Looks like the ACC is nearing a tipping point
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
[/QUOTE]
It’s a socialist mentality really. To me it makes more sense to dish it out by revenue generated. The other way allows schools who don’t care to reap the reward while not putting forth effort to earn more revenue.
I know many in here probably don’t want Clemson in the SEC. I’m indifferent. But can you imagine a top 15 game on Williams Brice for a conference game. Just maybe both can put it together and it would be for the chance to go to the SEC championship. It adds to the rivalry.
Because they generate more revenue. For instance according to FSU’s ad and their books they are worth 14% of the total revenue generated but only get 7%.
It’s a socialist mentality really. To me it makes more sense to dish it out by revenue generated. The other way allows schools who don’t care to reap the reward while not putting forth effort to earn more revenue.
I know many in here probably don’t want Clemson in the SEC. I’m indifferent. But can you imagine a top 15 game on Williams Brice for a conference game. Just maybe both can put it together and it would be for the chance to go to the SEC championship. It adds to the rivalry.
Because they generate more revenue. For instance according to FSU’s ad and their books they are worth 14% of the total revenue generated but only get 7%.
It’s a socialist mentality really. To me it makes more sense to dish it out by revenue generated. The other way allows schools who don’t care to reap the reward while not putting forth effort to earn more revenue.
I know many in here probably don’t want Clemson in the SEC. I’m indifferent. But can you imagine a top 15 game on Williams Brice for a conference game. Just maybe both can put it together and it would be for the chance to go to the SEC championship. It adds to the rivalry.
[/QUOTE]
That's not leverage. My net worth is probably greater than most of my neighbors. Can I get my neighbors to divert 10% of their income to me so I can buy more stuff just because my bigger home increases their homes' value? Life does not work that way. There has to be consequences for the rest of the conference if the others don't send more revenue FSU's and clemson's way. Whose fault is it that clemson and FSU made poor decisions in the past? So again, what's the leverage?
It’s a socialist mentality really. To me it makes more sense to dish it out by revenue generated. The other way allows schools who don’t care to reap the reward while not putting forth effort to earn more revenue.
I know many in here probably don’t want Clemson in the SEC. I’m indifferent. But can you imagine a top 15 game on Williams Brice for a conference game. Just maybe both can put it together and it would be for the chance to go to the SEC championship. It adds to the rivalry.
[/QUOTE]
That's not leverage. My net worth is probably greater than most of my neighbors. Can I get my neighbors to divert 10% of their income to me so I can buy more stuff just because my bigger home increases their homes' value? Life does not work that way. There has to be consequences for the rest of the conference if the others don't send more revenue FSU's and clemson's way. Whose fault is it that clemson and FSU made poor decisions in the past? So again, what's the leverage?
Last edited:
What if Alabama and Georgia began asking for an unequal share of SEC revenue, how would that be received by the rest of the league? The rest of the league would wave at them, with one finger.
They don’t have to like it, I think y’all are missing the point. Clemson and Florida state are telling the acc if something doesn’t change they are out and they think they can pull it off. They have done their research and they have their pistol cocked. I don’t buy some people’s opinion theses schools are not attractive to the SEC or Big 10. Clemson is a top 5 brand in the largest money making sport. Simple google search will show you that. Don’t believe that go take a look at Clemson and compare it to ten years ago. Florida state is the same. As a package they hold weight. I don’t think ESPN is going to let them go to the big 10 and lose them so that leaves the SEC. You can bet your sweet Fanny that if ESPN tells the SEC to bring in those schools it will happen. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
That's all well and good if you want to ignore the poison pill commonly known as the grant of rights agreement. The ACC circled the wagons making it impossible to leave unless the conference itself is no more.
Which has not been challenged in court. These things never end up how they appear on paper. I think they have an answer. A FSU board member has been quoted saying, “ we have a handle on the GOR” that doesn’t sound like someone that thinks it’s lock solid.
The fact that nobody has, of yet, been willing to challenge the GOR tells you something.
Further, the schools all signed onto the GOR so that ESPN would fund the ACC network.. The schools voluntarily granted media rights to the ACC b/c they wanted ESPN money. Nobody held a gun to their heads. Buyer's remorse won't fly in court. What grounds are there for challenging it? I mean, this thing was agreed to in 2016 and nobody has challenged it yet. That tells you something. And don't think Clemson and FSU haven't had their lawyer's take that GOR apart syllable by syllable a million times over.
