(07-08-2022 04:24 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 03:32 PM)AeroWolf Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 03:02 PM)ArQ Wrote:  Can anyone tell me which conferences Fox own and which conferences ABC/ESPN own? Thanks.

For the purposes of this discussion

ACC owned by ESPN
ND split between ESPN and NBC

BiG owned by Fox

Big12 - majority ESPN with some Fox

PAC - split between ESPN and Fox

SEC owned by ESPN

All other conferences are peanuts.

Hopefully, when the dust settles we’re sharing the same peanuts.

Oh I think there is a high probability of us eating peanuts if current trends hold.

I decided to crunch some numbers. I may even post some actual charts that go with those numbers. I got my data from collegefactual.com's reporting of football revenue and expense numbers for all current P5 schools in the new/projected conference configurations. While I am not convinced that the data is entirely accurate, I think it is good enough for some rough analysis.

The numbers say the only worth while teams to take out of the ACC are FSU, Clemson, Miami, and Louisville.

Why those teams? They appear to be the only ACC schools willing to commit the funding to actually compete in modern football, and at the same time generate the revenues to back those funding levels.

VT, NC State, UNC, Pitt, GT, and Syracuse show the ability to generate the necessary revenues to back the funding level required to compete in modern football. These schools should be doubling their football funding if they want to be serious about competing. VT and NC State fans should be particularly disappointed. VT football is earning miami levels of money but committing 3/5's as much. Apparently VT only wants to be slightly better than UVA. My dear NC State may be the stingiest school in the ACC. Despite NC State football generating revenues on par with louisville, they are spending only barely more than WF (dead last in revenue and spending). UNC Fans don't start laughing just yet, you earn less football money, and barely spend more that State does. If the TV networks are making the decisions based on football money, ESPN and Fox are saying don't touch anything along tobacco road with 10 ft. pole.

UVA, WF, and BC just play well enough to cover their minor spending. No one is looking at them.

Unfortunately I cannot really talk about Duke, because I do not believe the reported football revenues. I have a hard time believing they are the Average Joe of the ACC with damn near perfect median revenues and spending in football.

After crunching these numbers and looking at the spending levels in the rest of the P5, the ACC really does get a bum rep. The only teams spending like they want a national championship levels of money are Alabama, FSU, Ohio State, Miami, and Clemson. And the teams spending like they also want to compete are Notre Dame, Georgia, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Auburn, Louisville, Penn State, and Michigan. Everybody else is spending the average. SEC really wants to dominate football with 7 high spenders. 4 ACC school are spending like they want to compete. And despite the BIG's midwest football goldmine, only three teams feel like spending enough to compete. The ACC appears to be putting in as much effort as the BiG when looking at actual football spending. however the conference gets blasted because Miami and FSU have been stumbling over their own feet.

Quite frankly if the endgame of Fox and ESPN is to field competitive North vs South football action, then the only FSU, Clemson, Miami, and Louisville earn and spend to compete. VT and NC State are only useful if the networks want doormats whose fans will blindly give money to teams that only tease.

I predict the ACC will stay the same until the GoR deadline, and hopefully NC State will actually put forth the level of spending us fans think we are supporting. But it would not surprise me for it to continue with an attempt as a just a regional academic league

Boston College
Uconn, the ACC would probably reach out to UCONN.
Duke
Georgia Tech, the BIG might want GT, but why would Fox
NC State
UNC, they have the brand, and academics that both SEC, and BIG would like, but at some point Fox and ESPN will look at the football prospects and will just say "no."
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Vanderbilt, eventually ESPN will tell the SEC to pull the plug
UVA
VT
WF

Again, this is just comparing the revenue and spending level I found on an open college comparison website. There is more nuance to the economics of athletics budgets, but it is late, I am tired, and someone else on this message board can seek out better data. Don't blame me too much, I am just interpreting the available data. I saw a recent youtube video with prettier charts if you want a different take.

(07-08-2022 05:20 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 01:32 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 08:35 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  No one is leaving the ACC. I bet ND even stays! ESPN has a plan! SEC, ACC, PAC will all be inventory!

I agree

It’s interesting the same people who were claiming yesterday they heard from a friend of a friend who’s wife’s sister knows a guy that drove by The ACC offices and the lights were off and they knew for a fact 6 or 8 teams were going to break up The ACC GOR. All with the help of ESPN who wants to move all these teams to The SEC so they can pay them more.

All those inside sources are now backing away saying The ACC GOR is solid.

I guess the swimming blog guy didn’t know what was going on after all. I didn’t see that one coming

While I am not 100 percent sure whether the ACC will survive in 2036, I do think the ACC has some time.

Yes, USC and UCLA leaving the Pac was a shocking news. But that doesn’t mean that everyone else has to leave right away.

I don’t think ND will bolt now. The exit fee, the buyout, and the payment for the damage would be potentially really large. Also I am not sure if ND would want to get into a messy legal battle. How is the legal battle going to help the ND brand?

I noticed ND fans don’t talk about the immediate departure anymore. Maybe they figured that ND is not leaving at least for now.

10+ years are long time. What if Miami finally is BACK? What if the ACC actually becomes good at football? While I understand the current media deal is not ideal, that doesn’t mean that the next media deal would be equally bad.

I think there is a good chance for the ESPN and the ACC to work together to capitalize the current situation whether it’s a loose partnership or poaching some schools from the NB12 and/or the Pac 10. While the ACC will not catch up with the BIG/SEC right away, the partnership/expansion would solidify the ACC’s status as the #3 conference and strengthen the ACC’s position before the next media deal discussion.

I haven't said anything because there is no real info on what ND will do.

ND is locked down tight.

But, I have circled around to my original opinion/position. Status quo. No conference membership for football.

I think ND says "Not now" to the Big Ten, stays a football independent and re-ups its TV contract for a big raise.

Then, it sits and watches and lets time tick by and continues to "monitor the landscape".

Joining the ACC in football or increasing its ties to the ACC is not in the plan.

(07-09-2022 06:12 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I haven't said anything because there is no real info on what ND will do.

ND is locked down tight.

But, I have circled around to my original opinion/position. Status quo. No conference membership for football.

I think ND says "Not now" to the Big Ten, stays a football independent and re-ups its TV contract for a big raise.

Then, it sits and watches and lets time tick by and continues to "monitor the landscape".

Joining the ACC in football or increasing its ties to the ACC is not in the plan.

Terry
How certain are you that Notre Dame won’t say enough and walk away from this insanity?

As I said yesterday Notre Dame is the only university who won’t sell its soul for a buck.

You can bet if The Irish walked away, others would follow, maybe not immediately but over time. College football can’t continue down the road its on.

(07-09-2022 06:32 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 06:12 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I haven't said anything because there is no real info on what ND will do.

ND is locked down tight.

But, I have circled around to my original opinion/position. Status quo. No conference membership for football.

I think ND says "Not now" to the Big Ten, stays a football independent and re-ups its TV contract for a big raise.

Then, it sits and watches and lets time tick by and continues to "monitor the landscape".

Joining the ACC in football or increasing its ties to the ACC is not in the plan.

Terry
How certain are you that Notre Dame won’t say enough and walk away from this insanity?

As I said yesterday Notre Dame is the only university who won’t sell its soul for a buck.

You can bet if The Irish walked away, others would follow, maybe not immediately but over time. College football can’t continue down the road its on.

Two things I have picked up on reading Irish boards:
1-the ACC will diminish (quality/prestige) Notre Dame football
2-they don't want to be in a "southern" conference

(07-09-2022 02:07 AM)AeroWolf Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 04:24 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 03:32 PM)AeroWolf Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 03:02 PM)ArQ Wrote:  Can anyone tell me which conferences Fox own and which conferences ABC/ESPN own? Thanks.

For the purposes of this discussion

ACC owned by ESPN
ND split between ESPN and NBC

BiG owned by Fox

Big12 - majority ESPN with some Fox

PAC - split between ESPN and Fox

SEC owned by ESPN

All other conferences are peanuts.

