Looks like all four lawsuits will be settled this week with ACC dropping both of their's and FSU/Clemson dropping each of their's.
ESPN said this is assuming all three Boards of Trustees approve the new Revenue Sharing calculation based on brand/viewership in addition to declining exit fees year on year.
But the total cost to exit the league after the 2029-2030 season is expected to drop below $100 million dollars sources said
The revenue sharing could mean top teams earn as much as $15 million more annually while lower brands see as much as a $7 million decrease based on a 40% equal distribution and 60% based on brand valuation.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
How much you wanna bet VT gets absolutely railroaded here as a small brand, pushing our revenue streams lower than they currently are.
LOL yup, we're gonna get boned
Basically, ESPN is now fully incentivized to only air games for the teams they want to bring into the SEC, and those schools will get propped up with bigger payouts due to having higher ratings (can't have lower ratings than schools which aren't broadcast). Everyone else will get shelved to the ACCN, ESPN+, CW, etc, taking home pennies on the dollar from the TV deal.
anything over an equal share is horseshit and will kill the conference- everyone knows this. This is no different than giving FSU and Clemson 98% and splitting 2% among the rest. It's unequal and not a conference at that point. We should leave and let the lawyers work it out later.
VT should leave the ACC as soon as this is signed. Fuck all of this. Why don't we just give FSU 90% of the revenues? They were great last year. How about Duke hoops? Are they worth anything? Fuck this. VT should leave this evening if possible. The ACC is dead if this passes.
I'm assuming that the majority of the member schools would have to agree to this arrangement? I don't understand how a majority of the conference could get on board with this...
Sounds like that hasn't stopped the ACC in the past
True. At least half of the conference is realignment dead weight and just happy to be here, I guess?
If we're going to be making below our value with this deal if might make sense for a few schools to break the GoR and jump to the Big 12 for the better payout. That would likely include: VT, Pitt, NC State, Louisville, Duke and UVA (who wouldn't do it of course). Cal and Stanford could probably get better contracts in the Big 12 as well. Syracuse is borderline and prob wouldn't have a landing spot. We need 9 to break it I think?
You are creating tiers WITHIN conferences with this bullshit. There are enough haves/have nots already- that's why those fuck faces from FSU sued in the first place... awwwww we dont get as much money as the sec awwww we deserve more. Fuck them. The league is a total shit show, so like ND football, they have not done a fucking thing for the league the last 5 years. But they are getting more money than VT? Fuck off with all of that shit. Miami has never fucking won the ACC, but they get more? The league is dead- dead if this passes.
The legend Billy Walsh always gets a leg from me
The "Brand Recognition" might favor Tech next season. We have games against USC(E), FSU, Miami, and Louisville. Each of those games should be a decent TV draw.
Beyond 2025 though, I don't see this as a positive.
A fucking conference of schools in ON PURPOSE giving members a competitive advantage over the other members. ON PURPOSE creating an unfair playing field. Why not allow Clemson and FSU to play all of their conference games at home? Why not allow them 12 men on the field on offense? this is NO different. None. You are openly giving them more money to buy players and coaches. That is even worse than all home games. This is a total fucking crock of shit. If I am Duke hoops- I go independent like ND football now- 100%
I completely agree. Ultimately, this will be good for FSU, Clemson, and Miami, and bad for everyone else.
Speaking of lopsided schedules, did anyone else notice the number of schools that played 8 home games last year? How the heck does that work?! Penn State was one. Oregon was another. Not sure if this is just a BIG10 thing, but we need to get on board the 8 home game train.
Penn State has been doing this since the dawn of time. Bama plays very few true road OOC games the past 20 years as well. It's simple really- we could do it... Refuse to play at marshall, at liberty, at ODU- etc. Do you see Penn State traveling to play Dusquene? nope. Simple
Yep no home and homes just pay a bit more for all home games
We sellout every home game.
Should be a simple formula: if your stadium is X factor smaller than ours, we won't play there,
but we'll pay you some % of a sellout game at your stadium.
