Possibility of FSU and Clemson settling with the ACC to STAY? (2024)

Post: #21

(06-03-2024 05:49 PM)Formerluerker_redbirdfan Wrote:

(06-03-2024 05:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:

(06-03-2024 04:03 PM)Redwood86 Wrote:

(06-03-2024 03:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: The thing is that ESPN has never cared about how conferences distribute their money. We all focus on the per school average contract figures and distribution numbers, but all ESPN (or Fox or any other network) cares about is the total check that they write to the league each season.

Ultimately, unequal revenue sharing doesn’t work. We *just* saw it in the Big 12 with Texas and the Longhorn Network. It’s as if we have collectively forgotten in all of these “unequal revenue sharing will save Conference X” proposals: the Big 12 just allowed UT to have its *own* ESPN network for over a decade! It still wasn’t enough. Ultimately, UT decided that it was better off getting conference payments equal to Mississippi State. The fact that you have to introduce unequal revenue sharing for a conference to survive means that it’s a temporary fix until the conference ultimately still loses its most valuable members.

So, my advice to the rest of the ACC is to grab every single penny from FSU, Clemson or any other school that wants to leave while they’re able to do so. They will all leave by 2036 no matter what you do, so you might as well get paid in the interim.

Your sample of 1 can be countered by the Pac-12. Their move to equal revenue distribution, coupled with atrocious management/governance, ultimately caused USC to leave, which in turn led to the implosion of the conference. The Pac-12 had a very strong geographic moat that could only have been undermined by sufficiently antagonizing the most important member.

IMO, Texas always wanted to leave the Big-12 because they never particularly cared for their playmates. This problem endures for the Big-12.

In any event, the ACC will not survive as a major conference without unequal revenue-sharing, as that is its only hope of retaining its current top-performing schools and attracting new desirable schools. And by "desirable", I am not refering to Utah - although I would gladly accept them. . . . . Ultimately, the BiG might not survive as currently constructed without unequal revenue shares either.

But unequal revenue shares should not be specially negotiated to retain specific schools. Instead, they must be determined based upon pre-agreed objective metrics such as TV viewership and on-field success. One's share must be earned. . . . every year.

I don't get your concerns about the B1G. They're all making more from their conference than anybody, even the SEC, and the only schools that would make appreciably more in an unequal revenue sharing model are ALREADY making more, anyway. tOSU brought in $270m last year. Michigan? $225m. PSU = $202m. Purdue and Maryland were at $120m each. What are the big guys gonna do, take less money to go hold Alabama's water bottle? The SEC certainly isn't offering them more than 1.0 share each.

As much as I'd love to have them in the SEC, I that the reality of the situation is that none of them are leaving unless it's as a large group that includes many B1G schools, SEC schools, and ND to form some sort of new super entity. Possible? Yes. Likely? I think not.

Correct, no one is leaving the sec or Big ten, even for the other league. There is kind of a misunderstanding on the point of having all this income. It's not about how much purdue makes in distributions, it's about having enough money that you are not $50 million behind bama/usc/michigan/etc, etc. As long as Ohio state has no one that it has to play catch up with there is no concern as to northwesterns lot in life.

The sec schools want to play sec teams, the big ten schools want to play big ten teams, nd wants to play an independent schedule, and yes even the acc schools prefer to play acc teams. The only reason any team would change their situation from that is if some schools are bringing in substantially more cash and they are constantly playing from behind. That's why clemson and fsu want out, they've made that clear.

The west coast teams have ZERO compelling interest in playing BiG teams not named Michigan, tOSU & PSU; AND, in aggregate, are worth more than they will be paid by the BiG. Most of the other 11 teams, especially Purdue & Maryland, are not worth what they are being paid.

For historical and geographical reasons, Purdue and Maryland may never have wandering eyes, but the west coast teams are definitely available to the highest bidder. Right now, that is the BiG. Given the geographical issue, this doesn't mean it always will be.

Post: #22

(06-03-2024 06:50 PM)bullet Wrote:

(06-03-2024 04:03 PM)Redwood86 Wrote:

(06-03-2024 03:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: The thing is that ESPN has never cared about how conferences distribute their money. We all focus on the per school average contract figures and distribution numbers, but all ESPN (or Fox or any other network) cares about is the total check that they write to the league each season.

