It seems that keeping up with the ACC and BigTen is not a major issue for the other schools which means they know that a national championship is so far out of reach that there is no reason to spend the money to reach it, so a small haircut should not hurt them. The ACC members get a yearly $2m escalator and I think goes up another $1-2m per after the Raycom deal expires in 2026(?).

I don’t think FSU really wants to leave the ACC, they just want an adequate amount of money to compete for national championships in football. They also want to continue their dynasty in women’s soccer and softball which the ACC has been a great help, so it’s another compelling reason to stay in the ACC if the financials work out.

Is it really unreasonable for the top brands in conference to earn more money? Usually the top employees at companies do otherwise they may leave and find work some place else that pays better.

I’d propose that the yearly escalator the other members receive (not SMU, Stan, Cal) be given to the squeaky wheels, in this instance maybe just Clem and FSU. Assuming it’s a $24m yearly bonus to split between the two, it might just be enough to keep them from rocking the boat.

The exchange could be a vote to expand by adding 1 more and exploit them like they have with the 3 newcomers. Is this reasonable?

(01-03-2024 11:58 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  It seems that keeping up with the ACC and BigTen is not a major issue for the other schools which means they know that a national championship is so far out of reach that there is no reason to spend the money to reach it, so a small haircut should not hurt them. The ACC members get a yearly $2m escalator and I think goes up another $1-2m per after the Raycom deal expires in 2026(?).

I don’t think FSU really wants to leave the ACC, they just want an adequate amount of money to compete for national championships in football. They also want to continue their dynasty in women’s soccer and softball which the ACC has been a great help, so it’s another compelling reason to stay in the ACC if the financials work out.

Is it really unreasonable for the top brands in conference to earn more money? Usually the top employees at companies do otherwise they may leave and find work some place else that pays better.

I’d propose that the yearly escalator the other members receive (not SMU, Stan, Cal) be given to the squeaky wheels, in this instance maybe just Clem and FSU. Assuming it’s a $24m yearly bonus to split between the two, it might just be enough to keep them from rocking the boat.

The exchange could be a vote to expand by adding 1 more and exploit them like they have with the 3 newcomers. Is this reasonable?

The ACC has already implemented some kind of merit based bonus system. IMO it's just not enough for FSU, Clemson, UNC, etc. and what would be enough for them isn't acceptable to the low value schools.

If the pie is too small, there's only so many ways you can split it unequally.

(01-03-2024 11:58 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  It seems that keeping up with the ACC and BigTen is not a major issue for the other schools which means they know that a national championship is so far out of reach that there is no reason to spend the money to reach it, so a small haircut should not hurt them. The ACC members get a yearly $2m escalator and I think goes up another $1-2m per after the Raycom deal expires in 2026(?).

I don’t think FSU really wants to leave the ACC, they just want an adequate amount of money to compete for national championships in football. They also want to continue their dynasty in women’s soccer and softball which the ACC has been a great help, so it’s another compelling reason to stay in the ACC if the financials work out.

Is it really unreasonable for the top brands in conference to earn more money? Usually the top employees at companies do otherwise they may leave and find work some place else that pays better.

I’d propose that the yearly escalator the other members receive (not SMU, Stan, Cal) be given to the squeaky wheels, in this instance maybe just Clem and FSU. Assuming it’s a $24m yearly bonus to split between the two, it might just be enough to keep them from rocking the boat.

The exchange could be a vote to expand by adding 1 more and exploit them like they have with the 3 newcomers. Is this reasonable?

If they claim that FSU leaving means more per year in lost tv revenue than the average ACC rate (which is true), then FSU is justified in claiming they are worth well more to the conference than they’re getting

That’s been the question for over a year. Why are the low value schools being maximalists? Sure, they can try and force status quo, a lose-lose, but thats likely to end up getting them little long term imo


If FSU stays through 2036 because they get $70 million/year from TV, then FSU can recruit TCU or others in 2029. That’s the optimal outcome for a Wake or BC

But those low value schools are worried they give FSU more, and they walk anyways , and at this point FSU wants to lock up a spot at the P2 table. Remove risk something changes, like a lull that has Miami or USF pass them

FSU has a right to test the market. The only thing preventing it is the fact that the GOR and exit fees are cost prohibitive - both items FSU signed on for to assure a stable conference home. The ACC goofed when it agreed to extend it out to 2036 without options for renegotiation. If FSU can prove the ACC was fiduciarily irresponsible to its members, the state of Florida might be able to do something for FSU...might...but I'm speculating.

