FSU testing the waters?

[Shogungts]

Since they are doing away with divisions in the ACC one method of "splitting up the revenue" ... just like a golf tournament ... top finishers get more money. A variety of formulas could be developed.

I think there are plenty of ideas; the problem is going to be getting enough people to agree to them. It's unlikely the schools that regularly finish near the bottom are going to say 'sure, take my money since you did well this year'.

 

[Empirical Cane]

As I said right after that FSU AD's declaration:

With the GoR in-place, what possible incentive does Blake James and mighty Boston College have to agree to unequal revenue sharing?

People are going full Simple Jack.

 

[Shogungts]

With the GoR in-place, what possible incentive does Blake James and mighty Boston College have to agree to unequal revenue sharing?

People are going full Simple Jack.

Staples and Auerbach even say the same thing in the article that is linked and Andy does on his podcast this week; where is FSU's, Clemson's, Miami's leverage to make the other schools give up money?

So … how do the schools that want more incentivize the others to go along with their plan? Or, I guess more accurately, one of their plans?​

​

Staples: This is where I struggle. A threat to leave in 2034, or some year close to the end of the grant of rights, should feel like a real consequence. There is a potential future where the Big Ten or SEC wants to add more quality brands, and Clemson, Florida State, Miami and North Carolina would be candidates for one or both. (So might NC State, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Louisville and Virginia, for that matter.)​

​

For schools such as Boston College, Duke and Syracuse, this is considered a fight for survival at this level of college sports. But it will be the people at those schools who make those decisions. What is the average length of an athletic director’s tenure? Of a university president’s tenure? Should any of these people reasonably expect to be in their positions in 2034? And if not, how incentivized would they be to care about the long-term health of the league? Also, what if the schools pushing for uneven distribution get what they want now and just leave anyway when the time comes? Then, if you are still in that role, you’re an AD or university president who gave away money for nothing.​

​

Phillips, who did nothing to cause this but is getting paid to manage it, probably worries deeply about the long-term health of the league. He certainly wouldn’t want to be the commissioner who presided over the league’s breakup. Nor does he want to have to deal for the next decade with dug-in factions who fundamentally disagree on a major issue.​

​

What is the end game?​

Auerbach: I’m not entirely sure. Maybe it’s just keeping this issue top of mind — so that it continues to be discussed in ACC meeting rooms and outside of ’em? I can understand the pressure that an AD at FSU or Clemson may feel from their board or from prominent boosters to get this type of message out there publicly.​

 

[Cryptical Envelopment]

Staples and Auerbach even say the same thing in the article that is linked and Andy does on his podcast this week; where is FSU's, Clemson's, Miami's leverage to make the other schools give up money?

So … how do the schools that want more incentivize the others to go along with their plan? Or, I guess more accurately, one of their plans?​

​

Staples: This is where I struggle. A threat to leave in 2034, or some year close to the end of the grant of rights, should feel like a real consequence. There is a potential future where the Big Ten or SEC wants to add more quality brands, and Clemson, Florida State, Miami and North Carolina would be candidates for one or both. (So might NC State, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Louisville and Virginia, for that matter.)​

​

For schools such as Boston College, Duke and Syracuse, this is considered a fight for survival at this level of college sports. But it will be the people at those schools who make those decisions. What is the average length of an athletic director’s tenure? Of a university president’s tenure? Should any of these people reasonably expect to be in their positions in 2034? And if not, how incentivized would they be to care about the long-term health of the league? Also, what if the schools pushing for uneven distribution get what they want now and just leave anyway when the time comes? Then, if you are still in that role, you’re an AD or university president who gave away money for nothing.​

​

Phillips, who did nothing to cause this but is getting paid to manage it, probably worries deeply about the long-term health of the league. He certainly wouldn’t want to be the commissioner who presided over the league’s breakup. Nor does he want to have to deal for the next decade with dug-in factions who fundamentally disagree on a major issue.​

​

What is the end game?​

Auerbach: I’m not entirely sure. Maybe it’s just keeping this issue top of mind — so that it continues to be discussed in ACC meeting rooms and outside of ’em? I can understand the pressure that an AD at FSU or Clemson may feel from their board or from prominent boosters to get this type of message out there publicly.​

As I mentioned, the only way the lower level schools give up guaranteed equality is if they get something in return, like an extension to the GOR. And that's not happening. The Duke's and BC's of the world aren't going to agree to a haircut and have these teams all bolt anyway when the media deal and GOR expires.

 

[Hold My Beer]

What a flippant and idiotic response by Andy Staples. Oh yeah. He's a Gator. What a surprise.

Nobody gives a **** about Wake Forest — look at their seldom-filled tiny stadium and lousy TV ratings. They don't move the needle one **** bit.

