ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment | Page 268 | Syracusefan.com

ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment

They actually do bring in enough to justify it. Between the cable adds and the additional base ESPN pay they more than pay for themselves. This is an accretive deal.
If it means added revenue while we wait out the inevitable dismantling in 10 years or so, then so be it. But as someone said, I hope the ACC financial wizards haven't given loopholes to FSU, Clemson, and the others who've been itching to leave. I have no faith in the conference HQ- they're constantly reactive after the fact, and appear flatfooted while isht is happening around them.
 
I think this is a no win situation, all of this is football and $$ motivated, eventually these schools will get full shares, and they don’t bring in enough $$$ to justify it. Now maybe something in the works to stream or add TV revenue and this will be more understandable, but as of now I think it’s just a bandaid. Further more no other conference has an off number of teams? Notre Dame ain’t joining you would think there has to be another west coast or Mountain west area school they should add to help with travel.
The college football world will see more changes before any of these schools gets a full share. Nice short term money grab by existing ACC schools but I don't see how this keeps SU relevant on the next spin of the dial.
 
It will be more than that and grow over time. Adding Dallas and the Bay area is a plus. My sense is the first of a few moves that will be made.
This isn’t a back and forth I promise, but why do u think it will be more than that? Adding those markets are awesome I agree but why would ESPN need to pay the ACC more when they already have such a sweet heart contract. This most definitely will get ESPN more money but not sure that funnels down to the 14 teams.
 
This isn’t a back and forth I promise, but why do u think it will be more than that? Adding those markets are awesome I agree but why would ESPN need to pay the ACC more when they already have such a sweet heart contract. This most definitely will get ESPN more money but not sure that funnels down to the 14 teams.
The agreement is based on a formula. Those markets move the needle.
 
Does this vote of taking on more schools open up the entire GoR contract or allow the conference to add more years to the whole thing?

Just a little concerned that the schools that have showed doubt in the ACC may use their needed votes as leverage to chip away at the strength of the GoR.
No. Any school that joins the ACC must sign the same GOR all current ACC schools have already signed. The GOR should not be affected in any way.
 
This isn’t a back and forth I promise, but why do u think it will be more than that? Adding those markets are awesome I agree but why would ESPN need to pay the ACC more when they already have such a sweet heart contract. This most definitely will get ESPN more money but not sure that funnels down to the 14 teams.
It's been previously reported in this thread that the per subscriber charge for the ACCN is higher in a state with an ACC team. Given the current state of cable TV, however, ESPN may only be able to get that in the Bay & Dallas areas rather than the whole states of California & Texas. I'd think some of greater revenue generated by the ACCN would benefit the ACC schools.
 
The most I have seen any projections is an extra 3 million a year per school per year, once you factor in travel and how it hurts Olympic sports not sure it it make financial sense. This does nothing to appease FSU or Clemson, the gap in still way to much. Now if it was an extra 10 million per school then so be it.
Lol. We now have armchair expert posters weighing in on speculative financials and confidently asserting that the deal shouldn’t be made. Why don’t you leave the details to the professionals and the people running the conference who actually have all the particulars and knowledge of the deal to add these three teams?
 
If Notre Dame wants this to happen they should give the ACC a 6th game. Which will also make ESPN happy. With 17 full members that means ND plays everyone home and away every 6 years. There will be 2 extra games to be played over those 6 years which you can allow ND to chose who they play. It can be one school (so 4x over 6 years) or two schools (both 3x over 6 years).

With 17 it is a bit hard to schedule, but with the 6 ND games you can prevent late season bye weeks. As to the conference schedule I think you need to go 4 + 4/4/4 rotated. Which means you play non perm rivals home and away over 6 years. So for SU it would mean 2 California trips in 6 years, and one Texas trip.

The perm rivals I would go with the below. That protects every series played over 57x except Duke vs UVA (70x). Which makes up for games lost under the current format.

BC- SU, Pitt, Miami, Stanford (add Stanford)
Clemson- Wake, NC State, GA Tech, FSU (add Wake)
Duke- UNC, Wake, GA Tech, NC State (add GA Tech)
FSU- Miami, Clemson, SU, Louisville (add Louisville)
GA Tech- Duke, Clemson, UVA, Cal (adding Duke, UVA, Cal and losing Louisville, Wake)
Louisville- Miami, VA Tech, FSU, SMU (adding VA Tech, FSU, SMU and losing GA Tech, UVA)
Miami- FSU, BC, Louisville, SMU (add SMU)
UNC- UVA, Wake, Duke, NC State (add Wake)
NC State- Wake, UNC, Clemson, Duke (add Wake)
Pitt- SU, BC, VA Tech, Cal (add Cal)
SU- Pitt, BC, VA Tech, FSU (add VA Tech)
UVA- UNC, VA Tech, GA Tech, Stanford (add GA Tech, Stanford and lose Louisville)
VA Tech- UVA, Pitt, SU, Louisville (add SU, Louisville and lose Wake)
Wake- NC State, UNC, Duke, Clemson (add NC State, UNC, Clemson and lose GA Tech, VA Tech)
Cal- Stanford, SMU, GA Tech, Pitt
SMU- Cal, Stanford, Louisville, Miami
Stanford- Cal, SMU, BC, UVA

Going to bump this as what I would like to see. If I have time I will list the rivalry games at 50 and over that will not be played, as well as the current amounts for the above.
 