Hopefully, when the dust settles we’re sharing the same peanuts.

Oh I think there is a high probability of us eating peanuts if current trends hold.

I decided to crunch some numbers. I may even post some actual charts that go with those numbers. I got my data from collegefactual.com's reporting of football revenue and expense numbers for all current P5 schools in the new/projected conference configurations. While I am not convinced that the data is entirely accurate, I think it is good enough for some rough analysis.

The numbers say the only worth while teams to take out of the ACC are FSU, Clemson, Miami, and Louisville.

Why those teams? They appear to be the only ACC schools willing to commit the funding to actually compete in modern football, and at the same time generate the revenues to back those funding levels.

VT, NC State, UNC, Pitt, GT, and Syracuse show the ability to generate the necessary revenues to back the funding level required to compete in modern football. These schools should be doubling their football funding if they want to be serious about competing. VT and NC State fans should be particularly disappointed. VT football is earning miami levels of money but committing 3/5's as much. Apparently VT only wants to be slightly better than UVA. My dear NC State may be the stingiest school in the ACC. Despite NC State football generating revenues on par with louisville, they are spending only barely more than WF (dead last in revenue and spending). UNC Fans don't start laughing just yet, you earn less football money, and barely spend more that State does. If the TV networks are making the decisions based on football money, ESPN and Fox are saying don't touch anything along tobacco road with 10 ft. pole.

UVA, WF, and BC just play well enough to cover their minor spending. No one is looking at them.

Unfortunately I cannot really talk about Duke, because I do not believe the reported football revenues. I have a hard time believing they are the Average Joe of the ACC with damn near perfect median revenues and spending in football.

After crunching these numbers and looking at the spending levels in the rest of the P5, the ACC really does get a bum rep. The only teams spending like they want a national championship levels of money are Alabama, FSU, Ohio State, Miami, and Clemson. And the teams spending like they also want to compete are Notre Dame, Georgia, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Auburn, Louisville, Penn State, and Michigan. Everybody else is spending the average. SEC really wants to dominate football with 7 high spenders. 4 ACC school are spending like they want to compete. And despite the BIG's midwest football goldmine, only three teams feel like spending enough to compete. The ACC appears to be putting in as much effort as the BiG when looking at actual football spending. however the conference gets blasted because Miami and FSU have been stumbling over their own feet.

Quite frankly if the endgame of Fox and ESPN is to field competitive North vs South football action, then the only FSU, Clemson, Miami, and Louisville earn and spend to compete. VT and NC State are only useful if the networks want doormats whose fans will blindly give money to teams that only tease.

I predict the ACC will stay the same until the GoR deadline, and hopefully NC State will actually put forth the level of spending us fans think we are supporting. But it would not surprise me for it to continue with an attempt as a just a regional academic league

Boston College
Uconn, the ACC would probably reach out to UCONN.
Duke
Georgia Tech, the BIG might want GT, but why would Fox
NC State
UNC, they have the brand, and academics that both SEC, and BIG would like, but at some point Fox and ESPN will look at the football prospects and will just say "no."
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Vanderbilt, eventually ESPN will tell the SEC to pull the plug
UVA
VT
WF

Again, this is just comparing the revenue and spending level I found on an open college comparison website. There is more nuance to the economics of athletics budgets, but it is late, I am tired, and someone else on this message board can seek out better data. Don't blame me too much, I am just interpreting the available data. I saw a recent youtube video with prettier charts if you want a different take.

Good analysis, but wouldn’t increased media revenue increase spending? Hypothetically speaking? There are certainly a few sleeping giants in ACC land.

Also, there are a handful of potential high dollar earners in basketball if a new NIT type tournament is created by ESPN/Fox.

Quote:I predict the ACC will stay the same until the GoR deadline

No chance. It won't even last until 2035. You do realize the buyout drops with every passing year? And if it's "only" $500M today...why would teams that want out stay through the bitter end? To be nice to ESPN?

(07-09-2022 08:38 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 02:07 AM)AeroWolf Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 04:24 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 03:32 PM)AeroWolf Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 03:02 PM)ArQ Wrote:  Can anyone tell me which conferences Fox own and which conferences ABC/ESPN own? Thanks.

For the purposes of this discussion

ACC owned by ESPN
ND split between ESPN and NBC

BiG owned by Fox

Big12 - majority ESPN with some Fox

PAC - split between ESPN and Fox

SEC owned by ESPN

All other conferences are peanuts.

Hopefully, when the dust settles we’re sharing the same peanuts.

Oh I think there is a high probability of us eating peanuts if current trends hold.

I decided to crunch some numbers. I may even post some actual charts that go with those numbers. I got my data from collegefactual.com's reporting of football revenue and expense numbers for all current P5 schools in the new/projected conference configurations. While I am not convinced that the data is entirely accurate, I think it is good enough for some rough analysis.

The numbers say the only worth while teams to take out of the ACC are FSU, Clemson, Miami, and Louisville.

Why those teams? They appear to be the only ACC schools willing to commit the funding to actually compete in modern football, and at the same time generate the revenues to back those funding levels.

VT, NC State, UNC, Pitt, GT, and Syracuse show the ability to generate the necessary revenues to back the funding level required to compete in modern football. These schools should be doubling their football funding if they want to be serious about competing. VT and NC State fans should be particularly disappointed. VT football is earning miami levels of money but committing 3/5's as much. Apparently VT only wants to be slightly better than UVA. My dear NC State may be the stingiest school in the ACC. Despite NC State football generating revenues on par with louisville, they are spending only barely more than WF (dead last in revenue and spending). UNC Fans don't start laughing just yet, you earn less football money, and barely spend more that State does. If the TV networks are making the decisions based on football money, ESPN and Fox are saying don't touch anything along tobacco road with 10 ft. pole.

UVA, WF, and BC just play well enough to cover their minor spending. No one is looking at them.

Unfortunately I cannot really talk about Duke, because I do not believe the reported football revenues. I have a hard time believing they are the Average Joe of the ACC with damn near perfect median revenues and spending in football.

After crunching these numbers and looking at the spending levels in the rest of the P5, the ACC really does get a bum rep. The only teams spending like they want a national championship levels of money are Alabama, FSU, Ohio State, Miami, and Clemson. And the teams spending like they also want to compete are Notre Dame, Georgia, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Auburn, Louisville, Penn State, and Michigan. Everybody else is spending the average. SEC really wants to dominate football with 7 high spenders. 4 ACC school are spending like they want to compete. And despite the BIG's midwest football goldmine, only three teams feel like spending enough to compete. The ACC appears to be putting in as much effort as the BiG when looking at actual football spending. however the conference gets blasted because Miami and FSU have been stumbling over their own feet.

Quite frankly if the endgame of Fox and ESPN is to field competitive North vs South football action, then the only FSU, Clemson, Miami, and Louisville earn and spend to compete. VT and NC State are only useful if the networks want doormats whose fans will blindly give money to teams that only tease.

I predict the ACC will stay the same until the GoR deadline, and hopefully NC State will actually put forth the level of spending us fans think we are supporting. But it would not surprise me for it to continue with an attempt as a just a regional academic league

Boston College
Uconn, the ACC would probably reach out to UCONN.
Duke
Georgia Tech, the BIG might want GT, but why would Fox
NC State
UNC, they have the brand, and academics that both SEC, and BIG would like, but at some point Fox and ESPN will look at the football prospects and will just say "no."
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Vanderbilt, eventually ESPN will tell the SEC to pull the plug
UVA
VT
WF

Again, this is just comparing the revenue and spending level I found on an open college comparison website. There is more nuance to the economics of athletics budgets, but it is late, I am tired, and someone else on this message board can seek out better data. Don't blame me too much, I am just interpreting the available data. I saw a recent youtube video with prettier charts if you want a different take.

Good analysis, but wouldn’t increased media revenue increase spending? Hypothetically speaking? There are certainly a few sleeping giants in ACC land.

Also, there are a handful of potential high dollar earners in basketball if a new NIT type tournament is created by ESPN/Fox.