Jim Phillips and the ESPN suits probably cried in their beer when Wake got in the conference championship game because they knew the crowd and TV ratings would be ****.

TV money is doled out for brands that draw eyeballs. That's a pretty short list in the ACC, which explains the ****** media rights deal and attendance woes around the league.

Bottom-line, though: The ACC pie is way too small for a conference with 14.5 members, including several who want to compete at the SEC/B1G level

 

[Shogungts]

What a flippant and idiotic response by Andy Staples. Oh yeah. He's a Gator. What a surprise.

Nobody gives a **** about Wake Forest — look at their seldom-filled tiny stadium and lousy TV ratings. They don't move the needle one **** bit.

Jim Phillips and the ESPN suits probably cried in their beer when Wake got in the conference championship game because they knew the crowd and TV ratings would be ****.

TV money is doled out for brands that draw eyeballs. That's a pretty short list in the ACC, which explains the ****** media rights deal and attendance woes around the league.

Bottom-line, though: The ACC pie is way too small for a conference with 14.5 members, including several who want to compete at the SEC/B1G level

I think you are letting your hatred of the Gators bias your read of what he is saying.

He is not saying that Wake Forest deserves more money, he is saying that it is more likely (although still not likely) that the other schools in the league would agree to a disproportional revenue sharing model if that model rewarded those that won vs just flat out always giving it to FSU, Clemson, Miami, etc.

 

[Hold My Beer]

I think you are letting your hatred of the Gators bias your read of what he is saying.

Wouldn't be the first time — and won't be the last, either. I'm about as unbiased against FSU and UF as the dad who yells at the coach because his short, fat and slow son ain't starting at QB

That being said, FSU/Clemson/Miami are just throwing **** out there they know the ACC have-nots will reject out of hand. This is about positioning for the escape hatch.

ACC schools will soon be making $30-40M less per year in media rights money than their SEC and B1G counterparts. That's untenable for a school trying to compete at the highest level of College Football.

Again, here's DanRad from ESPN.com today:

"At the end of the day, we need to try (to change the ACC's rev-share model)," Radakovich said. "And if we can't get things done, then, at least we can look around and say, 'All right, we attempted to get something done, we weren't able to do it. And then, if down the road, schools do choose to leave, it should not be a surprise."

 

[Shogungts]

Wouldn't be the first time — and won't be the last, either. I'm about as unbiased against FSU and UF as the dad who yells at the coach because his short, fat and slow son ain't starting at QB

That being said, FSU/Clemson/Miami are just throwing **** out there they know the ACC have-nots will reject out of hand. This is about positioning for the escape hatch.

ACC schools will soon be making $30-40M less per year in media rights money than their SEC and B1G counterparts. That's untenable for a school trying to compete at the highest level of College Football.

Again, here's DanRad from ESPN.com today:

"At the end of the day, we need to try (to change the ACC's rev-share model)," Radakovich said. "And if we can't get things done, then, at least we can look around and say, 'All right, we attempted to get something done, we weren't able to do it. And then, if down the road, schools do choose to leave, it should not be a surprise."

Agreed - I think they are 1) seeing if they can squeeze some more money while they continue to try to find a way out (which they expect is unlikely) and 2) putting on a show to the fanbase that they are trying to do something.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I think you are letting your hatred of the Gators bias your read of what he is saying.

He is not saying that Wake Forest deserves more money, he is saying that it is more likely (although still not likely) that the other schools in the league would agree to a disproportional revenue sharing model if that model rewarded those that won vs just flat out always giving it to FSU, Clemson, Miami, etc.

It's still a dumb comment by Staples.

When a league signs a new TV contract, they don't say "hey, ACC, we are going to pay you a LOT more because Wake and BC and GaTech had GRRRRREAT seasons last year".

No. The new TV contract is based on the media markets and the LONG-TERM value of the teams.

Like it or not, even if F$U and UM have a down year or three, THOSE ARE THE TEAMS THAT PEOPLE WANT TO SEE. And, yes, in any given year, there are other teams that will have "better records" than us. Doesn't mean they should get more money.

How about we try this thought exercise with Andy Staples, ask him how much ABC/ESPN will pay for a bunch of 10-win teams if those teams are Wake and Syracuse and BC and GaTech...I can guarantee you...it's not going to be a lot of money for those "stellar W-L records"...

 

[Shogungts]

It's still a dumb comment by Staples.

When a league signs a new TV contract, they don't say "hey, ACC, we are going to pay you a LOT more because Wake and BC and GaTech had GRRRRREAT seasons last year".

No. The new TV contract is based on the media markets and the LONG-TERM value of the teams.

Like it or not, even if F$U and UM have a down year or three, THOSE ARE THE TEAMS THAT PEOPLE WANT TO SEE. And, yes, in any given year, there are other teams that will have "better records" than us. Doesn't mean they should get more money.

