Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
ACC AD Meetings - New Revenue Distribution Model?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RamblinRed" data-source="post: 947711" data-attributes="member: 1776"><p>The Hale tweets are really good (Not surprising as he is one of the best writers covering the ACC).</p><p></p><p>One item he mentioned. </p><p>"Now, let's take stock of where the ACC stands. ... While financials for 2021-22 aren't available yet, expectation is a distribution of about $43M/school -- ahead by a bit of what we expect from the Big 12 and $30-40M/year behind where B1G & SEC will be w/new TV deals." </p><p></p><p>So any school moving to a conference not named the SEC or B1G is likely not happening. You effectively have a big 2 and little 3 in college football. I see nothing likely to change that. Moving from a little 3 to little 3 conference makes no sense for the program or the conference.</p><p></p><p>He also mentions the ACC has looked into expanding with other schools but the dollars don't make sense.</p><p></p><p>I think this is also an important item playing out the idea of the conference dissolving.</p><p>"The Magnificent 7 dissolves the league! Few things: 1) That name is a made-up joke from McMurphy. No AD was calling it that. 2) There have been LOTS of side convos among schools: The 7 mentioned have talked. So have smaller groups. So have schools outside the 7."</p><p></p><p>Basically, the Magnificent 7 is nothing more than a media name. There is no real group with 7 members trying to force a leave.</p><p></p><p>Another important tweet</p><p>"As noted, the B12 isn't more $ <strong>and no more than maybe 5 schools</strong> are likely to have an SEC/B1G invite (and maybe not that many). So why would they blow up the ACC now? Answer: They wouldn't. An AD from The 7 on this plan: "Completely absurd.""</p><p></p><p>Basically this is one of the so-called Magnificant 7 AD's saying this idea is absurd. Also important, the number of seats at the big boy table is very small. Just because a team wants to leave a little 3 conference does not mean there is a seat for them at the big 2 conference. I can't see either the SEC or B10 expanding beyond 20, if that. The math simply doesn't work. There are very few programs that would be additive to 16 teams already in a conference that they would be wanted.</p><p></p><p>Hale also mentions there is no easy answer and that realignment has not been a good thing for most of those programs from a competitive standpoint.</p><p></p><p>His last tweet may be one of the most important of all.</p><p>"One last thing I’ll add here for context: <strong>Coaches and ADs don’t make decisions on things like realignment. School presidents and chancellors do. And many of them are not a fraction as invested in athletics as fans on Twitter are</strong>."</p><p></p><p>My personal opinion has not changed much. At some point the big 2 are going to add a few more, but the number is likely to be small and could come from across the little 3. So it is likely that no more than 2-4 ACC teams will have an opportunity to move to the Big 2. If GT hopes to be in the Big 2 someday imo it will be the B1G. GT brings absolutely nothing to the SEC that is doesn't already have. If there is any planning going on for moving conferences, it should be solely focused on B1G. GT can at least make an argument there, though I expect GT would be one of the last taken by the B1G, not one of the first.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RamblinRed, post: 947711, member: 1776"] The Hale tweets are really good (Not surprising as he is one of the best writers covering the ACC). One item he mentioned. "Now, let's take stock of where the ACC stands. ... While financials for 2021-22 aren't available yet, expectation is a distribution of about $43M/school -- ahead by a bit of what we expect from the Big 12 and $30-40M/year behind where B1G & SEC will be w/new TV deals." So any school moving to a conference not named the SEC or B1G is likely not happening. You effectively have a big 2 and little 3 in college football. I see nothing likely to change that. Moving from a little 3 to little 3 conference makes no sense for the program or the conference. He also mentions the ACC has looked into expanding with other schools but the dollars don't make sense. I think this is also an important item playing out the idea of the conference dissolving. "The Magnificent 7 dissolves the league! Few things: 1) That name is a made-up joke from McMurphy. No AD was calling it that. 2) There have been LOTS of side convos among schools: The 7 mentioned have talked. So have smaller groups. So have schools outside the 7." Basically, the Magnificent 7 is nothing more than a media name. There is no real group with 7 members trying to force a leave. Another important tweet "As noted, the B12 isn't more $ [B]and no more than maybe 5 schools[/B] are likely to have an SEC/B1G invite (and maybe not that many). So why would they blow up the ACC now? Answer: They wouldn't. An AD from The 7 on this plan: "Completely absurd."" Basically this is one of the so-called Magnificant 7 AD's saying this idea is absurd. Also important, the number of seats at the big boy table is very small. Just because a team wants to leave a little 3 conference does not mean there is a seat for them at the big 2 conference. I can't see either the SEC or B10 expanding beyond 20, if that. The math simply doesn't work. There are very few programs that would be additive to 16 teams already in a conference that they would be wanted. Hale also mentions there is no easy answer and that realignment has not been a good thing for most of those programs from a competitive standpoint. His last tweet may be one of the most important of all. "One last thing I’ll add here for context: [B]Coaches and ADs don’t make decisions on things like realignment. School presidents and chancellors do. And many of them are not a fraction as invested in athletics as fans on Twitter are[/B]." My personal opinion has not changed much. At some point the big 2 are going to add a few more, but the number is likely to be small and could come from across the little 3. So it is likely that no more than 2-4 ACC teams will have an opportunity to move to the Big 2. If GT hopes to be in the Big 2 someday imo it will be the B1G. GT brings absolutely nothing to the SEC that is doesn't already have. If there is any planning going on for moving conferences, it should be solely focused on B1G. GT can at least make an argument there, though I expect GT would be one of the last taken by the B1G, not one of the first. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who made "The Leap" to defeat u(sic)GA in COFH 2016?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
ACC AD Meetings - New Revenue Distribution Model?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top