Ultimately, unequal revenue sharing doesn’t work. We *just* saw it in the Big 12 with Texas and the Longhorn Network. It’s as if we have collectively forgotten in all of these “unequal revenue sharing will save Conference X” proposals: the Big 12 just allowed UT to have its *own* ESPN network for over a decade! It still wasn’t enough. Ultimately, UT decided that it was better off getting conference payments equal to Mississippi State. The fact that you have to introduce unequal revenue sharing for a conference to survive means that it’s a temporary fix until the conference ultimately still loses its most valuable members.

So, my advice to the rest of the ACC is to grab every single penny from FSU, Clemson or any other school that wants to leave while they’re able to do so. They will all leave by 2036 no matter what you do, so you might as well get paid in the interim.

Your sample of 1 can be countered by the Pac-12. Their move to equal revenue distribution, coupled with atrocious management/governance, ultimately caused USC to leave, which in turn led to the implosion of the conference. The Pac-12 had a very strong geographic moat that could only have been undermined by sufficiently antagonizing the most important member.

IMO, Texas always wanted to leave the Big-12 because they never particularly cared for their playmates. This problem endures for the Big-12.

In any event, the ACC will not survive as a major conference without unequal revenue-sharing, as that is its only hope of retaining its current top-performing schools and attracting new desirable schools. And by "desirable", I am not refering to Utah - although I would gladly accept them. . . . . Ultimately, the BiG might not survive as currently constructed without unequal revenue shares either.

But unequal revenue shares should not be specially negotiated to retain specific schools. Instead, they must be determined based upon pre-agreed objective metrics such as TV viewership and on-field success. One's share must be earned. . . . every year.

I think Frank has it backwards. Unequal revenue sharing doesn't cause division. Its a sign that the members aren't equal and there already is instability. The SEC and Big 10 when they were ten had very similar universities, so they did their revenue equally. The Big East, Pac 10 and Big 12 were very diverse and they did their revenue unequally. The Big East and Pac 10 were much more unequal than the Big 12. Of course when the Pac 10 became 12 and the Big 12 became 10, they did switch to equal revenue sharing while the ACC executed the Big East.

I was about to say that.

Unequal revenue sharing is the symptom, not the cause.

Post: #23

(06-03-2024 03:28 PM)bullet Wrote: Garretbc thinks ESPN can magically raise rates on the ACCN, so he's prone to suggesting total nonsense.

To be clear, this thread is not inspired by Garrettabc’s ACCN thread.

But he is one of very few (if not the only) FSU fans who would rather stay if the ACC payout is increased.

In the end, it’s all business and the unequal revenue sharing might be a compromise that every party including the ACC, FSU/Clemson, and ESPN can live with.

Post: #24

(06-03-2024 03:08 PM)random asian guy Wrote: Nobody (other than maybe Garrettabc) is mentioning this possibility, but I believe there is a distinct chance of FSU and Clemson staying put in the ACC in return for an increased payout.

Ideally, FSU and Clemson would leave the ACC as soon as possible and join the P2 (most likely the Big Ten). But the ACC will fight till the end, and there is no guarantee that FSU and Clemson would win their cases in NC or federal court if it goes there.

I said this before, but I am sure their Plan B (in case getting out proves too time consuming or too costly) would be to extract more money from the ACC, as FSU originally demanded a payout based on the TV revenue last year. Heck, extracting more money might be the best outcome for UNC.

Would the ACC schools vote for more payout to FSU and Clemson? Absolutely not……..well, absolutely not UNLESS their boss intervenes.

That is, ESPN may ask the ACC to implement a quite significant unequal revenue sharing based on market value and TV ratings, and we all know ESPN has significant leverage before the contract renewal.

Why would ESPN do that? Obviously, ESPN won’t do anything unless it helps them. If the ACC implements unequal revenue sharing and settles with FSU and Clemson, and they stay as a result of the settlement, then ESPN keeps their media content without paying an additional dime. In addition, it will facilitate the ACC’s expansion because new additions may get more than the league average. To me, that sounds like a good solution for ESPN.