I don't know that there are any sleeping giants in the ACC, but there are plenty of lazy, worthless parasite programs that would love to latch on to a more profitable host while continuing to expend little or no effort at success.

(07-09-2022 08:38 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 02:07 AM)AeroWolf Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 04:24 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 03:32 PM)AeroWolf Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 03:02 PM)ArQ Wrote:  Can anyone tell me which conferences Fox own and which conferences ABC/ESPN own? Thanks.

For the purposes of this discussion

ACC owned by ESPN
ND split between ESPN and NBC

BiG owned by Fox

Big12 - majority ESPN with some Fox

PAC - split between ESPN and Fox

SEC owned by ESPN

All other conferences are peanuts.

Hopefully, when the dust settles we’re sharing the same peanuts.

Oh I think there is a high probability of us eating peanuts if current trends hold.

I decided to crunch some numbers. I may even post some actual charts that go with those numbers. I got my data from collegefactual.com's reporting of football revenue and expense numbers for all current P5 schools in the new/projected conference configurations. While I am not convinced that the data is entirely accurate, I think it is good enough for some rough analysis.

The numbers say the only worth while teams to take out of the ACC are FSU, Clemson, Miami, and Louisville.

Why those teams? They appear to be the only ACC schools willing to commit the funding to actually compete in modern football, and at the same time generate the revenues to back those funding levels.

VT, NC State, UNC, Pitt, GT, and Syracuse show the ability to generate the necessary revenues to back the funding level required to compete in modern football. These schools should be doubling their football funding if they want to be serious about competing. VT and NC State fans should be particularly disappointed. VT football is earning miami levels of money but committing 3/5's as much. Apparently VT only wants to be slightly better than UVA. My dear NC State may be the stingiest school in the ACC. Despite NC State football generating revenues on par with louisville, they are spending only barely more than WF (dead last in revenue and spending). UNC Fans don't start laughing just yet, you earn less football money, and barely spend more that State does. If the TV networks are making the decisions based on football money, ESPN and Fox are saying don't touch anything along tobacco road with 10 ft. pole.

UVA, WF, and BC just play well enough to cover their minor spending. No one is looking at them.

Unfortunately I cannot really talk about Duke, because I do not believe the reported football revenues. I have a hard time believing they are the Average Joe of the ACC with damn near perfect median revenues and spending in football.

After crunching these numbers and looking at the spending levels in the rest of the P5, the ACC really does get a bum rep. The only teams spending like they want a national championship levels of money are Alabama, FSU, Ohio State, Miami, and Clemson. And the teams spending like they also want to compete are Notre Dame, Georgia, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Auburn, Louisville, Penn State, and Michigan. Everybody else is spending the average. SEC really wants to dominate football with 7 high spenders. 4 ACC school are spending like they want to compete. And despite the BIG's midwest football goldmine, only three teams feel like spending enough to compete. The ACC appears to be putting in as much effort as the BiG when looking at actual football spending. however the conference gets blasted because Miami and FSU have been stumbling over their own feet.

Quite frankly if the endgame of Fox and ESPN is to field competitive North vs South football action, then the only FSU, Clemson, Miami, and Louisville earn and spend to compete. VT and NC State are only useful if the networks want doormats whose fans will blindly give money to teams that only tease.

I predict the ACC will stay the same until the GoR deadline, and hopefully NC State will actually put forth the level of spending us fans think we are supporting. But it would not surprise me for it to continue with an attempt as a just a regional academic league

Boston College
Uconn, the ACC would probably reach out to UCONN.
Duke
Georgia Tech, the BIG might want GT, but why would Fox
NC State
UNC, they have the brand, and academics that both SEC, and BIG would like, but at some point Fox and ESPN will look at the football prospects and will just say "no."
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Vanderbilt, eventually ESPN will tell the SEC to pull the plug
UVA
VT
WF

Again, this is just comparing the revenue and spending level I found on an open college comparison website. There is more nuance to the economics of athletics budgets, but it is late, I am tired, and someone else on this message board can seek out better data. Don't blame me too much, I am just interpreting the available data. I saw a recent youtube video with prettier charts if you want a different take.

Good analysis, but wouldn’t increased media revenue increase spending? Hypothetically speaking? There are certainly a few sleeping giants in ACC land.

Also, there are a handful of potential high dollar earners in basketball if a new NIT type tournament is created by ESPN/Fox.

Does increased football revenue turn into increased football spending? The answer seems yes, but the data does not show that happening. Despite existing revenue advantages in the SEC and BIG, those teams are applying the mean spending. It looks like most of the schools feel like pocketing the excess football riches as opposed to reinvesting them in their football teams. incase your wandering their are 5 SEC teams that could afford the spending to compete for a CFP spot, yet they don't. 10 BIG teams earn enough football revenue to spend at the level to get a CFP spot, yet they don't. 7 PAC, 6 Big XII, and 4 ACC teams fall into this same category. These Teams have the capability to pay to compete for a CFP spot, but don't.

With regard to sleeping giants, what is a sleeping giant? Let's define it as a school that could afford to spend at National Championship level of funding, but are only spending the college football average. I know other factors could be considered, yet since football driving the boat based on the last 20 years, I will stick with football revenues and spending to indicate sleeping giant status.

BIG has 7 supposed sleeping giants: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue, Northwestern, Minnesota, and Illinois
SEC has 4 sleeping giants: LSU, Florida, Tennessee, and South Carolina
PAC has 3 sleeping giants: Oregon, Washington, and Utah
Big XII's sleeping giant is TCU
The ACC's sole sleeping giant is VT

Though it is hard to tell if LSU is actually sleeping giant or unusually scrappy. I mean they won a National title in modern football even though they are only investing at the mean rate.

In the end it comes down to what Fox and ESPN want to shape college football. JRsec presented out good analysis in post 48. If it was CBS and Fox doing the spending, I would be in complete agreement with his analyis. However, ESPN has taken CBS's interest in the sport and Disney may have different ideas other than just saving the NFL.

(07-09-2022 10:45 AM)AeroWolf Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 08:38 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 02:07 AM)AeroWolf Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 04:24 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 03:32 PM)AeroWolf Wrote:  For the purposes of this discussion

ACC owned by ESPN
ND split between ESPN and NBC

BiG owned by Fox

Big12 - majority ESPN with some Fox

PAC - split between ESPN and Fox

SEC owned by ESPN

All other conferences are peanuts.

Hopefully, when the dust settles we’re sharing the same peanuts.

Oh I think there is a high probability of us eating peanuts if current trends hold.

I decided to crunch some numbers. I may even post some actual charts that go with those numbers. I got my data from collegefactual.com's reporting of football revenue and expense numbers for all current P5 schools in the new/projected conference configurations. While I am not convinced that the data is entirely accurate, I think it is good enough for some rough analysis.

The numbers say the only worth while teams to take out of the ACC are FSU, Clemson, Miami, and Louisville.

Why those teams? They appear to be the only ACC schools willing to commit the funding to actually compete in modern football, and at the same time generate the revenues to back those funding levels.

VT, NC State, UNC, Pitt, GT, and Syracuse show the ability to generate the necessary revenues to back the funding level required to compete in modern football. These schools should be doubling their football funding if they want to be serious about competing. VT and NC State fans should be particularly disappointed. VT football is earning miami levels of money but committing 3/5's as much. Apparently VT only wants to be slightly better than UVA. My dear NC State may be the stingiest school in the ACC. Despite NC State football generating revenues on par with louisville, they are spending only barely more than WF (dead last in revenue and spending). UNC Fans don't start laughing just yet, you earn less football money, and barely spend more that State does. If the TV networks are making the decisions based on football money, ESPN and Fox are saying don't touch anything along tobacco road with 10 ft. pole.

UVA, WF, and BC just play well enough to cover their minor spending. No one is looking at them.

Unfortunately I cannot really talk about Duke, because I do not believe the reported football revenues. I have a hard time believing they are the Average Joe of the ACC with damn near perfect median revenues and spending in football.