Could be formulated for a win-win monetarily for both schools. Wonder how much we save in travel costs?
This is the beginning of the end of the ACC. If the SEC or BIG want FSU Clemson etc in 2030 then they'll get them as $100M exit can easily be covered. Then in 2036 we'll get an even worse financial TV deal without those marquee schools. Other schools may then also leave for greener pastures. Heck, the California schools may want to rejoin the PAC.
This is the template for how the SEC and B1G will weed out their lesser members come 2030.
May not kick out Vanderbilt, Miss State, Northwestern, Minnesota outright, but they'll use this as leverage.
The On3 take: ACC's settlement with Clemson and FSU boils down to one number
"When the settlement is complete, there will be a dollar figure that an ACC school can pay to no longer be a member of the ACC and to no longer have its media rights controlled by the ACC."
And, once that is the rule, watch who and how fast they leave.
VT should be first for once. Leave the ACC asap. It's dead. Every unequal share league has died- all of them. Don't whistle past the graveyard- leave that corpse and go -anywhere- else. Boise made the playoffs last year. Fuck the ACC.
I'm with DC here. VT should say "fuck off" to the ACC and leave. Don't pay a dime, either. Force this into the courts. The ACC will die before the courts figure anything out. Years of litigation will likely save VT in the long run because when the ACC inevitably collapses (it will, and soon) there won't be anyone to collect whatever VT may "owe" anyway
Yeah I'm with you. Even if we end up in the Big XII, fuck the ACC I don't want any part of this shit anymore.
The ACC- tobacco road, Duke UNC, Dabo Swinney- is dead. Done. Gone. Dead Man Walking. It is not a matter of if, its a matter of when. The conference is dead the moment you have unequal revenue sharing. Duke is asinine if they don't go independent in basketball now. They are the biggest brand in the sport, by far and won't make as much money as Northwestern hoops. Fuck that. Maryland, Mich State, Kansas, all of the carolina schools would play them every year no issues. They could easily put a schedule together. They are a bigger hoops brand than ND is a football brand. I said what I said.
I have to agree. Leave, let the court process take over and then let time sort it out. And start talking to the SEC or Big10 (I'd prefer SEC) ASAP.
1000% this
^^^^what he said!
1000% agree
First of all, absolutely hate the idea of unequal revenue sharing to begin with. Unable revenue share doesn't keep the conference together; it just lets the brand name schools make more money before they leave. I don't understand why the ACC did this; the only mildly rational answer I've seen is that money lost to be a revenue sharing is less than the legal fees.
All that said, it's possible (but maybe unlikely) that this won't be the absolute worst. I saw above that it's possible for some schools to see $15 million more in a given year. More than what? Does this mean that the "premiere" team in the conference could be making $15 million more than the worst, at least marketable team? eg; does this mean that undefeated FSU with wins over Florida Miami, etc. is making at most $15 million more than 2-10 Wake Forest? I don't have a huge problem with that... if we're deciding to commit to an uneven revenue share that seems relatively reasonable. BUT if you're telling me that 10 and two FSU is going to make $15 million more than the median ACC team? Fuck that.
Would love to see historical information about this. Like, if we applied this formula to the 2016 season, how would payouts vary?
"Would love to see historical information about this" - here you go... any conference that has done this has died... rather quickly.
Well yea, as I started my comment:
They see is a lame duck conference. There's zero chance it remains in its current station after the next decade.
But I want to understand how much money Virginia Tech stands to make/lose under the new revenue deal.
if the agreement is equitable- which it's not- but lets laugh and say it is... VT games have been pretty well rated over the years. If that is a real part of the deal, we should do OK. Nobody on earth has ever voluntarily watched a Syracuse or BC football game, so they are fucked probably. And- the ACC knows it's dead... that's the only reason you agree to this bullshit... kick the death can down the road a couple years
As long as ESPN keeps putting them on TV to drive viewership numbers a 2-10 FSU will earn $15m more than a 10-2 Wake Forest because it's not merit based, it's about how many people watch your games, and they don't report ratings for the ACCN
Yeah – that's my question; are we looking at raw numbers, or are viewership numbers adjusted for network, time, games broadcasted on other networks, etc.
