(01-05-2024 12:08 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-05-2024 08:58 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 01:29 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 01:24 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Well said.

The first thing that needs to be done is to keep your best schools from leaving. Scaring them with threats of lawsuits might work until 2036, but does not do anything else to address the problem after that. From an optics view, it looks bad when despite the threats some members still take the risk. Just like some risk crossing the border to get out of N.Korea.

What the ACC should have done was taken care of its bread winners even if that means unequal revenue sharing.

The conference has been its own worst enemy. In every aspect, it’s a great conference with great schools. It absolutely shot itself in the foot with the media deal it signed.

That last sentence is in direct conflict with the premise of your own thread. The media deal it signed accurately reflected, and still reflects, everything you point out about the culture of the ACC.That is to say that, at its core, the ACC has never been a football first conference and doesn't want to be one.

Football is important to ACC members, but it isn't the be all and end all. Unfortunately for FSU, they chose to join a conference with which they were culturally incompatible, at a time when media revenues weren't nearly as important to school athletic budgets as they are today. Now they regret that decision, and decisions made more recently than that one.

Now, both sides have to figure out what happens from here. I think the ACC should be magnanimous, but I also think FSU has to accept that the cost of leaving isn't going to be done on the cheap. Make a reasonable offer. Do it privately, not in the media. And get ESPN on board with it. And if that means bringing Clemson along, so be it. The ACC would still survive as an M2 level conference, which I think is OK with a majority of its members.

I don't see a contradiction. I'm saying two things: reality (football is king) vs desire (equal sports value). I'd rather watch college football all day than any other sport. I played an "other" sport in college and I hate that their championships hold, effectively, zero value.

The ACC shot itself in the foot with its deal which was for football (and some basketball). That is the reality of the deal. If other sports held more value, the ACC would likely have been in the position to sign a deal much closer to that of the B1G and SEC.

What I hear you say is that the ACC's brand value in football isn't very good compared to other power conferences (and I can accept that as true), but that their mistake was signing a media deal that reflected that reality. Maybe it was FSU's mistake to have accepted that media deal, not the ACC's mistake. What should the ACC have done - followed the Big East example and taken their chances in the open market?

When Maryland left the conference, probably FSU should have also left and never signed a GoR or accepted a bylaw change that dramatically increased the exit fee. But for whatever reason, they didn't do that, and subsequent trends in the sports rights market now make leaving much more expensive. Decisions have consequences, and not always good consequences.

I believe the ACC's media deal was fair when they signed it, and I think it is still fair. FSU's problem is that a fair ACC media deal isn't good for them, and probably no future media deal would be good for them either.

(01-05-2024 01:01 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(01-05-2024 11:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 02:51 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 01:29 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 01:24 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Well said.

The first thing that needs to be done is to keep your best schools from leaving. Scaring them with threats of lawsuits might work until 2036, but does not do anything else to address the problem after that. From an optics view, it looks bad when despite the threats some members still take the risk. Just like some risk crossing the border to get out of N.Korea.

What the ACC should have done was taken care of its bread winners even if that means unequal revenue sharing.

The conference has been its own worst enemy. In every aspect, it’s a great conference with great schools. It absolutely shot itself in the foot with the media deal it signed.

It would be dead already without that deal.

ESPN wasn’t giving the ACC upside AND certainty. It was either a shorter deal/GOR with more pay, or the one they signed

Had the ACC deal been up in 2024 or 2025 like the other two mid level conferences, at least 3 to 4 schools are already gone.


Say FSU wants $ 40 million more per year. That’s just $2.5 million/year less to the others. Given Wake, BC etc should be willing to give up much more than that to keep the ACC together as long as possible.

The problem is that’s all well and good if it’s just FSU that wants that extra money, but then UNC, Clemson and Miami will assuredly want the same. That turns into $160 million more per year to just those 4 schools.

Then, UVA and probably Duke will say, “Both the Big Ten and SEC probably would like us, too, so we should get extra payments.”

Then, Virginia Tech, NC State and Louisville will say, “The Big 12 would take us as full pay members immediately, so we need payments above the Big 12 amount as a minimum.”

