ATLIENon February 24, 2023, 3:09 PM | 176 comments
#FSU AD Michael Alford having an interesting talk to the BoT. He says the #Noles contribute roughly 15% of ACC media rights value but get 7% of the distributions— Matt Baker (@MBakerTBTimes) February 24, 2023
- FSU can't compete nationally in current situation
- Claims FSU is responsible for 15% of revenue but only gets 7% of revenue
- Says it would be $120m to leave the ACC, and that they could hypothetically recuperate that spending in 4 years
Regarding the final bullet: this is the lowest exit fee I've seen in any publication. I've always read that it's ~$100m exit fee PLUS the cost of buying back the rights to our games. Texas and OU each paid around $50m to get out of their Grant of Rights one year early, and the B12's GoR is similar to the ACC's (in terms of $/year, not contract length)so I don't understand why the FSU AD thinks it would be only $120m to exit the ACC's GoR 12(?) years early.
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Until someone can get this through the inevitable lawsuit, I am just going to assumed they are full of shit. If FSU could actually pull this off, they would be gone. But they haven't so I am chalking this up to FSU stirring the pot to see if they can't get the ACC to make concessions.
I agree - methinks this is just to (1) convey urgency to acc leadership and (2) humor fans.
Still a pretty bold/brazen move imo
Something we wouldn't have the stones to do
Stones to do what? Throw out inaccurate numbers to rile up the fanbase for a move that likely won't be able to happen for at least a decade?
Everything is a negotiation. Nothing like trying to lower exit fee while almost posting your resume for a new conference to offer up to pay for it.
Yes, everything is a negotiation and everyone brings up Texas and Oklahoma negotiating their buyout to leave a year early. It was $50 million for ONE YEAR early. The ACC Grant Of Rights still has 13 years left on it. FSU can negotiate a buyout but there is no way in hell they can afford to pay it.
This. FSU could negotiate the buy out to under $120m. However, they've signed over their broadcast rights for the next 12(?) seasons - for the average ACC school thats $432m (~$36m/year/school x 12 years). If FSU truly believes that they are responsible for more revenue than the average ACC team, then it will be closer to $500m. Good luck 'negotiating' out of that.
It seems a vote to dissolve or contract is the only main hope. However, there could be some legal arguments if anywhere in the league bylaws, operating agreements, or tv contract it mentions a fiduciary duty of the league to act in the best interest of its members. Would be discovery heavy, but there's a lot of Swofford/Raycom dirt I think that could come up really quick.
That would be a possible way but with all of the legal posturing and delays the case would probably last the whole length of the Grant Of Rights anyway.
Oh boo fucking hoo.
FSU didn't mind the revenue sharing for the first 30 years of their existence in the ACC, but now they're all up in arms when its no longer beneficial to them?
It also seems convenient that they are forgetting before this last football season, they were utter dog shit for 5 solid years. Barely making a bowl 2 of those seasons or not even being close during 3 of them.
I mean, it's not like it's all of a sudden beneficial to them and it wasn't before.
All of us ACC football schools are doing anything possible to stay financially competitive with the B1G and SEC. You gotta shoot your shot; we all do.
Yea, this just politicking, but it's a sign of how ducked the acc is.
Why really though, lets dig into that. To build better facilities? The price of those are relatively constant compared to media contract growth. You eventually hit a threshold where returns are diminishing. To bid on players and coaches? That's a better answer, but bidding them up to the moon isn't a good outcome for anyone. That part of the game will need to change. So school representatives get more money? The vast majority of stakeholders in CFB don't or shouldn't give a fuck about that.
My answer: A lot of the framing of this issue is flipped. These media companies have the power to determine a team's value. Both in the boardroom when drawing up contracts, and on the broadcast when they choose who to promote. I.e. a team's true value is no longer based on intrinsic measurable factors, but now mostly on the perception of value and vested interest of the media company promoting them. The second part is key. "Getting left behind" just means not being able to compete for an even higher contract in the next round of negotiations.
The big point I'm trying to make is TV contacts are not actually scaleable to value of resources and fans of any particular school. Mostly because those top of the top brands are getting bid up way higher than their value actually is relative to all the other competing schools
It's coaching, recruiting staff, etc. remember when Michigan state made an offer to Mel Tucker, he turned it down, then they came back and doubled it? You know how teams are building out departments to scour the transfer portal for targets?
The difference between the Acc and the sec will be like the mountain west and the (old) power 5.
Likely why they will continue to be a good program in this new era
Personally I think we should do unequal sharing, but more as a way to punish teams that will are operating well below potential (Pitt, Georgia Tech, UVA) or will never contribute to ACC relevance (BC, Wake). Maybe something like 70% equal splits, 20% based on estimated market draw and 10% based on league finish in football.
The ACC isn't in that bad of a position *if* we get schools that can potentially contribute to actually contribute. Long term, adding a contributor like WVU would benefit the league, as would getting rid of noncontributing members like BC and Wake. Or at the very least making sure some of their dollars go to the schools that actually make a difference.
Worst possible outcome however would be a Texas/OU situation with FSU Clemson and Miami, at the expense of other potentially strong programs like VT, NC State, UNC, and possibly Louisville. This league survives if the top 7-8 schools start performing at a high level, it dies if it becomes a league with only 1-3 top teams performing consistently
Every conference ever to do uneven revenue sharing has folded. Not clear if that's *because* of uneven revenue distribution, or if uneven revenue distribution is the canary in the coal mine.
It defeats the entire purpose for membership in a league IMO. The whole benefit of a league is the shared resources and collective bargaining for revenue. You get into unequal revenue sharing, you're saying some members are better than others. It's going to piss a lot of schools off if they go that way. If you have to go that route to try and funnel more money to certain schools, then why did you expand to begin with?
Then kick out Wake and BC. In our case it's not majority expansion schools that aren't pulling their weight.
Oh I totally agree. I know politically the chances of that happening are 0.0%. But yeah we kick BC Wake, Duke, Cuse, and one more out, add WVU and I like that 10 team league a lot.
Duke and Wake are charter ACC members. So once again, they will not be kicked out because they suck at football more often than not
Well, the primary purpose of Conference Membership at this point seems to be to maximize TV $$$$.
It certainly isn't to foster rivalries or jointly raise the profile of similar regional universities.
A school has as much value as what they bring to TV contract negotiations.
That's one of the overall problems with the ACC, they have 4 schools essentially in one small-medium market. And while we might all want to shit on BC and GT for being only modestly competitive--their market values are ultimately too valuable to just cut them loose..it would be suicide. Atlanta alone has probably equal market value as the NC markets, Clemson, Roanoke, C-ville all combined.
