(02-17-2023 11:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-17-2023 11:41 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-17-2023 11:17 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-17-2023 11:06 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-17-2023 09:23 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  media deals are with conferences, not individual members.

And because they voted to release the schools, the GoR remains intact for the rest of the schools in the conference.

So none of the things you suggest are necessarily the outcomes at all.

the B12 replaced TX and OK with 4 schools. This would be the same thing.

You're using mental gymnastics to get to a result you want that in no way benefits BC, or Wake, or Duke, or really any school in the ACC besides FSU and Clemson—and that scenario is predicated on a hypothetical invite from either the SEC or Big Ten.

How would you like to be the people at Wake Forest that get to explain why they chose to host UCF and West Virginia instead of FSU and Clemson? Also the media deal would absolutely plummet the moment FSU and Clemson are gone. There is no way in hell they get the same amount of money.

Thank you for your continued interest in the Atlantic Coast Conference, but no thanks, we'll take our chances in 2036.

From what we've seen with the Big 12, the ACC is underpaid. Doubtful the deal would drop if FSU and Clemson left. ESPN can only lower to market.

if you benchmark off of the PAC 12, ACC is overpaid. especially without Clemson, FSU.

Pac 12 brings up the rear in viewership. ACC is not overpaid.

not overpaid, with Clemson, FSU and a network.

without Clemson, FSU? that's different

(02-17-2023 12:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-17-2023 11:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-17-2023 11:41 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-17-2023 11:17 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-17-2023 11:06 AM)esayem Wrote:  You're using mental gymnastics to get to a result you want that in no way benefits BC, or Wake, or Duke, or really any school in the ACC besides FSU and Clemson—and that scenario is predicated on a hypothetical invite from either the SEC or Big Ten.

How would you like to be the people at Wake Forest that get to explain why they chose to host UCF and West Virginia instead of FSU and Clemson? Also the media deal would absolutely plummet the moment FSU and Clemson are gone. There is no way in hell they get the same amount of money.

Thank you for your continued interest in the Atlantic Coast Conference, but no thanks, we'll take our chances in 2036.

From what we've seen with the Big 12, the ACC is underpaid. Doubtful the deal would drop if FSU and Clemson left. ESPN can only lower to market.

if you benchmark off of the PAC 12, ACC is overpaid. especially without Clemson, FSU.

Pac 12 brings up the rear in viewership. ACC is not overpaid.

not overpaid, with Clemson, FSU and a network.

without Clemson, FSU? that's different

They're being paid comparable to the Big 12 and Pac 12. Their viewership w/o FSU and Clemson is comparable to the Big 12 and Pac 12. So they would seem to be paid about right for a conference without those two.

(02-17-2023 10:12 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(02-17-2023 09:41 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(02-17-2023 12:10 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-16-2023 06:44 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  If the ACC schools were as smart as they think they are, they'd use their leverage while they have it. Free those who want out in exchange for a slot in the 3rd power conference. Otherwise the ACC GoR declines in value every year, and next decade you'll find yourselves in Wazzu and Oregon State's predicament. Nobody needs their signature, and they're forced to sit back and wait to see what the choices of other schools dictate as their fate.

Yes Yes Yes

Vote to release FSU and Clemson.

Add WV, Cin, UCF, and your choice of former BigEast/AAC school.

Be stable, and if NC does indeed decide to leave later, there will be far less chaos and instability.

And who is going to pay the 50 million or more buy out for WV, Cincy, and UCF?

I mean this with all due respect, but Skyhawk is the DavidSt of Kansas. He keeps posting these theories where conferences and schools forget about contracts and re-shuffle based on what He Wants to happen. That is not how this works.

And DavidSt does FantasyLand so much better and so much more entertaining. I get why someone is a DavidSt-wannabe in theory, but it's just coming off as a cheap DavidSt knockoff.

(02-17-2023 10:35 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(02-17-2023 10:02 AM)Huan Wrote:  

(02-16-2023 10:06 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(02-16-2023 09:36 PM)Huan Wrote:  

(02-16-2023 06:57 PM)Alanda Wrote:  Here you go. That part starts at 7:28, but it's also a solid interview overall.

thank you. but all i heard was that the big 12 needs to talk to espn and fox for prorata additions.

I guess we hear it differently then. When asked about the pro rata he said it involves their relationship with ESPN and wouldn't be a complete match and then says Yormark would have to go back to Fox to work on that. I took that as him saying the pro rata is there for ESPN's portion so to try and make it a complete match (the full $31.7M) for a team Yormark has to go back and talk to Fox. If the pro rata was there with Fox Yormark wouldn't need to go back to them and work on it.

