Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[WoolyBully]

1 hour ago, Peatearpan said:

Charlotte to ACC?

I would assume so. I can't imagine there are any schools who embrace the AAC long term. Do we not all aspire for onward and upward? Is there any school out there that thinks 'absolutely not! Under no circumstances do we want to be a part of any P(x) conference! We love it here in G5land and are content to reside here fo-ev-ah'? Might not be saying it out loud at this point, but I would imagine there's a folder in a file cabinet with this contingency. Do you think the CUSA guys aspire for AAC membership? Or is that just a lateral move? 

[Cubanbull]

I will keep repeating, too many are completely overlooking the ACC situation and keep thinking is just as the PAC. Reality is much more different and complex.

1. FSU and Clemson are gone. They will eventually arrive at an exit fee.

2. The ACC Network is a money maker for ESPN. They aren’t going to scrap it to send schools to Big12.

3. The State of North Carolina and Charlotte benefit financially by having headquarters and the Four NC schools are the heart of the ACC. Having specially the state schools leave for SEC, BigTen or Big12 would hurt the state financially. This is why you saw the state take control on whether UNC/ NCST can leave the conference. 

So keep and eye on UNC, they are the key on the ACC future.

[Rocky Style]

Charlotte is also a good concentration of illuminati energy with all the banks there.

File:Truist Center Courtyard -2 November 2022.jpg - Wikipedia

EN.M.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

[CF is NFL Jr]

1 hour ago, Cubanbull said:

I will keep repeating, too many are completely overlooking the ACC situation and keep thinking is just as the PAC. Reality is much more different and complex.

1. FSU and Clemson are gone. They will eventually arrive at an exit fee.

2. The ACC Network is a money maker for ESPN. They aren’t going to scrap it to send schools to Big12.

3. The State of North Carolina and Charlotte benefit financially by having headquarters and the Four NC schools are the heart of the ACC. Having specially the state schools leave for SEC, BigTen or Big12 would hurt the state financially. This is why you saw the state take control on whether UNC/ NCST can leave the conference. 

So keep and eye on UNC, they are the key on the ACC future.

Will everything about the ACC revenue stream change once FSU and Clemson are gone?  From a football standpoint I have seen figures that show FSU and Clemson together are almost 60% of ACC viewership with ND (non NBC) at about 14% (Miami, VT and UL after that).  I don't know how accurate that is but that is a huge swing.  How valuable can the ACC network really be to make up that kind of difference?  The ACC will stay together for tv inventory. But what will its value be?  

As I understand the UNC/NCST thing the legislature just said that the North Carolina and NCST have to play each other every year in football.  And that is a bill not a law as of yet.  

As for UNC, they see the handwriting on the wall.  The ACC and the B12 will be second tier conferences. That is inevitable.  The question that everyone is overlooking is what happens in 2030s when all the TV contracts are up.  Will there be a reshuffling?  Or will the P2 renew.  UNC cannot take a chance on a reshuffle.  IF they are offered a P2 option they will take it.  I think the payouts that FSU, Clemson and UNC pay be able to hold Miami, UL, VT and Pitt in a diminished revenue ACC.  Then who gets added, if anyone, to the ACC.     

[Cubanbull]

5 minutes ago, CF is NFL Jr said:

Will everything about the ACC revenue stream change once FSU and Clemson are gone?  From a football standpoint I have seen figures that show FSU and Clemson together are almost 60% of ACC viewership with ND (non NBC) at about 14% (Miami, VT and UL after that).  I don't know how accurate that is but that is a huge swing.  How valuable can the ACC network really be to make up that kind of difference?  The ACC will stay together for tv inventory. But what will its value be?  

As I understand the UNC/NCST thing the legislature just said that the North Carolina and NCST have to play each other every year in football.  And that is a bill not a law as of yet.  

