https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-acc-con...26422.html

Apparently these three were the topic at a league meeting today.

Quote:The expansion conversation in the ACC goes beyond Stanford and Cal.

A third school, SMU, is in consideration, sources tell Yahoo Sports.

At a meeting of league presidents on Tuesday, executives explored the possibility of adding all three universities or inviting only the Pac-12’s two members. Administrators are expected to continue examining the expansion options and will review financial models for both scenarios — adding three or adding just two.

there is no way the ACC is that stupid! extra travel expense horrible football adds for a contract until the league expires in 2036 or shorter? no way.

I think it's time we start to look at Jim Phillips and wonder if he is the right guy.

(08-08-2023 04:27 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  there is no way the ACC is that stupid! extra travel expense horrible football adds for a contract until the league expires in 2036 or shorter? no way.

I haven’t seen a single B12 fan who is positive about the ACC expansion. Why are they so worried about the ACC?

(08-08-2023 04:55 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 04:27 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  there is no way the ACC is that stupid! extra travel expense horrible football adds for a contract until the league expires in 2036 or shorter? no way.

I haven’t seen a single B12 fan who is positive about the ACC expansion. Why are they so worried about the ACC?

Because their new TV deal is about 10M a year behind the ACC's.

(08-08-2023 05:02 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 04:55 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 04:27 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  there is no way the ACC is that stupid! extra travel expense horrible football adds for a contract until the league expires in 2036 or shorter? no way.

I haven’t seen a single B12 fan who is positive about the ACC expansion. Why are they so worried about the ACC?

Because their new TV deal is about 10M a year behind the ACC's.

And because they don’t want the ACC in Texas. Or to have to compete with SMU/Dallas and our NIL on a P5 level.

So when OU and UT left the Big12. The ACC could have added any of TCU,Baylor, Texas Tech or Houston. Now those are off the table and they suddenly want SMU. There just aren't enough words.

(08-08-2023 04:55 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 04:27 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  there is no way the ACC is that stupid! extra travel expense horrible football adds for a contract until the league expires in 2036 or shorter? no way.

I haven’t seen a single B12 fan who is positive about the ACC expansion. Why are they so worried about the ACC?

For the same reason you guys are worried about Big 12 expansion: curiosity. Unless you're going to pretend as if you didn't discuss the Big 12 expanding over the past 2 years. And no the Big 12 is not worried about the ACC getting into Texas. And no one is positive about ACC expansion, not just Boi 12 fans. The ACC is talking about adding a school who is in massive debt and has an athletic department that is in shamble, a school from a conference we did everything to escape from, and overall three terrible football programs. I'm happy for SMU though.

(08-08-2023 05:02 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 04:55 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 04:27 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  there is no way the ACC is that stupid! extra travel expense horrible football adds for a contract until the league expires in 2036 or shorter? no way.

I haven’t seen a single B12 fan who is positive about the ACC expansion. Why are they so worried about the ACC?

Because their new TV deal is about 10M a year behind the ACC's.

Are you still comparing the Big 12's media deal of 31.7 to the ACC's TOTAL payout of 41 million? If you're comparing those then yes. If you're talking total payout then the Big 12 will be making at least 7 million per school more than the ACC schools. That's part of the reason why FSU's leadership flipped out.

(08-08-2023 05:15 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:02 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 04:55 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 04:27 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  there is no way the ACC is that stupid! extra travel expense horrible football adds for a contract until the league expires in 2036 or shorter? no way.

I haven’t seen a single B12 fan who is positive about the ACC expansion. Why are they so worried about the ACC?

Because their new TV deal is about 10M a year behind the ACC's.

Are you still comparing the Big 12's media deal of 31.7 to the ACC's TOTAL payout of 41 million? If you're comparing those then yes. If you're talking total payout then the Big 12 will be making at least 7 million per school more than the ACC schools. That's part of the reason why FSU's leadership flipped out.

Moron your TV deal starts at 25M each in 2024. Read your own releases.

I realize that you are too dense to read and comprehend https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...-espn-fox.

