tOfficial ACC Doomsday thread

[WhosYourDawggy]

One other thing on this ... people who keep saying ESPN isn't willing to renegotiate, why would they? And I don't mean why would they when they have a great deal. I mean why would they when the fact the ACC has the deal they have because they don't have SEC and B1G economics? This is all math. A conference contract is worth what the carriers can get for advertising. You get more for advertising when a lot of people watch your content. A lot of people watch SEC and B1G content. Very few people watch ACC content. Hence, they don't get paid as much. So many people go on and on about the bad deal they got. Sure, it was stupid to do a 16 year deal, but the dollar amounts simply reflect the reality of the ACC not being a good football product. You can't change that by simply re-opening negotiations.

 

[wildturkey]

Absolutely a bluff imho and agree with @rfjeff9, If they could, they’d already be gone.

IIRC @WhosYourDawggy and I searched for cases in the past where GOR’s were broken and it’s like finding hens teeth. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a case where one has been broken in situations like this or the entertainment industry or… anywhere else for that matter. Like they say, contracts were made to be broken but by God it sure looks to me like a GOR is about as iron clad a contract can be or at the least it’s too much of a hassle for the parties involved to go through with it.
I guess Texas and OU leaving the Big12 is an example but that was just a year and both paid through the nose. The conference members were smart to get what they could while they could out of both instead of letting them walk.
FSU buying out a GOR with this much time left on it? Fat chance I say, the FSU BOT member is full of it.

I HAVE heard an idea floated to try n keep the desirable members happy by making uneven shares and “bonuses” for teams that make it to the playoffs ect. But even then, what 5,10,15 mm to those schools? Is that going to fill the gap enough to keep em happy? I’m thinkin no.

It's not a bluff though. They're serious. They (and others) will be out of the conference sooner than later. It just wasn't happening this year for a couple of reasons. I won't be shocked at all if it happens next summer. Certainly within 2 to 3 years. This wasn't just FSU shouting into the void. It was FSU publicly making a declaration that the ACC is over and for others to recognize that and get on board. It's untenable and there's no future here in the conference for them or any school that wants to compete in football. They never said they were leaving this specific year though. That's the part where wannabe insiders ran with because of the dates involved.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

It's not a bluff though. They're serious. They (and others) will be out of the conference sooner than later. It just wasn't happening this year for a couple of reasons. I won't be shocked at all if it happens next summer. Certainly within 2 to 3 years. This wasn't just FSU shouting into the void. It was FSU publicly making a declaration that the ACC is over and for others to recognize that and get on board. It's untenable and there's no future here in the conference for them or any school that wants to compete in football. They never said they were leaving this specific year though. That's the part where wannabe insiders ran with because of the dates involved.

How?

- They can't break the GOR. Don't even come back at me unless you have a very specific legal analysis as to how it will be done.
- They can't afford to simply leave - it would cost in the $600 million range, and no one is doing that.

So, if you really think it's just a matter of time, how? Not some mumbo jumbo that they were whining about. How?

The only two possible ways I've read are:

- Enough teams want to leave such that the conference dissolves. No one has been able to show what that would take. Presumably more than half. Yet, less than half actually would be desirable to other P4 conferences. So, it's not likely that will happen. For example, the payout for the ACC is better than the B12. So all the middling teams aren't going to vote to go to the B12.

You are a VaTech fan - you guys won't vote to dissolve the conference because you aren't getting into the SEC or the B1G. Do you really want to be in the B12 with a smaller payout, playing coast to coast?

- Private equity ... there was an article that they might sell their football rights to a PE firm meaning they could get $600 million to pay their way out. The problem is that what value would the PE firm get? The GOR would apply to them, and they would get no return. Also, there is no precedent for a school's athletic department to be owned by a private organization. That has all sorts of NCAA regulation issues to look into, Title IX ramifications, not to mention the idea that you look like a bunch of shitheads if you don't own your own athletics. And the PE firm could do or want to do all sorts of things to drive profits that could really screw things up.

So, how? The fact is that they were throwing a hissy fit that things weren't going their way.

 

[TaikoTiger]

One other thing on this ... people who keep saying ESPN isn't willing to renegotiate, why would they? And I don't mean why would they when they have a great deal. I mean why would they when the fact the ACC has the deal they have because they don't have SEC and B1G economics? This is all math. A conference contract is worth what the carriers can get for advertising. You get more for advertising when a lot of people watch your content. A lot of people watch SEC and B1G content. Very few people watch ACC content. Hence, they don't get paid as much. So many people go on and on about the bad deal they got. Sure, it was stupid to do a 16 year deal, but the dollar amounts simply reflect the reality of the ACC not being a good football product. You can't change that by simply re-opening negotiations.