TLDR; I wanna know exactly how this proprietary algorithm works
And I fully understand that won't happen, and I will be disappointed.
Yeah and so much of the TV ratings are based on promotion and opponent. A couple highly promoted games with good opponents could drive up even the least interesting team's viewership. And the reverse is true for medium-high brands playing snoozers that aren't promoted and thrown to lower networks.
Basically ESPN will have the ability to choose who gets the money. Then it will somewhat vary year to year on a variety of factors: schedule and circumstance (did you get your big opponents at the right time, ND early in the year for example), then how good your performs.
"Basically ESPN will have the ability to choose who gets the money."- they already did this in spades, which is why we are here. There is not a 120% different between the SEC football product and the ACC product, but that's what ESPN pays the SEC. A fucking joke on all levels.
It does seem like ESPN got bored picking winners and losers at the conference level and decided to get more granular.
Not only that, but viewership is far from a science. If you follow the ratings industry, you'll see all these things like "highest rated 15 minute window"
A very small percentage of viewers watch an entire game start to finish. Im just curious what data is used.
The commercials, no one cares if you actually watch the game.
Close. They go by number of spurtles sold.
I don't like it, particularly because of undue influence by the networks on ratings; but there hasn't been close to an equal effort/investment inside the conference to have watchable football games (and programs) either. There have been years where some schools played 3 power OOC games while a couple schools played zero.
I have favored letting teams own the revenue from their OOC games while evenly splitting the in-conference revenue. To me that would have been a more equitable way to do it.
The ACC is going to let FSU and Clemson walk for less money in a few years, but also pay them more money in the meantime. Absolute masterclass.
If either can find an alternative, they will be gone sooner than later
A true #GoACC moment
#VT4SEC yesterday, although with how mid we've been the last decade even I feel a little silly posting it
I'm hoping VT is in the Big 12 at this point. We'd be a shoe in for an invite, but our admin might be stubborn enough to think we are better off in the CUSACC
Big 12 wouldn't be bad with all the expansions, WVU, Cincy, UCF, add Duke for basketball and we have a great basketball conference and some close teams to play.
heck Texas and Oklahoma are only 2 states away (like 13h drives to dallas or okc but only 2 states).
The only thing we offer the SEC is the state of VA - if they even care. They have Tennessee and Kentucky- close enough. I don't think they would be interested in us or UVA really. I don't see what it adds.
8 million households.
Well, at least we have a timeline as to how long we have to right the ship or else be relegated to obscurity forever.
Shut down VT sports until ACC control on our rights expire. Burn it all down.
It would be nice for someone to raise a fuss and fight for us. Would also be in a better position if we we're winning
IIRC Isn't that what the Va governor and UVA did so that we could be in the ACC! 👀
Total Myth. UVA didn't get VT into the ACC- why would they do that? What they did do- along with other schools was to tell Syracuse to fuck off, which placed us above them in the pecking order. To bad moron fucking swofford threw them a lifeline later- moron adding Cuse and Pitt.
Better yet, win your games, schedule better opponents, and control your destiny.
Which is the same as it ever was.
The ACC is 100% dead... let's see how we react. But its dead, there is no disputing it. It may survive as a basketball centric G5... but the UNCs of the world won't settle for that.
been dying on the vine for a while now.
Saw some additional details today that weren't in the OP's linked article (at least that I'd noticed). Paywalled article below, so I won't quote the whole thing, just the relevant bits.