As for UNC, they see the handwriting on the wall.  The ACC and the B12 will be second tier conferences. That is inevitable.  The question that everyone is overlooking is what happens in 2030s when all the TV contracts are up.  Will there be a reshuffling?  Or will the P2 renew.  UNC cannot take a chance on a reshuffle.  IF they are offered a P2 option they will take it.  I think the payouts that FSU, Clemson and UNC pay be able to hold Miami, UL, VT and Pitt in a diminished revenue ACC.  Then who gets added, if anyone, to the ACC.     

I remember when the Big12 was losing OU/UT and they made up 50-60% of their value according to tv ratings and even their own commissioner, yet they didn’t lose that in their new tv contract. One of the things FSU/ Clemson are fighting is that the ACC signed a bad contract that undervalues the conference. Do you really think the Big12 after losing UT/ OU and adding UCf, UC,UH and BYU is valued more than an ACC without FSU/ Clemson? So no we really do not know, nor do I believe the ACC will get a huge cut in an undervalued contract. In fact if I’m ESPN I would much rather keep those schools under that contract than having to pay them more by going elsewhere.

As I said UNC is the key. They are the one school that both SEC and BigTen would want. And yes the state government did pass a law, saying any state school looking to move conferences would have to be approved by the state.

My feelings are that no one will leave ACC other than to the P2. The exit fees of those paying out will keep any from looking at B12 that really doesn’t offer more access to CFP nor more money

[Triple B]

11 hours ago, aroth said:

It’s more likely the schools have competent attorneys, and this tweet is made up.

Blasphemy ....

[CF is NFL Jr]

10 minutes ago, Cubanbull said:

I remember when the Big12 was losing OU/UT and they made up 50-60% of their value according to tv ratings and even their own commissioner, yet they didn’t lose that in their new tv contract. One of the things FSU/ Clemson are fighting is that the ACC signed a bad contract that undervalues the conference. Do you really think the Big12 after losing UT/ OU and adding UCf, UC,UH and BYU is valued more than an ACC without FSU/ Clemson? So no we really do not know, nor do I believe the ACC will get a huge cut in an undervalued contract. In fact if I’m ESPN I would much rather keep those schools under that contract than having to pay them more by going elsewhere.

As I said UNC is the key. They are the one school that both SEC and BigTen would want. And yes the state government did pass a law, saying any state school looking to move conferences would have to be approved by the state.

My feelings are that no one will leave ACC other than to the P2. The exit fees of those paying out will keep any from looking at B12 that really doesn’t offer more access to CFP nor more money

This is true, but there are some differences.  1) there was only couple of years left on the B12 deal and 2) subsequent to the B12 issues was the Pac12 issues.   PAC12 went to market with their teams including Washington and Oregon.  I think that the Pac12 without USC and UCLA was somewhat more valuable than the ACC without Clemson and FSU if just for the fact that you had Washington, Oregon, Utah and Stanford.  The PAC12 was only able to garner 20M or so a year with 2 of those teams valuable enough to get picked up by the B10 (albeit at a discount).   This was the last attempt to go to market for a conference and I am not sure if the market has gotten better or worse since then. 

Based upon what the PAC12 was offered I don't think that the ACC without Clemson and FSU continues to be undervalued.  Now maybe ESPN looks at the ACC differently than the PAC12.  They were not willing to pay for CAL or Stanford to the ACC.  But ESPN/FOX were willing to pay the 4 corners equal pay to get them into the B12 so not sure what that says.    

The North Carolina University Board of Governors passed a measure (not law) requiring Board approval to move conferences.  This was not requiring legislative action, but Board approval which is still a deterrent but  not nearly as difficult 

It will all come down to what ESPN is willing to do when Clemson and FSU leave and whether they value the remaining teams in the ACC.  I don't have much faith in ESPN doing right by the remaining teams in the ACC.  Corporate control over college football is quickly diminishing its value in my opinion 

[Cubanbull]

31 minutes ago, CF is NFL Jr said:

This is true, but there are some differences.  1) there was only couple of years left on the B12 deal and 2) subsequent to the B12 issues was the Pac12 issues.   PAC12 went to market with their teams including Washington and Oregon.  I think that the Pac12 without USC and UCLA was somewhat more valuable than the ACC without Clemson and FSU if just for the fact that you had Washington, Oregon, Utah and Stanford.  The PAC12 was only able to garner 20M or so a year with 2 of those teams valuable enough to get picked up by the B10 (albeit at a discount).   This was the last attempt to go to market for a conference and I am not sure if the market has gotten better or worse since then. 