Then, Georgia Tech and even some of the schools that a lot of people seem to delight in saying will be left behind in an ACC collapse like Pitt, Syracuse and Boston College will say, “Wait a second - we’re bringing in a HUGE amount of households for the ACC Network with our high population states. We should be compensated more for that here as opposed to getting our payments reduced.”

Then, Notre Dame will come in and say, “The only reason why this league is surviving at all is because we are continuing to maintain football independence and refuse to join the Big Ten, so we need a greater share of the basketball revenue to keep us here.”

Essentially the only school that doesn’t have much of a case to ask for more money is Wake Forest (similar to how essentially everyone in the Pac-12 had a case to ask for more money except for Oregon State and Washington State, which is why no unequal revenue sharing proposal ever worked there).

The mistake that so many fans make is thinking that schools will just outright acknowledge that another school is worth more than them. They just don’t do that. Even in the Big 12, the Texas revenue advantage came from their own separate Tier 3 rights deal for the LHN, whereas the Tier 1 revenue was shared equally.

The “Lake Wobegon Effect” completely applies to power conference revenue sharing: virtually *everyone* thinks they’re above average. When everyone thinks that they’re above average, it’s essentially impossible to have unequal revenue sharing based on brand value. (It’s different for performance incentives as that revenue can be directly attributed to how much a school specifically brings in from the CFP, NCAA Tournament, etc.)

You’re talking about something else- the odds of it happening. I’m talking about whether it would be a tenable, if not good, risk adjusted solution for Wake and BC types.

Perhaps it has been offered and an agreeable reallocation not found. Of course, what’s agreeable is dependent on perceived risk/reward. It’s likely that even some administrators used fan thinking like you, ignoring the dynamics at play. The PAC did, and the ACC has. It’s not going to end well for them if they do.

You need to stop thinking like a fan that’s stuck in 2010. Oregon St and WSU have already recognized what you say schools won’t. So has UW, Oregon, SMU, Stanford, Cal and show the Lake Wobegon Effect is no longer applicable when the appropriate risk is perceived. It just takes some a long time to see it

You’re also thinking one move at a time. That shouldn’t be the

The Big 12 would give them unequal revenue sharing. Why? Because it costs each Big 12 school very little, while removing risk for both sides. Is it worth $3 millions year to a Kansas St to form the best 3rd conference possible, both helping to prevent separation while killing ACC? Yes.

Really? It seems that your entire position is thinking about one move - placating FSU - without considering every single other reaction from other valuable ACC schools.

The difference here is that the ACC has a GOR agreement lasting until 2036 that, until proven otherwise, the law sides with and FSU in its *own* complaint acknowledges that they would have to owe $572 million if it’s enforced. I know a lot of posters here just think that is going to be wished away or the ACC is just going to fold because they don’t want to argue for the next 13 years… but there are heck of a lot of cases worth less than $572 million that go on for 13 years plus.

Now, could there be an unfavorable ruling months or even years from now that changes that dynamic for the ACC and pushes them to a settlement? That could certainly happen. However, it simply doesn’t make any sense at all for any movement to happen before that time.

Once again, FSU *itself* calculated that it would cost them over a half billion dollars if the GOR agreement is enforced. FSU handed that number over itself! (This is still the part of their complaint that should be the most amazing to anyone looking at this objectively.) It’s asinine to think that any party with a half billion dollars at stake AND they believe the law is on their side is just going to fold quickly on a settlement. It doesn’t make business or legal sense whatsoever for anyone that is actually looking at it objectively as opposed to “thinking like a fan” and projecting toward a specific desired outcome. This has nothing to do with realignment predictions - this is pure basic business and legal sense that would apply to any industry.

And look, I’ve said that the most valuable schools will leave the ACC by 2036. It will happen even if the ACC offers FSU the additional money that you’ve argued for here. That has never been my dispute with other posters here, but rather the timing and circumstances of when that will occur and how much the parties leaving the ACC will owe.