This article from The Athletic was from yesterday, but I didn't see it then (saw it linked from Ivan Maisel's mailbag). Exit fee tidbit:
Yes, 2030-31 is when the exit fee levels off, but the 2026 exit fee is not the $700M or so that was completely prohibitive. If somebody with $$$s comes a callin', it's not out of the question that a team leaves in 2026 for $165M, especially considering the next tidbit:
Media. Rights. Go. With. The. Departing. Schools. This is the game-breaker. The Grant of Rights is essentially non-binding. Sure, as long as a school remains in the ACC, it's binding, but it doesn't bind the school to the conference anymore.
If Whit isn't now actively looking for a landing spot AS SOON as it opens, then he's not doing his job. Whether it's a Big XII, or a SEC/B1G, or some breakaway league, VT needs to find it's next home, and now has the wherewithal to move to it.
To me, its an absolute show stopper to be in an unequal equity scenario. If I am Whit/Sands, I reach a deal with ANY other conference and pay the 165 million. Get into an equity situation at all costs. I don't want to hear about budget bullshit- borrow the money- pay it back when you raise tuition to 1 mil per year and there is a waiting list still. Dead serious. It's that or die a slow death. Get out- now.
Another tidbit, from Maisel's mailbag:
The timing between the levelling-off of the ACC exit fees and the start of this proposed "Super League" is......interesting.
But if that does happen, I don't expect it to be all-encompassing as the article states. The Power 12 (with 12 6-team conferences, roughly the then-Power 5) and the Group of 8 (current Group of 5) are far too many. I think this is going to whittle down to 30-40 of the top programs, those that decide to maintain a specific funding level. The Boston Colleges, Wake Forests, Vanderbilts, and Iowa States are not going to be involved.
I wonder where the VTs of the world might fall...
FunBelt baby!
Looks like ACC's group of 7 (or however many) got what they wanted. We should find out soon enough who had homes elsewhere and who didn't.
Conference affiliation is a president decision, not an AD decision. This is Sands's job.
Well Sands wants us in the Big 10 just isn't sure how to get us there.
Being in the northeast, I also hope the end up in the Big 10 (Big 20, Big 24, whatever) than the SEC. Guessing I'm in a fairly small minority there. Will see what happens.
VTGuitarMan has said that he believes Sands does care about football. He's the closest TKPer I know of to that situation and if he says Sands cares then we kind of have to believe him. And maybe Sands does really care. But he's not making moves that indicate that. Perhaps he cares but he just doesn't know how to maneuver.
In any case, I think it's unlikely Sands is going to guide us into a better situation (even if not for a lack of wanting to). He seemed pretty content to lock us into a dead league when he voted in favor of adding Cal, SMU, and Stanford. That basically sealed the league's fate, IMO. If VT is the first team to leave the ACC and join a big-boy league I will be ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED. I'd love for it to happen but I'm not holding my breath.
Sure Whit and Sands "care" about football. They care much fucking more about pinching pennies and spending the least amount possible on athletics to be competitive. They rely on luck (Kenny Brooks, Robie) much more than investment. They invested in Buzz Williams, and when he left, they promptly hired Wofford's coach and trimmed his staff. They may care about football, but their strategy is to hire an unproven head coach and hope he works out vs. paying a real P4 head coach. It's about saving money and getting lucky- not winning.
Maybe he does know how to maneuver, and part of that strategy involves stealth working behind the scenes.
We can dream that he is simultaneously developing a strategy to fund the exit fee while working the phones with Sankey and Pettiti as we speak.
Fuck the exit fee- leave- like Maryland did, and let the lawyers negotiate a (much lower) fee. Fuck the ACC.
1000000% this
alas, VT doesn't have the gumption to do this
Agree, but as much as I'd like it to be otherwise, VT likely doesn't have a landing place to get ballsy like this...
Sometimes you have to make your luck. I think if VT admin showed they were serious about football the big leagues would see that and value VT as an asset. The facilities are there and the fans are fantastic. Just needs some leadership
"A real man makes his own luck." - Billy Zane, Titanic.