Based upon what the PAC12 was offered I don't think that the ACC without Clemson and FSU continues to be undervalued.  Now maybe ESPN looks at the ACC differently than the PAC12.  They were not willing to pay for CAL or Stanford to the ACC.  But ESPN/FOX were willing to pay the 4 corners equal pay to get them into the B12 so not sure what that says.    

The North Carolina University Board of Governors passed a measure (not law) requiring Board approval to move conferences.  This was not requiring legislative action, but Board approval which is still a deterrent but  not nearly as difficult 

It will all come down to what ESPN is willing to do when Clemson and FSU leave and whether they value the remaining teams in the ACC.  I don't have much faith in ESPN doing right by the remaining teams in the ACC.  Corporate control over college football is quickly diminishing its value in my opinion 

Correct. But I do know ESPN will be looking at their Bottomline and the ACC network gives them a better deal than sending schools to Big12. At the end I see ACC losing 2-4 to P2 but with exit fees and Tzv deal being comparable to B12

Time will tell 

[Cubanbull]

54 minutes ago, CF is NFL Jr said:

This is true, but there are some differences.  1) there was only couple of years left on the B12 deal and 2) subsequent to the B12 issues was the Pac12 issues.   PAC12 went to market with their teams including Washington and Oregon.  I think that the Pac12 without USC and UCLA was somewhat more valuable than the ACC without Clemson and FSU if just for the fact that you had Washington, Oregon, Utah and Stanford.  The PAC12 was only able to garner 20M or so a year with 2 of those teams valuable enough to get picked up by the B10 (albeit at a discount).   This was the last attempt to go to market for a conference and I am not sure if the market has gotten better or worse since then. 

Based upon what the PAC12 was offered I don't think that the ACC without Clemson and FSU continues to be undervalued.  Now maybe ESPN looks at the ACC differently than the PAC12.  They were not willing to pay for CAL or Stanford to the ACC.  But ESPN/FOX were willing to pay the 4 corners equal pay to get them into the B12 so not sure what that says.    

The North Carolina University Board of Governors passed a measure (not law) requiring Board approval to move conferences.  This was not requiring legislative action, but Board approval which is still a deterrent but  not nearly as difficult 

It will all come down to what ESPN is willing to do when Clemson and FSU leave and whether they value the remaining teams in the ACC.  I don't have much faith in ESPN doing right by the remaining teams in the ACC.  Corporate control over college football is quickly diminishing its value in my opinion 

The PAC got an offer of 30 million per team from ESPN that they stupidly turned down. The B12 realized only one was getting that deal and jumped ahead and took it.

Cal and Stanford took a reduce rate from the Tier 1 ESPN contract, That pays about 22 million per team. They still get the ACC Network payout around 10 million. SMU will also have access to ACC network payout.

What people confuse is whether that cut Cal/ Stanford are taking is being kept by ESPN or the ACC. Since those contracts are secret, no one really knows. We know for example thatBYU and the three AAC schools aren’t getting full rate of B12 deal

[DontPushMe]

3 hours ago, WoolyBully said:

I would assume so. I can't imagine there are any schools who embrace the AAC long term. Do we not all aspire for onward and upward? Is there any school out there that thinks 'absolutely not! Under no circumstances do we want to be a part of any P(x) conference! We love it here in G5land and are content to reside here fo-ev-ah'? Might not be saying it out loud at this point, but I would imagine there's a folder in a file cabinet with this contingency. Do you think the CUSA guys aspire for AAC membership? Or is that just a lateral move? 

Aac members probably aspire to go back to cusa or sun belt. The Aac is a complete embarrassment.