Let’s say ESPN negotiates a deal to move Florida St and Clemson to the SEC. For scheduling purposes:

ACC Atlantic: BC, Cuse, Pitt, L’ville, VT, Miami (ex-Big East)
ACC Coastal: UVA, UNC, NC St, Duke, WF, GT (the old guard)
ACC Flex: SMU, Cal, Stanford (the money grab expansion)

Atlantic and Coastal each play round robin (5 games) plus 3 others on a rotating basis
Flex plays round robin (2 games) plus 6 others on a rotating basis.

The only non “divisional” rivalry needing protection is UVA-VT which is easily manageable.

(01-03-2024 02:21 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 01:49 PM)ccbfan Wrote:  Pretty bonkers that the 3rd best school in that list is Uconn with 8 championships (6 in the 2nd and 3rd highest revenue sport) can't find a home at all because they have a really bad football team.

I think that means they'd be a good fit in a Clemson/Florida St-less ACC? No?

BC still would try to block their entry on territorial grounds. How much success they would have remains to be seen.

(01-03-2024 01:04 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  I hate that this has all come down to football and money. I understand it and college football is my favorite sport to watch but I hate it. Like many others here and elsewhere, I strongly prefer smaller, geographical conferences. Football and money have decimated the college athletics landscape.

What if other sports mattered just as much as football? The ACC would be an absolute monster.

TOTAL
42 - ACC: Boston College, California (2), Clemson (2), Duke (2), Florida St (5), Louisville, North Carolina (10), Notre Dame (2), Stanford (10), Syracuse (2), Virginia (5)
22 - B1G: Maryland (7), Nebraska (2), Northwestern (2), Ohio St (3), Penn St (2), UCLA (3), USC, Washington (2), Wisconsin
20 - SEC: Florida (3), Kentucky, LSU (2), Mississippi, Mississippi St, Oklahoma (6), South Carolina (2), Texas (2), Vanderbilt (2)
12 - Big East: Connecticut (8), Denver, Georgetown, Villanova (2)
3 - XII: Baylor (2), Kansas
2 - Sun Belt: Coastal Carolina, Marshall
1 - AAC: James Madison
1 - Ivy: Yale
1 - WCC: Santa Clara
4 - Unknown: Delaware, Oregon St, Texas (2)

Let's say we include the last 10 champions in FBS (including this year since the champion will be a B1G school):
44 - ACC
26 - SEC
24 - B1G

Let's go one step further and remove the new schools added to the ACC next year (California, SMU, Stanford):
32 - ACC
26 - SEC
24 - B1G

----------

Any way you slice it, the ACC is, in team sports sponsored by the ACC, the most dominant conference across Division I. If you include individual sports, I believe the B1G and SEC overtake the ACC by a strong margin. That being said, no other conference comes close to touching the ACC as a Top 3 conference in athletic competition.

What if wishes were fishes? There would be no room for water in the sea.

(01-03-2024 01:04 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  I hate that this has all come down to football and money. I understand it and college football is my favorite sport to watch but I hate it. Like many others here and elsewhere, I strongly prefer smaller, geographical conferences. Football and money have decimated the college athletics landscape.

What if other sports mattered just as much as football? The ACC would be an absolute monster.

Looking at the last 10 champions of non-football team sports* the ACC sponsors (based on future conference affiliation of each school for that particular team sport):

* Defining ACC team sports to include: baseball, basketball, field hockey, lacrosse, rowing, soccer, softball, and volleyball. The other ACC sports (cross country, fencing, golf, gymnastics, swimming and diving, tennis, track and field, and wrestling) have team aspects and team championships but the athletes compete, almost exclusively, as an individual without on field/court/etc. support of teammates.

Baseball (M)
6 - SEC: Florida, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Vanderbilt (2)
1 - ACC: Virginia
1 - B1G: UCLA
1 - Sun Belt: Coastal Carolina
1 - Unknown: Oregon St

Basketball (M)
4 - ACC: Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia
4 - Big East: Connecticut (2), Villanova (2)
2 - XII: Baylor, Kansas

Basketball (W)
4 - Big East: Connecticut (4)
3 - SEC: LSU, South Carolina (2)
2 - ACC: Notre Dame, Stanford
1 - XII: Baylor

Field Hockey (W)
6 - ACC: North Carolina (5), Syracuse
2 - Big East: Connecticut (2)
1 - B1G: Northwestern
1 - Unknown: Delaware