- Dwight Schrute
I agree, tech can at least carve a path through the crap of the acc. Stop playing odu, wofford' vmi and the rest of the little sisters of the poor, and play real football schools. Losses to good teams will still get views . That is what this is all about. Getting watched on TV, and maybe on the way to playing good teams, we can become better. Playing weak teams make you weak, and makes me not want to watch the team that I love play football. Shitty football is shitty football, even when my Alma mater is involved. Stop playing weak fucking teams!
This is a pipe dream. I would love to be wrong but voting to add 3 teams to a defunct conference is not the move of an organization that is building a strategy to get out ahead of the inevitable changes. Sands isn't playing 4D chess or anything. He's out here making gentlemen's agreements to try and get leverage to join the AAU club. At the end of the day, VT isn't going to get AAU status nor get into one of the leagues at the table. Sands just helped out Cal and Stanford for nothing and he's not going to know this until the dust settles and he's left holding the bag.
Watched the TSL podcast on this topic from yesterday. I think some good points were made on the optimistic side for VT. If it can get its act together and win some games, it could set them up to take advantage of the unequal revenue sharing model and be a bigger draw again. But my concern is that is far too big an if for me at this point. We have over a decade of proof that VT football is dysfunctional and likely at an institutional level. Truth be told, we probably have nearly 20 years of poor foresight and vision from the athletics department. The point was raised about how VT took advantage of the unequal bowl revenue distribution in the 90s in the Big East, and seriously benefited from the windfall of 3/5 top bowl appearances in the late 90s to springboard this program toward that ACC invite in 2003.
Since then, and I've said it before and will continue to say it, the foot went off the gas with ACC membership and we got complacent and have been struggling to catch up ever since. Canceling the WVU series as the podcast brings up even looks like a really bad decision now, as that game would be a big draw and help boost our revenue distribution. I see the opportunity here looking on the bright side, but the history and leadership we have in the AD give me no confidence we can prosper in this environment. Look at our OOC schedules coming up - Liberty, ODU, VMI. That's just lazy scheduling and an anchor to our ratings in this new model.
So yeah, is there a chance we could get things turned around? Maybe. But slim IMO and I have little faith that the leadership at VT knows or even frankly has the energy to figure out how to get us back. I think we have slipped into mediocrity as a program and don't see us competing at the top level of the sport as it is now ever again in this landscape. That's just the reality of it.
To me it comes down to this- The fact is that Pry can't win/close in close games- you can not deny this. You also can't deny he is under .500 as VT's coach. - Clearly under .500 is no bueno and not the expectation for any program that wants to be a football school the level we want to be. So- we are close right? Just clean up the end of games and we are back in the ACC -CG. That is the optimistic view. The problem I have with that is I think it covers up somewhat our main problem and why we can't win 9, 10 games and compete with Clemson, etc. anymore. Talent. Period. We have some talent- to the point where we can keep it close against Duke and Syracuse but we aren't good enough to actually WIN those games. I look at the proof in the pudding here- we sign classes in the 40's and take a bunch of G5 transfers and this board magically thinks that we are going to win 4 more games next year. College football doesn't work that way. Pry has been a dissapointment with regards to HS recruiting - and his record shows that. I am fully aware Fuente burned it to the ground, but we were 6-7 last year- so we don't have guys yet and Fu is long gone. Pry's bets players by far have been transfers and that is fine to supplement a base of talent on the team, but you can't win with 85 portal guys. This isn't basketball. I honestly don't think it's any more difficult than that. We remain delusional that the 8-9th ranked class in the ACC is going to win 10 games. Nobody thinks that but hardcorps VT fans. Yes an FCS transfer COULD be Bashul Tuten- sure. But odds are he is 100% not Tuten. That is not a winning strategy. If you look at the top teams- they recruit HS and the portal MUCH better than we do. WE don't have enough talent to win close games and win more games. That is the bottom line. And until the moment Pry actually recruits a top 20 HS class and lands some proven P4 guys vs. under the radar hope he works guys in the portal, welp this is going to be your result.