After crunching these numbers and looking at the spending levels in the rest of the P5, the ACC really does get a bum rep. The only teams spending like they want a national championship levels of money are Alabama, FSU, Ohio State, Miami, and Clemson. And the teams spending like they also want to compete are Notre Dame, Georgia, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Auburn, Louisville, Penn State, and Michigan. Everybody else is spending the average. SEC really wants to dominate football with 7 high spenders. 4 ACC school are spending like they want to compete. And despite the BIG's midwest football goldmine, only three teams feel like spending enough to compete. The ACC appears to be putting in as much effort as the BiG when looking at actual football spending. however the conference gets blasted because Miami and FSU have been stumbling over their own feet.

Quite frankly if the endgame of Fox and ESPN is to field competitive North vs South football action, then the only FSU, Clemson, Miami, and Louisville earn and spend to compete. VT and NC State are only useful if the networks want doormats whose fans will blindly give money to teams that only tease.

I predict the ACC will stay the same until the GoR deadline, and hopefully NC State will actually put forth the level of spending us fans think we are supporting. But it would not surprise me for it to continue with an attempt as a just a regional academic league

Boston College
Uconn, the ACC would probably reach out to UCONN.
Duke
Georgia Tech, the BIG might want GT, but why would Fox
NC State
UNC, they have the brand, and academics that both SEC, and BIG would like, but at some point Fox and ESPN will look at the football prospects and will just say "no."
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Vanderbilt, eventually ESPN will tell the SEC to pull the plug
UVA
VT
WF

Again, this is just comparing the revenue and spending level I found on an open college comparison website. There is more nuance to the economics of athletics budgets, but it is late, I am tired, and someone else on this message board can seek out better data. Don't blame me too much, I am just interpreting the available data. I saw a recent youtube video with prettier charts if you want a different take.

Good analysis, but wouldn’t increased media revenue increase spending? Hypothetically speaking? There are certainly a few sleeping giants in ACC land.

Also, there are a handful of potential high dollar earners in basketball if a new NIT type tournament is created by ESPN/Fox.

Does increased football revenue turn into increased football spending? The answer seems yes, but the data does not show that happening. Despite existing revenue advantages in the SEC and BIG, those teams are applying the mean spending. It looks like most of the schools feel like pocketing the excess football riches as opposed to reinvesting them in their football teams. incase your wandering their are 5 SEC teams that could afford the spending to compete for a CFP spot, yet they don't. 10 BIG teams earn enough football revenue to spend at the level to get a CFP spot, yet they don't. 7 PAC, 6 Big XII, and 4 ACC teams fall into this same category. These Teams have the capability to pay to compete for a CFP spot, but don't.

With regard to sleeping giants, what is a sleeping giant? Let's define it as a school that could afford to spend at National Championship level of funding, but are only spending the college football average. I know other factors could be considered, yet since football driving the boat based on the last 20 years, I will stick with football revenues and spending to indicate sleeping giant status.

BIG has 7 supposed sleeping giants: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue, Northwestern, Minnesota, and Illinois
SEC has 4 sleeping giants: LSU, Florida, Tennessee, and South Carolina
PAC has 3 sleeping giants: Oregon, Washington, and Utah
Big XII's sleeping giant is TCU
The ACC's sole sleeping giant is VT

Though it is hard to tell if LSU is actually sleeping giant or unusually scrappy. I mean they won a National title in modern football even though they are only investing at the mean rate.

In the end it comes down to what Fox and ESPN want to shape college football. JRsec presented out good analysis in post 48. If it was CBS and Fox doing the spending, I would be in complete agreement with his analyis. However, ESPN has taken CBS's interest in the sport and Disney may have different ideas other than just saving the NFL.

I’ve argued before revenue doesn’t equal spending and spending doesn’t equate to success. But it does open up the possibility of more spending, and that is not debatable.

A sleeping giant is of course a loose term, but looking at location (for recruiting) and wealth, whether that be media revenue or donor base, the ACC certainly has more than Virginia Tech sleeping. What would FSU and Miami be doing with that extra revenue? NC State basketball could become nationally relevant again.

Duke could decide tomorrow they want to become a football power. The location and money are there, no matter how unlikely it is to happen.

(07-09-2022 09:06 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

Quote:I predict the ACC will stay the same until the GoR deadline

No chance. It won't even last until 2035. You do realize the buyout drops with every passing year? And if it's "only" $500M today...why would teams that want out stay through the bitter end? To be nice to ESPN?

Probably because that $500M dollar figure is on the low end and is roughly half the endowments of FSU, Clemson, and Louisville. And it's a third of Miami's. The schools would have to finance those hits themselves with no help from ESPN or Fox until near the end, and even then they may not help.

ESPN has no incentive to pay any ACC team to move early. Fox and the BIG will wait and may not come calling if they are serious about their AAU only club. So the only way I see the ACC teams bolting is if they pay that figure themselves with little to no help.

The future may change, but i just don't see anybody going anywhere any time soon.

(07-09-2022 10:45 AM)AeroWolf Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 08:38 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 02:07 AM)AeroWolf Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 04:24 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 03:32 PM)AeroWolf Wrote:  For the purposes of this discussion

ACC owned by ESPN
ND split between ESPN and NBC

BiG owned by Fox

Big12 - majority ESPN with some Fox

PAC - split between ESPN and Fox

SEC owned by ESPN

All other conferences are peanuts.

Hopefully, when the dust settles we’re sharing the same peanuts.

Oh I think there is a high probability of us eating peanuts if current trends hold.

I decided to crunch some numbers. I may even post some actual charts that go with those numbers. I got my data from collegefactual.com's reporting of football revenue and expense numbers for all current P5 schools in the new/projected conference configurations. While I am not convinced that the data is entirely accurate, I think it is good enough for some rough analysis.

The numbers say the only worth while teams to take out of the ACC are FSU, Clemson, Miami, and Louisville.

Why those teams? They appear to be the only ACC schools willing to commit the funding to actually compete in modern football, and at the same time generate the revenues to back those funding levels.

VT, NC State, UNC, Pitt, GT, and Syracuse show the ability to generate the necessary revenues to back the funding level required to compete in modern football. These schools should be doubling their football funding if they want to be serious about competing. VT and NC State fans should be particularly disappointed. VT football is earning miami levels of money but committing 3/5's as much. Apparently VT only wants to be slightly better than UVA. My dear NC State may be the stingiest school in the ACC. Despite NC State football generating revenues on par with louisville, they are spending only barely more than WF (dead last in revenue and spending). UNC Fans don't start laughing just yet, you earn less football money, and barely spend more that State does. If the TV networks are making the decisions based on football money, ESPN and Fox are saying don't touch anything along tobacco road with 10 ft. pole.

UVA, WF, and BC just play well enough to cover their minor spending. No one is looking at them.

Unfortunately I cannot really talk about Duke, because I do not believe the reported football revenues. I have a hard time believing they are the Average Joe of the ACC with damn near perfect median revenues and spending in football.

After crunching these numbers and looking at the spending levels in the rest of the P5, the ACC really does get a bum rep. The only teams spending like they want a national championship levels of money are Alabama, FSU, Ohio State, Miami, and Clemson. And the teams spending like they also want to compete are Notre Dame, Georgia, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Auburn, Louisville, Penn State, and Michigan. Everybody else is spending the average. SEC really wants to dominate football with 7 high spenders. 4 ACC school are spending like they want to compete. And despite the BIG's midwest football goldmine, only three teams feel like spending enough to compete. The ACC appears to be putting in as much effort as the BiG when looking at actual football spending. however the conference gets blasted because Miami and FSU have been stumbling over their own feet.

Quite frankly if the endgame of Fox and ESPN is to field competitive North vs South football action, then the only FSU, Clemson, Miami, and Louisville earn and spend to compete. VT and NC State are only useful if the networks want doormats whose fans will blindly give money to teams that only tease.

