base (and in some cases, population base). VT grew in popularity following our run of success in football beginning in 1994. We were able to reach that level of success because the limiting factors were fewer and less difficult to overcome. That is not as true today, and it's only going to get less true moving forward in an era where money is king. (I realize there will always be exceptions, but the current state of the haves vs the have-nots says that it's mostly true.)
So now the ACC is considering a plan that will reward programs for being more popular (AKA stronger brand and higher TV ratings), giving them more money? That they can use to further their popularity? And therefore making it exceedingly difficult for a less popular program to change its standing in the popularity rankings, and by extension, earn more money to boost its program and get better? It's a self-licking ice cream cone at that point. The more popular will continue to be more popular, and the less popular less so.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a free market, but not one with zero guard rails. And to compare it to MLB is missing the facts that MLB has payroll caps and a draft that rewards lesser teams allowing them at least the chance to improve their rosters.
Isn't this what it is already?
The difference is just getting massively bigger.
That is why any short of plan to base rewards on football and basketball popularity are going to burn all the small schools. Sadly in the ACC, we count.
Popularity is good measure of deserving. If Virginia Tech brings in $75 and Wake Forest brings in $25, should the ACC pay Wake Forest and VT $50 each? I think revenue sharing is great, but I also believe in meritocracy over straight communism (in economic dollars, not politically, let's not get twisted and ban my comment).
You talk about the growth of VT. Well, WF and Duke were in a better conference with way more exposure, but VT built up their brand via unique opportunities (e.g., Thursday Night Terrordome, College Football Gameday, etc.). Oregon and BSU also grew their brands in their own unique ways (e.g., uniforms, stupid blue field). And while those opportunities are different now, they still exist, but now principally in the form social media and experiences. (I'll note that brand building needs to also be backed up on the field, or else you end up like Univ. of Colorado.) It's all about finding and taking advantage of new opportunities as the paradigm shifts. And if you get that popularity, the media will want to cash in on that popularity (I mean, look at that "Hock-Tuah" girl, ffs, why did she get rich?)
And I don't think there should be no guardrails. I didn't say complete meritocracy (most revenue should still be commonly shared, and merit should be split between dollars brought in and on-field performance).
And I agree with your last point about the MLB. I also think there need to better guardrails on the player personnel. While this would need to be implemented P4-wide (or whatever), but having an actual salary cap (or tax cap would be better, imo) with ability to have multi-year contracts would be the better way to achieve on-field parity . If Clemson wants DJU (#1 QB in HS recruiting) and sign him to a 4-year deal out of HS at top dollar, then that's great for parity.
Idk, I just think a partial meritocracy is a better model and parity needs to be better balanced with player personnel side. Maybe neither happen, but at least a partial meritocracy would more likely build up the ACC brand.
Any conference that has gone to unequal distribution, is no longer a conference. That is what will happen to the ACC too. You are dead as a conference when you do this.
based on?
History- the Big East when Miami proposed this... finished as a legit league- Miami and VT bolted. The longhorn network nonsense was the beginning of the end of the Big 12 as you knew it - Missouri, aTm, Nebraska and Colorado left... eventually Oklahoma and Texas did. No power conference has made unequal distribution work long term.
I don't see a causation here.
Miami (the biggest brand) left because Big East has distribution based on revenue generated? That doesn't make sense. Miami left because there were issues due to the Basketball associated schools and governance. They definitely did not leave because of a meritocracy system.
The Longhorn network is not the same as a meritocracy system being proposed here. Suggesting as such is pretty ludicrous.
And who are you suggesting will be able to break GOR with a meritocracy system? And how?
I dont think DC meant causation, but if you are talking about this then there are so many issues in the conference already that the writing on the wall. The unequal distribution is a symptom not the cause.
Even if we had no other issues as a conference we are putting Wake, Cuse, GT?, pitt and whomever else at a disadvantage to compete. We then weaken the bottom of the conference. That doesn't make the ACC better. Though the goal is not to make the conference better it is to make the conference appear better and it might do that. It gives UNC, VT, FSU Clemson, Miami, extra easy wins, but we already have a weak conference tag so it's just those teams beating up on light weights.
That is exactly what B1G did with great success. Ensure OSU, UMich, or PSU is competing for the championship. They achieved it with scheduling and other types of favoritism, and now they're part of the P2.
I don't understand why ACC doesn't schedule this way. There are 6ish football programs in the ACC. None of them should play each other til mid October at earliest
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a free market, but not one with zero guard rails.
That's a great turn of a phrase right there. I'm gonna have to use that!
Edit, wrong thread.
after yesterday's game, I am no longer in favor of this concept
Definitely not this year, anyway.