The true value of each university isn't static and thus unequal revenue sharing is ultimately both short-sighted and damn near impossible to distribute fairly.
I don't know what the right answer for the ACC is, because our TV deal stinks yet the GofR Is really the only thing holding the conference together. But every team for themselves certainly doesn't seem to be any sort of logical solution.
The ACC has to do something to encourage members to actually spend and try to win in football. It doesn't have to be unequal sharing.
And Wake and BC will always be money pits that only decrease media payouts to other members. And we can't kick them out till after the GOR ends
I think dissatisfaction with ACC leadership and the current state we find ourselves in is just starting to boil over. There will probably be a messy lawsuit if anything does come of this, but more than likely this is firing a shot across the bow of the ACC to see if any other schools make similar overtures or the league actually tries to do something.
If memory serves, one of the reasons Miami wanted to leave the Big East was because of unequal revenue sharing of bowl money. The thought was it put to much pressure on the team to have a good year. One bad season and your screwed financially.
I think Tech is 20% of the total revenue for the ACC, but we only get 7% as well. I have trouble with FSU's math.
Is this real or are you being facetious?
Facetious sounds like a very big offensive lineman.
If the FSU AD really meant it he'd be on only fans for the athletic department to try and narrow the gap /s
Everyone is kidding themselves if they think kicking teams out would be a positive for the ACC. The media is the bully in the school. They have anointed the SEC and Big Can't Count Conference as the current winners. They will control any changes by what it benefits them.
I agree with that and still believe Wake and BC are too small time to be in this league. They're small private schools that don't care about football and don't have any fans. We need big public schools that care about football and show up for their team. For example East Carolina is a better football program than Wake, and only reason it's even close is because of Wake's conference affiliation
Wake has actually been good for a number of years.
No fan base and not a draw for TV networks. Very unlikely that they will ever become one or it could be sustained
Unfortunately, good does not equate to TV draw. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that 3-8 Texas vs 5-7 OU will draw more eyes than Wake vs Pitt ACCCG.
This is what gives me a sliver of hope with VT. We have been down for pretty much a decade now, save a few seasons. But from some of the tv numbers we've seen we are still one of the best draws in the ACC for TV. Hopefully those numbers and the VA/DMV market (because I still think cable is going to matter) make us attractive for a jump. The SECN subscription fee with VA going from non-market to in market is a sizable amount of cash from what I've seen.
Big Can't Count Conference
This is good, leg
Sooner the ACC dissolves, the better. My only worry is that we'll get caught on the outside looking in
Uhhh be careful what you wish for there
I'd almost rather find out now than delay the inevitable. A lot can happen over the remainder of the conference's current TV deal but if the money generated from the deal is truly a factor, then I'm believing more and more as each day goes by that we are setting ourselves up for declining returns on the playing field (as a conference) which will put us in an even poorer position for the future contract negotiations.
This is a scenario I would love to see play out: I don't remember the number of schools that it would take to dissolve the ACC, I think it's 8 but I'm getting lazy and older and typing on my phone so that's what I am going with. I don't think that it would be that hard to convince 10 teams that there is a benefit to dissolving the ACC. Let those 10 or so teams hire one firm responsible for representing all of those teams and negotiate with the other major conferences to find homes for at least 8 teams that are required to dissolve. This may end up burning a few teams but I think it's worth the risk. You could even set it up so that if those teams aren't placed in a P5 conference (now P4 since the ACC will be dissolved), they would be compensated by the placed teams. You'd have more teams willing to jump on board this way but would still likely require the placement of at least 8 schools into the other 4 conferences, but there is a chance a team like Wake or BC would be comfortable dropping down and voting in favor of dissolving.
I think it would be in our best interest to delay long enough to see if the pry rebuild works
I think you're drastically over estimating the amount of land spots out there:
Absolute best case scenario I see is 2-4 schools 'moving up' and 4 schools moving laterally. Worst case scenario is 0-4 schools make a lateral or worse move.
TLDR - I just don't see anything happening to the ACC at all unless the B10 and/or SEC show interest in some acc schools. And that hasn't happened yet
Hard disagree. I believe the media only payout for the ACC is still higher than the Big 12's new deal (33 mil vs 31 mil). We're stuck in this league, but it is almost certainly better than the alternative for everyone that doesn't get in the Big 10 or SEC. Do you think the long term TV money is better in the ACC, or a Big 12 spread all over the country? Definitely the ACC imo.
I think we should add WVU within the next 3-4 years and then weather the storm. After the GOR comes up, renegotiate and kick out the bottom dwellers (Wake and BC), add another to get to 14 if it makes sense at the time. There's some speculation with the playoff model it will make sense for ND to try and join the ACC rather than the B10 or ACC because the path to the playoff is so much easier. This would make sense and allow us to become competitive with the other two leagues, but we won't know till it happens
Has any team in the modern era ever been kicked out of a conference? I'll believe that can happen when it happens.
Schools get left behind, not kicked to the curb.
I seem to remember Temple getting kicked out of the Big East back in the day. Depends on when you consider the "modern era" to have started though
Who has gotten "left behind" in the modern era, in one of the 5 major conferences
I wondered aloud on this board last year about Vandy and their continuing participation in the SEC. The SEC doesn't need them and they are, arguably, drawing funding from other SEC schools because they're getting money they aren't earning.
I didn't mention Missouri but they're ready to be ejected any day.
There's several reasons why WVU will likely never end up in the ACC. The biggest one is that they add nothing significant to conference revenue. Micro-market team in a miserable location. No thanks.
Big state school with a ton of alumni and fans. Rivalries against us and two other large universities underperforming as a draw.
They're a solid brand and even if adding them doesn't mean a significant TV increase immediately, it does increase the value of the conference in the long term. Which is what we should be focused on
Would love to be in a league with WVU again, but I imagine that would lose us money in the near term. Not a great proposition given the state of things...
How would it lose us money near term
The ACC distributed $578m last fiscal year. That's roughly $38m/school ($578m/15 teams; that's not exact because of ND but for simplicity's sake).
If we bring in WVU, they need to increase top line revenue for the conference by $35m. Let's say WVU joins, and total revenue goes up to $600m. Then, instead of each team making $40m ($600m/15 teams) each team instead makes $37.5m ($600m/16 teams).
WVU is in the B12 whose TV deal is  equivalent to [//edit]the ACC TV deal. So I don't think they'd have any problem bringing enough value to the ACC to justify their addition.
And that's before adding multipliers for things like border rivalries with Pitt and the Hokies that would be big TV draws within the ACC footprint.
WVU is generally good at basketball too .