I predict the ACC will stay the same until the GoR deadline, and hopefully NC State will actually put forth the level of spending us fans think we are supporting. But it would not surprise me for it to continue with an attempt as a just a regional academic league

Boston College
Uconn, the ACC would probably reach out to UCONN.
Duke
Georgia Tech, the BIG might want GT, but why would Fox
NC State
UNC, they have the brand, and academics that both SEC, and BIG would like, but at some point Fox and ESPN will look at the football prospects and will just say "no."
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Vanderbilt, eventually ESPN will tell the SEC to pull the plug
UVA
VT
WF

Again, this is just comparing the revenue and spending level I found on an open college comparison website. There is more nuance to the economics of athletics budgets, but it is late, I am tired, and someone else on this message board can seek out better data. Don't blame me too much, I am just interpreting the available data. I saw a recent youtube video with prettier charts if you want a different take.

Good analysis, but wouldn’t increased media revenue increase spending? Hypothetically speaking? There are certainly a few sleeping giants in ACC land.

Also, there are a handful of potential high dollar earners in basketball if a new NIT type tournament is created by ESPN/Fox.

Does increased football revenue turn into increased football spending? The answer seems yes, but the data does not show that happening. Despite existing revenue advantages in the SEC and BIG, those teams are applying the mean spending. It looks like most of the schools feel like pocketing the excess football riches as opposed to reinvesting them in their football teams. incase your wandering their are 5 SEC teams that could afford the spending to compete for a CFP spot, yet they don't. 10 BIG teams earn enough football revenue to spend at the level to get a CFP spot, yet they don't. 7 PAC, 6 Big XII, and 4 ACC teams fall into this same category. These Teams have the capability to pay to compete for a CFP spot, but don't.

With regard to sleeping giants, what is a sleeping giant? Let's define it as a school that could afford to spend at National Championship level of funding, but are only spending the college football average. I know other factors could be considered, yet since football driving the boat based on the last 20 years, I will stick with football revenues and spending to indicate sleeping giant status.

BIG has 7 supposed sleeping giants: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue, Northwestern, Minnesota, and Illinois
SEC has 4 sleeping giants: LSU, Florida, Tennessee, and South Carolina
PAC has 3 sleeping giants: Oregon, Washington, and Utah
Big XII's sleeping giant is TCU
The ACC's sole sleeping giant is VT

Though it is hard to tell if LSU is actually sleeping giant or unusually scrappy. I mean they won a National title in modern football even though they are only investing at the mean rate.

In the end it comes down to what Fox and ESPN want to shape college football. JRsec presented out good analysis in post 48. If it was CBS and Fox doing the spending, I would be in complete agreement with his analyis. However, ESPN has taken CBS's interest in the sport and Disney may have different ideas other than just saving the NFL.

Your whole premise is that you can buy a championship football team. All it takes is money. Double Duke's football spending and they'll compete for national championships, right? IMHO, this is nonsense. Does upgrading your football building from gold plated bathroom fixtures to solid gold fixtures really help you win football games? All the P5 schools, even the ones at the bottom, are spending huge sums of money on football. It must be hard to find new ways to spend money on football. That's why salaries for coaches and ADs are obscenely high.

Also, consider the possibility that we're in a college football bubble, that the revenues from college football won't last. College football has been around for a century but we've never seen football revenues like this. Should we base all plans on this trend continuing forever? If the bubble bursts, the B1G and the SEC could end being too big to be cohesive or practical.

Let me suggest one practical solution for conferences other than the B1G and SEC. Use your voting power to have the NCAA start a Division 1 football championship with 8 teams. Divide the money from that championship in the same way as the men's basketball tournament. That improves the return from basketball dramatically since it doesn't have to bear the entire burden of funding the NCAA. The B1G and the SEC don't want to be part of the NCAA football championship, fine, but can those schools be sure that their championship game (which will be won by the SEC almost every year) will be a much bigger deal than the seven game NCAA football championship? Also, the NCAA could say that if you don't compete in their football championship you can't compete in their basketball championship or you have to pay a fee to support the NCAA. There are reasons why the B1G and SEC haven't already withdrawn from the NCAA. They can't control the show at the NCAA. Use the NCAA to hamstring them.

(07-09-2022 11:24 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 10:45 AM)AeroWolf Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 08:38 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 02:07 AM)AeroWolf Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 04:24 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  Hopefully, when the dust settles we’re sharing the same peanuts.

Oh I think there is a high probability of us eating peanuts if current trends hold.

I decided to crunch some numbers. I may even post some actual charts that go with those numbers. I got my data from collegefactual.com's reporting of football revenue and expense numbers for all current P5 schools in the new/projected conference configurations. While I am not convinced that the data is entirely accurate, I think it is good enough for some rough analysis.

The numbers say the only worth while teams to take out of the ACC are FSU, Clemson, Miami, and Louisville.

Why those teams? They appear to be the only ACC schools willing to commit the funding to actually compete in modern football, and at the same time generate the revenues to back those funding levels.

VT, NC State, UNC, Pitt, GT, and Syracuse show the ability to generate the necessary revenues to back the funding level required to compete in modern football. These schools should be doubling their football funding if they want to be serious about competing. VT and NC State fans should be particularly disappointed. VT football is earning miami levels of money but committing 3/5's as much. Apparently VT only wants to be slightly better than UVA. My dear NC State may be the stingiest school in the ACC. Despite NC State football generating revenues on par with louisville, they are spending only barely more than WF (dead last in revenue and spending). UNC Fans don't start laughing just yet, you earn less football money, and barely spend more that State does. If the TV networks are making the decisions based on football money, ESPN and Fox are saying don't touch anything along tobacco road with 10 ft. pole.

UVA, WF, and BC just play well enough to cover their minor spending. No one is looking at them.

Unfortunately I cannot really talk about Duke, because I do not believe the reported football revenues. I have a hard time believing they are the Average Joe of the ACC with damn near perfect median revenues and spending in football.

After crunching these numbers and looking at the spending levels in the rest of the P5, the ACC really does get a bum rep. The only teams spending like they want a national championship levels of money are Alabama, FSU, Ohio State, Miami, and Clemson. And the teams spending like they also want to compete are Notre Dame, Georgia, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Auburn, Louisville, Penn State, and Michigan. Everybody else is spending the average. SEC really wants to dominate football with 7 high spenders. 4 ACC school are spending like they want to compete. And despite the BIG's midwest football goldmine, only three teams feel like spending enough to compete. The ACC appears to be putting in as much effort as the BiG when looking at actual football spending. however the conference gets blasted because Miami and FSU have been stumbling over their own feet.

Quite frankly if the endgame of Fox and ESPN is to field competitive North vs South football action, then the only FSU, Clemson, Miami, and Louisville earn and spend to compete. VT and NC State are only useful if the networks want doormats whose fans will blindly give money to teams that only tease.

I predict the ACC will stay the same until the GoR deadline, and hopefully NC State will actually put forth the level of spending us fans think we are supporting. But it would not surprise me for it to continue with an attempt as a just a regional academic league

Boston College
Uconn, the ACC would probably reach out to UCONN.
Duke
Georgia Tech, the BIG might want GT, but why would Fox
NC State
UNC, they have the brand, and academics that both SEC, and BIG would like, but at some point Fox and ESPN will look at the football prospects and will just say "no."
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Vanderbilt, eventually ESPN will tell the SEC to pull the plug
UVA
VT
WF

Again, this is just comparing the revenue and spending level I found on an open college comparison website. There is more nuance to the economics of athletics budgets, but it is late, I am tired, and someone else on this message board can seek out better data. Don't blame me too much, I am just interpreting the available data. I saw a recent youtube video with prettier charts if you want a different take.

Good analysis, but wouldn’t increased media revenue increase spending? Hypothetically speaking? There are certainly a few sleeping giants in ACC land.

Also, there are a handful of potential high dollar earners in basketball if a new NIT type tournament is created by ESPN/Fox.