I know FSU and Clemson burned the bridge, but should/would ESPN be able to rebuild it?

I might have gone along until you added the bolded statement. If ESPN wants to keep the ACC intact, they would have to be the ones who fund the unequal revenue for FSU and Clemson, not the legacy schools.

Post: #25

(06-03-2024 04:53 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote: Imagine Jim Phillips asking an ACC president to fund an expensive legal battle to hold FSU and Clemson accountable to ACC "rules"

Now imagine Phillips asking that same president to take (significantly) less money so Phillips can (temporarily) prevent FSU and Clemson from leaving

The first ask is easy to address…no school will object to holding FSU and Clemson accountable. It’s in every school's best interest that contracts be followed (other than the two schools seeking to break the contracts).

The second ask will never happen…any disproportionate money that ESPN wants to target to brands will always be “incremental” (or new potential revenue). No school will be asked to take less money in order to increase payments to FSU or Clemson. The option presented to all ACC schools will be something like: assume that the ACC & ESPN agree that T1 media rights should be increased by $60M to $100M per year. ESPN will then propose A) an increase to the T1 payout of $68M ($4M/school) if the ACC distributes the revenue per the existing protocol or B) will pay up to $100M if the ACC meets performance incentives and distributes up to 50% of the incremental revenue based on commonly developed criteria. Under Option B, all schools are guaranteed a $3M increase and have equal opportunities to earn an additional $20M annual bonus. The ACC success initiative and the SEC CFP bonus pool are examples of the eat-what-you-kill financial schemes. The excess payout ($100M - $68M = $32M) risk from ESPN is contingent on performance…which FSU and Clemson have excellent track records of accomplishing, but all members can theoretically achieve. If FSU and Clemson leave, then ESPN may not have to pay the money (unless the ACC is able to develop greater depth with multiple CFP worthy programs).

Post: #26

(06-03-2024 07:09 PM)ken d Wrote:

(06-03-2024 03:08 PM)random asian guy Wrote: Nobody (other than maybe Garrettabc) is mentioning this possibility, but I believe there is a distinct chance of FSU and Clemson staying put in the ACC in return for an increased payout.

Ideally, FSU and Clemson would leave the ACC as soon as possible and join the P2 (most likely the Big Ten). But the ACC will fight till the end, and there is no guarantee that FSU and Clemson would win their cases in NC or federal court if it goes there.

I said this before, but I am sure their Plan B (in case getting out proves too time consuming or too costly) would be to extract more money from the ACC, as FSU originally demanded a payout based on the TV revenue last year. Heck, extracting more money might be the best outcome for UNC.

Would the ACC schools vote for more payout to FSU and Clemson? Absolutely not……..well, absolutely not UNLESS their boss intervenes.

That is, ESPN may ask the ACC to implement a quite significant unequal revenue sharing based on market value and TV ratings, and we all know ESPN has significant leverage before the contract renewal.

Why would ESPN do that? Obviously, ESPN won’t do anything unless it helps them. If the ACC implements unequal revenue sharing and settles with FSU and Clemson, and they stay as a result of the settlement, then ESPN keeps their media content without paying an additional dime. In addition, it will facilitate the ACC’s expansion because new additions may get more than the league average. To me, that sounds like a good solution for ESPN.

I know FSU and Clemson burned the bridge, but should/would ESPN be able to rebuild it?

I might have gone along until you added the bolded statement. If ESPN wants to keep the ACC intact, they would have to be the ones who fund the unequal revenue for FSU and Clemson, not the legacy schools.

I think it’s very possible ESPN will buy the third tier media content that is currently sublicensed to CW and pay more to the ACC.

Maybe that money goes to FSU/Clemson (to be clear, if I remember correctly, Garrettabc had suggested this idea first).

Post: #27

(06-03-2024 07:20 PM)random asian guy Wrote:

(06-03-2024 07:09 PM)ken d Wrote:

(06-03-2024 03:08 PM)random asian guy Wrote: Nobody (other than maybe Garrettabc) is mentioning this possibility, but I believe there is a distinct chance of FSU and Clemson staying put in the ACC in return for an increased payout.

