Is the ACC the PAC 12, but 1 to 2 years behind?
- Thread starter Prestonyte
- Start date
What if the schools just refused to pay the money owed regardless of any court order? Who would make them pay it?
Interesting.....I agree with him on his last two paragraphs under Option 1.
In the hypothetical of finding a home for the 12 ACC teams, do you see the SEC skipping over the state of NC to take the VA schools and leaving a gap in the footprint?
I wouldn't think so. There's more value in the NC schools, I would imagine.
I agree with you. And if the B1G were to snag Miami, it would behoove the SEC to cherry-pick every ACC school it can which might add value and/or cachet. I'm not liking it, but I believe it's going that way. Our league can't be caught flat-footed if it is.
That would still maintain contiguity in that Virginia shares a border with Tennessee.
I still think the footprint will not expand with the next teams. They will stay in the south and pick up ACC teams inside the footprint. Most of the money is not from expanding its maintaining key matchups that produce eyes. That’s my personal opinion. I also do not think espn will want the existing territory to be invaded. Just my 2 cents.
Last edited:
Not more than the Big 10. These are different times we’re entering. I see the SEC trying to stay Southeast. But curving around one state isn’t that big a deal when you have the Big 10 with 1,000’s of miles in between.
That said, I’d be surprised if NC State isn’t a part of discussions at some point. Brett McMurphy believes the B10 and SEC will both have 24 teams. The NC schools seem hellbent on waiting and hoping they can all move together. No way that’s happening. They’ll be split up and I think NC State has the most to gain. I’d rather see UNC in the SEC, but I think they’ll prefer the Big 10. NC State would be a decent fit for the conference. They like football way more than the other 3 NC ACC schools.
Last edited:
But not a 1800-mile gap. North Carolina will get its shot at inclusion in the footprint in due course. I fully believe it.
The court or courts in which the ACC brought suits against the offending school or schools after the jury or juries returned verdicts for the plaintiffs or the judge or judges ruled for the ACC.
ACC courting SMU in addition to Cal/Stanford. Very interesting. 2 huge markets with a ton of people they could be targeting additional subscriber fees.
SMU would further involve the ACC with private schools possessing smaller enrollments, in this case, 11,700. It's not like getting another Stanford, or even a Duke, or even a Miami. It's a blip on the map of a big town. Stanford is worth having both academically and athletically (although football has recently swooned). But overall, these are not the kind of acquisitions that will lift the football fortunes of the ACC - not a playoff contender among them.
While that may be true, there aren’t a lot of options out there. The ACCN would be on every cable sub in the Houston market correct? Better than a sharp poke in the eye.
No, but it apparently is simply about tv markets, of which DFW is one of the biggest. Doesn't seem to matter if folks are watching SMU or not.
The math is rough at this point, but all factors considered, it's speculated that adding Stanford, Cal and SMU could boost revenue for FSU and Clemson $15-20 million, which puts them in spitting distance of the SEC.
I know nobody wants the ACC to figure it out, but all they have to do is come up with some combination of teams that gets revenue to a level that satisfies FSU and Clemson.
Last edited:
I wonder if SMU is not similar to Boston College or Miami....Smaller private schools in a large pro dominated city.Personally I think adding SMU and the Cal schools would be a huge mistake.
It has allowed the ACC to compete revenue wise with the B10/SEC up until this latest GOR fiasco, despite being a clear #3 or 4 in terms of football quality. The only failure at this point has been signing up for a 20 year deal when they should have done 10.
At the end of the day they're stuck. And doing something is better than nothing. I think they can get creative with adding those 3 along with the distribution shares to get some positive momentum.
ESPN doesn't add money automatically just because the ACC adds teams. They have a deal right now which is set. Anything subsequent would have to be renegotiated and agreed to. ESPN isn't in a position to add money disproportionately, which is exactly what they would have to do in order to increase anyone's share - unless they are going to weighted distributions.
I'm not a TV executive. All I know is with the carriage rates in the DFW and Bay areas, the ESPN pro rate, partial revenue for the newcomers and unequal revenue distribution, they think they can get FSU and Clemson about where they want to be. Keeping those two happy is all that matters.
I'm saying they can't do it on the basis of these additions alone without "weighting" the distributions the way FSU wants. You're talking about an @$$ of money that has to be made up.
Yeah, that's how the B10 got Ore/Wash. They weren't going to pull the trigger, then Fox stepped up and paid them extra. Someone should tell Lane Kiffin if he's looking for someone to kick for breaking up the P12 he should start with Fox. What do you want the B10 to do?? "No sir, we're not going to accept your extra $$ AND add premier programs." Fox was also instrumental in getting Socal/UCLA to the B10.
So is ESPN willing to do the same thing to get the leavings of the Pac 12 plus SMU into the ACC? Really they'd be paying for Stanford and not for their football. They might do something, but it won't be premium.