forums

MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread(Its still personal)

Advertisement
JayCane20 said:
He's an easy puppet.

He's also just pounding the table that this is a 6-7 win team because it's easier to spin more wins than expected by saying the young guys and transfers made huge improvement and growth versus saying its a 10 win team and trying to explain our shortcomings.

He knows nothing about anything. He wants the clout to say I told you so when things go badly or the unpopular opinion is reality. Hope he's proven wrong on both and people shred him for it.
Click to expand...
I don’t disageee with most of what you said but almost every media member I’ve read besides Phil Steele sees Miami winning 5 to 7 games this year.
 
So what happens IF Cal / Stanford are brought in at partial share ($20M per year) for 5 years and SMU comes in for 0, AND there is distribution of the net to the top 4 teams only"

ESPN bumps the OVERALL payout by $35 M per new team = $105M
Less $40M ($20 each) to Stan / Cal
Leaves $65M for distribution to the TOP 4 ACC PROGRAMS on top of "normal" distribution:

ACC championship winner = 50% = $32.5M
Runner up = 25% = $16.25
#3 = 15% = $9.75
#4 = 10% = $6.5

Or some such math. Not good for the conference overall ... compared to the B10 / SEC ... and after 5 years ... What? Sure hope they don't vote YES. Blow this crap conference up. Partial, temporary "solution" does nothing to address the fundamental problem. Crap conference, crap contract, crap future IN the conference.
 




Don't fall for these fake games

This is the set up for Stanford and Cal going to the B1G on a reduced share.

A little burst of excitement for the ACC have-nots, then they're back to getting blown up like Bud did Spence

045-Spence-vs-Crawford-6.jpg
 
Advertisement
Yoyo82 said:
Like I've said many times. Expansion will be approved under only one of these 2 conditions.

1. A team is added that elevated the whole conference. Like ND.

2. Teams that want to leave are given favorable exit and GOR terms to make it easier for them to leave..then the new teams coming in would help the ACC survive after these other teams leave.

Otherwise, there's no way the ACC expands.
Click to expand...
Omg. The insanity here.
 
Rickd said:
So what happens IF Cal / Stanford are brought in at partial share ($20M per year) for 5 years and SMU comes in for 0, AND there is distribution of the net to the top 4 teams only"

ESPN bumps the OVERALL payout by $35 M per new team = $105M
Less $40M ($20 each) to Stan / Cal
Leaves $65M for distribution to the TOP 4 ACC PROGRAMS on top of "normal" distribution:

ACC championship winner = 50% = $32.5M
Runner up = 25% = $16.25
#3 = 15% = $9.75
#4 = 10% = $6.5

Or some such math. Not good for the conference overall ... compared to the B10 / SEC ... and after 5 years ... What? Sure hope they don't vote YES. Blow this crap conference up. Partial, temporary "solution" does nothing to address the fundamental problem. Crap conference, crap contract, crap future IN the conference.
Click to expand...
I think this is actually where we are headed. But not solely performance based. Some metric based on eyeballs for football and basketball, prorated based on the revenue for revenue sport - so 4:1 football or so, over a rolling period. It's not going to get anywhere close to the P2, but way ahead the b12. That plus letting the schools keep the playoff revenue keeps things quiet until 2030ish. If ACC teams step up in football, looking at you Mario and Mike and Dabo, ESPN renegotiates eventually.

Doesn't matter because the GOR is unbreakable, but FSU 's Sabre rattling was surprisingly effective.

Tbd.
 
Advertisement
BostonCanes47 said:
I don’t disageee with most of what you said but almost every media member I’ve read besides Phil Steele sees Miami winning 5 to 7 games this year.
Click to expand...
Im more-so referring to saying it’s a 7ish win roster. It’s a 9 win roster that will be coached to win 7 games. A coaching failure again is what that would be.

There’s 4 gimme wins on the schedule and NCST, Virginia, GT, Louisville, and even UNC would flip rosters with us yesterday if they had the chance.

It will be another coaching failure blamed on the roster and talent if we win 7 games.
 
Rickd said:
So what happens IF Cal / Stanford are brought in at partial share ($20M per year) for 5 years and SMU comes in for 0, AND there is distribution of the net to the top 4 teams only"

ESPN bumps the OVERALL payout by $35 M per new team = $105M
Less $40M ($20 each) to Stan / Cal
Leaves $65M for distribution to the TOP 4 ACC PROGRAMS on top of "normal" distribution:

ACC championship winner = 50% = $32.5M
Runner up = 25% = $16.25
#3 = 15% = $9.75
#4 = 10% = $6.5

Or some such math. Not good for the conference overall ... compared to the B10 / SEC ... and after 5 years ... What? Sure hope they don't vote YES. Blow this crap conference up. Partial, temporary "solution" does nothing to address the fundamental problem. Crap conference, crap contract, crap future IN the conference.
Click to expand...


You know I respect your posts, but those numbers are simply not happening.

First, ESPN's best offer to the Pac 12 was $30M per school, which the Pac 12 promptly rejected. Then Apple TV offered the Pac 12 $20M per school. Now, you think cash-poor ESPN will pay even more than their highest offer for 2 of the 4 teams that were not even offered by the Big 10 or Big 12? And $35M for SMU, when they get, what, $6M per year now?