It's also telling that FSU and Clemson are going the unequal revenue route. That tells me they realize the GOR is too solid to challenge in court. If they thought they could upend the GOR in court, they'd already be doing it.
Now, as I've said before, the one huge wild card in all of this is ESPN. If they collaborated with Clemson and FSU to leave the ACC, that might give grounds for them to renegotiate the contract and leave the ACC for dead, ending the GOR. But that hasn't happened yet either.
Last edited:
"Brands" come and go. Do you think the FSU of today is the FSU of 10 years ago? Do you think that Clemson under Dabo is the same as Clemson under Bowden? What does not come and go is new geography, new states, new markets. That's what conference expansions have been all about. The only exception is bringing in Texas when the SEC already had A&M. In reality, A&M is NOT the state of Texas. That's why the Longhorns had their own network, whereas Texas A&M did not. ESPN understands numbers. They understand markets.
What I want to happen is the SEC takes UNC, Duke, NC State and Uva. This would give it a strong basketball brand to go along with football. I hate these teams but this would screw Clemson
Well said, with several good observations.
It really comes down to if ESPN finds reason to re-negotiate the TV deal, providing an avenue for all schools in the ACC to void the GOR. It's gonna take a lot for the smaller players in the ACC (BC, Pitt, Syracuse, Wake, Ga Tech) to agree to a significant change. And then you have to deal with heavy influencers like UNC and Duke that are both stuck on basketball branding, with only peripheral focus on football. Finally, there are also hurdles to clear if/when any schools are able to leave the ACC. The value that CU or FSU bring to the SEC or B10 is certainly subject to debate.
If you're savvy, you pay less or equal to what something is worth. My opinion: ESPN isn't going to open the bank to keep a mediocre conference together.
I think the B1G is looking to shore up its new Pacific Coast territory and add Oregon and Washington in the Pacific Northwest. Both meet all the B1Gs criteria and will make SoCal and UCLA more contiguous with the rest of the BiG schools. IF, and its a big if, the B1G looks toward the ACC schools, they will go hard after UNC and UVA in my opinion. Both also meet their academic criteria, add territory right on the SEC's doorstep and they can offer an immediate full membership to share in all that research money as well as their very lucrative TV contract. And if they get UNC and UVA, they will eventually pull in UND (the MAJOR prize in all this). Just my rationale.
That would be smart on the part of the BIG. They would be adding NEW markets, which would add value to their TV contract. If that happened, the ACC would cease being a power conference, IMHO. I say that because I could see the SEC countering by adding NC State and Virginia Tech.
Yech, why would the SEC want NC State or Va Tech?
Same as the B1G - New Territory
One thing about NC State that would be EXTRA appealing is that it's in the state capital. I would not dismiss the attractiveness of that to the SEC.
I understand the rationale behind the new territory argument, but I'm not sure how relevant it really is in the modern game.
It looks like conference expansions are targeting new markets. North Carolina and Virginia are 9th and 12th in population size in the nation. People are moving to the Sunbelt.
I get the new market idea, I really do.
But I'm reminded of the ACC adding huge new markets in Boston and NY, and it did them no good. The teams there didn't generate interest in their towns.
This brings me to NC State. This is a team that plays in front of half full small stadiums, and that generates interest on TV when they play Clemson or FSU.
Is adding that market going to be like adding Boston and NY for the ACC?
But I'm reminded of the ACC adding huge new markets in Boston and NY, and it did them no good. The teams there didn't generate interest in their towns.
This brings me to NC State. This is a team that plays in front of half full small stadiums, and that generates interest on TV when they play Clemson or FSU.
Is adding that market going to be like adding Boston and NY for the ACC?
It could be that Syracuse and BC don't have the statewide appeal of a VT and NCS, Also, the Northeast and sports media there has always struck me as more "professional sports-oriented" as opposed to college.
That is a possibility. I would put VT ahead of both Syracuse and BC by a long shot, but NCS, not imo.
Remember, we're just a thread or two away from mocking clemson for playing in these very same places in front of half full stadiums with disinterested crowds.
You’re right, it matters what SEC wants and more importantly what ESPN wants. If ESPN think Clemson and FSU have a shot at going to the big ten {I know the AAU hurdle Rouge
}, and they don’t like the thought of losing their revenue, it takes one phone call. The SEC will do what its daddy tells them to do. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you.Socialism! Boo! Woke!