The hold up to adding WVU is 100% academics related from the ACC side and probably the fact that WVU is a better spot financially in the B12 and not looking to move on. (they would be better off in terms of travel & logistics in the ACC)
Agree with all but financials, they would come to the ACC immediately if they had the choice. I agree with you and semi agree with Bar, but even if WVU would mean a slightly lower payout initially, they are still above the median in this conference as a program and therefore would put us in a stronger position in the long term (which is what really matters)
How much did MD end up paying for the buy out?
They negotiated to pay $31 million, out of $52 million the ACC said they were owed.
I think they have a point; and I also think there is a fair way to make some adjustments, i.e., share intra-conference revenue but allow members to keep their OOC revenues...in all sports.
The ACC absolutely does not have OOC scheduling parity in football. For example, BC plays no OOC P5's this year while 10 members play two. Syracuse didn't play any last year.
And no outside contracts or GORs need to be amended to do this. If a school wants to pad its schedule with cupcake games no one watches, fine. But don't expect to be rewarded by other schools for doing it.
IMO, if the status quo continues through 2036, the conference will dissolve on or about that date.
FSU leadership once again using biased/twisted data to sway their fans/admin. I thought the $17m/year/school number looked really low for the ACC, and it definitely is. From Front Office Sports:
No idea where that $17m number came from.
The story here isn't that the ACC is sooo far behind - we're far behind the SEC and B10, ahead of the B12 and P-whatever - the story is FSU wrangling of the media and their fans. Can't say I blame them, but I don't think any school in the ACC (accept ND) is a slam dunk to land in the B10 or SEC if the conference dissolves tomorrow.
My bold prediction is that whenever the ACC does fall apart, Clemson and FSU land in the B12.
I mean no shit. We've been banging this drum in here for the past few years. The ACC contract was terrible when it was signed and its even worse now.
But, that's nothing new. We've been staring at this reality for the past 5+ years, and now that its a reality its already too late. Every year that passes the gap between the haves and the have nots are only going to widen, and everyone in the ACC is already on the bad side of this. And we knew this years ago. The time to avoid the ACC being a 2nd tier conference was years ago, and now this is just reactionary saber rattling from an entity that knows they're already FUBAR.
This is just egregious.
So a solid 3rd place. We just need to bump that number up, get to the 40's and we ARE competitive. 32 teams cannot hold a monopoly over college football. There is way too much money outside those two leagues (and with the new playoff, more incentive to be a big fish in a smaller pond).
Random outlets claiming a PAC12 and ACC merger...sigh, hopefully the BiG10, Big12, or SEC come calling at this point...
Please call it the Coastal Athletic Conference, not the APAC.
Thanks, I hate it.
Would it not be more accurate to call it the Atlantic-Pacific-Gulf of Mexico Athletic Conference? The . . . APGoMAC, obviously.
The motto could be something like . . . "Impenetrable. We've got the borders covered (including Lakes Erie and Ontario)."
it just gets worse and worse. This is comical, all the more because I can see it happening
Part of me is ok with the Hokies coming to Dallas every few years.
A partnership and a merger are two different concepts.
A long term scheduling partnership for a joint media deal for revenue sports (or any combination of sports) can be done without merging the conferences.
The media is paying for content and both conferences are suffering right now due to the relative dearth of high quality football games, in particular. So it doesn't really matter how it is structured; one could easily keep the conference championships separate for purposes of championships and access to the playoff.
The time zone differences and diversity of strengths of the conferences could be a boon to the conference network(s) as well.
I think if a CBA was done, the potential additional revenue against the insane increased travel cost would be a net loss. Keep in mind really only Oregon and Washington are the remaining big draw brands left in the P12, and they have one foot out the door if the Big Ten comes calling. The better partnership would be with the Big 12, but I can imagine politics and cultural differences come into play here.
Travel costs are certainly a challenge but no one is going to sign a new deal to lose money; it would have to be profitable to all three parties (it isn't in the tweet but ESPN is a player in this). The question is, can that be done? What everyone involved needs are more games of at least regional interest.
I bet a lot of ACC presidents are salivating at cross country trips to play Berkeley and Stanford. Lol. What a train wreck.
Think about Miami vs UW/Wazzu.... That's a 6 hour flight to play a 4 hour game. Woof.
I can see a TV/Streaming/Broadcasting 'alliance' with a few additional games or bowl tie-ins. I cannot see this being a conference.
If changing to uneven revenue sharing would break the GoR, go for it.
Did someone say Burn down the ACC?
Assuming we don't have eight schools with a spot elsewhere to vote to dissolve and kill the GoR, could the ACC realistically look at contraction as a way to improve the contract? Schools like BC, Wake, Cuse, and Duke could go in all sports into the Big East and fit like a glove, then play football as an associate member in the SunBelt/AAC/CUSA and probably be more competitive. That cuts some deadweight but you still have the biggest drawing football brands in the ACC. Then say you add WVU which brings another competitive football program with some good rivalries with ACC schools for an 11 team league. The ACC might have to pay some damages to Wake/Duke/Cuse/BC, but it might be money well spent and they would probably be just fine if not better off in the Big East and an associate league for football.
Maybe with less slices of the pie, and better matchups with only 11 teams and a 9 game schedule we could squeeze another 10 mil a year per team. That's still not on par with the big two but better. Then maybe shorter term tv deals with more frequent opportunities for renewal and testing the market, combined with fingers crossed that a better schedule gets the conference more competitive, and maybe that value ticks up over the next 10-15 years incrementally. Long shot but the PAC-12/ACC alliance just sounds awful.
The issue with uneven revenue share, and more so contraction, is that it erodes trust in the league. Say you kick out Wake, BC, and Cuse. What happens in 2 years when UVA keeps going 2-10? Do you kick them out? What happens to VT if Pry can't hack it and we go 4 straight seasons without a bowl game?
Now, if you want to introduce promotion and relegation, I'll listen. But kicking schools out, or creating uneven revenue sharing is just delaying the inevitable IMO.
Clemson AD echoing FSU's:
This just seems like a recipe for disaster. I'm sure FSU and Clemson are just saber-rattling, but really concerning that they see this as a solution for the league. Assuming it takes eight schools as well to vote for this type of change, I don't think they could get those votes.
Clemson AD can get fucked
They know what they're doing. Both of these schools were perfectly happy being the big fish in a bad ACC for 3 decades granting them easy access to National Titles that they wouldn't have had elsewhere but now that the ACC model isn't working for them, suddenly they want to fuck everyone else over to keep getting their share of the pie?
Fuck em. They knew what they signed up for when the GoR was agreed upon. They knew the terms of the deal when we inked up with ESPN. I damn well know VT is on a one way path to irrelevance and watching this play out, it does make me a little happy to know that the likes of FSU, Clemson, UNC, etc are all falling with us.