Second, I hate to point this out, but the inherent weakness with all of this "ACC gets more money with more teams" theory is that we are going to be on the same TV outlets as the SEC. So I'm not sure how anyone thinks that we will get MORE games on ABC/ESPN simply because we have more teams. We are just going to get more games on ACCN, ESPN+, and The CW. We're not pushing SEC newbies Texas and Oklahoma to streaming so that people can watch Wake-Stanford on OTA.

The beauty of joining the Big 10 deal is that they have THREE separate OTA networks, plus more cable outlets. The Big 10 math works. Jamming more SEC/ACC teams into ABC/ESPN does not work as well as people seem to be dreaming, either from a ratings or a MONEY standpoint.

Finally...the other problem with envisioning this under the current ABC/ESPN arrangement is that it makes WAY MORE SENSE for ESPN to simply redirect this mythical available pool of money towards...oh, I don't know...a transfer of rights for a couple of schools like F$U and Clemson...to jump from the ACC to the SEC. THAT is the much smarter and better use of funds. THEN you have F$U and Clemson playing some high-quality matchups that people actually want to watch. It's like saying "my investment strategy is DIVERSIFICATION, I'm going to spread my money all around to a dozen different stocks". And, sure, from a "risk-averse" standpoint, that's great, you'll get a nice, neet return on investment. But if you really believe strongly in one particular stock, and that belief is based on solid analysis, then you put all of your money into it and make a much larger return. And the Southeastern Conference is one of the safest high-yield investments out there.

Look, who knows if the ACC will throw a Hail Mary here, but it's stupid and it won't change economic reality. So while we try to leverage every trick in the book to fudge a system where the 4 biggest programs in a 17-team conference make more money than anyone else, the Big 10 and SEC will be getting larger payouts EVERY SINGLE YEAR the old-fashioned way. By EARNING it.

What is funny is that people are proposing a Big-East-like unequal distribution, which was the exact system that killed the Big East and led us join the ACC. So, yeah, history is going to repeat itself.

And all because a couple of dopey sportswriters and some "I do assignments" poster on this board have bamboozled everyone into believing that the Grant of Rights is some Gordian knot that we can't solve.

Hilarious.

When the ACC is inventing these genius Big-East solutions to problems, you know it's time to kill the ACC.
 
Advertisement
Rickd said:
So what happens IF Cal / Stanford are brought in at partial share ($20M per year) for 5 years and SMU comes in for 0, AND there is distribution of the net to the top 4 teams only"

ESPN bumps the OVERALL payout by $35 M per new team = $105M
Less $40M ($20 each) to Stan / Cal
Leaves $65M for distribution to the TOP 4 ACC PROGRAMS on top of "normal" distribution:

ACC championship winner = 50% = $32.5M
Runner up = 25% = $16.25
#3 = 15% = $9.75
#4 = 10% = $6.5

Or some such math. Not good for the conference overall ... compared to the B10 / SEC ... and after 5 years ... What? Sure hope they don't vote YES. Blow this crap conference up. Partial, temporary "solution" does nothing to address the fundamental problem. Crap conference, crap contract, crap future IN the conference.
Click to expand...

If I was Miami, FSU, and Clemson I would say, "restructure it so I make BIG10 money, regardless of performance, or I'm gone". If you took that $65M and gave it to those 3 schools that would be BIG10 money. If you think the conference implosion is inevitable then why wouldn't you do this. If those three are happy the conference isn't going anywhere.
 
  • A group of ACC presidents met Wednesday morning to discuss finances, one of the sources said. Another set of presidents is expected to meet separately as a small group later this week, and there is a meeting of the league’s athletic directors expected as well.

  • SMU is willing to join the ACC and accept no media rights revenue for seven years, and Stanford and Cal are willing to join as partial members.
  • Because ESPN has a pro rata clause with the ACC, the league would be paid out for full shares for each addition. If that money is pooled after paying out the partial shares to the Bay Area schools, it allows the ACC to bring in new, additional revenue that it can disperse however it chooses.

    The expectation, sources said this week, is that the money would be dispersed based on performance. So, football success would drive additional revenue. This has been a sticking point among the four dissenting schools. Florida State and Clemson have been particularly vocal about falling behind their peers in the SEC and Big Ten over the next decade, believing that they need to close a gap that could stretch to $30 million on an annual basis in media rights payouts. A performance-based model for the additional revenue gained by expansion could help.
 
JayCane20 said:
He's an easy puppet.

He's also just pounding the table that this is a 6-7 win team because it's easier to spin more wins than expected by saying the young guys and transfers made huge improvement and growth versus saying its a 10 win team and trying to explain our shortcomings.

He knows nothing about anything. He wants the clout to say I told you so when things go badly or the unpopular opinion is reality. Hope he's proven wrong on both and people shred him for it.
Click to expand...
Just give him carbs.
 
Advertisement
Every time you think that the ACC Presidents and ADs can't get any dumber, they find a new low.

Yes, let's find a bizarre Rube Goldberg contraption that will pay "successful Clemson" $55 million per year and "desperate SMU" $0 per year. And then let's expect that genius business model to be workable and not create ANY resentment whatsoever. And it will cause everyone to forget about all that deep, deep Big 10/SEC cash, and I'm sure that all of the recruits will HAPPILY choose to play in the Frankenstein ACC instead of the fat-and-happy Big 10 and SEC.

All because, what...ignorance? Hope? Fear of a GOR Planet? Because we get an "automatic qualifier" spot in the Final 12 when the Big 10 and SEC are likely to demand 3 or 4 spots?

At least I realize why none of these Presidents and ADs have jobs in the real business world. They would get eaten alive and **** back out again.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top