Except, what he is saying is that ESPN will extend the ACC deal and continue to pay the ACC, but pay the SEC more for Clemson and FSU than they are paying now, except that some of that money will be paid to the ACC, so that the ACC won't lose money, the SEC will make more money, and ESPN won't have to pay out any more money. How that works mathematically I don't understand.
IF there is a total opt-out option in 2027, and ESPN wants to not pay the majority of the ACC, then they will just opt-out. This shuffling things around and making money magically appear doesn't make any sense, except to frothing-fan type people on Twitter.
I won't say that it is impossible for something to happen, but since the GOR requires the signature of every single member of the ACC to change it, FSU is not going to realistically get out of the GOR. The ACC could potentially still own FSU's rights and license them to the SEC to sell to ESPN. They might be able to do that without changing the GOR. But why would ESPN want that? Why would the SEC want that? Why would FSU want that if they are in the SEC, but only making similar, or maybe less money than in the ACC? The ACC paid out about $40 million per team last year. The SEC paid out about $50 million per team. The SEC is projected to have a significant jump next year because of the new deal. If the SEC revenue goes to $75 million next year, and the ACC gets FSU's current revenue for licensing the rights, then the SEC would only get around $30 million extra for having FSU. Is ESPN going to be happy about paying $30 million more for FSU to be in a different conference? Is the ACC going to be happy about licensing the content for less than market value? Is the SEC going to be happy about having a team that brings in much less revenue than any other team? Maybe it sounds good as an idea, but the puzzle pieces just don't line up.
After doing some more research, as I've said I have no clue who this person is, he could 100% be making this stuff up...but his details are intriguing because a lot of the details are similar to what this board has discussed. However, in the frame of hypotheticals, I'll be more than happy to entertain it...because it's all entertainment in the end.
He's clearly saying the ACC will accept a lower value deal due to losing FSU and Clemson, offset with keeping the home rights to FSU and Clemson, so basically the ACC schools will take an overall step back payout terms to keep the ESPN deal alive. The alternative is ACC schools refuse and the deal ends in 2027 and the less attractive schools will have to fend for themselves ala PAC 12 schools:
It's always a game of shuffling money. If you don't think so, then you haven't been paying attention. PAC 12 refused to play that game with ESPN and take lower value after USC/UCLA/Washington/Oregon bolted for the B1G and ESPN effectively killed that conference. I know
@CEB doesn't see it that way, but if you look through the prism that ESPN was willing to "shuffle" money towards the Big 12 and pay the remaining PAC 12 schools (minus Oregon State and Washington State) MORE net money per year to move, then that pretty much refutes your point of "shuffling money doesn't make any sense". From your past and recent posts, you are an Engineer with a business background. Business is mostly about shuffling resources to maximize net output, while getting rid of extraneous costs. It doesn't take a genius to understand that certain schools (see: Wake Forest, Boston College, Louisville, NC State, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, possibly Duke and GT due to ESPN having schools in the same territory, etc) are extraneous costs to ESPN, and recent history has shown ESPN (and other networks) are shuffling operations to consolidate resources and cut expenses.
ESPN/FSU/Clemson doesn't need the ACC to vote on changing the GOR if the theory that GOR dies with the ESPN media deal is true...which seems to be how the ACC GOR document and amendment reads. Well, if the GOR dies when ESPN opts out in 2027, then the ACC schools have even less leverage. ACC schools either plays ball or take their chances in the wild. Outside of FSU/Clemson/UNC/Miami/maybe GT due to the most lucrative market left in the expansion map, which other ACC schools will be desirable in the open market? The Big 12 might take a few schools leftover, but they will be in a position to be picky.
If you subscribe to the notion that matchups and fanbases will rule the new college football world, then it makes a lot of sense that ESPN/FSU/Clemson/SEC will want to this to happen. You're talking about a league already known for prime time matchups adding two marquee schools that will enhance the matchup matrix even more. FSU and Clemson are already two of the most watched schools, now add that to the potential matchups in the SEC? It doesn't take a genius to figure out why ESPN would loot a profitable ACC to make their golden child SEC even more attractive (with the added bonus of not having to pay "extraneous" schools).
www.nbcsports.com