Let me spoon feed you like a baby.

That average of 31.6 per year for 12 pays out in increments of 25.5, 27.5, 30, 32, 34, and 36 from 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30. Get it?

Line 2A on form 990, on page 9 indicates that B12 TV took in 273M for 2022. That's TV of $27.3 M each for B12 members in 2022. You don't subtract 40% of your conference value and cure that hole with UCF, Cincy, Houston, and BYU. You make progress, but you don't fill that hole. That's why your new contract pays out starting at 25-26 for 2025.

In 25 when you get TV of $25-26 the ACC will have TV of 33-34. Our TV was @30 M per school last year - 22. When you TV was just $27.3. By 2030 when you are at about $36, the ACC will be at about $45 M or more on TV. Your new deal is not bad, but it's not as good as ours. Get over it.

Adding 3 teams doesn’t make much sense. Would the ACC consider 4th team? If so, which one?

(08-08-2023 06:01 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Adding 3 teams doesn’t make much sense. Would the ACC consider 4th team? If so, which one?

Why does 3 teams not make sense, why do we need an even number of teams?

(08-08-2023 05:15 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:02 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 04:55 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 04:27 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  there is no way the ACC is that stupid! extra travel expense horrible football adds for a contract until the league expires in 2036 or shorter? no way.

I haven’t seen a single B12 fan who is positive about the ACC expansion. Why are they so worried about the ACC?

Because their new TV deal is about 10M a year behind the ACC's.

Are you still comparing the Big 12's media deal of 31.7 to the ACC's TOTAL payout of 41 million? If you're comparing those then yes. If you're talking total payout then the Big 12 will be making at least 7 million per school more than the ACC schools. That's part of the reason why FSU's leadership flipped out.

Based on what I could find is that the B12 is getting $380M and with 12 members that would be $31.7 before conference overhead is subtracted. So a rough order of magnitude of the overhead is a 13th share so really like it's really like $29.5M.

Based on the 2021 ACC tax returns, the ACC is already making $443M in media rights. So that divided by 14.4 makes the 2021 ACC payout as $30.7M. So the ACC is already at that level today.

None of those numbers includes football bowl games, NCAA Basketball or ticket sales. Just media vs media.

The problem is that number is with a almost fully distributed ACCN so it is unlikely to increase other than whatever the small yearly escalators are from the original deal.

So perhaps from a media rights perspective the new B12 is almost on par with ACC.

FSU has a narrative and I'm starting to support it..... ESPN...pay the ACC more.... ACC pay FSU more. But the reality is the sky is not falling and at worst FSU/Miami is behind Florida, on par with UCF (which they don't like), and above the other Florida schools. But if the ACCN payouts increase from Texas and California..... then ACC will be clearly #3 but still probably not within $10M of SEC/B10.

(08-08-2023 04:27 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  there is no way the ACC is that stupid! extra travel expense horrible football adds for a contract until the league expires in 2036 or shorter? no way.

Some what of a funny statement. Cal/Stanford is generally average in football (but not horrible). Stanford has had higher highs.

So lets compare two reference points between ACC and B12 about this "extra travel".

Lets Pick UofL. We get the short end of the straw. We have @GT, @Miami, @SMU, @Cal with home games of Stanford, Virginia, Wake Forest, Cuse

Lets Pick Cincy. They get the short end of the draw. They have @ISU, @ UCF, @TCU with home games of Arizona, WVU, Houston, Baylor.

So isn't that about a wash...... both schools going to Florida (both on a plane so what 2.5 hours), both schools going far west (both on a plane so what 4-5 hours), both going to Dallas (both on a plane so what 2 hours). GT and ISU about the same distance.

Guess what Big 12/ACC/Big 10 are all spread over large area's. Everyone is taking a plane..... it's not that big of a deal. ACC's advantage is its almost all North South in the same time zone. The B12 is crossing 2-3 time zones regularly going East to West.

