Going to potentially see the actual ACC contract Aug 1.
- Thread starter ratking17
- Start date
How are you asking that? The only reason the B12 exists is because they gave Texas more money. If they didnt, UT, TT, OU, and OK St were going to the P12 and some combination of KU, KSt, ISU, and Baylor were going to the Big East (this according to a quote from Tranghese or Aresco in the last year or 2). The Big 12 would have died right there.
Now, you could argue that KU, KSt, ISU, and Baylor ended up in the Big East anyway with TCU (who was in the league for a minute or 2), WVU, Cincy, and UCF (USF substitute). But they kept Texas Tech, got Colorado back, and lucked into Utah and the Arizonas. So if you are KU, KSt, ISU, and Baylor, it was an incredibly good move to give Texas more money. Their conference exists right now solely because of that and some people would claim that it will be the #3 conference and eat the ACC.
It’s worth noting, though, that the one sentence that we do have from that paragraph states that it’s “pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph…” and then the next page and a half of that are totally redacted. It’s very, very possible that there are a number of provisions in that redacted portion that don’t make it nearly as cut and dry or gives ESPN the ability to arbitrarily decide to walk away as you’re making it seem in this thread.
So again
What does your proposal do to stop them from leaving for more money , exactly ?
Hint - it’s the GOR keeping them here , not conference payouts
Now, you’re asking for the reality impaired to use some common sense .
It keeps them until 2036. They will leave then but it buys you time. Maybe it allows the ACC to raid the B12 in 2030 when their TV deal is up. What the ACC needs is time.
That's a long way around the horn to say that letting Texas haver their way left them in pretty much the exact same spot if they had just manned up and forced Texas to share revenue equally.
Not sure how being left holding the bag with some patchwork mess is "better" than also holding the bag with some patchwork mess and getting a fairer revenue distribution along the way. Texas used the Big12 and still walked away.
It keeps them with the GOR and the contract they agreed to
I mean, yea, are they in essentially the same spot? Kinda. Like I said, those 4 are pretty much in the same Big East they were going to join 10-15 years ago. But, as we have seen, that Big East was always going to implode. Pitt and Syr got ACC bids shortly after the BE almost added KU and friends. Who knows how everything else plays out. But, giving Texas what they wanted allowed the B12 brand to continue and now they ended up in a 16 team conglomerate of teams nobody wants, so that in itself brings stability.
I think we can all agree that conceding to Texas and saving the B12 has those 4 teams in a more certain future than if they had to join the Big East way back then.
Why would a school like Pitt agree to revenue sharing based on TV ratings which are basically controlled by the conference and ESPN?
Whoever gets the best TV slots get the best ratings. The noon game on ACCN is never beating a 3:30 ABC game, and it doesn't matter who is playing.
Anyone at Pitt who agrees to something like this would need to be a complete idiot.
So you think that KU & Co. having to go to the Big East, which was another dying league, would have had them in the EXACT same spot as they are in now?
You are correct. They shouldn't be paid due to their individual TV ratings. They should be paid based on what percentage of the TV contract is due to each team according to a 3rd party consultant. If Wake as valuable as FSU? If not, FSU should make more.
And this has you missing the point. Why will no network want to show 9-1 Wake vs. 8-2 BC if it has the option of showing 7-3 Clemson vs. 6-4 VT? ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox would all make the same choice. You apparently see that choice as one based on nothing, as based on no history of TV numbers. They rest of us know why it is made over and over.
Wins cannot change that enough to ever matter. A conference of Wakes and BCs is never going to get a nice TV deal, while a conference full of PSUs, FSUs, and South Carolinas will get a very fat contract.
The reality is that if the ACC loses its 4 most valuable properties, the next ACC TV deal will make this one look like a goldmine. Refusal by ACC members to do anything of substance to make certain those most avakuble members do not want to leave is stupid for everyone who desires to remain in what will still be seen as a Major conference.
Yeah, uh, I guarantee networks won't show a 7-3 Clemson vs 6-4 VT over a game between a late November top 20 match up between a a 9-1 Wake and 8-2 BC team.
Other than about 5-10 teams, the major determinant is broadcast placement on network and timeslot is that little number next to the name on the tickers, or otherwise perhaps because it is a notable rivalry. Clemson is not a team that garner ratings just on name alone. You are talking about the Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, Texas...it is a very small group.
There is zero reason, and I mean absolutely none, to subsize FSU, Clemson or anyone else without them first showing commitment to the conference by agreeing to 1) drop their lawsuits 2) extend the grant-of-rights beyond 2036.
The less time the full value ACC has to act, the less likely it will emerge from 2036 as a Major conference.