Ideally, FSU and Clemson would leave the ACC as soon as possible and join the P2 (most likely the Big Ten). But the ACC will fight till the end, and there is no guarantee that FSU and Clemson would win their cases in NC or federal court if it goes there.

I said this before, but I am sure their Plan B (in case getting out proves too time consuming or too costly) would be to extract more money from the ACC, as FSU originally demanded a payout based on the TV revenue last year. Heck, extracting more money might be the best outcome for UNC.

Would the ACC schools vote for more payout to FSU and Clemson? Absolutely not……..well, absolutely not UNLESS their boss intervenes.

That is, ESPN may ask the ACC to implement a quite significant unequal revenue sharing based on market value and TV ratings, and we all know ESPN has significant leverage before the contract renewal.

Why would ESPN do that? Obviously, ESPN won’t do anything unless it helps them. If the ACC implements unequal revenue sharing and settles with FSU and Clemson, and they stay as a result of the settlement, then ESPN keeps their media content without paying an additional dime. In addition, it will facilitate the ACC’s expansion because new additions may get more than the league average. To me, that sounds like a good solution for ESPN.

I know FSU and Clemson burned the bridge, but should/would ESPN be able to rebuild it?

I might have gone along until you added the bolded statement. If ESPN wants to keep the ACC intact, they would have to be the ones who fund the unequal revenue for FSU and Clemson, not the legacy schools.

I think it’s very possible ESPN will buy the third tier media content that is currently sublicensed to CW and pay more to the ACC.

Maybe that money goes to FSU/Clemson (to be clear, if I remember correctly, Garrettabc had suggested this idea first).

I don't remember saying that, but seems like a good idea, so maybe I did.

Post: #28

All the ACC teams should take out Private Equity and give it to FSU.

Thats the only way FSU will make UF levels of revenue while remaining in the ACC.

Post: #29

Post: #30

(06-03-2024 08:41 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote: All the ACC teams should take out Private Equity and give it to FSU.

Thats the only way FSU will make UF levels of revenue while remaining in the ACC.

And be required to use Drew Weatherford’s private equity company.

Post: #31

One interesting thing that came out of Hale’s interview was some at ESPN were not exactly thrilled with the West Coast expansion. What’s interesting say ye? Well, for one this would be the first conference driven expansion (not ESPN driven) since Florida State. Dr Phillips is not the wet blanket obsessed haters (Pete) point him out to be and is actually an undercover gunslinger; the quiet cowboy at the bar you don’t mess with, apparently. At least that’s the narrative now.

Another thing is ESPN had PLENTY of time to step in and say “pump the breaks on expansion. Here is less money than we have to pay for the expansion, do with it as you will. Just don’t expand.”

This doesn’t work for me because ESPN knows they are getting a large bump by adding TX and CA subs to their ACCN revenue stream which offsets some of what they commit to the conference.

(This post was last modified: 06-04-2024 06:41 AM by esayem.)

Post: #32

(06-03-2024 07:01 PM)random asian guy Wrote:

(06-03-2024 06:50 PM)bullet Wrote:

(06-03-2024 04:03 PM)Redwood86 Wrote:

(06-03-2024 03:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: The thing is that ESPN has never cared about how conferences distribute their money. We all focus on the per school average contract figures and distribution numbers, but all ESPN (or Fox or any other network) cares about is the total check that they write to the league each season.

Ultimately, unequal revenue sharing doesn’t work. We *just* saw it in the Big 12 with Texas and the Longhorn Network. It’s as if we have collectively forgotten in all of these “unequal revenue sharing will save Conference X” proposals: the Big 12 just allowed UT to have its *own* ESPN network for over a decade! It still wasn’t enough. Ultimately, UT decided that it was better off getting conference payments equal to Mississippi State. The fact that you have to introduce unequal revenue sharing for a conference to survive means that it’s a temporary fix until the conference ultimately still loses its most valuable members.

So, my advice to the rest of the ACC is to grab every single penny from FSU, Clemson or any other school that wants to leave while they’re able to do so. They will all leave by 2036 no matter what you do, so you might as well get paid in the interim.

