FSU vs The ACC

[Van1144]

FSU needs to call another meeting after this Horrid start! Reality is, FSU and Clemson have very weak cases against the ACC. The ACC saw the future and like it or not protected the conference with a death star contract in which all signed. The real get, IMO, is Notre Dame. It's a win/win situation for the conference and ND. Being a lone wolf out there has its drawbacks, so at the very least ND needs to partner for all their other sports. I'm ok with a base percentage of revenues and a performance clause that gives more resources to colleges that perform and bring in extra revenue. Keeping the ACC as it is and adding ND would clearly bring up revenues for schools in the ACC in line with SEC and B1G or at least close. But, in reality anything that makes sense probably isn't going to happen. Unless we have a mass exodus along with Clemson and FSU, I don't see them leaving unless someone like ESPN gets involved, and the ACC network is growing.

 

[WoadBlue]

No, don't you see? Their lackluster performance is PROOF that the ACC is holding them back!

I think I may have posted this here before: years ago before I was banned by Warchant, there was a post on Warchant in which the ACC was accused of causing FSU to lose to Wake Forest.

 

[Nicknack]

Always pull for the acc in non conference games

Not when it comes to FSU. No way. I hate them.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Just a friendly reminder that FSU is 30-28 (including ACC CG but not including 2020 L to ND) vs ACC teams from 2017-today. They went 9-0 last season too. And 2016 they were only 5-3. So over the last 9 seasons they are 35-31 vs ACC schools. Go Cal!

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

Surely they are going to bench DJ right?

-2 at home vs Cal is insane. GT Memphis and BC are good teams.

 

[rocklloyd]

Not when it comes to FSU. No way. I hate them.

Hangman on the sideline did it for me. Forever hate

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Surely they are going to bench DJ right?

What happened to that kid? He was “next”, right?

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Details around the new revenue structure remain murky, but leaders have reviewed a plan to create a separate pot of revenue to be divided based on media value metrics. This separate distribution would be specifically tied to a school’s television viewership ratings for football and potentially basketball.

Any new distribution would be available to all schools.

Along with the new revenue structure, leaders are examining amending the length of the league’s grant of rights, the binding agreement at the center of lawsuits from the Seminoles and Tigers. The ACC grant of rights, binding the schools together through 2036, would presumably be shortened.

It is unclear if enough support exists to approve these drastic moves. The belief is that, at the very least, a two-thirds majority is necessary.

 

[HtownOrange]

Details around the new revenue structure remain murky, but leaders have reviewed a plan to create a separate pot of revenue to be divided based on media value metrics. This separate distribution would be specifically tied to a school’s television viewership ratings for football and potentially basketball.

Any new distribution would be available to all schools.

Along with the new revenue structure, leaders are examining amending the length of the league’s grant of rights, the binding agreement at the center of lawsuits from the Seminoles and Tigers. The ACC grant of rights, binding the schools together through 2036, would presumably be shortened.

It is unclear if enough support exists to approve these drastic moves. The belief is that, at the very least, a two-thirds majority is necessary.

Beware of any "plan" that shortens the GOR without ESPN being heavily involved. ESPN is a key component of the whole enchilada. ESPN owns the rights through 2036 and unless they want to lose the ACC why would they shorten the GOR?

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Details around the new revenue structure remain murky, but leaders have reviewed a plan to create a separate pot of revenue to be divided based on media value metrics. This separate distribution would be specifically tied to a school’s television viewership ratings for football and potentially basketball.

Any new distribution would be available to all schools.

Along with the new revenue structure, leaders are examining amending the length of the league’s grant of rights, the binding agreement at the center of lawsuits from the Seminoles and Tigers. The ACC grant of rights, binding the schools together through 2036, would presumably be shortened.

It is unclear if enough support exists to approve these drastic moves. The belief is that, at the very least, a two-thirds majority is necessary.

This is BS. Why would schools cave in? There is zero reason to. You just screwed yourself for no reason. Just blow it up now if this is the case. I rather rip off the bandaid than cut off our nose the next 10 years.



As a conference the ACC at this moment has an advantage over the B12 because of the GOR length. Why throw that away?

Why would schools agree to give up revenue to get nothing in return? Going to a ratings based model is only fine if there is something in it for SU.

I rather SU vote to dissolve the ACC than to agree to these new terms. At least in that case we are moving on instead of sticking together for no reason and then taking less money to stay on top of that.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

They shouldn’t change anything unless they extend the GOR

 

[elimunelson]

They shouldn’t change anything unless they extend the GOR

To get something is to give something

I would assume espn would be ok w shortening that deal and that would be because of a further shakeup of tv by 2036.

To me if the conf can stay together till 2030 that’s a good solution. After that who knows what happens

 

[Cusefan69]

Ehhh...I don't see much happening here. Someone needs to articulate a valid reason as to why ESPN would choose not to extend the GOR. I have not read or heard any reason why that would make sense. So until then my opinion is it's highly unlikely ESPN will willingly shorten the GOR, there's no value in them doing so.
Maybe the ACC gives Clemson and FSU an off ramp for the lawsuits by throwing them a really small revenue adjustment "bone" but that is a huge maybe. There's no incentive to negotiate anything larger revenue wise when the ACC knows they would leave anyway. You don't reward FSU and Clemson for bad behavior.
Since Clemson and FSU brought these ideas to the ACC, it sounds to me more like desperation and a way to go back to their fans and say they tried. Again FSU is just burning money with attorneys. At some point the bean counters are going to tell them the money tree has been plucked clean.

