ACC AD Meetings - New Revenue Distribution Model?

1979jacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
652
Just one fools opinion.
1. Revenue distribtion will happen
2. No one including, FSU and Clemson, is likely to leave the ACC for at least 8-10 years. Cost too much given conference rules
3. The ACC signed a bad TV deal and needs to figure out a way to get a little better contract - offer streamimg, basketball, other sports - there has to be a way
4. While BInteger and SEC will have bigger and better TV contracts than B12 and ACC - it's in no ones interest including 1)SEC/Binteger 2) ESPN 3) B12/ACC/Pac12 to reduce number of conferences and eliminate teams/fans from national championship consideration. Some conferences may get more revenues and teams in playoffs than other conferences but keeping 70-80 teams in mix is in everyones interest and 70-80 teams is too many for just two conferences to absorb. Some form of at least 4 probably 5 major conferences will remain in place. Even if Clemson/FSU/UNC or some B12/PAC12 teams were to join SEC or BInteger for more TV money and better chance at playoffs, the other conferences will still exist. Maybe with less appeal but still appealing. SEC and Binteger are not likely to add many more teams - it gets dilutive for them.
 
Last edited:

GT33

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,265
Here's some certainties regarding action(s) by the ACC:

a. The ACC will always make a bad situation worse
b. Any action(s) that could have been effective, will be taken way too late to be effective
c. Whatever everyone else is doing to be successful, the ACC will do only after everyone else has done so
d. If the ACC is first to try a new strategy, it will become a case study in bad decisionmaking
e. If there are 2 choices, right or wrong, the ACC could flip a coin to choose but would be wrong 99.99% of the time anyway
f. If the ACC accidentally lucks out and makes a good decision, they will find a way to ruin it quickly
 

cpf2001

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,382
gameface said:
I think we would have heard if it did.
Click to expand...
If it did close or if it broke up? The latest news I can find is November saying “deal finalized”, I think we’d be hearing about “bad news, it fell through” and “still trying to figure something out” if there had been ongoing negotiations since then.

Edit: recent article https://www.si.com/college/stanford...-to-add-san-diego-state-and-possibly-smu-soon “The Big 12 feels as if they hold all the right cards in their hands due to the fact that they have not only secured a media rights deal already, but were able to expand and make up for the loss of Texas and Oklahoma.”

So everything seems to indicate that a Big 12 without their two biggest names is getting an extension that matched or exceeded the ACC deal despite being shorter and ending sooner.

That’s another destabilizing force for the ACC since it adds another potential eventual landing spot for the non-SEC/B1G programs, and so more teams incentivized to break the conference.
 
Jacket4Life

Jacket4Life

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
526
Location
Georgia
I really wouldn’t be to mad about this

1684525251371.png
 

gameface

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
326
cpf2001 said:
If it did close or if it broke up? The latest news I can find is November saying “deal finalized”, I think we’d be hearing about “bad news, it fell through” and “still trying to figure something out” if there had been ongoing negotiations since then.

Edit: recent article https://www.si.com/college/stanford...-to-add-san-diego-state-and-possibly-smu-soon “The Big 12 feels as if they hold all the right cards in their hands due to the fact that they have not only secured a media rights deal already, but were able to expand and make up for the loss of Texas and Oklahoma.”

So everything seems to indicate that a Big 12 without their two biggest names is getting an extension that matched or exceeded the ACC deal despite being shorter and ending sooner.

That’s another destabilizing force for the ACC since it adds another potential eventual landing spot for the non-SEC/B1G programs, and so more teams incentivized to break the conference.
Click to expand...
My point is if it had closed we would have heard about it. if there is anything that has been proven in the last ten years is that the B12 is a self promotion machine; so we would have heard about it.
 
Last edited:

cpf2001

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,382
gameface said:
My point is if it had closed we would have heard about it.
Click to expand...
Which part of all the articles from Oct/Nov of last year doesn't count as hearing about it to you? If something has changed, that would have been newsworthy! There's a LOT of coverage about the Pac 12 hasn't closed a deal, yet silence since "sources report the Big 12 is closing their deal" six+ months ago... how exactly would they keep a lid on that failing and the league being in jeopardy as a result?