No one (in the ACC or mainstream media) knew the ACC GoR would leave us so far behind the SEC/B10. It was signed in a time pre-NIL, pre-transfer portal. The idea of a B10/SEC program bringing in 3x what an ACC team made was not imaginable.
FSU/Clemson ADs have nothing to lose by making these public comments. Can't blame em, it's good politicking. VT would do the same thing if we were in that position in this environment.
There was a very interesting point about this brought up on the TSL podcast this past week. Right after the first ACC expansion in 04/05, the ACC believe it or not had the highest per team revenue payout in the country. It was a reason that VT for instance was able in 2006 to have three of their four OOC games be one-off "buy games," which we certainly can't do anymore. The panel then speculated that the ACC expansion sort of poked the bear with the Big Ten and SEC, as only a few years after came inevitable Big Ten/SEC expansion and their tv networks.
The reality I think is that the ACC, while pretty good for a while in the mid 2000s with revenue, is always just going to be behind those two leagues and frankly the rest of the P5. They don't have the abundance of large state schools with football crazy fanbases. That creates a brand and following and is good for tv. Too many small, private schools in the ACC with little to no football support/following. And even some of the state schools (UVA, UNC) could care less about football and are more like private schools anyway with smallish enrollments and alumni bases compared to other state universities. With UVA, most of their students don't even come from VA, so they're pretty much a Vanderbilt masquerading as a state school. There's just not enough strong football culture in the ACC to match the numbers of the big two.
Current breakdown of private schools in P5 conferences:
SEC: 1 (Vanderbilt)
Big Ten: 1 (Northwestern)
Big 12: 2 (Baylor, TCU)
Pac 12: 2 (Stanford, USC-big exception here like ND)
ACC: 6 (Syracuse, BC, Duke, Wake, Miami, Pitt-quasi-public but technically a private institution)
Then factor in UVA and UNC which function more like private schools, and poor GT whose admin seem like they could care less about football. Huge difference there with the ACC and why we are so far behind IMO.
My number 1 conspiracy theory is that the SEC was worried about the ACC with the expansion and they blew a couple calls against VT in the USC game (first big time ACC OOC game) so that USC would win. Which then cost SEC a National Title because if we had beat USC then Auburn would have played for the NC instead of a one loss USC.
I don't think private vs public has anything to do with it. Ultimately, it's about investment in football. 1/3 of the ACC doesn't want to invest, 1/3 of the ACC wants to invest but can't, and the final third is/has been investing, but is very fearful of losing their edge.
I think I agree with your point: the ACC has a variety of schools with different interests and priorities (more so than any other conference imo). Thus, it's going to be difficult to get those schools aligned.
Private schools generally have lower enrollments, smaller alumni bases, and less commitment to big investment sports like football. There are some exceptions, but that's generally the trend there versus their state school counterparts. If we had a conference full of NDs, USCs, or even Baylors and TCUs it might be different.
But to your point, regardless of state/private, there's too many ACC schools who don't have the brand, interest, or commitment to football. It just seems like a schism is inevitable at some point.
I will add here, I don't include Miami in my list of private school exceptions. USC and ND for instance are inarguably two of the greatest all time programs in this history of the sport. They are bona fide blue bloods. Miami's football history at any of their peaks has just been seedy. To understand you have to divorce Miami the school from Miami the football program. It's a small school with mostly northeastern enrollment in a big metro/pro sports city. The admin has always hated football, but they have some seedy boosters who have always pushed the football program. But in this new NIL era, I just don't think rampant cheating is going to be enough. Now the people with the deeper pockets are going to win legally. They can't operate in the shadows. And losing the old Orange Bowl just right beside campus was a blow to their attendance support. They're a bandwagon program now with attendance in a pro sports town. It will be interesting what if anything happens with them in any future expansion. There's Miami the brand, and there's Miami the reality.
The ACC buried itself when they allowed Miami to strong arm BC into the conference and then followed that expansion up by appeasing UNC and Duke with a basketball expansion a few years later.
From that moment on, we were a basketball conference cosplaying in football. With the initial round, we were trying to establish ourselves as a football power, and just... Gave it away
FSU and Clemson can complain as much as they want but there are too many small schools with power in this conference that they're stuck.
Big state schools have bigger fanbases generally and drive more eyeballs in terms of television numbers, which is what this is all about.
Private schools generally don't drive TV viewership, which hurst the bargaining power of a private school heavy conference like the ACC.
It definitely does matter
What happens when TV revenue ends up collapsing and all of this is mute in a decade? I mean, that has to be a possibility right? ESPN isn't that far off from some substantial internal layoffs, I'm not 100% convinced the $$ the leagues are asking for/expecting from the networks will make any sense a decade from now.
I don't think TV revenue collapses. Streaming is not there yet. I think it's a steady drop off, until streaming and cable are equal for ESPN.
Edit: some folks who are a bit more articulate and eloquent than I:
I think the SEC is worth it. NFL too. Other conferences/leagues... tbd.
I think cable is going to matter for a long, long time. Streaming is steadily creeping up close with cable, and if you have a family and want options, it's going to be a near wash with cable soon. I got Hulu with live tv a couple years ago and it's already more than doubled in price. That's why I think the SECN subscriber fees with cable for new territories like cough VA and NC cough are a really, really big deal still. That's something Clemson and FSU, while bringing big brand and viewership, don't bring.
I would easily pay $9.99 a month for all of ESPN to be streamed.
This is getting *spicy*
I flipped through the video, didn't listen to the whole thing, but it sounds much more whiny and much less of a threat than the tweet appeared.
Just a lot of peacocking by an entity with absolutely zero leverage.
I would just love if with all this saber rattling VT and NC State broker back door deals to SEC and move out quietly. Those states give the SEC new markets. FSU and Clemson are brands but they don't get anymore in SECN revenue, which from what I have seen is an enormous chunk of change. I have a post on this last summer, but basically worst case scenario, adding VT and NC State would be break even for SEC with additional in market subscriber fees. That's not even counting the tv ratings angle for games.
If we are looking for a vote of 8, I think IMO this is how it could end up:
VT, NC State, Clemson, FSU for the SEC. You get everything you want. Two huge brands in the Tigers and Noles, and VT and NCSU which gets you two new huge markets plus two pretty dang good programs to boot. I think that could increase the overall payout for SEC with subscriber rev and brand/tv interest combined.
Big Ten takes UVA, UNC, GT, and (shocker...) Miami. They get their AAU thing, one of the best brands in all of sports (UNC), GT which hopefully gets their act together, and 'Miami as the southern flank and is more aligned with the northeast than south anyhow. Miami becomes a big barometer game with FSU between the power 2. And UVA is just happy to be there.