It's the end of first halves that has bitten Pry in the ass more than end of games. His inability to get points or doing stupid things that allow the other team to get points at the end of first halves were the difference in 5 of our 6 regular season losses.
Over the course of time, 4 star players make less mistakes and more plays at the end of first halves than 3 star players and G5 transfers do.
I wish I could disagree with your take, but it is realistic and well thought out. Pry has this year left to turn the corner on the coaching decisions that cost us several games over the last couple years. He needs to have a winning season to keep his job. Whit is not going to hesitate to start over if we don't win 7 games this year.
This is the only part I'm not so sure about. What evidence do you have that Whit won't hesitate to start over if we go 6-6 (or worse)?
Co-workers husband works in the Athletic Department. She is my source for my inside information. Scuttlebutt is Pry needs to win 7 or he is done.
If he wins 9 and loses to ODU and UVA, he is also gone.
So is my interest in VT football, at more than just a cursory level.
fair enough. I hope that A) the scuttlebutt is accurate and a 6+ loss season results in significant changes and that B) Pry is able to win 8+ games. I think A is more likely at this point, frankly. But I like Pry and I'm rooting for him to prove me wrong. He's been a decidedly mid coach the entire time he's been here and I think he really screwed the pooch with his first two hires at OC and DC to begin with. They made very little sense to me at the time and, with the benefit of hindsight, they clearly weren't good hires. Not good enough to win more than 6 games, anyway.
I'm down on VT and their chances to salvage anything in 2025. Our roster this year isn't as talented as it was last year and you always have to expect growing pains with new coaching staffs. 2025 feels like a hail mary year for Pry. The hardest part about it is that with all the news Re: ACC revenue sharing this couldn't really happen at a worse time for us. I think this goes all the way back to 2018 when Whit failed to either force Fuente to fire Corny or replace the entire coaching staff then and there. By the end of that season it was clear that Fuente and his coaching staff were in over their heads (particularly Cornelsen) and everything was trending in the wrong direction. By hanging on to him for another 3 years we effectively put ourselves an entire decade behind the competition which was terrible timing given the monumental changes the sport has undergone (and is still undergoing).
VT football's history is going to be looked back upon through a lens of a series of "what-ifs". We had an opportunity to join the SEC in 2010 and passed. We had an opportunity to replace Fuente in 2018 and didn't pull the trigger. We had an opportunity, with the Pry hire, to go after someone with a real track record and opted instead for a guy who had never been a HC at any level before. And he doubled down by hiring super green coordinators on both sides of the ball. It's just been questionable decision after questionable decision for the last 15 years and it's really hurt us. Now we're likely going to be left out of the big picture with most of the rest of college football. We've been faltering for the last decade+ and there couldn't have possibly been a worse time to falter than, well, right now.
Don't know what will happen to Pry... but here is how I see it honestly- given our recent history, roster, etc.
USCe- L
Vandy- L (they beat a better VT roster last year)
ODU- W
Wofford- W
NC State- L - close game, we don't win those
Wake- W
GT- L
Cal- W
Lousiville- L- Can't believe they are playing in Lane and close game- we don't win those
FSU- L
Miami- L
UVA - W
5 -7 - which assumes a clean game against a decent Cal team and still being in UVAs head. Flip side- NC State is winnable. No BC for the first time since 1788 is weird too.
I agree here. The overall talent level hasn't been good enough. And this past year is likely going to be Pry's most talented team in his VT tenure. The recruiting has largely been very disappointing as you mention under Pry, with the exception of a few really good portal additions. And the coaching has also been subpar, as evidenced by the recent firings (and I think Montgomery is a clear upgrade over Bowen). I know we have a better OC and OL coach now, wait and see on defense but schematically Siefkes seems innovative. It's obvious Pry wanted to bolster the coaching to get over the hump in 2025 as you mention - he has to win now. The problem is, with the departures of some of our best talent, do we have the talent to win now even with the coaching upgrades? Really think we may be better coached in 2025 but just flat out outmanned against better competition. Have a hard time seeing better than 6-6 again.