Lacrosse (M)
6 - ACC: Duke (2), North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia (2)
1 - B1G: Maryland (2)
1 - Big East: Denver
1 - Ivy: Yale

Lacrosse (W)
5 - B1G: Maryland (4), Northwestern
4 - ACC: Boston College, North Carolina (3)
1 - AAC: James Madison

Rowing (W)
5 - B1G: Ohio St (3), Washington (2)
3 - ACC: California (2), Stanford
2 - Unknown: Texas (2)

Soccer (M)
7 - ACC: Clemson (2), Stanford (3), Syracuse, Virginia
1 - B1G: Maryland
1 - Big East: Georgetown
1 - Sun Belt: Marshall

Soccer (W)
6 - ACC: Florida St (4), Stanford (2)
3 - B1G: Penn St, UCLA, USC
1 - WCC: Santa Clara

Softball (W)
8 - SEC: Florida (2), Oklahoma (6)
1 - ACC: Florida St
1 - B1G: UCLA

Volleyball (W)
4 - B1G: Nebraska (2), Penn St, Wisconsin
3 - ACC: Stanford (3)
3 - SEC: Kentucky, Texas (2)

TOTAL
42 - ACC: Boston College, California (2), Clemson (2), Duke (2), Florida St (5), Louisville, North Carolina (10), Notre Dame (2), Stanford (10), Syracuse (2), Virginia (5)
22 - B1G: Maryland (7), Nebraska (2), Northwestern (2), Ohio St (3), Penn St (2), UCLA (3), USC, Washington (2), Wisconsin
20 - SEC: Florida (3), Kentucky, LSU (2), Mississippi, Mississippi St, Oklahoma (6), South Carolina (2), Texas (2), Vanderbilt (2)
12 - Big East: Connecticut (8), Denver, Georgetown, Villanova (2)
3 - XII: Baylor (2), Kansas
2 - Sun Belt: Coastal Carolina, Marshall
1 - AAC: James Madison
1 - Ivy: Yale
1 - WCC: Santa Clara
4 - Unknown: Delaware, Oregon St, Texas (2)

Let's say we include the last 10 champions in FBS (including this year since the champion will be a B1G school):
44 - ACC
26 - SEC
24 - B1G

Let's go one step further and remove the new schools added to the ACC next year (California, SMU, Stanford):
32 - ACC
26 - SEC
24 - B1G

----------

Any way you slice it, the ACC is, in team sports sponsored by the ACC, the most dominant conference across Division I. If you include individual sports, I believe the B1G and SEC overtake the ACC by a strong margin. That being said, no other conference comes close to touching the ACC as a Top 3 conference in athletic competition.

OLYMPIC SPORTS SUCCESS REALIGNMENT:
The New "Big 3" ???? (SEC-BIG10-ACC) Here's how the realigned DC points look:

The majority of ACC presidents mandated signing the Cardinals, Bears and Mustangs before the ACC became obsolete. “This is an exciting day for the ACC, Syracuse University and our student-athletes, students, alumni and fans,” said Syracuse athletic director John Wildhack. “Stanford University, University of California-Berkeley and Southern Methodist University are top-tier institutions with tremendous academic profiles that align with the outstanding member universities that comprise the ACC.”

If anyone in the ACC can gauge the financial value of three new schools, it’s Wildhack. He engineered the current ESPN-ACC contract and saw to it the contract was lengthy, and was assured every ACC school signed an ironclad “grant of rights” agreement. In Wildhack’s statement, he suggested the three new programs, with their historic heritage, are “highly competitive in all sports, with exceptional strength in the Olympic sports.” Additionally, they “will strengthen [the ACC] and enhance [the conference’s] position among the elite power conferences in the NCAA.”

FACTS:

Cal & Stanford:Cal and Stanford will receive a partial share of ACC Tier 1 media revenue — estimated at about $25 million each annually — for the next nine years before getting a full payment in the final three years of the conference’s deal with ESPN. Will get full share of ACCN rights distribution. Will participate in the success initiatives that rewards winning programs.