Nobody is saying they will get BIG / SEC money in a renegotiation but ESPN definitely got a steal in this current deal. Kodus to ESPN to getting a 16 year deal

 

[rfjeff9]

Tobacco Road rumormill is that the ACC schools are meeting again this weekend to have an actual vote (not just another strawnpoll) likely meaning something has been worked out. Cal, Stanford, and maybe SMU being discussed again. SMU has stated intentions of not taking any media share for some years just to get I to the conference. Stanford is open to a short term no share or longer term reduced share. Cal can't afford either of those terms.

 

[Wild Turkey]

According to reports, Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina and North Carolina State were against the move of bringing in both Pac-12 schools, while Notre Dame continued to lobby for the Cardinals.

Heavy hitters lobbying:

It reached a tipping point when former president George Bush lobbied for SMU to be a part of the ACC’s plan for expansion. Also, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was lobbying on her own for Stanford

Evidently, a vote was called off today (just assume they didn't have the votes).

Honestly it makes no sense to me to add these teams.

 

[wildturkey]

According to reports, Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina and North Carolina State were against the move of bringing in both Pac-12 schools, while Notre Dame continued to lobby for the Cardinals.

Heavy hitters lobbying:

It reached a tipping point when former president George Bush lobbied for SMU to be a part of the ACC’s plan for expansion. Also, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was lobbying on her own for Stanford

Evidently, a vote was called off today (just assume they didn't have the votes).

Honestly it makes no sense to me to add these teams.

That's old news from what I've seen. The meeting today was a previously scheduled general meeting that just got cancelled. It wasn't something that got added to a schedule for the specific vote and then scrapped.

 

[Grant Ward]

 

[ericd7633]

Looking like Stanford/Cal/SMU to the ACC is gonna get done.

 

[wildturkey]

I'm still not seeing anything new here. It's the same garbage proposal from last week. They're just pushing for a vote again. And if they do manage to get enough, they're dumb as fuck. That money boost is a pissant difference compared to the money BIG and SEC is bringing in. It's also a short term gain that'll be wiped out over time as those schools get closer to full shares. Not only that, but depending on the structure of the incentivized distribution, plenty of schools won't be making much of anything, also with added travel costs. And on top of that, you're further diluting your brand adding two schools that don't really compete consistently enough at a P5 level and another with a shit ton of cash yet they can't even buy their way to competence as is. It's a shitty deal for a multitude of reasons for multiple schools, not just the ones that want to leave the ACC either like FSU. This reeks of a desperation gotta do something move but they got caught with their pants down and didn't pursue the PAC12 schools aggressively enough over the last couple of years, allowing BIG/FOX to eat their lunch. This won't help them. They're still fucked. But they'll feel smart and smug like they did something so I'm positive they'll get it done.

 

[Collegefbfan]

I live deep in ACC country. My goal has always been to see as many college teams and stadiums I can. I see no value in adding these teams. Is it just to "add more teams" because other conferences are doing it? The thing is the SEC and B1G are actually "adding something" in relation to depth, competition, and money. How can ACC heads not see that this move is very "not smart'?

 

[ralphiewvu]

I live deep in ACC country. My goal has always been to see as many college teams and stadiums I can. I see no value in adding these teams. Is it just to "add more teams" because other conferences are doing it? The thing is the SEC and B1G are actually "adding something" in relation to depth, competition, and money. How can ACC heads not see that this move is very "not smart'?

Aside from B12 teams, many of which add very little or no value to the TV contract who else can the ACC grab? Adding these teams basically saves most of the ACC until 2036 and gives them a chance to be #3 in the long run. I know the logistics are horrid but this really needs to happen imo if the ACC wants the chance to survive long term.

 

[Grant Ward]

I'm still not seeing anything new here. It's the same garbage proposal from last week. They're just pushing for a vote again. And if they do manage to get enough, they're dumb as fuck. That money boost is a pissant difference compared to the money BIG and SEC is bringing in. It's also a short term gain that'll be wiped out over time as those schools get closer to full shares. Not only that, but depending on the structure of the incentivized distribution, plenty of schools won't be making much of anything, also with added travel costs. And on top of that, you're further diluting your brand adding two schools that don't really compete consistently enough at a P5 level and another with a shit ton of cash yet they can't even buy their way to competence as is. It's a shitty deal for a multitude of reasons for multiple schools, not just the ones that want to leave the ACC either like FSU. This reeks of a desperation gotta do something move but they got caught with their pants down and didn't pursue the PAC12 schools aggressively enough over the last couple of years, allowing BIG/FOX to eat their lunch. This won't help them. They're still fucked. But they'll feel smart and smug like they did something so I'm positive they'll get it done.