The individual ACC schools sold their media rights to the league until 2036. They do not own their own media rights. The ACC does. Lock, stock and barrel.
It is 100% legally the same as if I sold my house, was paid in full for it and came back 3 years later and said to the new owner that I wasn't complaining he defrauded me in any way or that he hasn't fulfilled everything he was required to do but I still demand my house back because it's worth more now. The ACC GOR is exactly the same scenario.
Now given the state of the legal system today, I'm not saying Half A$$ U and the taters can't find some friendly judge in SC or FL to side with them for no reason other than he likes how they vote or something. Clearly the law means nothing today to many jurists. But, unless the ACC's counsel is afraid of exactly that, they have no reason to give them an extra penny. And if the ACC thinks that giving into them now is likely to cause them to stick around in 2036 they are stupider than I think they are. And I think they are pretty stupid. See the Big XII and Texas
Last edited:
And if ESPN determine that Clemson and FSU fans will watch South Carolina and Florida on TV to hopefully in their eyes to see Carolina and Florida lose, they won't care where Clemson and FSU go. The bottom line is you nor the rest of us KNOW what ESPN is thinking. Regardless, the GOR has FSU and Clemson stuck at this point. All the speculation in the world does not change that.You’re right, it matters what SEC wants and more importantly what ESPN wants. If ESPN think Clemson and FSU have a shot at going to the big ten {I know the AAU hurdle Rouge
THAT was not ME who said that. I was quoting Anon1658788697. Somehow, it appears to show that I said that. Not my quote. It's Anon.....'s quote.Socialism! Boo! Woke!
The individual ACC schools sold their media rights to the league until 2036. They do not own their own media rights. The ACC does. Lock, stock and barrel.
It is 100% legally the same as if I sold my house, was paid in full for it and came back 3 years later and said to the new owner that I wasn't complaining he defrauded me in any way or that he hasn't fulfilled everything he was required to do but I still demand my house back because it's worth more now. The ACC GOR is exactly the same scenario.
Now given the state of the legal system today, I'm not saying Half A$$ U and the taters can't find some friendly judge in SC or FL to side with them for no reason other than he likes how they vote or something. Clearly the law means nothing today to many jurists. But, unless the ACC's counsel is afraid of exactly that, they have no reason to give them an extra penny. And if the ACC thinks that giving into them now is likely to cause them to stick around in 2036 they are stupider than I think they are. And I think they are pretty stupid. See the Big XII and Texas
FSU and Clem have ABSOLUTELY NO LEVERAGE. They are stuck.
Last edited:
They signed the papers which at the time was real good.
No way, let them do their couple decades without a conference and then maybe we can consider. You guys really don't remember they totally shafted us with the ACC? We should vote against any ACC member. UGA, UF, and at least UT also share the similar interests against adding [ACC members].
Combo with PAC 12 remnants seems more likely anyway. I also don't see why they don't just force Notre Dame to join or piss off.
Last edited:
That was NOT my quote. Somehow it came out to like it was mine. It was Anon1658788697's quote. I asked him what leverage they have over the ACC. He came up with none.
They are stuck in the ACC, whether Anon likes it or not.
Anon was trying to say that the leverage they have over the ACC is that they (Clem and FSU) provide more value to the ACC and thus deserve more than equal revenue sharing. That's not leverage. It's "tough horse manure". They are stuck.
Why does everybody want the SEC to continue expanding? Where does it stop? A 20 team conference? We are bringing in a lot of big-name, big-money teams, how does that affect USC? We haven't been a top competitor in the 14 team SEC conference, how do we compete at the top of a 16/18/20 team conference. Sure, we hope Beamer can get us there but it seems like adding more big-name, big money teams is not in our favor. Again, hopefully Beamer can get us there, but does this make it harder?
I think expansion beyond 16 is undesirable, but it doesn't matter what you and I think. This is going to be a war of territorial conquest. Everyone is looking for added value in future TV negotiations. There will come a limit, but 16 ain't gonna be it.
N.C. State would be a consolation prize, any way you slice it.
I love mayhem as well as anybody. You can bet the house that this guy hasn't thought about anything these ADs and finance people haven't already thought about. If all this comes about, don't let this guy claim he invented it or fomented it. He's commenting on people who are way smarter than he is.