I wish that 8 would be enough to do more than just make life miserable; but it is a 3/4 vote...the conference constitution and bylaws are crystal clear. The notion of 8 comes from some NC-specific rules where the conference is chartered. The conference probably could have gone as low as a simple majority...but it did not...I don't think there is a legal equivalent of having your fingers crossed behind your back.
this is my preference as well, and think it makes the most sense. both sec and big 10 get access to NC and VA. but this making the most sense basically guarantees it won't happen
Yeah I can't figure out what FSUs backup plan would be? Going independent? They aren't ND they don't get that kind of deal. So they have to join a conference and if it's not B10 or SEC then they don't earn their buyout back. Why would the SEC or B10 want FSU?
Do they bring enough in for the SEC to make more money? And they need a partner that comes with them that also does that.
FSU would allow for more florida recruiting fir B10 teams but at the same time does that really help the B10, anOSU, PSU, and Mich can recruit nationally already. Is Illinois really going to go into Fla and pull more recruits cause they might play in their home state? I doubt. With the recent expansion out west I don't know if the B10 is ready to expand outside of their current footprint without knowing how the new expansion is going to work.
If the B1G was cringing about Tech's academics, they would run screaming from the room regarding FSU.
What? They rank better than VT from a US news and world report ranking. Only UofL, 187, and NC State, 79 rank below VT, 75, tied with Clemson. Pitt and Cuse come next, tied at 59, before FSU, tied with Miami come in a 55th.
Okay they have improved then. They used to be worse then Tech by a far margin. Or maybe I am just remembering the Business and Engineering rankings not overall.
100%. I think this is just a campaign to 'educate' fans on the revenue gap in hopes of getting more donations. It's a lot of talk for someone with (I presume) no options.
Here's a different take from a small time podcast/blog that I thought was interesting:
IMO Phillips doesn't need to be as loud as Brett Yormark or George Kliavkoff. I don't care if he's making moves behind the scenes (tbh I'd prefer it) but he has to be exploring all options and he has to have a clear line of communication with member institutions. IF that's not happening, FSU Leadership was wise to do this.
I'm already very much on the fence about just giving up on following collegiate athletics.
The second the ACC goes unequal revenue sharing, I'm fully out. This whole current landscape already disgusts me, I'm actively looking for a reason to fully bail. I'm probably going to do it anyway, the sport that I loved is dead and whats left does little to nothing to entertain me. I haven't watched College GameDay in 10 years, I haven't been to a game in Lane in 4 years, and I have very little desire to go back outside of seeing some friends. Its just not fun anymore.
I don't understand this take. The sport is the same. The media is different.
I get the frustration with the mainstream college football media - there's a clear conflict of interest when the people who are doing the 'journalism' are the same people who are making money broadcasting the sport - but there's lots of good media out there covering the whole sport and/or cool niches of the sport - Let me recommend The Key Play, Split Zone Duo, College Football Sickos, Extra Points (this one is more inside baseball), Channel6, Michael Felder, etc. I know people are down on The Athletic after they let Andy Bitter go, but their national CFB coverage is really good. Bill C is at ESPN+, but his content is still great.
Money has ruined the sport.
Between the gargantuan TV contracts that basically gives ESPN more power than god over college football and the bullshit that NIL immediately turned into, its a corrupt wild west. And spare me the 'its always been that way', I literally don't care, it might have been bad but it has not been this bad. I hate the fucking fact that the only way VT can ever be relevant again is not by just getting the right coach and building from within, its begging on our hands and knees like a slave to the system to get invited up to the grown ups table in the SEC or Big Ten. I hate the fucking fact that we are relegated to 2nd class citizen status through no fault of our own. I can't stand watching the same teams play for the title year after year after year, because there are no fucking boundaries, the rich get richer, everyone else gets fucked.
For all the takes over the years about keeping politics out of sports, its really fucking annoying that late stage capitalism run amok is ruining college sports. I hate it to my core and I cannot stand watching it anymore.
I'll grant you that that corporations have never had this much influence in the sport, but for the most part, the sport is not much different. Donations have always driven on field success (over the long run). Recruiting has always been a dirty, dirty, game. Players have more safety (on and off the field) than ever before (I'll die on this hill btw - NIL and transfer portal are a mess, but it's so much better than a kid choosing a school because a booster gave his uncle a job, and it turns out the coach is an abusive dick, but the kid can't leave because otherwise his uncle will lose said job).
I also think, as I learn more, that VT has always been a second class citizen. A team like VT hasn't won a natty in 40ish years? The last first time national champion was the 1996 Florida Gators. Before that, I believe it was Clemson in the early 80's.
The sport has changed slightly, but mostly, our perception of the sport has changed. We have to come to terms with the idea of a 'student athlete' (in a 'revenue sport') is a farce, and always has been.
The last noteworthy statement from Phillips was regarding scheduling (no more road G5 games!).
The next public statement on revenues will be probably be the actual revenue distributions from 2022...I think that is usually in June.
The big jumps in the recent contracts for other conferences are making it apparent what the consequences were of the ACCN deal...which ALL of the members supported (Clemson and FSU were very vocal) and Phillips had nothing to do with. ACC needs to trigger a reopening of the current contract, AND have an ironclad means to improve content; not just Phillips saying "please do better, you schools that know who you are".
Can the ACC and PAC team up to produce some inter-conference a game(s) of the week kind of thing that a network would pay decent for? Could they produce some interconference events that would boost the conference networks? We'll see.
Will the ACC allow teams to own their own OOC revenue? I'm probably the Lone Ranger on this but I think they might. Solves a lot of ills and screws no one.
The thing is, I don't think ACC could do better. The B12 set the market at $33m/school. Why would any content provider pay more than that? Maybe with the Bally Sports bankruptcy there's a legit opportunity to make an extra few million, which is nice, but doesn't move the needle.
At some point, the ACC product does need to get better. Let's face it, it's not that great right now. Maybe that changes with the new scheduling. We'll see.
Here for it. Rose Bowl kickoff game between the previous years' champions of each conference? Sign me up. P12/ACC Challenge for #BestCoast? Here for it.
I think that could be a good idea, but has to be done carefully. There's different types of OOC games that attract different levels of revenue:
And sell it to who? RSNs are rapidly going bankrupt across the board and all major networks are already tied to a major entity, or have decided to pivot away from college sports.
There isn't a market to sell the ACC to. There was 20 years ago but Swofford fucked that chance by selling our rights at pennies on the dollar to his son at Raycom and we never recovered.