The merit based “success initiative incentive” was a good start, but it’s a drop in the bucket. It also cuts both ways, FSU is not going to the basketball NCAAT so Duke, UNC others keep a larger portion. It should encourage members to aim higher and each season you keep a lousy coach around the school loses out on potential money.

I don’t know how much money it will take before FSU decides it’s not worth challenging the GoRs, but the ACC seems to be more at risk if FSU is successful. The ACC called FSU’s bluff, but it may be that FSU is holding Aces.

Success-based incentive just died when the CFP skipped their conference champion.

(01-03-2024 11:58 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  It seems that keeping up with the ACC and BigTen is not a major issue for the other schools which means they know that a national championship is so far out of reach that there is no reason to spend the money to reach it, so a small haircut should not hurt them. The ACC members get a yearly $2m escalator and I think goes up another $1-2m per after the Raycom deal expires in 2026(?).

I don’t think FSU really wants to leave the ACC, they just want an adequate amount of money to compete for national championships in football. They also want to continue their dynasty in women’s soccer and softball which the ACC has been a great help, so it’s another compelling reason to stay in the ACC if the financials work out.

Is it really unreasonable for the top brands in conference to earn more money? Usually the top employees at companies do otherwise they may leave and find work some place else that pays better.

I’d propose that the yearly escalator the other members receive (not SMU, Stan, Cal) be given to the squeaky wheels, in this instance maybe just Clem and FSU. Assuming it’s a $24m yearly bonus to split between the two, it might just be enough to keep them from rocking the boat.

The exchange could be a vote to expand by adding 1 more and exploit them like they have with the 3 newcomers. Is this reasonable?

I think you misread the situation because that seems to be YOUR personal preference. There are a sizable number of Seminole fans who have never been happy in and with the ACC, which I think now has grown to include a solid majority and finally, the administration in Tallahassee. Unequal revenue sharing rarely if ever works long-term and what one vote delivers a future vote can always take away (as happened to Southern Cal & UCLA in the PAC). See also Texas, who has given up ruling their own roost to join the egalitarian SEC. FSU should not aspire to be King of the Dwarves, we should aspire to affiliate with like-minded regional universities and obtain the resources to compete on a level playing field with them.

(01-03-2024 01:27 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 11:58 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  It seems that keeping up with the ACC and BigTen is not a major issue for the other schools which means they know that a national championship is so far out of reach that there is no reason to spend the money to reach it, so a small haircut should not hurt them. The ACC members get a yearly $2m escalator and I think goes up another $1-2m per after the Raycom deal expires in 2026(?).

I don’t think FSU really wants to leave the ACC, they just want an adequate amount of money to compete for national championships in football. They also want to continue their dynasty in women’s soccer and softball which the ACC has been a great help, so it’s another compelling reason to stay in the ACC if the financials work out.

Is it really unreasonable for the top brands in conference to earn more money? Usually the top employees at companies do otherwise they may leave and find work some place else that pays better.

I’d propose that the yearly escalator the other members receive (not SMU, Stan, Cal) be given to the squeaky wheels, in this instance maybe just Clem and FSU. Assuming it’s a $24m yearly bonus to split between the two, it might just be enough to keep them from rocking the boat.

The exchange could be a vote to expand by adding 1 more and exploit them like they have with the 3 newcomers. Is this reasonable?

I think you misread the situation because that seems to be YOUR personal preference. There are a sizable number of Seminole fans who have never been happy in and with the ACC, which I think now has grown to include a solid majority and finally, the administration in Tallahassee. Unequal revenue sharing rarely if ever works long-term and what one vote delivers a future vote can always take away (as happened to Southern Cal & UCLA in the PAC). See also Texas, who has given up ruling their own roost to join the egalitarian SEC. FSU should not aspire to be King of the Dwarves, we should aspire to affiliate with like-minded regional universities and obtain the resources to compete on a level playing field with them.

Don’t “want to” and backed into a corner so that FSU “has to” are different. FSU would not be trying to leave if the media payout was in the same ball park as SEC money.

(01-03-2024 01:40 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 01:27 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 11:58 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  It seems that keeping up with the ACC and BigTen is not a major issue for the other schools which means they know that a national championship is so far out of reach that there is no reason to spend the money to reach it, so a small haircut should not hurt them. The ACC members get a yearly $2m escalator and I think goes up another $1-2m per after the Raycom deal expires in 2026(?).

I don’t think FSU really wants to leave the ACC, they just want an adequate amount of money to compete for national championships in football. They also want to continue their dynasty in women’s soccer and softball which the ACC has been a great help, so it’s another compelling reason to stay in the ACC if the financials work out.

Is it really unreasonable for the top brands in conference to earn more money? Usually the top employees at companies do otherwise they may leave and find work some place else that pays better.