It's about $$$$$ and if ACCN can immediately add any amount of higher fee for CA and TX, if ESPN will grant a look in to keep it's investment together..... it's worth adding Cal/Stanford/SMU.

And the University Presidents get to rub elbows with more academic ivory towers.

(08-08-2023 06:01 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Adding 3 teams doesn’t make much sense. Would the ACC consider 4th team? If so, which one?

So lets go with someone not in an existing state or in CA/TX (sorry SDSU). And needs to be R1 research level and not raiding B12.

How about Oregon State or Colorado State University or Memphis or Nevada Reno?

Ok the more I think about it I may have to violate my own rule.... to have trips to Texas for every one more frequently how about UT San Antonio? Since I broke the rules then Cincy as well.

Who other than those 6????

(08-08-2023 06:18 PM)UofLCard94 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:15 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:02 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 04:55 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 04:27 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  there is no way the ACC is that stupid! extra travel expense horrible football adds for a contract until the league expires in 2036 or shorter? no way.

I haven’t seen a single B12 fan who is positive about the ACC expansion. Why are they so worried about the ACC?

Because their new TV deal is about 10M a year behind the ACC's.

Are you still comparing the Big 12's media deal of 31.7 to the ACC's TOTAL payout of 41 million? If you're comparing those then yes. If you're talking total payout then the Big 12 will be making at least 7 million per school more than the ACC schools. That's part of the reason why FSU's leadership flipped out.

Based on what I could find is that the B12 is getting $380M and with 12 members that would be $31.7 before conference overhead is subtracted. So a rough order of magnitude of the overhead is a 13th share so really like it's really like $29.5M.

Based on the 2021 ACC tax returns, the ACC is already making $443M in media rights. So that divided by 14.4 makes the 2021 ACC payout as $30.7M. So the ACC is already at that level today.

None of those numbers includes football bowl games, NCAA Basketball or ticket sales. Just media vs media.

The problem is that number is with a almost fully distributed ACCN so it is unlikely to increase other than whatever the small yearly escalators are from the original deal.

So perhaps from a media rights perspective the new B12 is almost on par with ACC.

FSU has a narrative and I'm starting to support it..... ESPN...pay the ACC more.... ACC pay FSU more. But the reality is the sky is not falling and at worst FSU/Miami is behind Florida, on par with UCF (which they don't like), and above the other Florida schools. But if the ACCN payouts increase from Texas and California..... then ACC will be clearly #3 but still probably not within $10M of SEC/B10.

No Card, that's not how it pays out. It does not start at the full average rate, none of them do. That ratchet up so you take the mid point and and add to the average after the midpoint and subtract from the average from the average to the start.

When it comes to bowl games the ACC and B12 have lost the Orange and Sugar Bowls. That's a loss of 27.5 for us and 40 m for them.

That's a loss for current schools of $1.83 m in the ACC and 3.3 m per school in the Big 12.

(08-08-2023 06:57 PM)UofLCard94 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 06:01 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Adding 3 teams doesn’t make much sense. Would the ACC consider 4th team? If so, which one?

So lets go with someone not in an existing state or in CA/TX (sorry SDSU). And needs to be R1 research level and not raiding B12.

How about Oregon State or Colorado State University or Memphis or Nevada Reno?

Ok the more I think about it I may have to violate my own rule.... to have trips to Texas for every one more frequently how about UT San Antonio? Since I broke the rules then Cincy as well.

Who other than those 6????

none ...

HOW ‘BOUT

(08-08-2023 06:59 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 06:18 PM)UofLCard94 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:15 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:02 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 04:55 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I haven’t seen a single B12 fan who is positive about the ACC expansion. Why are they so worried about the ACC?

Because their new TV deal is about 10M a year behind the ACC's.

Are you still comparing the Big 12's media deal of 31.7 to the ACC's TOTAL payout of 41 million? If you're comparing those then yes. If you're talking total payout then the Big 12 will be making at least 7 million per school more than the ACC schools. That's part of the reason why FSU's leadership flipped out.