Does increased football revenue turn into increased football spending? The answer seems yes, but the data does not show that happening. Despite existing revenue advantages in the SEC and BIG, those teams are applying the mean spending. It looks like most of the schools feel like pocketing the excess football riches as opposed to reinvesting them in their football teams. incase your wandering their are 5 SEC teams that could afford the spending to compete for a CFP spot, yet they don't. 10 BIG teams earn enough football revenue to spend at the level to get a CFP spot, yet they don't. 7 PAC, 6 Big XII, and 4 ACC teams fall into this same category. These Teams have the capability to pay to compete for a CFP spot, but don't.

With regard to sleeping giants, what is a sleeping giant? Let's define it as a school that could afford to spend at National Championship level of funding, but are only spending the college football average. I know other factors could be considered, yet since football driving the boat based on the last 20 years, I will stick with football revenues and spending to indicate sleeping giant status.

BIG has 7 supposed sleeping giants: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue, Northwestern, Minnesota, and Illinois
SEC has 4 sleeping giants: LSU, Florida, Tennessee, and South Carolina
PAC has 3 sleeping giants: Oregon, Washington, and Utah
Big XII's sleeping giant is TCU
The ACC's sole sleeping giant is VT

Though it is hard to tell if LSU is actually sleeping giant or unusually scrappy. I mean they won a National title in modern football even though they are only investing at the mean rate.

In the end it comes down to what Fox and ESPN want to shape college football. JRsec presented out good analysis in post 48. If it was CBS and Fox doing the spending, I would be in complete agreement with his analyis. However, ESPN has taken CBS's interest in the sport and Disney may have different ideas other than just saving the NFL.

I’ve argued before revenue doesn’t equal spending and spending doesn’t equate to success. But it does open up the possibility of more spending, and that is not debatable.

A sleeping giant is of course a loose term, but looking at location (for recruiting) and wealth, whether that be media revenue or donor base, the ACC certainly has more than Virginia Tech sleeping. What would FSU and Miami be doing with that extra revenue? NC State basketball could become nationally relevant again.

Duke could decide tomorrow they want to become a football power. The location and money are there, no matter how unlikely it is to happen.

That is the thing. Out of the ACC, Duke and UVA have enough financial might to buy Alabama's football program without flinching if such a transaction was possible. However, they have not done so, and appear to give no indication at engaging in football at that level. They are doing just enough so football pays for itself. Those are not sleeping giants, they are simply uninterested.

I agree it is hard to reconcile on-field performance vs revenues vs spending. All I can see is what is in the data. Looking at the revenue and expense numbers can suggest that the ACC is either more dedicated in reinvesting its dollars in football, or just worse at getting an ROI for what they are spending. The average ACC R/E is 0.76 while the BiG and SEC are 0.54 The ACC spends just as much on its teams as the BIG and SEC, the only real difference between the schools themselves is their structural size, 50k person institutions vs 25k person institutions. Which reflects why have the BIG and SEC have near double the revenue.

If football is the now and the future, why would ESPN or FOX want to invite teams into their league that do not invest in football. It is one thing to have to deal with grandfathered teams, but it is something entirely different to bring in teams who seem disinterested in investing in the main sport.

(07-09-2022 06:12 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 05:20 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 01:32 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 08:35 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  No one is leaving the ACC. I bet ND even stays! ESPN has a plan! SEC, ACC, PAC will all be inventory!

I agree

It’s interesting the same people who were claiming yesterday they heard from a friend of a friend who’s wife’s sister knows a guy that drove by The ACC offices and the lights were off and they knew for a fact 6 or 8 teams were going to break up The ACC GOR. All with the help of ESPN who wants to move all these teams to The SEC so they can pay them more.

All those inside sources are now backing away saying The ACC GOR is solid.

I guess the swimming blog guy didn’t know what was going on after all. I didn’t see that one coming

While I am not 100 percent sure whether the ACC will survive in 2036, I do think the ACC has some time.

Yes, USC and UCLA leaving the Pac was a shocking news. But that doesn’t mean that everyone else has to leave right away.

I don’t think ND will bolt now. The exit fee, the buyout, and the payment for the damage would be potentially really large. Also I am not sure if ND would want to get into a messy legal battle. How is the legal battle going to help the ND brand?

I noticed ND fans don’t talk about the immediate departure anymore. Maybe they figured that ND is not leaving at least for now.

10+ years are long time. What if Miami finally is BACK? What if the ACC actually becomes good at football? While I understand the current media deal is not ideal, that doesn’t mean that the next media deal would be equally bad.

I think there is a good chance for the ESPN and the ACC to work together to capitalize the current situation whether it’s a loose partnership or poaching some schools from the NB12 and/or the Pac 10. While the ACC will not catch up with the BIG/SEC right away, the partnership/expansion would solidify the ACC’s status as the #3 conference and strengthen the ACC’s position before the next media deal discussion.

I haven't said anything because there is no real info on what ND will do.

ND is locked down tight.

But, I have circled around to my original opinion/position. Status quo. No conference membership for football.

I think ND says "Not now" to the Big Ten, stays a football independent and re-ups its TV contract for a big raise.

Then, it sits and watches and lets time tick by and continues to "monitor the landscape".

Joining the ACC in football or increasing its ties to the ACC is not in the plan.

Nobody said ND is going to join the ACC football.

It’s more like ND got stuck in the ACC. Many people believed that ND’s contactual requirement not to join another conference until 2036 was completely meaningless. Now this is a serious potential pitfall as ND is considering its options.

Yes any contract can be broken. The exit fee can be settled and ND can buy out the GoR for non football. But it is hard to determine the damage for breaching the agreement not to join another conference. It can be relatively small but what if the damage turns out to be several hundred million dollars after the expensive legal fights? What’s the point of joining the BIG now if it’s not a financially better option than waiting until 2036? And how would the fierce legal battle would help ND’s brand?

So I wouldn’t be surprised if ND says the indepence is their #1 priority although they would leave the ACC right away if there were no legal consequences.

(07-09-2022 11:28 AM)AeroWolf Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 09:06 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

Quote:I predict the ACC will stay the same until the GoR deadline

No chance. It won't even last until 2035. You do realize the buyout drops with every passing year? And if it's "only" $500M today...why would teams that want out stay through the bitter end? To be nice to ESPN?

Probably because that $500M dollar figure is on the low end and is roughly half the endowments of FSU, Clemson, and Louisville. And it's a third of Miami's. The schools would have to finance those hits themselves with no help from ESPN or Fox until near the end, and even then they may not help.

ESPN has no incentive to pay any ACC team to move early. Fox and the BIG will wait and may not come calling if they are serious about their AAU only club. So the only way I see the ACC teams bolting is if they pay that figure themselves with little to no help.

The future may change, but i just don't see anybody going anywhere any time soon.

Where are you getting that $500 million buyout number? And buyout from what?

The ACC bylaws spell out exit fees ( 3X conference annual distribution) which don't diminish over time, and there is no buyout number in the GoR contracts because there is no permitted buyout until 2036.

(07-09-2022 01:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 11:28 AM)AeroWolf Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 09:06 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

Quote:I predict the ACC will stay the same until the GoR deadline

No chance. It won't even last until 2035. You do realize the buyout drops with every passing year? And if it's "only" $500M today...why would teams that want out stay through the bitter end? To be nice to ESPN?

Probably because that $500M dollar figure is on the low end and is roughly half the endowments of FSU, Clemson, and Louisville. And it's a third of Miami's. The schools would have to finance those hits themselves with no help from ESPN or Fox until near the end, and even then they may not help.

ESPN has no incentive to pay any ACC team to move early. Fox and the BIG will wait and may not come calling if they are serious about their AAU only club. So the only way I see the ACC teams bolting is if they pay that figure themselves with little to no help.

The future may change, but i just don't see anybody going anywhere any time soon.

Where are you getting that $500 million buyout number? And buyout from what?

The ACC bylaws spell out exit fees ( 3X conference annual distribution) which don't diminish over time, and there is no buyout number in the GoR contracts because there is no permitted buyout until 2036.