I’d propose that the yearly escalator the other members receive (not SMU, Stan, Cal) be given to the squeaky wheels, in this instance maybe just Clem and FSU. Assuming it’s a $24m yearly bonus to split between the two, it might just be enough to keep them from rocking the boat.

The exchange could be a vote to expand by adding 1 more and exploit them like they have with the 3 newcomers. Is this reasonable?

I think you misread the situation because that seems to be YOUR personal preference. There are a sizable number of Seminole fans who have never been happy in and with the ACC, which I think now has grown to include a solid majority and finally, the administration in Tallahassee. Unequal revenue sharing rarely if ever works long-term and what one vote delivers a future vote can always take away (as happened to Southern Cal & UCLA in the PAC). See also Texas, who has given up ruling their own roost to join the egalitarian SEC. FSU should not aspire to be King of the Dwarves, we should aspire to affiliate with like-minded regional universities and obtain the resources to compete on a level playing field with them.

Don’t “want to” and backed into a corner so that FSU “has to” are different. FSU would not be trying to leave if the media payout was in the same ball park as SEC money.

I think you're right about that, certainly we wouldn't be pursuing the risks & costs of an early exit without such a large revenue gap. Universities are too risk averse to engage in a struggle like this just over fit, if the money was similar. But I also think events over the past year have pretty firmly converted a majority into agreeing with me, that FSU needs out of the ACC and it is not just about the money. The revenue gap got the ball rolling, but the process is further exposing the fundamental incompatibility and injecting additional poison into the relationship which I think will ensure we depart as soon as possible.

No. FSU is pretty clear that they will leave as soon as they can afford to. Why appease them at everyone else's expense when it's not going to change their minds? It accomplishes nothing.

(01-03-2024 12:27 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 11:58 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  It seems that keeping up with the ACC and BigTen is not a major issue for the other schools which means they know that a national championship is so far out of reach that there is no reason to spend the money to reach it, so a small haircut should not hurt them. The ACC members get a yearly $2m escalator and I think goes up another $1-2m per after the Raycom deal expires in 2026(?).

I don’t think FSU really wants to leave the ACC, they just want an adequate amount of money to compete for national championships in football. They also want to continue their dynasty in women’s soccer and softball which the ACC has been a great help, so it’s another compelling reason to stay in the ACC if the financials work out.

Is it really unreasonable for the top brands in conference to earn more money? Usually the top employees at companies do otherwise they may leave and find work some place else that pays better.

I’d propose that the yearly escalator the other members receive (not SMU, Stan, Cal) be given to the squeaky wheels, in this instance maybe just Clem and FSU. Assuming it’s a $24m yearly bonus to split between the two, it might just be enough to keep them from rocking the boat.

The exchange could be a vote to expand by adding 1 more and exploit them like they have with the 3 newcomers. Is this reasonable?

If they claim that FSU leaving means more per year in lost tv revenue than the average ACC rate (which is true), then FSU is justified in claiming they are worth well more to the conference than they’re getting

That’s been the question for over a year. Why are the low value schools being maximalists? Sure, they can try and force status quo, a lose-lose, but thats likely to end up getting them little long term imo


If FSU stays through 2036 because they get $70 million/year from TV, then FSU can recruit TCU or others in 2029. That’s the optimal outcome for a Wake or BC

But those low value schools are worried they give FSU more, and they walk anyways , and at this point FSU wants to lock up a spot at the P2 table. Remove risk something changes, like a lull that has Miami or USF pass them

That’s exactly what happened in the Big 12: they gave Texas everything that they wanted with their separate Longhorn Network revenue (as opposed to pushing for an equal conference network), but Texas still walked to the SEC. As a result, I don’t think the “low value” schools are worried about whether FSU is going to leave, but rather when FSU leaving happens and how much money that they can extract out of FSU (whether in the form of the GOR buyout or simply running out the clock of the existing TV contract until 2036). The Big 12 experience with UT is prima facie evidence that there’s no point in the ACC trying to placate anything for FSU revenue-wise since they’re going to walk to a P2 league, anyway.

Could make the difference between getting out in a few years or out in 2036.

As I understand it, the Big12 did not bundle their tier 3 rights which are generally not worth much, what I can’t figure out is how UT was able to get ESPN to go along with a stand alone network? Whatever the reason, it was enough to placate UT until near the contract’s end, otherwise they would have been out much sooner.

I don't think the small schools have to worry about not being whole. However, that below 15 threshold looms large, and they only have room for 1 more school pro-rata. So even when they add the 19th member, they can't lose five incumbent schools (including ND). FSU Miami Clemson UNC is not enough to shut them down, but one more school (likely ND is out at this point), and they'd wish they'd have given FSU/Clemson/UNC 50 million plus for the next 12 years.