Your sample of 1 can be countered by the Pac-12. Their move to equal revenue distribution, coupled with atrocious management/governance, ultimately caused USC to leave, which in turn led to the implosion of the conference. The Pac-12 had a very strong geographic moat that could only have been undermined by sufficiently antagonizing the most important member.

IMO, Texas always wanted to leave the Big-12 because they never particularly cared for their playmates. This problem endures for the Big-12.

In any event, the ACC will not survive as a major conference without unequal revenue-sharing, as that is its only hope of retaining its current top-performing schools and attracting new desirable schools. And by "desirable", I am not refering to Utah - although I would gladly accept them. . . . . Ultimately, the BiG might not survive as currently constructed without unequal revenue shares either.

But unequal revenue shares should not be specially negotiated to retain specific schools. Instead, they must be determined based upon pre-agreed objective metrics such as TV viewership and on-field success. One's share must be earned. . . . every year.

I think Frank has it backwards. Unequal revenue sharing doesn't cause division. Its a sign that the members aren't equal and there already is instability. The SEC and Big 10 when they were ten had very similar universities, so they did their revenue equally. The Big East, Pac 10 and Big 12 were very diverse and they did their revenue unequally. The Big East and Pac 10 were much more unequal than the Big 12. Of course when the Pac 10 became 12 and the Big 12 became 10, they did switch to equal revenue sharing while the ACC executed the Big East.

I was about to say that.

Unequal revenue sharing is the symptom, not the cause.

I don’t disagree. As I’ve noted, if you have to go to unequal revenue sharing to save your league, then it’s already headed toward breaking apart, anyway.

Post: #33

(06-03-2024 07:06 PM)random asian guy Wrote:

(06-03-2024 03:28 PM)bullet Wrote: Garretbc thinks ESPN can magically raise rates on the ACCN, so he's prone to suggesting total nonsense.

To be clear, this thread is not inspired by Garrettabc’s ACCN thread.

But he is one of very few (if not the only) FSU fans who would rather stay if the ACC payout is increased.

In the end, it’s all business and the unequal revenue sharing might be a compromise that every party including the ACC, FSU/Clemson, and ESPN can live with.

It’s about money but it’s about more than that.

Post: #34

(06-04-2024 06:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:

(06-03-2024 07:01 PM)random asian guy Wrote:

(06-03-2024 06:50 PM)bullet Wrote:

(06-03-2024 04:03 PM)Redwood86 Wrote:

(06-03-2024 03:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: The thing is that ESPN has never cared about how conferences distribute their money. We all focus on the per school average contract figures and distribution numbers, but all ESPN (or Fox or any other network) cares about is the total check that they write to the league each season.

Ultimately, unequal revenue sharing doesn’t work. We *just* saw it in the Big 12 with Texas and the Longhorn Network. It’s as if we have collectively forgotten in all of these “unequal revenue sharing will save Conference X” proposals: the Big 12 just allowed UT to have its *own* ESPN network for over a decade! It still wasn’t enough. Ultimately, UT decided that it was better off getting conference payments equal to Mississippi State. The fact that you have to introduce unequal revenue sharing for a conference to survive means that it’s a temporary fix until the conference ultimately still loses its most valuable members.

So, my advice to the rest of the ACC is to grab every single penny from FSU, Clemson or any other school that wants to leave while they’re able to do so. They will all leave by 2036 no matter what you do, so you might as well get paid in the interim.

Your sample of 1 can be countered by the Pac-12. Their move to equal revenue distribution, coupled with atrocious management/governance, ultimately caused USC to leave, which in turn led to the implosion of the conference. The Pac-12 had a very strong geographic moat that could only have been undermined by sufficiently antagonizing the most important member.

IMO, Texas always wanted to leave the Big-12 because they never particularly cared for their playmates. This problem endures for the Big-12.

In any event, the ACC will not survive as a major conference without unequal revenue-sharing, as that is its only hope of retaining its current top-performing schools and attracting new desirable schools. And by "desirable", I am not refering to Utah - although I would gladly accept them. . . . . Ultimately, the BiG might not survive as currently constructed without unequal revenue shares either.