The only entity that would even be interested in the ACC is the one who currently owns our rights at a discount for the next 13 years. Good luck convincing them to up the ante out of the goodness of their heart.
^^^This. Diamond is going broke. WB-Discovery has told folks that they are getting out. The RSN model currently loses money with no future plans of that improving. Any fiscally responsible company is trying to get out.
Unless we are talking about ACC on Apple TV+ or ACC on Amazon, there's nobody to sell to. And those companies are going to be looking to buy a premium pro sport.
Or we could try to go to NBC and join up in the newly formed "Notre Dame +14" conference, sponsored by Adidas
Once again, its just peacocking from entities that have absolutely no leverage to change anything.
I mean, is it peacocking, or is it a public complaint about ACC leadership? Probably both IMO
I would love to see Phillips turn to FSU and say, "Go ahead, I double dog dare you. We own your rights for the next 13 years, you leaving means more money for the rest of the ACC members from your games."
Quick 'news' dump on ACC revenue complaining and adjacent comments:
Is there any numbers on how Carolina MBB rev compares to say FSU football? Cause I know damn well that football program doesn't have enough swing to talk like this.
But as this escapade goes on, I don't think these schools are actually looking for uneven ACC revenue - I think they're signaling to ACC Leadership and ESPN that this situation won't work for the next 12 years.
basically they're saying "look, there isn't enough money to go around so we should get more of it just to keep up" in hopes that the league will do something about it (spoiler: they won't)
Well obviously, but it's hollow and some what laughable for UNC to take shots at the ACC when they've got little to contribute besides (probably the largest) a basketball brand
There won't be a PAC to merge with if the BIG12 has anything to say about it.
Schools who stand to gain the most support the idea.
News at eleven.
Its always funny how schools like FSU and UNC didn't care about the equal revenue sharing when they went into the shitter for the first 10-15 years of the post-2004 expansion ACC, but now that they somewhat have a pulse they think its the worst thing ever.
FSU won a national championship during that time
And was shitty before and shitty immediately after
Orange Bowl in 2012, National Title in 2013, CFP Semi in 2014, Peach Bowl in 2015, Orange Bowl in 2016.
Not so shitty to me.
Then Jimbo left and they immediately drove off a cliff
Yes they did. But my point is they weren't shitty immediately before and after the singular year with a national title. That was an unnecessary and false exaggeration.
Of the first 10 ACC championship games in football, FSU played in 5 of them, winning 4
I see FSU and UNC as different situations.
FSU actually had a championship-level football team that some of us can remember.
I get what you're saying, but they aren't complaining about equal revenue sharing right now because they have a pulse and other schools don't - they're complaining because the equal revenue shares that we are getting aren't sufficient to compete on a national level. They're taking advantage of the fact that they have a pulse as leverage to get what they want, but if we were making B1G or SEC money, they wouldn't be asking for unequal revenue shares. You don't see OSU or Michigan asking for a bigger cut of the B1G pie just because Rutgers sucks.
Well put. Pretty sure every ACC team's first choice would be to remain in the ACC, get even revenue share, and make enough to remain nationally relevant.
Since that seems unlikely, programs are resorting to alternatives.
They can ask whatever they want. They have zero leverage to induce change internally. There are 2 options here.
1 - Deal with the contract everyone signed. We knew the terms at the time, and we are all to blame for doing this to ourselves.
2 - Dissolve the ACC and let the inevitable end game come sooner to keep the schools who have value competitive into the future
There's no way they're going to get uneven revenue sharing. There's a select few schools who want it, and enough that are going to be screwed that it'll never pass. And in terms of dissolving the ACC, just get enough teams on board. I think they need 75%, which I think is 12, but it could be 8. But once again, there are enough schools who's futures aren't certain that I doubt they can get the go ahead.
But, if it all goes down, we'll be fine. Its all about markets and profiles, and we're in a good enough state that we'll land in either the SEC or B1G despite our recent downturn in football. We still get good tv ratings for a bad team, and our overall profile is getting pretty strong, and we would bring in a strong DC market to the SEC or completely lock it down for the B1G, keeping it permanently away from the SEC.
But yeah, this is all posturing, peacocking, and barking with absolutely zero leverage to actually change anything.
The number of votes I have seen everywhere to dissolve is 8, which I think comes from something in the bylaws. Eventually I think they could get that coalition, but not until each of those 8 have a landing spot elsewhere secured. Clemson and FSU would probably leave tomorrow, and I know there has long been rumor about overtures between VT and the SEC but we would need to have that ironed out before we could vote. Plus politics will come into play, so unless UVA had a spot in the P2 they would likely vote against (and vice versa with VT). NC schools will have the same issue likely between UNC and NC State. Miami is interesting because I could see them in either SEC or Big Ten, or having little interest from either honestly. ND will be interesting because they could care less about football since they have their own great deal, but they would lose the sweetheart deal to park their other sports in the ACC. And the Big Ten isn't going to do the same for them unless they go all in with football. GT could be an interesting swing vote for the Big Ten, as could Duke.
If the Big Ten does take Oregon and Washington, you have to wonder if they will take only two from potential ACC defectors in that case. Six votes (four to SEC and two to Big Ten) won't be enough, so we're probably going to have to hope maybe the Big 12 has interest in some ACC schools and could offer better. Only two potential spots in the Big Ten concerns me, because I just don't see UVA and UNC being a strong enough football factor at all for them. And both big VA and NC schools will need a home to avoid messy politics IMO.
Legally, NC State and UNC are tied. One cannot move without the other. In Virginia, you damn well know VT and UVa are tied similarly.
FSU and Clemson want out. Miami certainly would want to be as well. But after that? Is there anyone out there who would vote yes? Even if you have a backdoor agreement with the SEC or Big Ten, you'd basically need that contract signed before moving, otherwise you're taking a HUGE risk, and I can't see the SEC or B1G wanting to do that. They're going to be willing to wait this out to 2036, because weakening the ACC schools helps them probably as much or more than the benefit they would get by adding them. Give it 5 years and the cumulative financial gap between the ACC schools and those in those other two conferences will be irrecoverable.
For everyone who wants the ACC to dissolve: besides money, why does it make sense for any of these schools to play in another conference? *IF* any team has the ability to leave early guess what that means: the GOR are broken and we can renegotiate rights. That takes care of most of your money piece right there.
Lets say after renegotiation, the disparity is still 5-10 million per school. The Big 10 will be looking at: UNC, UVA, GT and Miami. Does it make sense for them to go up and play teams in the rust belt and great plains for only a few more million per year? The SEC will likely look at: FSU, Clemson, NC State, UNC, VT. Out of these it really only makes sense for FSU, everyone else will get crushed and be lower middle class in the league at best. Clemson in particular will go from being top dog to 9th or 10th immediately. Playoff checks >> the disparity between conferences any given year (if our rights are renegotiated).