That isn't how this works, as people have tried to explain to you. Contracts are made to be broken, and money damages are almost always the remedy. No court is going to order the specific performance of making FSU stay in the ACC, or making Notre Dame join it. And actually living out the terms of the GoR until 6/30/36 would be a nightmare for everyone - the schools who left, the schools who didn't, and the TV provider. No court wants to be involved in monitoring what portion of Clemson's distribution from the SEC is for broadcast of home games vs. everything else, and did ESPN send the right amount to Greensboro for that this year? Nor do the ACC remnants want to see their games shunted to the ACC network while ESPN shows UNC-Alabama as the ACC game of the week.

Lawyers for both sides would argue over the damages and attempt to reach an negotiated settlement to be paid over an agreed period of time. Failing that, the court would hear their arguments and either invalidate the GoR altogether, strictly enforce it, or far more likely dictate an amount of damages somewhere in the middle. That enables everyone to know what they have to pay and when, or what they are going to get and when and plan accordingly. It's also easy in the event it has to go back to court to force compliance, as clear terms and dates have been established. That is how this would play out if someone leaves the ACC and is, as you said, entirely separate and apart from the exit fees.

(07-09-2022 01:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 11:28 AM)AeroWolf Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 09:06 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

Quote:I predict the ACC will stay the same until the GoR deadline

No chance. It won't even last until 2035. You do realize the buyout drops with every passing year? And if it's "only" $500M today...why would teams that want out stay through the bitter end? To be nice to ESPN?

Probably because that $500M dollar figure is on the low end and is roughly half the endowments of FSU, Clemson, and Louisville. And it's a third of Miami's. The schools would have to finance those hits themselves with no help from ESPN or Fox until near the end, and even then they may not help.

ESPN has no incentive to pay any ACC team to move early. Fox and the BIG will wait and may not come calling if they are serious about their AAU only club. So the only way I see the ACC teams bolting is if they pay that figure themselves with little to no help.

The future may change, but i just don't see anybody going anywhere any time soon.

Where are you getting that $500 million buyout number? And buyout from what?

The ACC bylaws spell out exit fees ( 3X conference annual distribution) which don't diminish over time, and there is no buyout number in the GoR contracts because there is no permitted buyout until 2036.

Where are you getting that $500 million buyout number? And buyout from what?

The ACC bylaws spell out exit fees ( 3X conference annual distribution) which don't diminish over time, and there is no buyout number in the GoR contracts because there is no permitted buyout until 2036.
[/quote]

I am curious to believe why you keep harping on the bold...genuinely curious. First, the last part of your sentence is partially incorrect; a buyout figure is a pre-determined liquidated remedy for what is essentially a breach of contract. Just because a number doesn't exist doesn't mean a party is locked into the GOR. They can leave and face the consequences of having an undetermined remedy levied against it for breach of contract, in addition to loss of its media rights through 2036.
The buyout fee is actually spelled out...it is the loss of the media rights until the GOR ends.

Now, moving on from that, the topic of ACC exit fees has already played out with Maryland. And again, choice of forum, choice of law, and sovereign immunity has a huge role to play here. How can, using examples only, Pitt sue Florida State for leaving the ACC as easily as people believe? They can't, is the simple answer. When States have conflicts, the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction. Then it becomes an argument on what law prevails-- is the GOR, which is tied solely to the ESPN agreement, governed by a third party State (maybe CT where ESPN is headquartered)? Is it governed by Pennsylvania law? Is it governed by Florida law? Or does Federal law supersede all.

If the ACC is suing on behalf of the members, similar questions arise but somewhat lessened by the fact that a State isn't suing a State, the members of an organization are suing a State. That's what happened in Maryland and Maryland has some serious codified contract codes that protect any contractual obligations the State takes on, in that case, the University. That's why the parties settled at Maryland foregoing their media payouts because that is an accounting write off.

(07-09-2022 12:21 PM)AeroWolf Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 11:24 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 10:45 AM)AeroWolf Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 08:38 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 02:07 AM)AeroWolf Wrote:  Oh I think there is a high probability of us eating peanuts if current trends hold.

I decided to crunch some numbers. I may even post some actual charts that go with those numbers. I got my data from collegefactual.com's reporting of football revenue and expense numbers for all current P5 schools in the new/projected conference configurations. While I am not convinced that the data is entirely accurate, I think it is good enough for some rough analysis.

The numbers say the only worth while teams to take out of the ACC are FSU, Clemson, Miami, and Louisville.

Why those teams? They appear to be the only ACC schools willing to commit the funding to actually compete in modern football, and at the same time generate the revenues to back those funding levels.

VT, NC State, UNC, Pitt, GT, and Syracuse show the ability to generate the necessary revenues to back the funding level required to compete in modern football. These schools should be doubling their football funding if they want to be serious about competing. VT and NC State fans should be particularly disappointed. VT football is earning miami levels of money but committing 3/5's as much. Apparently VT only wants to be slightly better than UVA. My dear NC State may be the stingiest school in the ACC. Despite NC State football generating revenues on par with louisville, they are spending only barely more than WF (dead last in revenue and spending). UNC Fans don't start laughing just yet, you earn less football money, and barely spend more that State does. If the TV networks are making the decisions based on football money, ESPN and Fox are saying don't touch anything along tobacco road with 10 ft. pole.

UVA, WF, and BC just play well enough to cover their minor spending. No one is looking at them.

Unfortunately I cannot really talk about Duke, because I do not believe the reported football revenues. I have a hard time believing they are the Average Joe of the ACC with damn near perfect median revenues and spending in football.

After crunching these numbers and looking at the spending levels in the rest of the P5, the ACC really does get a bum rep. The only teams spending like they want a national championship levels of money are Alabama, FSU, Ohio State, Miami, and Clemson. And the teams spending like they also want to compete are Notre Dame, Georgia, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Auburn, Louisville, Penn State, and Michigan. Everybody else is spending the average. SEC really wants to dominate football with 7 high spenders. 4 ACC school are spending like they want to compete. And despite the BIG's midwest football goldmine, only three teams feel like spending enough to compete. The ACC appears to be putting in as much effort as the BiG when looking at actual football spending. however the conference gets blasted because Miami and FSU have been stumbling over their own feet.

Quite frankly if the endgame of Fox and ESPN is to field competitive North vs South football action, then the only FSU, Clemson, Miami, and Louisville earn and spend to compete. VT and NC State are only useful if the networks want doormats whose fans will blindly give money to teams that only tease.

I predict the ACC will stay the same until the GoR deadline, and hopefully NC State will actually put forth the level of spending us fans think we are supporting. But it would not surprise me for it to continue with an attempt as a just a regional academic league

Boston College
Uconn, the ACC would probably reach out to UCONN.
Duke
Georgia Tech, the BIG might want GT, but why would Fox
NC State
UNC, they have the brand, and academics that both SEC, and BIG would like, but at some point Fox and ESPN will look at the football prospects and will just say "no."
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Vanderbilt, eventually ESPN will tell the SEC to pull the plug
UVA
VT
WF

Again, this is just comparing the revenue and spending level I found on an open college comparison website. There is more nuance to the economics of athletics budgets, but it is late, I am tired, and someone else on this message board can seek out better data. Don't blame me too much, I am just interpreting the available data. I saw a recent youtube video with prettier charts if you want a different take.

Good analysis, but wouldn’t increased media revenue increase spending? Hypothetically speaking? There are certainly a few sleeping giants in ACC land.

Also, there are a handful of potential high dollar earners in basketball if a new NIT type tournament is created by ESPN/Fox.

Does increased football revenue turn into increased football spending? The answer seems yes, but the data does not show that happening. Despite existing revenue advantages in the SEC and BIG, those teams are applying the mean spending. It looks like most of the schools feel like pocketing the excess football riches as opposed to reinvesting them in their football teams. incase your wandering their are 5 SEC teams that could afford the spending to compete for a CFP spot, yet they don't. 10 BIG teams earn enough football revenue to spend at the level to get a CFP spot, yet they don't. 7 PAC, 6 Big XII, and 4 ACC teams fall into this same category. These Teams have the capability to pay to compete for a CFP spot, but don't.