Idk, if they are talking about how to divide the money up, sounds like they have progressed deeper in to talks of this actually happening.

 

[Deep Creek]

Aside from B12 teams, many of which add very little or no value to the TV contract who else can the ACC grab? Adding these teams basically saves most of the ACC until 2036 and gives them a chance to be #3 in the long run. I know the logistics are horrid but this really needs to happen imo if the ACC wants the chance to survive long term.

Yeah, most of the Big 12 teams are already maxed out in the value arena...as are the majority of ACC and the remaining PAC schools. (Some of the Power 2 are way beyond their value but we won't go down that rabbit hole right now. They're just riding along enjoying the gravy train.) None of the Big 12 reach that 4+ million viewer threshold. Outside the Power 2, there are only three that would bring at least as much revenue to the table as their share. Notre Dame, Florida State and Clemson. UNC won't unless hoops is included. And if hoops is included in the criteria, that opens up a whole bunch more. If research is included, then Virginia, Stanford, Cal, Rice, etal move up the food chain rapidly.

We need football only conferences. Those could be scattered all over the country in like groups since travel ain't near as big a deal. Then let the other sports stay more geographically based. There are enough OOC slots to get good matchups among the conferences in other sports.

 

[Thiefery]

I live deep in ACC country. My goal has always been to see as many college teams and stadiums I can. I see no value in adding these teams. Is it just to "add more teams" because other conferences are doing it? The thing is the SEC and B1G are actually "adding something" in relation to depth, competition, and money. How can ACC heads not see that this move is very "not smart'?

the whole idea of adding them is to generate a bit more money.. wonder if the Apple rumor is true

 

[ralphiewvu]

Yeah, most of the Big 12 teams are already maxed out in the value arena...as are the majority of ACC and the remaining PAC schools. (Some of the Power 2 are way beyond their value but we won't go down that rabbit hole right now. They're just riding along enjoying the gravy train.) None of the Big 12 reach that 4+ million viewer threshold. Outside the Power 2, there are only three that would bring at least as much revenue to the table as their share. Notre Dame, Florida State and Clemson. UNC won't unless hoops is included. And if hoops is included in the criteria, that opens up a whole bunch more. If research is included, then Virginia, Stanford, Cal, Rice, etal move up the food chain rapidly.

We need football only conferences. Those could be scattered all over the country in like groups since travel ain't near as big a deal. Then let the other sports stay more geographically based. There are enough OOC slots to get good matchups among the conferences in other sports.

If we doing football only conferences there should be a promotion/relegation aspect imo. Teams fighting for livelihoods compared to bowl appearances would be highly more entertaining. Wishful thinking though.

 

[Deep Creek]

If we doing football only conferences there should be a promotion/relegation aspect imo. Teams fighting for livelihoods compared to bowl appearances would be highly more entertaining. Wishful thinking though.

I agree but I doubt the powers that be would. It seems television wants games involving those "brand names" regardless of the quality of their teams. Plenty of examples of late. Texas, USC, Nebraska Michigan (until recently). They wouldn't like them being relegated in favor of Utah, K-State, etc.

 

[CorpRebel]

<snip>
We need football only conferences. Those could be scattered all over the country in like groups since travel ain't near as big a deal. Then let the other sports stay more geographically based. There are enough OOC slots to get good matchups among the conferences in other sports.

Sissies...

 

[Collegefbfan]

I know, for the most part, with Texas and Oklahoma going SEC and UCLA and Southern Cal going B1G, there are some backroom dealings and papers to sign and all that. What is crazy though is it seemed like those deals were done in an instance. Not any of this he said, she said, hemming and hawing back and forth. It was like Twitter and ESPN and whoever broke the news, and it was done. Now, with what is going on with the ACC is the exact opposite. It is like "building the plane while you fly it" sort of philosophy. I remember a preview magazine I purchased years ago when the ACC expanded and got VT, Miami, and whoever else. That magazine did a conference rankings and had the ACC #1. They were nowhere close to it then and look where they are at now. Not bashing, just in disbelief somewhat.

 

[wildturkey]

Idk, if they are talking about how to divide the money up, sounds like they have progressed deeper in to talks of this actually happening.

I'm positive I've read about the splits (what the new schools are taking) before this new round of stories broke. Now maybe that was some inside info and now they are officially presenting in a meeting, I can't recall. I'm just saying it doesn't look new to me. The new thing might be they're gonna tilt more of the unequal split dispersed to the other conference members more towards teams like FSU/Clem to try to swing their votes.