Lastly any teams left behind are going to have to travel out to Texas and the great plains to play Big 12 schools. While there would be fun match ups this makes absolutely no sense for teams on the Atlantic coast, and any team that could end up with this outcome should be working overtime to make sure the ACC stays together (that includes us)
MONEY is the big - and only - reason it makes sense. Money drives everything else. Without money, there are no competitive sports. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The ACC is getting left in the dust, financially, and our deal, which is already awful and still has over a decade on it with no growth, is a complete joke. By the end of this contract we'll be making pennies compared to the other big leagues. If we assume that, alignment wise, nothing else changes and the P5 remain relatively intact it will effectively become the P4 because all of the other leagues will have opportunities (plural) to renegotiate better contracts before the ACC does. The PAC and Big12 will quickly surpass the ACC and by 2036 will probably have at least double the payout that the ACC will. The ACC's contract looked competitive at the time it was signed, and that lasted about 5 minutes, but the deal was set in stone for like 20 years. Money is a big deal. The ACC doesn't have enough of it. And when the natives (FSU, UNC) are getting restless with 13 years remaining on the deal that's not a great sign. Everyone in the league can see, now, that they are completely and utterly screwed. In 5-10 years there will be 0 teams in the ACC that will be able to compete on a national level. We will be, effectively, relegated to the G5. Because of MONEY.
I addressed the money part
I don't think there's any way, IMO, to renegotiate the ACC media deal and come anywhere near the same stratosphere as the SEC and Big Ten. The ACC just doesn't have enough big football brands/fan bases to warrant that amount of money. They might be able to squeeze a few million more out per school, but there is too much dead weight in the conference as far as football goes. Small schools like BC, Wake, Cuse, Duke with little to no football interest don't move the needle. And even UNC which has started to have somewhat of a pulse in football still does not really carry much of a football brand, it's all about basketball for them.
In the long run, I would rather VT have a spot in the P2 and be assured relevance and financial security than continue to fall further behind and into irrelevancy just because we technically still might have a playoff opportunity (which won't matter because we won't have the cash to keep up and compete at that level anyhow if we stand pat). Something has to change one way or another. The only way the ACC I think is viable is cutting teams, but I just don't see that happening.
That's a pretty big assumption there. We play in the fastest growing markets in the US. Sure the bottom 4 private schools are pretty small and not big draws, but the other 10 schools are solid properties in good markets. The ACC >> the Big 10 besides Ohio State and Michigan, we are not that far behind. With the Big 12's new deal almost as valuable as ours right now, I bet you would see our value go up significantly if we renegotiated. And even if we're 10 mil per school behind, does that disparity justify leaving to anywhere other than the SEC? Absolutely not imo
You realize our media contract would have to go up by 5-600 million dollars to get us within $10m of the SEC/B1G? That's not ever happening, ESPN isn't going to 3x our contract to make us competitive. The B1G has 4 traditional blue bloods albeit one is down bad currently, the ACC has zero, maybe FSU if you want to stretch it. The ACC has nothing to provide a media company to warrant anywhere close to that amount of money.
Again, I don't think markets are the driving force this go around. It potentially could come into play with cable subscriber revenue for some key states, but this isn't like the last big expansion in 2010/11. It's all about football brands, known quantities and brands on the gridiron that have exciting stadium atmospheres and large followings. It's all about getting more eyes on more "big time" matchups. Atlanta is a huge market but you can't tell me GT controls any of that. This was the thinking last time that got us BC and Syracuse because we thought it got us Boston and NYC. Those are pro sports towns and don't care about college sports, specifically college football. The appeal in the south and Midwest at larger state schools with huge followings and brands for football is the driver behind all of this.
I've said all along that a smaller ACC with FSU, Clemson, Miami, VT, UVA, UNC, NC State, Louisville, GT, Pitt, and add WVU with no divisions would be about the most compelling product possible we could put out in football to increase the payouts. But short of that I don't see how they do it with so much dead weight. And even contraction won't get us very close to where the big 2 are, just better than we have been.
But that's exactly what I'm talking about in VT, NC State, UNC, Miami, FSU, Louisville while all of those schools happen to be in great markets as well. Pitt could easily be in that list as well. Clemson is another one just not in a good market.
The reasoning behind the Big 10 getting close to $100 mil while the ACC lives in poverty is all backwards. People are moving out of the rust belt states and their high schools are deemphasizing football, it's harder and harder to recruit there. Long term you'd definitely want to bet on the ACC.
The SEC being so high really does make sense, but lets not pretend the main contributor to that and their brands being so well known isn't the promotion that ESPN gave them to begin with. It's a self fulfilling prophecy
I agree about the population shift and growth more in the ACC footprint than the Big Ten. But they still have Ohio State and Michigan, which are inarguably two of the best programs in the history of the sport, PSU who is borderline elite, and soon to have USC which is again inarguably one of the top programs in history. The ACC just doesn't have anything close to that in brand appeal. FSU and Miami had dynasties beginning in the 80s and 90s and are top brands but not blue bloods. Clemson is a hot commodity now but not a blue blood by any stretch. The ACC just can't match that brand power in football. And fair or not, the SEC is perceived by recruits and many others as the best conference top to bottom in the country. And they have a long resume of dominating to back that up.
By they, you mean Alabama and Georgia just to be clear. And Georgia's is 6 years long
Florida also won 2 titles in the last 20 years, LSU won 3 and and played for a 4th, Auburn won 1 and played for another. Their bowl record in BCS/NY6 games is also unmatched. Now throw in Texas and Oklahoma to the mix. Hard to argue against the strength of that league.
Since the 2006 Rose Bowl, there has only been one national championship game that didn't feature an SEC team (and that was the first CFP title game).
The SEC won 7 national championships in a row from 2006-2012 - Florida, LSU, Florida, Alabama, Auburn, Alabama, Alabama.
There's been 3 national title games since 2011 featuring two SEC teams.
If we retroactively add Texas and Oklahoma to that group, then 19 of the last 20 national championship games have featured SEC teams (as of 2024).
You don't have to like it, and I bet a lot of folks around here don't, but the SEC is clearly the top of the pecking order in college football.
Reminds me of a certain scene from The Office
Besides money, why does it make sense for any of these schools to play in this conference? What do VT, NC State, and Clemson have in common with BC and Syracuse?
Most places estimate you need at least 8 teams to leave the conference to dissolve the GoR.