How about we try this thought exercise with Andy Staples, ask him how much ABC/ESPN will pay for a bunch of 10-win teams if those teams are Wake and Syracuse and BC and GaTech...I can guarantee you...it's not going to be a lot of money for those "stellar W-L records"...

Again... Staples is not saying they should do this. He is saying that it is a more persuasive argument than just 'give us more money' since the teams asking for this do not have any real leverage at this time. The time to flex for more revenue was before agreeing to the GoR.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Again... Staples is not saying they should do this. He is saying that it is a more persuasive argument than just 'give us more money' since the teams asking for this do not have any real leverage at this time. The time to flex for more revenue was before agreeing to the GoR.

Again, the time to do ANYTHING was before agreeing to the GoR. So Staples is not doing a lot of worthwhile analysis.

If he doesn't think we have "real leverage at this time", he is sorely mistaken.

 

[Hold My Beer]

Again... Staples is not saying they should do this. He is saying that it is a more persuasive argument than just 'give us more money' since the teams asking for this do not have any real leverage at this time. The time to flex for more revenue was before agreeing to the GoR.

The flip side to Staples' argument is Miami/FSU/Clemson telling the ACC: "Those schools like Wake, BC, Syracuse are already getting paid a way higher share of this media rights deal than they deserve."

If there is gonna be unequal revenue sharing, the fair way would be for the ACC office to hire a third party to establish the relative media rights value for each school and divide the payouts accordingly

 

[Shogungts]

Again, the time to do ANYTHING was before agreeing to the GoR. So Staples is not doing a lot of worthwhile analysis.

If he doesn't think we have "real leverage at this time", he is sorely mistaken.

If we had leverage we would leave b/c no amount of ACC revenue sharing is going to make it worthwhile for Miami, FSU, Clemson, etc to stay given the amount of money they would make in the SEC/Big10. So if I am a small school, I am saying to myself either 1) you don't believe you can get out of the GoR or 2) you are actively trying to get out and me giving you more money now is not going to delay/stop you from leaving, it's just going to give you a bit more money and me less while you are in the process of getting out so why should I give you anything?

The only way I can see the less successful schools (however you want to define successful) giving up money is if it is made even harder for the successful teams to leave.

 

[Hold My Beer]

Staples is pretty clueless on this realignment ****, IMO.

I think the FSU/Clemson/Miami (and maybe others) tactics will be to drown (or at least threaten to drown) the ACC office in lawsuits/legal fees to where settling and letting schools go their own ways is the simplest and least painful option for the conference

 

[TheOriginalCane]

If we had leverage we would leave b/c no amount of ACC revenue sharing is going to make it worthwhile for Miami, FSU, Clemson, etc to stay given the amount of money they would make in the SEC/Big10. So if I am a small school, I am saying to myself either 1) you don't believe you can get out of the GoR or 2) you are actively trying to get out and me giving you more money now is not going to delay/stop you from leaving, it's just going to give you a bit more money and me less while you are in the process of getting out so why should I give you anything?

The only way I can see the less successful schools (however you want to define successful) giving up money is if it is made even harder for the successful teams to leave.

Oh lord...

We have leverage to ask for unequal distributions, because the alternative to the smaller/lesser schools will DEFINITELY pay them less money.

We do not have equal leverage to pursue every avenue AT THIS MOMENT. I know you'll have to come back in a year or two to check my math, but these first shots across the bow are part of a very well-choreographed effort. The ACC is not long for this world.

 

[Fluffhead]

Staples is pretty clueless on this realignment ****, IMO.

I think the FSU/Clemson/Miami (and maybe others) tactics will be to drown (or at least threaten to drown) the ACC office in lawsuits/legal fees to where settling and letting schools go their own ways is the simplest and least painful option for the conference

The reality is, is there’s no such thing as an amicable divorce, even in business, but sometimes it becomes a necessity. At some point there will be a tipping point where it becomes best for all parties to go their separate ways, this will all be posturing in a negotiation, a settlement will be reached, and that will be that.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

From The Athletic today:

 

[AllAboutTheU]

I am not a lawyer so I will defer to someone who knows better than me, but it seems like proving this is unfair or biased would be hard given so many parties (who should be competent) agreed to it. I would think the only way this would work is if one or more parties willingly deceived the other(s).

I’m a lawyer. Proving that they were fraudulently induced into the agreement and proving that the contract is unconscionable are 2 entirely different things

 

[TooColdToHold]

From The Athletic today:

View attachment 231949

View attachment 231950

View attachment 231951

View attachment 231952

If anyone was doubting OriginalCane and Cribby’s realignment info from last year, this should put that doubt to rest.

 

[Hurracanes]

If anyone was doubting OriginalCane and Cribby’s realignment info from last year, this should put that doubt to rest.