But unequal revenue shares should not be specially negotiated to retain specific schools. Instead, they must be determined based upon pre-agreed objective metrics such as TV viewership and on-field success. One's share must be earned. . . . every year.

I think Frank has it backwards. Unequal revenue sharing doesn't cause division. Its a sign that the members aren't equal and there already is instability. The SEC and Big 10 when they were ten had very similar universities, so they did their revenue equally. The Big East, Pac 10 and Big 12 were very diverse and they did their revenue unequally. The Big East and Pac 10 were much more unequal than the Big 12. Of course when the Pac 10 became 12 and the Big 12 became 10, they did switch to equal revenue sharing while the ACC executed the Big East.

I was about to say that.

Unequal revenue sharing is the symptom, not the cause.

I don’t disagree. As I’ve noted, if you have to go to unequal revenue sharing to save your league, then it’s already headed toward breaking apart, anyway.

The unequal revenue sharing doesn't go far enough in my opinion.

All this fuss over $2-4M for bowl eligibility, $2-4M for Top 25 finish, $2-4M per CFP game played. They reported a max payout of $25M but realistically, its about $12M for ACC Champion.

Also, why the range? Do they need to vote on it at the end of the year or is it $2M for bowl eligibility and $3M for Top 25 finish and $4M per CFP appearance?

But overall, ACC has this very public destabilizing mechanism in their conference distribution that is only $10-$15M a year difference in reality.

It didn't appease FSU and Clemson. So it all kind of seems pointless in hindsight. Would have been better off rejecting it. You would still be in the same place you are currently.

It would be hilarious if FSU/Clemson had losing season and the success initiative works against them. Syracuse winning the ACC and going to the CFP would be about the funniest potential scenario.

Post: #35

(06-04-2024 07:43 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:

(06-04-2024 06:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:

(06-03-2024 07:01 PM)random asian guy Wrote:

(06-03-2024 06:50 PM)bullet Wrote:

(06-03-2024 04:03 PM)Redwood86 Wrote: Your sample of 1 can be countered by the Pac-12. Their move to equal revenue distribution, coupled with atrocious management/governance, ultimately caused USC to leave, which in turn led to the implosion of the conference. The Pac-12 had a very strong geographic moat that could only have been undermined by sufficiently antagonizing the most important member.

IMO, Texas always wanted to leave the Big-12 because they never particularly cared for their playmates. This problem endures for the Big-12.

In any event, the ACC will not survive as a major conference without unequal revenue-sharing, as that is its only hope of retaining its current top-performing schools and attracting new desirable schools. And by "desirable", I am not refering to Utah - although I would gladly accept them. . . . . Ultimately, the BiG might not survive as currently constructed without unequal revenue shares either.

But unequal revenue shares should not be specially negotiated to retain specific schools. Instead, they must be determined based upon pre-agreed objective metrics such as TV viewership and on-field success. One's share must be earned. . . . every year.

I think Frank has it backwards. Unequal revenue sharing doesn't cause division. Its a sign that the members aren't equal and there already is instability. The SEC and Big 10 when they were ten had very similar universities, so they did their revenue equally. The Big East, Pac 10 and Big 12 were very diverse and they did their revenue unequally. The Big East and Pac 10 were much more unequal than the Big 12. Of course when the Pac 10 became 12 and the Big 12 became 10, they did switch to equal revenue sharing while the ACC executed the Big East.

I was about to say that.

Unequal revenue sharing is the symptom, not the cause.

I don’t disagree. As I’ve noted, if you have to go to unequal revenue sharing to save your league, then it’s already headed toward breaking apart, anyway.

The unequal revenue sharing doesn't go far enough in my opinion.

All this fuss over $2-4M for bowl eligibility, $2-4M for Top 25 finish, $2-4M per CFP game played. They reported a max payout of $25M but realistically, its about $12M for ACC Champion.

Also, why the range? Do they need to vote on it at the end of the year or is it $2M for bowl eligibility and $3M for Top 25 finish and $4M per CFP appearance?