Not enough money in the contract to sate FSU’s appetite. The lower-tier schools have every reason to ride the heavy train until 2036 (or, 2027) with or without the Seminoles.

I also think UNC would like to stay in the ACC, but FSU has probably gone a bridge too far with their lawsuit to mend fences at this point.

(01-03-2024 02:50 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Not enough money in the contract to sate FSU’s appetite. The lower-tier schools have every reason to ride the heavy train until 2036 (or, 2027) with or without the Seminoles.

I also think UNC would like to stay in the ACC, but FSU has probably gone a bridge too far with their lawsuit to mend fences at this point.

You could be right. And it was the ACC that filed first.

(01-03-2024 02:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 12:27 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 11:58 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  It seems that keeping up with the ACC and BigTen is not a major issue for the other schools which means they know that a national championship is so far out of reach that there is no reason to spend the money to reach it, so a small haircut should not hurt them. The ACC members get a yearly $2m escalator and I think goes up another $1-2m per after the Raycom deal expires in 2026(?).

I don’t think FSU really wants to leave the ACC, they just want an adequate amount of money to compete for national championships in football. They also want to continue their dynasty in women’s soccer and softball which the ACC has been a great help, so it’s another compelling reason to stay in the ACC if the financials work out.

Is it really unreasonable for the top brands in conference to earn more money? Usually the top employees at companies do otherwise they may leave and find work some place else that pays better.

I’d propose that the yearly escalator the other members receive (not SMU, Stan, Cal) be given to the squeaky wheels, in this instance maybe just Clem and FSU. Assuming it’s a $24m yearly bonus to split between the two, it might just be enough to keep them from rocking the boat.

The exchange could be a vote to expand by adding 1 more and exploit them like they have with the 3 newcomers. Is this reasonable?

If they claim that FSU leaving means more per year in lost tv revenue than the average ACC rate (which is true), then FSU is justified in claiming they are worth well more to the conference than they’re getting

That’s been the question for over a year. Why are the low value schools being maximalists? Sure, they can try and force status quo, a lose-lose, but thats likely to end up getting them little long term imo


If FSU stays through 2036 because they get $70 million/year from TV, then FSU can recruit TCU or others in 2029. That’s the optimal outcome for a Wake or BC

But those low value schools are worried they give FSU more, and they walk anyways , and at this point FSU wants to lock up a spot at the P2 table. Remove risk something changes, like a lull that has Miami or USF pass them

That’s exactly what happened in the Big 12: they gave Texas everything that they wanted with their separate Longhorn Network revenue (as opposed to pushing for an equal conference network), but Texas still walked to the SEC. As a result, I don’t think the “low value” schools are worried about whether FSU is going to leave, but rather when FSU leaving happens and how much money that they can extract out of FSU (whether in the form of the GOR buyout or simply running out the clock of the existing TV contract until 2036). The Big 12 experience with UT is prima facie evidence that there’s no point in the ACC trying to placate anything for FSU revenue-wise since they’re going to walk to a P2 league, anyway.

Perfection is the enemy of good.

Not giving UT what it wanted doesn’t help the Big 12. It kills it in 2010, without having OUT subsidize TCU and Baylor’s rise.

Instead, the same low value leftovers are lucky if they’re in Oregon St and WSU shoes right now. More likely they joined/formed the American, and with several legacy Big 12 getting passed by some American schools for being ACC backfill this round

That last part will be true for Wake and BC if they don’t get realignment value from GOR. As soon as FSU and others leave, USF, Tulane, Memphis etc will be ahead of them in survival. Much better for low value ACC schools to give up $2.5 or $5 million to delay top of ACC from leaving

But, that time has likely passed. They decided to “mess” around and find out.

(01-03-2024 02:46 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I don't think the small schools have to worry about not being whole. However, that below 15 threshold looms large, and they only have room for 1 more school pro-rata. So even when they add the 19th member, they can't lose five incumbent schools (including ND). FSU Miami Clemson UNC is not enough to shut them down, but one more school (likely ND is out at this point), and they'd wish they'd have given FSU/Clemson/UNC 50 million plus for the next 12 years.

I don't think that ND is out at all at that point. ND doesn't want to join the Big Ten.

ND knows what is coming regarding the ACC and still re-upped the NBC deal and brokered the additions of SMU, Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

I think that ND is going to be involved in the creation of an ND centric, academic minded, private school dominated ACC after those schools leave.