I hate both the BT and SEC and do not want UNC in either, even if one of them would take all of the ACC schools that UNC would most want to keep in its league. But I am not living in an opium den dreaming how the ACC can keep its exact membership of today and its exact pay scale to those members and remain anything close to whole after 2030. That will not happen.
If members cannot agree to set aside some part of the TV deal to be distributed so that those that draw the most viewers get the most, then the only other option is to cull the members that simply have the least value. BC and Wake are the first tow that should spring to mind. Almost nobody in the northeast but PSU and ND fans watches CFB passionately, and that means that Syracuse also is dead weight in this matter, and Pitt is right on their heels.
If ESPN would pay the ACC the same per team if we had 18, and I could could dump BC, Cuse, and Wake, leaving 14 member and I could then add 4, I would add WVU (the Backyard Brawl is worth something, and WVU vs. most of the ACC would draw fans), along with Utah, Arizona, and Arizona ST. That 18 ACC could never equal the SEC and BT in total TV numbers, but it would do better than what we now have and also have a chance to grow TV viewership even more.
On the other hand, the ACC lsoiunbg FSua nd Clenson and replacing that pair with, say USF and Temple or UConn or Tulane will lose even more TV viewers, perhaps catastrophically lose TV viewers, and certainy see UVA, VT, UNC, NCSU, GT, Louisville and Miami all working hard to get out, many of themn even happy to go Big 12 at that point. Pitt would try to pitch the Backyard Brawl, and the 16 team Big 12 would make it clear that it greatly prefers getting into CA than into PA.
LOL, no. ESPN certainly doesn't want to swap BC and Cuse for WVU or ASU. You completely don't get the Cuse fan base.
UNC freaks out when NCSU started a business school , maybe worry about your own backyard - exercising your own monopoly power .
But- I support UNC cutting FSU and Clemson a check out or their own revenue distribution !!
You are the one missing the point. Pitt has been consistently f***** by this conference since they joined. TV, scheduling, officiating, you name it.
Maybe UNC could actually win a conference title in football during our generation. That might help the ACC's football reputation and TV value.
I'm curious, how do ratings pick up these numbers? I watch few CFB games in entirety, other than Pitt.
I channel flip back and forth to close games or if teams I dislike are losing or in a close game.
I flipped over to the FSU game when they were losing to Northern Florida and saw their QB get injured. That's the extent of FSU I watched last year outside of Pitt game. I turn to ND or PSU games if they are losing. I don't dislike or hate Clemson or UNC, so don't watch them unless playing Pitt.
Am I counted in the streaming numbers for watching Northern Florida ruin FSU's playoff chances, even though I watched about 15 minutes of actual time?
If I have tuned into an NCST game, I am watching Pitt. Not NCST.
If by watching PSU or FSU I am helping their programs, I'm going to stop watching even a few seconds of it.
I’m in the boat that the acc as constructed has its days numbered and hope we can get in the big xii depending on how things shake out, but no way in hell do I give those schools more money. Let them earn it via the competition initiatives.
Also don’t understand how anyone is deadweight either. Big xii did fine adding cincy, ucf and Houston. Pitt, cuse etc are in or above that grouping. And when does the big start cutting out northwestern, Purdue, Minnesota, Rutgers etc.
Also don’t understand how anyone is deadweight either. Big xii did fine adding cincy, ucf and Houston. Pitt, cuse etc are in or above that grouping. And when does the big start cutting out northwestern, Purdue, Minnesota, Rutgers etc.
Everything has to be considered including kicking out Wake and BC and giving more money to FSU. As to who to kick out next, I think Pitt brings more value than GT, Lou, Syr, Duke (regular season college hoops isnt worth enough) and 1 of the Virginia's.
It all depends on who and how many the ACC loses. Even if it loses 4 members, it will still be a much better option than the B12. The B12 is a desperation of last resort if the ACC completely implodes, which I'm guessing will not happen.
The idea that the middle class of the ACC will panic and jump to the Big 12 doesn't make much sense. Stanford and Cal turned down the Big 12 so they could travel three time zones for every away game for partial ACC shares. The Big 12 blows! The ACC minus FSU, Clemson and UNC is still a better option.
Lets say the ACC loses FSU, Clem, UNC, and a Virginia school. That league is still more valuable than the trash the B12 has but the army of propagandists they have are actually very useful because they scare the crap out of lower IQ fanbases and get those fans pounding down their AD's doors for an invite. There will be plenty of Pitt fans begging for a B12 invite if this situation becomes a reality.
I’m not sure cal and Stanford turned them down.