Such as here in addition to that other one before: https://theathletic.com/4529638/2023/05/18/college-football-realignment-acc-pac-12/ the author discusses continued uncertainty around the Pac 12's next deal without any reference to similar issues in the Big 12.

Or here, https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...in-2024-season-after-reaching-exit-agreement/ - "The Big 12 eyed the substantial exit fee to supplement the new six-year media rights deal it negotiated with Fox and ESPN in October 2022."
 

LT 1967

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
541
Jacket4Life said:
I really wouldn’t be to mad about this

View attachment 14373
Click to expand...

I did find it interesting that the "Magnificent 7" was made up of the ACC's best private school (Athletically) plus six public supported universities. Obviously, GT fits the profile as a state supported
Institute (University Status). If the other public universities, Louisville and Pitt were added for a 10 team league, would you have a better Football conference than the current 14 team league??
Would that new 10 member league have more TV value per team than the current 14 Team conference??

It's hard to ignore the fact that the "7" left out the other 4 private schools including those on Tobacco Road!

Per David Hale, it will take 10 of the 15 to members to approve a new revenue distribution plan (Per the By Laws according to Hale}. Could those 10 form a new ACC within the By Laws? I
cannot find a copy of the By Laws on line.

Those 4 schools left out would not qualify as a conference. This should take care of the GOR. I have read somewhere that you have to have 6 or 7 teams to be a conference per the NCAA,

Just some thoughts.
 

LT 1967

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
541
LT 1967 said:
I did find it interesting that the "Magnificent 7" was made up of the ACC's best private school (Athletically) plus six public supported universities. Obviously, GT fits the profile as a state supported
Institute (University Status). If the other public universities, Louisville and Pitt were added for a 10 team league, would you have a better Football conference than the current 14 team league??
Would that new 10 member league have more TV value per team than the current 14 Team conference??

It's hard to ignore the fact that the "7" left out the other 4 private schools including those on Tobacco Road!

Per David Hale, it will take 10 of the 15 to members to approve a new revenue distribution plan (Per the By Laws according to Hale}. Could those 10 form a new ACC within the By Laws? I
cannot find a copy of the By Laws on line.

Those 4 schools left out would not qualify as a conference. This should take care of the GOR. I have read somewhere that you have to have 6 or 7 teams to be a conference per the NCAA,

Just some thoughts.
Click to expand...

Sorry, correction--It was DAVID TEEL not David Hale who said 10 of 15 required to change By Laws!! David is a long time reported who is close to VT and UVA.
 
RonJohn

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,044
LT 1967 said:
Sorry, correction--It was DAVID TEEL not David Hale who said 10 of 15 required to change By Laws!! David is a long time reported who is close to VT and UVA.
Click to expand...
BTW, the document says that changing the constitution or bylaws requires a 3/4 majority vote. That would be 12 teams.
 

LT 1967

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
541
RonJohn said:
BTW, the document says that changing the constitution or bylaws requires a 3/4 majority vote. That would be 12 teams.
Click to expand...

Thanks. You are correct. I misspoke concerning Bylaws, I meant to say revenue distribution. On financial matters like revenue distribution, it looks like 2/3 of directors can adjust (10).
 
UgaBlows

UgaBlows

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,000
GT33 said:
Here's some certainties regarding action(s) by the ACC:

a. The ACC will always make a bad situation worse
b. Any action(s) that could have been effective, will be taken way too late to be effective
c. Whatever everyone else is doing to be successful, the ACC will do only after everyone else has done so
d. If the ACC is first to try a new strategy, it will become a case study in bad decisionmaking
e. If there are 2 choices, right or wrong, the ACC could flip a coin to choose but would be wrong 99.99% of the time anyway
f. If the ACC accidentally lucks out and makes a good decision, they will find a way to ruin it quickly
Click to expand...
One could substitute GT for ACc on all of these points
 
RonJohn

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,044
cpf2001 said:
as a subsidiary of Disney could ESPN go bankrupt individually?
Click to expand...
There have been some rumors that Disney might either sell or spinoff ESPN. If they do that, then ESPN's liabilities would leave Disney with ESPN. Don't know if there has actually been any discussion inside Disney about that, just that it was rumored.
 
Top