Based on what I could find is that the B12 is getting $380M and with 12 members that would be $31.7 before conference overhead is subtracted. So a rough order of magnitude of the overhead is a 13th share so really like it's really like $29.5M.

Based on the 2021 ACC tax returns, the ACC is already making $443M in media rights. So that divided by 14.4 makes the 2021 ACC payout as $30.7M. So the ACC is already at that level today.

None of those numbers includes football bowl games, NCAA Basketball or ticket sales. Just media vs media.

The problem is that number is with a almost fully distributed ACCN so it is unlikely to increase other than whatever the small yearly escalators are from the original deal.

So perhaps from a media rights perspective the new B12 is almost on par with ACC.

FSU has a narrative and I'm starting to support it..... ESPN...pay the ACC more.... ACC pay FSU more. But the reality is the sky is not falling and at worst FSU/Miami is behind Florida, on par with UCF (which they don't like), and above the other Florida schools. But if the ACCN payouts increase from Texas and California..... then ACC will be clearly #3 but still probably not within $10M of SEC/B10.

No Card, that's not how it pays out. It does not start at the full average rate, none of them do. That ratchet up so you take the mid point and and add to the average after the midpoint and subtract from the average from the average to the start.

Oh I know.... Just pointing out that the $31.7M doesn't include overhead and is the average but the ACC is already at the $30.7M last year.

Trust me... we are saying the same thing.

(08-08-2023 07:04 PM)UofLCard94 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 06:59 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 06:18 PM)UofLCard94 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:15 PM)CatsClaw1 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:02 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  Because their new TV deal is about 10M a year behind the ACC's.

Are you still comparing the Big 12's media deal of 31.7 to the ACC's TOTAL payout of 41 million? If you're comparing those then yes. If you're talking total payout then the Big 12 will be making at least 7 million per school more than the ACC schools. That's part of the reason why FSU's leadership flipped out.

Based on what I could find is that the B12 is getting $380M and with 12 members that would be $31.7 before conference overhead is subtracted. So a rough order of magnitude of the overhead is a 13th share so really like it's really like $29.5M.

Based on the 2021 ACC tax returns, the ACC is already making $443M in media rights. So that divided by 14.4 makes the 2021 ACC payout as $30.7M. So the ACC is already at that level today.

None of those numbers includes football bowl games, NCAA Basketball or ticket sales. Just media vs media.

The problem is that number is with a almost fully distributed ACCN so it is unlikely to increase other than whatever the small yearly escalators are from the original deal.

So perhaps from a media rights perspective the new B12 is almost on par with ACC.

FSU has a narrative and I'm starting to support it..... ESPN...pay the ACC more.... ACC pay FSU more. But the reality is the sky is not falling and at worst FSU/Miami is behind Florida, on par with UCF (which they don't like), and above the other Florida schools. But if the ACCN payouts increase from Texas and California..... then ACC will be clearly #3 but still probably not within $10M of SEC/B10.

No Card, that's not how it pays out. It does not start at the full average rate, none of them do. That ratchet up so you take the mid point and and add to the average after the midpoint and subtract from the average from the average to the start.

Oh I know.... Just pointing out that the $31.7M doesn't include overhead and is the average but the ACC is already at the $30.7M last year.

Trust me... we are saying the same thing.

If adding these schools with their giant state populations and media markets, and giant academic brands, closes the financial gap any amount, even just a couple million per school after subtracting out travel expenses, I don't really get the argument against. Sure, it isn't adding ND and Texas, but those schools aren't coming. At the same time, it certainly isn't adding Temple and UConn, either. Stanford and Cal are world wide higher ed brands; regardless of the state of their football programs, their names attract attention and always will.

Of course there are logistic issues to figure out. Somehow the B10 was going to figure them out when they were just going with USC and UCLA. It's not perfect. It's the current state of affairs though.

The constant complaint is that the ACC isn't doing anything/enough to close the gap, but when there is a chance to do something tangible, even if not be a huge jump in revenue, it seems circumspect that doing something that might shave some of that gap off would now be an issue for some. It certainly makes you wonder about the real motive.