It will keep its other sports in the ACC, will stay football independent but may negotiate down the ACC football game annual commitment to play more Big Ten and SEC schools.

That is my theory, anyway.

(01-04-2024 12:29 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I don't think that ND is out at all at that point. ND doesn't want to join the Big Ten.

ND knows what is coming regarding the ACC and still re-upped the NBC deal and brokered the additions of SMU, Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

I think that ND is going to be involved in the creation of an ND centric, academic minded, private school dominated ACC after those schools leave.

It will keep its other sports in the ACC, will stay football independent but may negotiate down the ACC football game annual commitment to play more Big Ten and SEC schools.

That is my theory, anyway.

If you believe ND will be satisfied with fixing Stanford, and rotating amongst Cal, SMU, BC, Pitt, NCSU/Duke/UVa, then you will believe anything will retain independence. I don't think there is anything remotely attractive about playing football games against those schools every year. How many games would ND commit to? Anything less than the five game commitment (even with Stanford fixed) would trigger a renegotiation of the pro-rata in all likelihood.

Besides, I don't think the ACC survives by backfilling UNC/Miami/FSU/Clemson with USF and going about their business. I believe football centric schools will want a meaty schedule and schools like VaTech GaTech UL will inquire into the Big 12 at full shares, at least when the buyout is less cost prohibitive.

(01-03-2024 02:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 12:27 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 11:58 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  It seems that keeping up with the ACC and BigTen is not a major issue for the other schools which means they know that a national championship is so far out of reach that there is no reason to spend the money to reach it, so a small haircut should not hurt them. The ACC members get a yearly $2m escalator and I think goes up another $1-2m per after the Raycom deal expires in 2026(?).

I don’t think FSU really wants to leave the ACC, they just want an adequate amount of money to compete for national championships in football. They also want to continue their dynasty in women’s soccer and softball which the ACC has been a great help, so it’s another compelling reason to stay in the ACC if the financials work out.

Is it really unreasonable for the top brands in conference to earn more money? Usually the top employees at companies do otherwise they may leave and find work some place else that pays better.

I’d propose that the yearly escalator the other members receive (not SMU, Stan, Cal) be given to the squeaky wheels, in this instance maybe just Clem and FSU. Assuming it’s a $24m yearly bonus to split between the two, it might just be enough to keep them from rocking the boat.

The exchange could be a vote to expand by adding 1 more and exploit them like they have with the 3 newcomers. Is this reasonable?

If they claim that FSU leaving means more per year in lost tv revenue than the average ACC rate (which is true), then FSU is justified in claiming they are worth well more to the conference than they’re getting

That’s been the question for over a year. Why are the low value schools being maximalists? Sure, they can try and force status quo, a lose-lose, but thats likely to end up getting them little long term imo


If FSU stays through 2036 because they get $70 million/year from TV, then FSU can recruit TCU or others in 2029. That’s the optimal outcome for a Wake or BC

But those low value schools are worried they give FSU more, and they walk anyways , and at this point FSU wants to lock up a spot at the P2 table. Remove risk something changes, like a lull that has Miami or USF pass them

That’s exactly what happened in the Big 12: they gave Texas everything that they wanted with their separate Longhorn Network revenue (as opposed to pushing for an equal conference network), but Texas still walked to the SEC. As a result, I don’t think the “low value” schools are worried about whether FSU is going to leave, but rather when FSU leaving happens and how much money that they can extract out of FSU (whether in the form of the GOR buyout or simply running out the clock of the existing TV contract until 2036). The Big 12 experience with UT is prima facie evidence that there’s no point in the ACC trying to placate anything for FSU revenue-wise since they’re going to walk to a P2 league, anyway.

(01-04-2024 12:29 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 02:46 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I don't think the small schools have to worry about not being whole. However, that below 15 threshold looms large, and they only have room for 1 more school pro-rata. So even when they add the 19th member, they can't lose five incumbent schools (including ND). FSU Miami Clemson UNC is not enough to shut them down, but one more school (likely ND is out at this point), and they'd wish they'd have given FSU/Clemson/UNC 50 million plus for the next 12 years.

I don't think that ND is out at all at that point. ND doesn't want to join the Big Ten.

ND knows what is coming regarding the ACC and still re-upped the NBC deal and brokered the additions of SMU, Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

I think that ND is going to be involved in the creation of an ND centric, academic minded, private school dominated ACC after those schools leave.

It will keep its other sports in the ACC, will stay football independent but may negotiate down the ACC football game annual commitment to play more Big Ten and SEC schools.

That is my theory, anyway.

When the ACC goes to 18 schools Terry, Notre Dame's commitment will increase to 6 games per year.
My theory.