Don't stick a fork in the ACC yet...

[Knight&Day]

All of this is totally the Big12’s fault. They allowed Texas and Oklahoma to create a two tier system and piss off Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and aTm.

If they had an equal revenue share like the SEC and the B1G (used to have) and equal voting rights and Longhorn network then nobody leaves.

A good portion of that probably happened before I even started watching CFB. But yeah, unequal revenue sharing & voting rights seems like a very effective way to kill a conf.

If all of that is accurate, then the Big12 is as guilty as the Pac12.

 

[rfjeff9]

I can understand why the ACC would want Utah. I don't understand why Utah would want to join the ACC.

ACC did the same thing last year about Oregon and Washington joining the conference. Utah, Arizona and ASU already explored the ACC option and decided the Big 12 was the better option (and I think they were right). Why would they reverse course now that the ACC looks more vulnerable?

From what the article is indicating, Utah Arizona and Arizona State made a panic move to Big12 prematurely while still in talks with ACC once Washington amd Oregon left. Cal and Stanford continued talks. The objective was to bring the entire group but ACC settled for just 2. Oregon amd Washington were pushing B1G so ACC didn't really have an "in" with them.

Also according to the article, Utah didn't sign some agreement the rest did, so they still have a few months to decide if they want to stay Big12 or go ACC. if they do ACC it's likely that Oregon State and Washington State invited as well.

But yes, these talks were all before FSU started whining and throwing lawsuits, so maybe ACC isn't as great a landing spot. OR, maybe adding Utah - including 3 new states - will help to balance out this damn $21 Million new cost to compete and everybody can live with the new arrangement with or without FSU.

 

[duckboy33]

From what the article is indicating, Utah Arizona and Arizona State made a panic move to Big12 prematurely while still in talks with ACC once Washington amd Oregon left. Cal and Stanford continued talks. The objective was to bring the entire group but ACC settled for just 2. Oregon amd Washington were pushing B1G so ACC didn't really have an "in" with them.

Also according to the article, Utah didn't sign some agreement the rest did, so they still have a few months to decide if they want to stay Big12 or go ACC. if they do ACC it's likely that Oregon State and Washington State invited as well.

But yes, these talks were all before FSU started whining and throwing lawsuits, so maybe ACC isn't as great a landing spot. OR, maybe adding Utah - including 3 new states - will help to balance out this damn $21 Million new cost to compete and everybody can live with the new arrangement with or without FSU.

The difference is money and stability. Look at the deals Utah, Arizona, and ASU were offered by the Big 12 vs. the offers that Stanford and Cal got from the ACC. That's not a "panic move", that was a no brainer.

No offense but the Utah to the ACC stuff is clearly BS. It doesn't make sense for Utah no matter how you look at it. Lots of risk with no upside.

 

[rfjeff9]

The difference is money and stability. Look at the deals Utah, Arizona, and ASU were offered by the Big 12 vs. the offers that Stanford and Cal got from the ACC. That's not a "panic move", that was a no brainer.

No offense but the Utah to the ACC stuff is clearly BS. It doesn't make sense for Utah no matter how you look at it. Lots of risk with no upside.

I do not disagree but it's hindsight. Calford got the deal they have without Utah and the AZ schools. May be that ESPN had better money for the 5 school package. And at the time ACC wasn't considered so unstable.

 

[duckboy33]

I do not disagree but it's hindsight. Calford got the deal they have without Utah and the AZ schools. May be that ESPN had better money for the 5 school package. And at the time ACC wasn't considered so unstable.

Utah, ASU and Arizona discussed joining the ACC. They saw what the ACC offered and said "no thanks". ESPN already preemptively gave the Big 12 the money to add 4 more P5 teams. It was built into the Big 12 contract that ESPN would pay for the Big 12 to expand to 16 as long as they were adding P5 teams. Why would ESPN start bidding against itself?

The ACC didn't have the money to add those schools. That's partly why they joined the Big 12 to begin with and why Stanford/Cal/SMU got such shitty deals.

 

[rfjeff9]

Utah, ASU and Arizona discussed joining the ACC. They saw what the ACC offered and said "no thanks". ESPN already preemptively gave the Big 12 the money to add 4 more P5 teams. It was built into the Big 12 contract that ESPN would pay for the Big 12 to expand to 16 as long as they were adding P5 teams. Why would ESPN start bidding against itself?

The ACC didn't have the money to add those schools. That's partly why they joined the Big 12 to begin with and why Stanford/Cal/SMU got such shitty deals.

