If I recall correctly, the idea was to have schools keep their own revenues for football while sharing revenues for basketball (and other sports). This would have disproportionally benefitted Penn State at the time, which is likely why schools objected to it.
Notre Dame is not joining a conference and Oregon, FSU, and Washington are the only teams on that list that have any national appeal.
If everything happened the same way it actually did, you’re absolutely right. However, you never know whether that would’ve triggered other independents joining sooner (e.g. Florida State, Miami, South Carolina) or if they could’ve poached any ACC schools.
Oh, I agree. But we’ll see what the Pitt administration (and others like ours) has to say about that. I don’t see them satisfied to have the Olympic and (especially) women’s sports going back to playing podunk local small schools.
This is a general statement that when viewed through the lens of the way TV contracts are currently (and for the past x years/decades) structured, can be very misleading. In reality, few outside of those that were involved in the negotiations really know what terms (and teams) were actually discussed, and good luck finding an article from the time reporting on them.
No, I’m glad your cleared up that confusion. You’re correct that the NCAA controlled the TV rights until the mid 80s. I’ll look to see what I can find regarding this; I could’ve swore it was along those lines, but apparently I’ve missed something.
Totally. They think their crap performances and seasons the last 15 years are the accs fault? Ummmm no. Bad coaches and a crappy program.
Yes, you are correct my friend when you say the right coaches is irrelevant when it comes to conference revenue, but that’s out of his control. He’s not some grand wizard of knowledge. Everybody knows the ACC situation.
FSU gives the Big Ten a toehold in Florida, a rapidly growing talent rich state, which is something Oregon doesn't
This.
God can be the acc commish and he would struggle to close that revenue gap. Espn is not going to dump more money. Any realistic increases will be incremental.
Well...I respectfully disagree...the college football landscape has changed a great deal since 2014. People forget about things they did yesterday, you think the powers to be cares about something that happened nine years ago?
I think Texas and Oklahoma just showed us it's only going to be a year or two early.
With a new deal in place, would they have to renegotiate a contract if there are any additional invites? If not, wouldn't additional teams just reduce the amount each school gets?
When you're talking in the $80-100 million range, what programs are left that would add that type of value? Notre Dame? Maybe another pair of schools? Maybe I'm wrong, but even schools like Miami, Florida State, and Clemson don't seem to have that type of name brand to bring in that type of TV deal.
www.forbes.com
Listen................Do you hear that?........Dead silence from the doomsayers and the trolls...... Any positive news drives them away....... LOL!Enough with the death
march predictions. It’s impossible to predict what will happen. If anything, making college football too exclusive will reduce its brand and value.
The Pac 12’s Leadership Needs To Ink A New Media Deal Then Start ACC Merger Talks.
Now Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff goal is to work with Amazon, ESPN, and a few potential mystery partners in the hopes of beating the Big 12 deal done with Fox and ESPN that pays about $31.7 million per school for the next six years.
Enough with the death
march predictions. It’s impossible to predict what will happen. If anything, making college football too exclusive will reduce its brand and value.
The Pac 12’s Leadership Needs To Ink A New Media Deal Then Start ACC Merger Talks.
Now Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff goal is to work with Amazon, ESPN, and a few potential mystery partners in the hopes of beating the Big 12 deal done with Fox and ESPN that pays about $31.7 million per school for the next six years.