With regard to sleeping giants, what is a sleeping giant? Let's define it as a school that could afford to spend at National Championship level of funding, but are only spending the college football average. I know other factors could be considered, yet since football driving the boat based on the last 20 years, I will stick with football revenues and spending to indicate sleeping giant status.

BIG has 7 supposed sleeping giants: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue, Northwestern, Minnesota, and Illinois
SEC has 4 sleeping giants: LSU, Florida, Tennessee, and South Carolina
PAC has 3 sleeping giants: Oregon, Washington, and Utah
Big XII's sleeping giant is TCU
The ACC's sole sleeping giant is VT

Though it is hard to tell if LSU is actually sleeping giant or unusually scrappy. I mean they won a National title in modern football even though they are only investing at the mean rate.

In the end it comes down to what Fox and ESPN want to shape college football. JRsec presented out good analysis in post 48. If it was CBS and Fox doing the spending, I would be in complete agreement with his analyis. However, ESPN has taken CBS's interest in the sport and Disney may have different ideas other than just saving the NFL.

I’ve argued before revenue doesn’t equal spending and spending doesn’t equate to success. But it does open up the possibility of more spending, and that is not debatable.

A sleeping giant is of course a loose term, but looking at location (for recruiting) and wealth, whether that be media revenue or donor base, the ACC certainly has more than Virginia Tech sleeping. What would FSU and Miami be doing with that extra revenue? NC State basketball could become nationally relevant again.

Duke could decide tomorrow they want to become a football power. The location and money are there, no matter how unlikely it is to happen.

That is the thing. Out of the ACC, Duke and UVA have enough financial might to buy Alabama's football program without flinching if such a transaction was possible. However, they have not done so, and appear to give no indication at engaging in football at that level. They are doing just enough so football pays for itself. Those are not sleeping giants, they are simply uninterested.

I agree it is hard to reconcile on-field performance vs revenues vs spending. All I can see is what is in the data. Looking at the revenue and expense numbers can suggest that the ACC is either more dedicated in reinvesting its dollars in football, or just worse at getting an ROI for what they are spending. The average ACC R/E is 0.76 while the BiG and SEC are 0.54 The ACC spends just as much on its teams as the BIG and SEC, the only real difference between the schools themselves is their structural size, 50k person institutions vs 25k person institutions. Which reflects why have the BIG and SEC have near double the revenue.

If football is the now and the future, why would ESPN or FOX want to invite teams into their league that do not invest in football. It is one thing to have to deal with grandfathered teams, but it is something entirely different to bring in teams who seem disinterested in investing in the main sport.

I don’t believe football is the future. I believe football is the present and this might be the last be grasp at its dominating income. I can’t imagine football will look remotely the same in 20 years.

It’s expensive

It’s violent

It’s dangerous

It promotes “toxic masculinity”

It takes a lot of people to play


Not my perceptions, just one I’m seeing around me all the time. I think by the time I’m 80—lord willin’—they’ll be playing soccer and lacrosse in the Big House and Rose Bowl Stadium.

From David Teel yesterday:

"Notre Dame, the staunchest and most valuable football independent, is coveted by every league, and since the Fighting Irish receive only about $7 million a year in ACC television revenue, the grant of rights is far less onerous for them. Translation: If Notre Dame wants to join the Big Ten or SEC, the ACC is virtually powerless to stop the move.

The consensus is this latest round of realignment will pause until the Fighting Irish chart their course. If they remain independent, everyone might well stand down.

If they join a conference, the Richter scale will go haywire and movement will commence anew.

“We’re getting to a two solar system model here,” Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick said as he emerged from the final session of the ACC’s spring meetings in Florida. “You have two suns with all the gravitational pull — the Big Ten and the SEC. People are going to have to figure out how to align with one or the other.”

Yes, an ACC AD, mere moments after huddling with his colleagues on league business, essentially forecasted the group’s splintering. It was remarkable to hear and in no way coerced."

https://richmond.com/sports/college/teel...d22c9.html

(07-09-2022 02:26 PM)GreatDane96 Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 01:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 11:28 AM)AeroWolf Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 09:06 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

Quote:I predict the ACC will stay the same until the GoR deadline

No chance. It won't even last until 2035. You do realize the buyout drops with every passing year? And if it's "only" $500M today...why would teams that want out stay through the bitter end? To be nice to ESPN?

Probably because that $500M dollar figure is on the low end and is roughly half the endowments of FSU, Clemson, and Louisville. And it's a third of Miami's. The schools would have to finance those hits themselves with no help from ESPN or Fox until near the end, and even then they may not help.

ESPN has no incentive to pay any ACC team to move early. Fox and the BIG will wait and may not come calling if they are serious about their AAU only club. So the only way I see the ACC teams bolting is if they pay that figure themselves with little to no help.

The future may change, but i just don't see anybody going anywhere any time soon.

Where are you getting that $500 million buyout number? And buyout from what?

The ACC bylaws spell out exit fees ( 3X conference annual distribution) which don't diminish over time, and there is no buyout number in the GoR contracts because there is no permitted buyout until 2036.

Where are you getting that $500 million buyout number? And buyout from what?

The ACC bylaws spell out exit fees ( 3X conference annual distribution) which don't diminish over time, and there is no buyout number in the GoR contracts because there is no permitted buyout until 2036.

I am curious to believe why you keep harping on the bold...genuinely curious. First, the last part of your sentence is partially incorrect; a buyout figure is a pre-determined liquidated remedy for what is essentially a breach of contract. Just because a number doesn't exist doesn't mean a party is locked into the GOR. They can leave and face the consequences of having an undetermined remedy levied against it for breach of contract, in addition to loss of its media rights through 2036.
The buyout fee is actually spelled out...it is the loss of the media rights until the GOR ends.

Now, moving on from that, the topic of ACC exit fees has already played out with Maryland. And again, choice of forum, choice of law, and sovereign immunity has a huge role to play here. How can, using examples only, Pitt sue Florida State for leaving the ACC as easily as people believe? They can't, is the simple answer. When States have conflicts, the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction. Then it becomes an argument on what law prevails-- is the GOR, which is tied solely to the ESPN agreement, governed by a third party State (maybe CT where ESPN is headquartered)? Is it governed by Pennsylvania law? Is it governed by Florida law? Or does Federal law supersede all.

If the ACC is suing on behalf of the members, similar questions arise but somewhat lessened by the fact that a State isn't suing a State, the members of an organization are suing a State. That's what happened in Maryland and Maryland has some serious codified contract codes that protect any contractual obligations the State takes on, in that case, the University. That's why the parties settled at Maryland foregoing their media payouts because that is an accounting write off.
[/quote]

Maybe you and Gamenole are focusing on the wrong thing. The claim was that there is a $500 million "buyout" that diminishes each year. Please show me where that exists in any contract.

Of course people can be in breach of contracts. Saying that they are made to be broken is just a cynical view. All I am saying is that they can't do that without penalty. If they could, what's the point of having contracts? And more often than not, the penalty is ultimately negotiated between the parties.

(07-09-2022 06:42 PM)TerryD Wrote:  From David Teel yesterday:

"Notre Dame, the staunchest and most valuable football independent, is coveted by every league, and since the Fighting Irish receive only about $7 million a year in ACC television revenue, the grant of rights is far less onerous for them. Translation: If Notre Dame wants to join the Big Ten or SEC, the ACC is virtually powerless to stop the move.

The consensus is this latest round of realignment will pause until the Fighting Irish chart their course. If they remain independent, everyone might well stand down.

If they join a conference, the Richter scale will go haywire and movement will commence anew.

“We’re getting to a two solar system model here,” Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick said as he emerged from the final session of the ACC’s spring meetings in Florida. “You have two suns with all the gravitational pull — the Big Ten and the SEC. People are going to have to figure out how to align with one or the other.”

Yes, an ACC AD, mere moments after huddling with his colleagues on league business, essentially forecasted the group’s splintering. It was remarkable to hear and in no way coerced."

https://richmond.com/sports/college/teel...d22c9.html

…and Our Lady remains that elusive comet just outside the solar systems. Maybe one day it crashes down and destroys it all.