SMU:Will forgo all ACC Tier 1 media revenue for nine years before getting a full payment in the final three years of the conference’s deal with ESPN. Will get full share of ACCN rights distribution. Will participate in the success initiatives that rewards winning programs.

The money being withheld from the three new teams is expected to create an annual pot of revenue between $50 million and $60 million it will be added to the CFP & NCAA distributions to create a pool of "extra cash". Some of the revenue will be divided proportionally among the 14 full-time members and Notre Dame, and another portion will be put in a pool designated for success initiatives that rewards winning programs.

Here is a look at what each school will bring to the ACC on the athletic field:

California
Cal-Berkeley is the flagship of the University of California’s 10-campus system and is regularly ranked as the No. 1 public university in the nation. The university’s football program has won five NCAA titles, but the last came in 1937. California last won the Pac-12 Conference in 2006; and that was its first conference title since 1975. Over the last 10 years, the Golden Bears have compiled a 49-66 record. The Bears’ last bowl appearance was the 2019 Redbox Bowl against Illinois.

In men’s basketball, Cal has struggled to compete in the Pac-12. The Bears’ last winning season was in 2016-17. The last time Cal was in the NCAA tournament was in 2013; ironically the Bears were ousted in the second round that year by Syracuse. Cal hasn’t advanced to the second weekend of the NCAA tournament since 1997.

Cal’s women’s basketball team made it to the Final Four in 2013, but haven’t been to the tournament since 2019.

The school has produced nearly 300 individual NCAA champions thanks mainly to men’s and women’s swimming, rowing and track and field.

Stanford
Stanford boasts the most successful athletic program in the country having won the NACDA Directors’ Cup in 26 of the award’s 29 years. The school has won 134 NCAA team championships; more than any other school. Stanford’s list of athletic alums includes Tiger Woods, John Elway, Katie Ledecky, Mike Mussina and John McEnroe.

Under former coach David Shaw, Stanford’s football teams enjoyed 10 straight winning seasons from 2009 to 2018, but the Cardinal have had losing records in each of the last four years. Stanford’s last bowl appearance came in the 2018 Sun Bowl.

Stanford’s basketball program has had success in the past, but the Cardinal haven’t been to the NCAA tournament since 2014. Stanford has struggled to just three winning seasons in seven years under current head coach Jerod Haase.

Stanford’s women’s basketball program is led by Hall of Fame coach Tara VanDerveer. Her teams have won three NCAA titles, including most recently in 2021.

The women’s tennis program has won 20 of the last 41 NCAA titles. The women’s soccer team has recently won NCAA titles in 2011, 2017 and 2019. The men’s soccer team won national titles in 2015, 2016 and 2017.

Of course, Stanford’s golf progam is known for Tiger Woods, but on the women’s side, Rose Zhang won the individual title in 2022 and 2023. She was the first two-time winner in women’s golf.

Southern Method University
SMU won their first American Championship in 2023 and have enjoyed five straight winning seasons, including four bowl appearances in the last seven years.

The SMU basketball program has been to the NCAA tournament just twice since 1993 and the Mustangs’ last NCAA win came in the 1988 tournament.

The women’s basketball team hasn’t fared much better. SMU has had just one winning season in the last 10 years. The Mustangs’ last NCAA appearance came in 2008 and their last win was in the 2000 NCAA tournament.

The men’s soccer team is a national contender and the women’s soccer team is currently ranked.

Bryson DeChambeau was the NCAA’s individual golf champion in 2015.

ACC REALIGNED TALENT:
How would new football teams fit in the ACC? Each of their football talent composite scores compare favorably in the ACC:

Your only play going forward

"Division" A:

Florida State
Clemson
North Carolina
NC State
Miami-FL
Virginia Tech
Virginia
Georgia Tech

"Division" B:

Boston College
Syracuse
Pittsburgh
Louisville
Duke
Wake Forest
SMU
Stanford
California

(01-10-2024 12:56 PM)thrill_house Wrote:  Your only play going forward

"Division" A:

Florida State
Clemson
North Carolina
NC State
Miami-FL
Virginia Tech
Virginia
Georgia Tech

"Division" B:

Boston College
Syracuse
Pittsburgh
Louisville
Duke
Wake Forest
SMU
Stanford
California