Maybe you're right, I don't necessarily disagree. But my point is we don't know what the ESPN deal was for the 5 team package to ACC before 3 went to Big12. Once the deal to Big12 was done ESPN probably backed off. I would have a hard time believing ESPN wasn't consulted in ACC adding those 5 teams.

The article merely says that 3 teams panicked and wrapped up with Big12. Maybe they did or maybe it made more sense to be in Big12 but you can't use instability as their reason because at the time everybody wasn't predicting a certain ACC apocalypse.

 

[duckboy33]

Maybe you're right, I don't necessarily disagree. But my point is we don't know what the ESPN deal was for the 5 team package to ACC before 3 went to Big12. Once the deal to Big12 was done ESPN probably backed off. I would have a hard time believing ESPN wasn't consulted in ACC adding those 5 teams.

The article merely says that 3 teams panicked and wrapped up with Big12. Maybe they did or maybe it made more sense to be in Big12 but you can't use instability as their reason because at the time everybody wasn't predicting a certain ACC apocalypse.

We don't know what the ESPN deal was for those 5 schools to join the ACC. We weren't in the room. Here's what we do know, the people in the room saw the offers and the ones with a Big 12 offer took that offer. Those without a Big 12 offer, took a much worse deal to join the ACC.

 

[rfjeff9]

We don't know what the ESPN deal was for those 5 schools to join the ACC. We weren't in the room. Here's what we do know, the people in the room saw the offers and the ones with a Big 12 offer took that offer. Those without a Big 12 offer, took a much worse deal to join the ACC.

Yes this is true. I can at least agree with that.

 

[CoalTrain]

Just curious why you think the ACC isn't already "Big 12 relevant"? IMO they occupy about the same level of national viewer interest as the Big 12 does. But, I may be missing something.

And, I doubt adding Utah changes the viewer dynamics much. JMO.

Just mean staying at or near the Big12’s value/status currently after the moves. Big12 took a big step backwards when Texas and OU left but the ACC for the time being still has some good brands that it could sell if they weren’t stuck in the long term deal. The Big 12 while being maybe the most entertaining moving forward no longer has the bell cow brand(s), good/solid brands but not big time needle movers. The ACC could look very similar depending on what happens in the conference as far as who stays and who goes.

 

[Wild Turkey]

I think the ACC has already taken steps in preparing for the eventual departure of FSU, Clemson, UNC and possibly others. It's no coincidence that Stanford, California and SMU were brought into the conference and FSU, Clemson and UNC were the only "no" votes. Those are the replacement schools. I think there are others schools that could be on the ACC's radar. A western branch that includes Oregon State and Washington State makes sense. USF would make sense, especially if the ACC loses Miami and FSU. UConn wouldn't be a bad fit either.

The ACC isn’t going to lose Miami. I just recently watched the ESPN 30 for 30 on “The U” both part 1 & 2 and neither the SEC or B1G are going to touch them as there has been more BS and illegal shit going down with that program that I’d forgotten a third of it and never heard of another third and the third I remembered was bad enough. They missed a potential death penalty because the NCAA got caught doing some sketchy stuff in their investigation and had to just drop the charges.

Not to mention if the B1G invited them it would almost guarantee ND would never join.

 

[rfjeff9]

Just mean staying at or near the Big12’s value/status currently after the moves. Big12 took a big step backwards when Texas and OU left but the ACC for the time being still has some good brands that it could sell if they weren’t stuck in the long term deal. The Big 12 while being maybe the most entertaining moving forward no longer has the bell cow brand(s), good/solid brands but not big time needle movers. The ACC could look very similar depending on what happens in the conference as far as who stays and who goes.

Right. To many pundits, the ACC is over and done but we still have all our teams here and no guarantee FSU is leaving in the next 6 years. On the surface I think they do not win their lawsuit and I haven't seen anything that makes me think otherwise.

So until someone leaves ACC payout is just fine. Although it will be minus whatever the conference has to shell out paying legal fees and such because of FSU and Clemson suits. Could be a considerable sum in the end.

 

[CoalTrain]

I think the ACC has already taken steps in preparing for the eventual departure of FSU, Clemson, UNC and possibly others. It's no coincidence that Stanford, California and SMU were brought into the conference and FSU, Clemson and UNC were the only "no" votes. Those are the replacement schools. I think there are others schools that could be on the ACC's radar. A western branch that includes Oregon State and Washington State makes sense. USF would make sense, especially if the ACC loses Miami and FSU. UConn wouldn't be a bad fit either.