Lol
You are believing the propogandists. Cal & Stanford nearly got B10 invites and some feel that's where they will be eventually but a conference who added UCF, Houston, and Cincinnati plus duplicate Utah and duplicate Arizona felt it didnt need the Bay Area TV market with 2 decent football programs.
So we're going to play this out in a fantasy world you crated? Reality is a bit different.
I think that's why the propaganda machine has some of the morons convinced that Pitt needs to save itself from the boogie man. If the Big12 folks can't make themselves the tallest midget, they want everyone who isn't a part of that mess to suffer. They're also scared to death that the ACC will peel off the better parts of what's left in the Big12, again, and leave them flailing, again.
Its not a fantasy world. KU & friends were going to the Big East according to a quote from Tranghese or Aresco that surfaced recently and was that some crazy idea? A lot of people were saying the B12 would die and the BE should add those schools. There is no question that those schools conceding to Texas gave them a more stable future. I dont even know how you can make an argument against that. Your argument that Texas left anyway isnt even valid. They saved their conference. Their conference still exists and seems to be stable with a bunch of team nobody wants.
"Turn down" may be a bit specific. Were they interested in joining Utah, ASU, and UA in the B12? No. They wanted in the Big10 and the presidents of the B10 wanted them but they wouldn't bring any money since they already secured UCLA and USC in Cali. Their next most preferred was the ACC because institutionally they are fit in with schools in the ACC much more than any other conference.
But were they actually offered by the B12? Maybe not, because the B12 had the other schools coming to it. Who knows what discussions happened behind the scenes, but if ASU and UA and Utah reached out to the B12, Cal and Stanford probably didn't in any serious way other than a back up plan. Any interest in the B12, was only to the extent that if the ACC hadn't succeeded in their vote, they would have had nowhere else to turn, although at that point, the B12 may not been able to add more teams. So there was this matter of timing as well. But they may also have been more interested in rebuilding the Pac than the B12, which would have been a lot easier to rebuild with Cal and Stanford in it.
And I've said this before, regardless of the state of their athletic departments, it is hard to overestimate just how big of higher education brands both Cal and Stanford are on the west coast. They are the very top; they are the Harvard and Yale, and there is a strong snobbery effect here, which is also a magnet to other schools to associate with them in any way possible.
Last edited:
Oh, so a couple of guys said it fifteen years after the fact? LOL
Look, Texas didn't do anything for stability. If anything, they made the conference much less stable because they always made sure they had a stacked deck. Everyone wants to expand. Texas said no. Let's create a better conference TV package. Texas got their own. If you look at the Big12 or whatever they've been calling it for the last thirty years, it's the picture of instability. How do you lose Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and Texas, backfill with G5 schools, and then sit back and argue about how stable and wonderful things are? That might be one of the more ridiculous positions you've ever taken.
I dont know how you can say they didn't do anything for stability when the ONLY reason the conference still exists is because they gave Texas more money.
Let me ask you this: If the B12 was left with just KU, KSt, Baylor, and Iowa State, what would have happened to the Big 12? Do they turn down the Big East and add Colorado State, Boise State, Houston, SMU, Memphis, etc?
Same thing that happened to the Big12 when Texas did leave. They were going to add more G5's and move on. Remember when they were taking FSU and Clemson out of the ACC in 2010? Texas did nothing for the rest of that group.
I have said that in the end, those 4 essentially wound up in the same place. But its a little better spot than had they told Texas to f off. The reason for this is because they got Colorado back and kept TT and OK St, who are decent brands and added pretty good brands in the Arizonas and Utahs. So their league is like Half Conference USA and Half P5. That's better though than their choices had they not given Texas what they want. This would have been the Big 12
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
Baylor
SMU
Houston
Colorado State
Boise State
San Diego State
Memphis
That's not a P5 league anymore and their whole perception changes course. That league doesnt get a Sugar Bowl bid.
Now, had they gone to the Big East, this would have been the BE:
UConn
Syr
Rut
Pitt
WVU
Cincy
Lou
USF
TCU
Iowa St
Kansas
Kansas St
Baylor
That's better than the new B12 but Pitt, Syr, and Rutgers would be leaving shortly. Now fast forward. When the B10 comes for USC, UCLA, Washington, and Oregon, the Pac 12 backfills with San Diego State and maybe, maybe Kansas but certainly not KSt, Iowa St, and Baylor (religious school doesnt fit).
You're just going to come up with some unhinged version of an alternative reality to try to make a point?
The reality is that the Big12 is in the exact same place they would have been if they weren't all kissing Texas backside for a decade and that's just sort of sad for them.