I get that. If he said we need to talk to fox regarding expansion would strongly suggests there is no prorata with fox. But he said the big 12 would talk to ESPN as well. My assumption is that prorata or not you talk to your media partners regarding any proposed additions.

Fox isn’t going to want Fresno and Boise to move to the Big 12. Fresno was on Fox almost every week last year. For that Fox payed 3M a year. The gap between a PAC without USC and UCLA and the MWC is not what the PAC snobs think it is.

That is the tug-of-war between Fox and ESPN. Fox get MWC teams for cheap which the top teams deserve more of a payout. ESPN wants MWC schools in their inventory.

(02-17-2023 12:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-17-2023 12:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-17-2023 11:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-17-2023 11:41 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-17-2023 11:17 AM)bullet Wrote:  From what we've seen with the Big 12, the ACC is underpaid. Doubtful the deal would drop if FSU and Clemson left. ESPN can only lower to market.

if you benchmark off of the PAC 12, ACC is overpaid. especially without Clemson, FSU.

Pac 12 brings up the rear in viewership. ACC is not overpaid.

not overpaid, with Clemson, FSU and a network.

without Clemson, FSU? that's different

They're being paid comparable to the Big 12 and Pac 12. Their viewership w/o FSU and Clemson is comparable to the Big 12 and Pac 12. So they would seem to be paid about right for a conference without those two.

The ACC was definitely way underpaid until the last year or two. They arguably might be getting close to their real market value now, but they definitely aren’t overpaid.

(02-17-2023 10:12 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(02-17-2023 09:41 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(02-17-2023 12:10 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-16-2023 06:44 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  If the ACC schools were as smart as they think they are, they'd use their leverage while they have it. Free those who want out in exchange for a slot in the 3rd power conference. Otherwise the ACC GoR declines in value every year, and next decade you'll find yourselves in Wazzu and Oregon State's predicament. Nobody needs their signature, and they're forced to sit back and wait to see what the choices of other schools dictate as their fate.

Yes Yes Yes

Vote to release FSU and Clemson.

Add WV, Cin, UCF, and your choice of former BigEast/AAC school.

Be stable, and if NC does indeed decide to leave later, there will be far less chaos and instability.

And who is going to pay the 50 million or more buy out for WV, Cincy, and UCF?

I mean this with all due respect, but Skyhawk is the DavidSt of Kansas. He keeps posting these theories where conferences and schools forget about contracts and re-shuffle based on what He Wants to happen. That is not how this works.

Depends on the thread.

I've posted quite a few different models/outcomes.

I also tend to provide reference links, and logical arguments.

And I do explain moves from each side's perspective.

With all due respect to you and the other "drive by" commenters as well - Throwing attitude and trying to be insulting through ad hominem attacks, doesn't support your position, it just makes you look petulant.

But no worries from me, I think others recognize bloviating when they see it - whether it's mine, yours, or someone else's.

In the end, we're all just expressing our opinion on a forum, and I'm welcome to my opinion, and you're welcome to yours.

Cheers : )

(02-17-2023 10:02 AM)Huan Wrote:  

(02-16-2023 10:06 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(02-16-2023 09:36 PM)Huan Wrote:  

(02-16-2023 06:57 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(02-16-2023 06:19 PM)Huan Wrote:  I went looking for the interview but couldn’t find it. Link?

Here you go. That part starts at 7:28, but it's also a solid interview overall.

thank you. but all i heard was that the big 12 needs to talk to espn and fox for prorata additions.

I guess we hear it differently then. When asked about the pro rata he said it involves their relationship with ESPN and wouldn't be a complete match and then says Yormark would have to go back to Fox to work on that. I took that as him saying the pro rata is there for ESPN's portion so to try and make it a complete match (the full $31.7M) for a team Yormark has to go back and talk to Fox. If the pro rata was there with Fox Yormark wouldn't need to go back to them and work on it.

I get that. If he said we need to talk to fox regarding expansion would strongly suggests there is no prorata with fox. But he said the big 12 would talk to ESPN as well. My assumption is that prorata or not you talk to your media partners regarding any proposed additions.

I think that explains why we are hearing it differently. For me the whole context of the conversation is about expansion so there's no need to keep saying it explicitly. Not trying to be sarcastic as I know you already know this, but the only thing the pro rata involves is expansion. For example the Big 12 won't get more money from ESPN if all the schools increase their enrollment. So there's nothing else to consider while they are talking. Sure they will have to talk to both ESPN and Fox about expansion candidates. If they are inviting Memphis and Arizona everything we know says that it would kick in for Arizona. With Memphis they would have to discuss what they would be able to get if they were added. But the TT president specifically says that the pro rata is with ESPN and that it's not complete. And that they would have to work on it with Fox. It would seem that if Fox had the pro rata in place as well the president would have said that the pro rata "would" make a complete match.