No question they have, FSU has been squawking for awhile now, FSU HAS a spot in one of the Big2 waiting for them immediately should they find a way out of the GOR, I think that’s clear at this point but they (ACC) HAD to know that behind the scenes schools like UNC/Clemson ect. are feeling the same way and are feeling the pressure to keep up financially with schools in the “power 2”.
Let’s just tell the truth, Stanford and Cal have no business being in the ACC other than desperation from both parties and imo they are being used as future backfill for the conference so the ACC can get SOME kind of brands that they can sell later after their most desirable brands are gone and those schools do have some value so it’s probably about the best that they could hope for TBH.

 

[duckboy33]

No question they have, FSU has been squawking for awhile now, FSU HAS a spot in one of the Big2 waiting for them immediately should they find a way out of the GOR, I think that’s clear at this point but they (ACC) HAD to know that behind the scenes schools like UNC/Clemson ect. are feeling the same way and are feeling the pressure to keep up financially with schools in the “power 2”.
Let’s just tell the truth, Stanford and Cal have no business being in the ACC other than desperation from both parties and imo they are being used as future backfill for the conference so the ACC can get SOME kind of brands that they can sell later after their most desirable brands are gone and those schools do have some value so it’s probably about the best that they could hope for TBH.

100% spot on. It also might be in FSU and the ACC's interest to settle sooner rather than later. Assuming (for the ACC's sake) that it's an expensive settlement. That will discourage some of the borderline programs from doing the same thing. If the ACC fights it to the end, they may see their whole conference fall apart.

 

[huskers1217]

All of this is totally the Big12’s fault. They allowed Texas and Oklahoma to create a two tier system and piss off Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and aTm.

If they had an equal revenue share like the SEC and the B1G (used to have) and equal voting rights and Longhorn network then nobody leaves.

Two teams can’t carry a conference but Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and aTm would have been plenty to boast ratings. There would have been some big ratings games between those schools.

My bet is the PAC still implodes because of how terribly it was run and how they handled COVID but wouldn’t have been surprised if USC had reached out to the Big 12 as well at that point because their revenue package and travel would have been much better.

Anyone that says otherwise is mistaken.

It’s all the fault of Texas. The pac 12 relied on the Longhorns coming but Tejas used them as a pawn to get A&M and Nebraska out of the big 12. They had their bitch in Oklahoma

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

100% spot on. It also might be in FSU and the ACC's interest to settle sooner rather than later. Assuming (for the ACC's sake) that it's an expensive settlement. That will discourage some of the borderline programs from doing the same thing. If the ACC fights it to the end, they may see their whole conference fall apart.

The ACC has no choice but to fight. Either the GOR stands or it doesn't. If it doesn't, the conference is toast. There is no advantage to settling.

 

[rfjeff9]

No question they have, FSU has been squawking for awhile now, FSU HAS a spot in one of the Big2 waiting for them immediately should they find a way out of the GOR, I think that’s clear at this point but they (ACC) HAD to know that behind the scenes schools like UNC/Clemson ect. are feeling the same way and are feeling the pressure to keep up financially with schools in the “power 2”.
Let’s just tell the truth, Stanford and Cal have no business being in the ACC other than desperation from both parties and imo they are being used as future backfill for the conference so the ACC can get SOME kind of brands that they can sell later after their most desirable brands are gone and those schools do have some value so it’s probably about the best that they could hope for TBH.

Probably. But IDK if the landing spot is as firm as everyone else thinks. You'd THINK they have one but they might feel they are better off as an Independent in the short term until things like new contracts or AAU status becomes more clear. Wouldn't surprise me at all.

According to FSU, they are worth enough on their own to make it as an Independent.

 

[rfjeff9]

100% spot on. It also might be in FSU and the ACC's interest to settle sooner rather than later. Assuming (for the ACC's sake) that it's an expensive settlement. That will discourage some of the borderline programs from doing the same thing. If the ACC fights it to the end, they may see their whole conference fall apart.

It is not in ACC's interest to settle. This is about the conferences survival. Settling means GOR is far less useful than it was intended to be.

 

[ralphiewvu]

Think this assumes FSU and Clemson are gone, probably UNC.

Gotcha, I'm shocked Utah would jump as even if the ACC only lost 2 of those and Utah brought Az St with them I can't imagine the money would be the same as the acc gets now.

 

[duckboy33]

It is not in ACC's interest to settle. This is about the conferences survival. Settling means GOR is far less useful than it was intended to be.

If the ACC has this approach, it could go way of the PAC 12. If it loses in court, it will be a mad dash out. Make it expensive to leave and end the lawsuits.

 

[duckboy33]

The ACC has no choice but to fight. Either the GOR stands or it doesn't. If it doesn't, the conference is toast. There is no advantage to settling.

That's the beauty of settling. The GOR stands and you make it too expensive for most to leave.