 

[sutomcat]

This is BS. Why would schools cave in? There is zero reason to. You just screwed yourself for no reason. Just blow it up now if this is the case. I rather rip off the bandaid than cut off our nose the next 10 years.



As a conference the ACC at this moment has an advantage over the B12 because of the GOR length. Why throw that away?

Why would schools agree to give up revenue to get nothing in return? Going to a ratings based model is only fine if there is something in it for SU.

I rather SU vote to dissolve the ACC than to agree to these new terms. At least in that case we are moving on instead of sticking together for no reason and then taking less money to stay on top of that.

I don't think this proposal has a chance of passing. My guess is that it was leaked by FSU, probably by their shady AD. They are under a lot of pressure for the awful decision to sue the conference and the epic dumpster fire that their football program has become.

FSU just asked for a summary judgement with their lawsuit. They want a final decision ASAP. My guess is that they will lose it and quietly drop all litigation. I think right now they are trying hard to get something, anything they can show the FSU BOT, Chancellor and fanbase to prove that the lawsuits were not an idiotic waste of $50 million (or whatever the true cost ends up being).

 

[elimunelson]

I don't think this proposal has a chance of passing. My guess is that it was leaked by FSU, probably by their shady AD. They are under a lot of pressure for the awful decision to sue the conference and the epic dumpster fire that their football program has become.

FSU just asked for a summary judgement with their lawsuit. They want a final decision ASAP. My guess is that they will lose it and quietly drop all litigation. I think right now they are trying hard to get something, anything they can show the FSU BOT, Chancellor and fanbase to prove that the lawsuits were not an idiotic waste of $50 million (or whatever the true cost ends up being).

You think summary judgement loss and drop the lawsuit? I’d be shocked. They are pot committed.

The settlement makes sense for all. It isn’t perfect but it has to serve many masters. I’m hoping they stay in the ACC with less power and maybe a chance for more money.


Be funny if Syracuse ends up the highest television rated team w an ascendant football and a return to greatness for hoops

 

[SURU]

2030 isn’t an arbitrary year either. That’s when the B1Gs TV contract is up

 

[All4SU]

I don't think this proposal has a chance of passing. My guess is that it was leaked by FSU, probably by their shady AD. They are under a lot of pressure for the awful decision to sue the conference and the epic dumpster fire that their football program has become.

FSU just asked for a summary judgement with their lawsuit. They want a final decision ASAP. My guess is that they will lose it and quietly drop all litigation. I think right now they are trying hard to get something, anything they can show the FSU BOT, Chancellor and fanbase to prove that the lawsuits were not an idiotic waste of $50 million (or whatever the true cost ends up being).

I suggest we give them $100 in Chipotle coupons.

 

[All4SU]

When will these dipsticks (FSU, Clemson, and the ACC “Leadership”) realize that all of this does nothing but degrade the conference and reduce the fan’s support.

 

[All4SU]

You think summary judgement loss and drop the lawsuit? I’d be shocked. They are pot committed.

The settlement makes sense for all. It isn’t perfect but it has to serve many masters. I’m hoping they stay in the ACC with less power and maybe a chance for more money.


Be funny if Syracuse ends up the highest television rated team w an ascendant football and a return to greatness for hoops

How do they adjust television viewership numbers for time slots? For example, if one team has lots of nooners in football, or their weakest basketball opponents are all slotted for weekend time slots? I don’t see how you balance things like that out.

 

[USMCSnyper]

I suggest we give them $100 in Chipotle coupons.

Bojangles

 

[HRE Otto IV]

You think summary judgement loss and drop the lawsuit? I’d be shocked. They are pot committed.

The settlement makes sense for all. It isn’t perfect but it has to serve many masters. I’m hoping they stay in the ACC with less power and maybe a chance for more money.


Be funny if Syracuse ends up the highest television rated team w an ascendant football and a return to greatness for hoops

It makes no sense for anyone not named FSU or Clemson.

 

[elimunelson]

It makes no sense for anyone not named FSU or Clemson.

I think the fact they are talking and trying to get to a solution is a good thing. i don't look at these negotiations as game of thrones.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

The only way this would be acceptable is if ESPN bumps everyone up 10% and then on top of that adds money to be distributed based off of ratings. Then everyone is getting something. Taking money from school A to give to B is completely unacceptable.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I think the fact they are talking and trying to get to a solution is a good thing. i don't look at these negotiations as game of thrones.

I am fine using that model starting in 2037. Why should SU give up revenue from 2025-2030 so FSU can make more money, only to leave in 2029? It makes SU poorer and the ACC less stable.

There is no reason to compromise.

 

[All4SU]

The only way this would be acceptable is if ESPN bumps everyone up 10% and then on top of that adds money to be distributed based off of ratings. Then everyone is getting something. Taking money from school A to give to B is completely unacceptable.

I had a partner in business once, who felt he deserved some additional compensation over what I and the other partner were making. We voted 2-1 that if he received the additional money, we were entitled to same. So all three of us got a bump. Which is asinine, because it all came from the same pot. But it was the point of the matter. We were finished as partners by the end of the year, when I broke off.

The point is, a partnership cannot survive this kind of haggling. Someone needs to be an adult.