This isn’t a back and forth I promise, but why do u think it will be more than that? Adding those markets are awesome I agree but why would ESPN need to pay the ACC more when they already have such a sweet heart contract. This most definitely will get ESPN more money but not sure that funnels down to the 14 teams.
Those teams will create additional revenue for the ACC Network, which is co-owned by the conference.
 
Lol. We now have armchair expert posters weighing in on speculative financials and confidently asserting that the deal shouldn’t be made. Why don’t you leave the details to the professionals and the people running the conference who actually have all the particulars and knowledge of the deal to add these three teams?
That’s literally all a fan board is for. If we police talking about this we might as well make sure no one talks about game decisions, time management, dome improvements, movement of games and the like because hey, we’re not D1 coaches on the sidelines or in the board rooms.
 
Sources being some a$$hat from FSU. "Officials working on how to divide pool". Pathetic. How about we take FSUs added share and give it to Clemson for that one added vote needed and tell FSU to go shut up and sit in the corner and oh we needed one more team for a pod FSU, so we are partnering you with the new schools. Be sure to sign up for frequent flier.
 
Some options (I like lists):
Super 2 Breakaway
1. In-conference playoffs with champions playing for the title
2. Top teams (#TBD) set up cross conference tournament, open with something like B1G#1 vs SEC#4, etc.
3. Just seed top # of teams across the two conferences into a bracket
ISSUES: Who are they going to play in the regular season? In-conference only?
Could the outsiders develop a playoff that competes for attention or casts doubt on "True" National Champion?

Form a new NCAA Division above D-1
1. Super 2 Champs are the only ones to get a autobid. Rest are at-large (mostly Super 2s and a couple tokens from lesser conferences).
2. Same as above, but a 3rd conference champ also gets an autobid (likely a merged ACC/B12 or the last survivor).
3. No autobids. Again, most of playoff lineup will be Super 2, plus whoever the hot outsiders are that crack the rankings in a given season.
ISSUE: How would the selection system vary from the current one?
If anything, the breakaway will be to take football out of the NCAA so that the players don't have to attend class. They'll still be the Alabama Crimson Tide and Ohio State Buckeyes, but the name will be used under license to a team owner. The argument will be put forward that they've gone a long way toward title IX compliance because the 85-scholarships/100+ roster spots for football are now gone. Separation will come at a cost, losing records for teams used to winning. As I have posted before, which Week 10 game will draw the bigger audience - 2-7 Alabama v. 3-6 Texas or 9-0 UVa v. 8-1 Pitt?

No matter what the future holds, the teams in the Bowl Subdivision want NCAA HQ to continue to have their present connection to football - none, so they get to keep all the money and none goes to the NCAA.
 
Does this additional money include added ACCN subscriptions? I haven't seen that directly noted.
The number of new ACCN subscriptions will be minimal. The big thing is that there are a lot of people in Texas and California who already get the ACCN and will be paying more for it. The argument that no one in California and Texas (or anywhere else, for that matter) cares about those teams is irrelevant. The ACCN is either part of the basic package or bundled into a premium sports package. People do not subscribe to it as a stand-alone. The current contract Disney has with the cable and stream providers regarding the ACCN has two prices, a higher price for ACC states and a lower one for non-ACC states. Metro areas do not matter, so someone in NYC is paying the same for the ACCN as someone in CNY. The day that "Calford" and SMU join the ACC is the day that the cost of the ACCN goes up in the entirety of California and Texas by ~$1 per subscriber.
 
Last edited:

Yeah, IMO, it's pretty obvious that Clemson is as much as a, let's just say, culprit here as FSU is. They are just doing it in a more snake-like approach vs. their counterpart, FSU's lion's roar tact. There's no doubt, IMO, about that, Clemson is as unhappy and untrustworthy as FSU is in all of this, wearing their inferior complex when it comes to how they've been treated over the years by kingpin UNC and the tarheel state, etc.
 
FSU and Clemson will land some top talent out of Cali and Texas. That's a huge upside for them.
 
Our insiders seem to be hinting at that Clemson and FSU will be leave the conference by summer of next year at the latest...
Interesting. Is the belief predicated on a new approach not necessarily being discussed? Certainly if they want to cut big checks that's one path. They can try litigation but I don't think that is something to hang out hope for, so what is the premise?
 
Our insiders seem to be hinting that Clemson and FSU will leave the conference by summer of next year at the latest...
And what conference do they think will offer them? Neither the B18 nor the SEC will risk a lawsuit. Also the share in either will be less than they can get in the ACC. So if they want to pay $1B to be Indy, please do as that makes us rich.
 
Our insiders seem to be hinting that Clemson and FSU will leave the conference by summer of next year at the latest...

At the latest?

The other option would be for this year then?

Cut the check to leave, get the routing number and bank account number for the media rights to go into the right bank account and pack up your stuff.

Or, you can get entangled in litigation that will be costly and last a long time and will include politicians.

I like Clemson. Like their fans. Like the program. Love the chatter here with them. Truly. Great people.

And all of this may happen, and I may be wrong, but anyone saying they are gone by latest next summer is either the booster fronting the gajillions to do the pay out and float the program while the GOR is intact, or it's just kicking and screaming.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
170,415
Messages
4,890,436
Members
5,996
Latest member
meierscreek

Online statistics

Members online
279
Guests online
1,284
Total visitors
1,563


...
Top Bottom