I don't know where you get this number, but I haven't seen anyone who believes that (if the ACC could renegotiate) that they are getting within $5-10m/school of the B10/SEC. Whit recently mentioned that VT needs to make at least 70% of what SEC/B10 schools are making - if we could achieve that, I'm fine staying in the Acc. But I'm not sure we can do that, much less stay within 90-95% of what the B10 is making.
Partial color schemes, if you squint.
The issue is that after renegotiation the disparity is going be more like $50M/year in the next 5-7 years.
You still seem to think this is being driven by matchups. It's not. It's all about subscriber revenue, because that's what enables the media companies to write those giant checks to the conferences every year. The SEC and B1G aren't interested in VA or NC because they think it will give them a bunch of competitive matchups -- they have plenty of those already. They're interested in those states primarily because there are millions of TV households that will pay for access to college football content.
Of course brand value matters -- the SEC isn't adding ECU and JMU, obviously. But the primary factor isn't "does VT have a shot at winning the SEC in the next 2-3 years, if so we should add them", it's "hey, if we add VT, Disney can demand more money from Verizon/AT&T/Comcast/Cox/etc and pay us millions more than they already do".
It's all(ways) about the benjamins.
Agree. John Skipper laid it out pretty well in that one video. It's all about that $5 or $7 or $10 per subscriber per month in a state that is not already included in the TV package.
Working in our favor is we have the largest following in Virginia, a state where neither the Big 10 nor the SEC have schools. Also true for North Carolina. But the math might not work to take 2 schools from each state, so the ties that bind VT/UVa and UNC/NCSU may be working against us.
This is why I think the SEC should add VT and UNC/NC State and make off like bandits. First, VT is down right now in football but is one of the better brands in the sport over the last 30 years, has a rabid fan base and great football stadium atmosphere for TV. If we can get back to even 75% of what we were that would be monumental. And notwithstanding that, the SEC network subscriber revenue from cable and satellite for VA as an in-market territory would generate a massive amount of cash from the numbers I've seen floating around. VA and NC combined, the subscriber revenue would at no worse keep the payouts even for an 18 team league. And that's not factoring in ad/sponsor revenue from matchups involving those teams that can be built into the agreement. UNC would be the sexy NC pick, but I would argue NC State would be the better SEC fit. They actually care about football, and I've always viewed them as a sister school to VT in a ton of regards. Lot of mutual respect between those fanbases that I've encountered.
Well VT and NC State are both Land Grant Universities.
FSU and Clemson's current statements remind me of an old lawyering joke: "When the law is on your side, pound the law. When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When neither are on your side, pound the table."
I agree that they have zero actual leverage, but they're attempting to use their current status as "teams with a pulse" as leverage. I think they are actually hoping to cause enough of a ruckus in the conference that we all collectively figure something else out. Without that, I think the only real option for the ACC schools is to deal with the contract they all signed.
My take is that they recognize the problem; they don't have a solution; and their response is to see if creating chaos will get the wheels moving somewhere.
All that to say - they're not doing this because they used to be cool with equal ACC shares and now that they're good on the field, they're not cool with equal ACC shares. They're doing it because the current ACC shares, equal or not, just don't work if you want to win national championships.
Spot on. They aren't really complaining because they want a bigger slice of the pie, they're complaining that the pie hasn't really grown in nearly 20 years. That is alarming if you want to remain competitive as a conference.
The real issue the GoR. The ACC leadership wants this to remain intact as it is holding the conference together. Together the ACC and the schools want the broadcasting contract eliminated. But the people holding the contract have no interest in redoing it. They suckered the ACC into a 20 year deal when most conferences were doing 10 as a LONG contract.
I don't think the ACC and Pac should merge, but I do think it would be a good idea for the ACC, PAC and B12 to sell their rights together. "Unless you pay X, you aren't getting any of our rights". The majority of value in CFB is still outside the B10/SEC regardless of the bullshit the networks will try to sell you
Only problem is we still can't negotiate rights till 2036.
A lot of entitlement and very little math going into that one. Hardly surprising coming from these jokers.
I bet you he thinks Carolina should have a bigger share than Virginia Tech or NC State, which would be absolute bullshit. Taking basketball out of the equation they are not a top 5 draw in the conference. If they're receiving the 6th largest share in unequal distribution how much exactly is that compared to what they get now
The AD of a school with a clown college should shut the fuck up.
I'm not sure we should be throwing stones....
FSU ranks #55 on us news college rankings 2022
VT is #62 on the same list
Wow that is great! Sands has been killing it. We were in the 100s a few years ago. Great to bring up the entire university and not just be an engineering school. Being well rounded is important.
Also because of ties FSU and VT are now adjacent. There are 7 schools at 55th which means VT is the next (tied) ranked school in the list.
VT's in-state tuition listed on this website is now more than the out-of-state tuition was when I was a student. It's kind of insane.
They also just held a town hall discussion about raising tuition again, but from everything I read no one could get on the zoom call and the BoV basically ignored students when they got the chance to speak
People wonder why I keep saying that I would gladly send my kids to NC State or UNC over Virginia Tech. Out of state at VT costs $25k more per year than it would to send my kids in state. For 2 kids, I would look to save $200k by them staying in state vs going to VT. Their total 4 years in state would cost less than one year at VT.
I dont understand why anyone would look at you oddly, UNC and NC state are great schools and instate. Going out of state rarely makes sense and I was out of state at VT. I could have saved $80k+ staying instate.
College is a racket. Unless you're getting a STEM degree or something in business it's a waste of money.
General business degrees are some of the most inflated in the country with regards to alumni. STEM is really the only one worth the debt
Ehh... 90% of the time its less about the degree and more about where you end up working. End up in the public sector and there aren't many degrees that are actually worth the salary you'll be making. End up working for a Tech Giant or in FinTech (even on the business side) and there aren't many degrees that aren't worth it. All a degree does is open the first door in employment. From there, its all on you.
I'd argue the biggest upside of a degree in 2023 is the professional network. The fact that I can hit up any Hokie on LinkedIn and get a job referral is huge.
Hit the nail on the head. Granted I'm only 6 years post grad, but I've worked for two companies and I got in with both via friends from Tech or alumni within the company
Public Florida college rankings in that ranking list won't stay up there for much longer with future funding cuts, board takeovers, ending tenure etc coming here in the state.
At the rate they're going....(CGs)... Which means a lot of the football talent will be stuck in Florida, since they won't be able to get into non- FL schools
Their 'clown college' is ranked higher than VT by most 'authorities' on the matter.
Trust me - I know that college rankings are somewhere between a beauty pageant and a complete scam - but let's not be like UVA and talk about playing school while everyone else is talking about playing ball.
When you do that, your conference is dead. It's over. Especially in today's climate.