But overall, ACC has this very public destabilizing mechanism in their conference distribution that is only $10-$15M a year difference in reality.

It didn't appease FSU and Clemson. So it all kind of seems pointless in hindsight. Would have been better off rejecting it. You would still be in the same place you are currently.

It would be hilarious if FSU/Clemson had losing season and the success initiative works against them. Syracuse winning the ACC and going to the CFP would be about the funniest potential scenario.

You’re right that the payouts for the success initiative would be better if the high performing brands had a more reliable chance at $20M bonuses…hence why the early look-in with ESPN has taken greater attention. The ACC has established a foundation, and additional funding is needed. Also, it’s even more important that the ACC and its fans will be thrilled if a surprise team (e.g., Syracuse) makes and advances in the CFP. FSU and Clemson are now mercenaries, who will undoubtedly jump-ship early if an opportunity arises, and who create additional value when they achieve exceptional results. That’s their reimbursem*nt terms.

Finally, it’s essential that the base amounts to all members keep increasing. The full membership has to approve the financial distribution. The ACC doesn’t want members (Louisville ??) to potentially be lured into the B12…having base payouts higher than the B12 is a constraint that the ACC must maintain.

(This post was last modified: 06-04-2024 08:25 AM by Wahoowa84.)

Post: #36

(06-04-2024 07:24 AM)bullet Wrote:

(06-03-2024 07:06 PM)random asian guy Wrote:

(06-03-2024 03:28 PM)bullet Wrote: Garretbc thinks ESPN can magically raise rates on the ACCN, so he's prone to suggesting total nonsense.

To be clear, this thread is not inspired by Garrettabc’s ACCN thread.

But he is one of very few (if not the only) FSU fans who would rather stay if the ACC payout is increased.

In the end, it’s all business and the unequal revenue sharing might be a compromise that every party including the ACC, FSU/Clemson, and ESPN can live with.

It’s about money but it’s about more than that.

Yes - we see the P2 driving more and more of the decisions (see the latest CFP revenue and format discussions), so unless you’re Notre Dame, being in the room where it happens goes beyond just the financial aspect.

Post: #37

(06-03-2024 08:45 PM)Big Frog II Wrote: Clemson and FSU are gone. It's just a matter of when.

You are on point, Big Frog II.

Post: #38

(06-03-2024 07:06 PM)random asian guy Wrote:

(06-03-2024 03:28 PM)bullet Wrote: Garretbc thinks ESPN can magically raise rates on the ACCN, so he's prone to suggesting total nonsense.

To be clear, this thread is not inspired by Garrettabc’s ACCN thread.

But he is one of very few (if not the only) FSU fans who would rather stay if the ACC payout is increased.

In the end, it’s all business and the unequal revenue sharing might be a compromise that every party including the ACC, FSU/Clemson, and ESPN can live with.

Is the ACC going to give FSU and Clemson a Notre Dame style set-up? FSU and Clemson become officially fb independent, but play 5 ACC FT schools each every season and play all ACC other sports as regular members? And then NBC comes along to render FSU and Clemson lucrative contracts for home fb games. Both FSU and Clemson get seats, both equal to a P2 conference, at all governance/decision-making tables.

Whatever the ACC claims as their virtues, equity cannot be one of them.

Post: #39

(06-04-2024 08:13 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:

(06-04-2024 07:43 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:

(06-04-2024 06:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:

(06-03-2024 07:01 PM)random asian guy Wrote:

(06-03-2024 06:50 PM)bullet Wrote: I think Frank has it backwards. Unequal revenue sharing doesn't cause division. Its a sign that the members aren't equal and there already is instability. The SEC and Big 10 when they were ten had very similar universities, so they did their revenue equally. The Big East, Pac 10 and Big 12 were very diverse and they did their revenue unequally. The Big East and Pac 10 were much more unequal than the Big 12. Of course when the Pac 10 became 12 and the Big 12 became 10, they did switch to equal revenue sharing while the ACC executed the Big East.

I was about to say that.

Unequal revenue sharing is the symptom, not the cause.

I don’t disagree. As I’ve noted, if you have to go to unequal revenue sharing to save your league, then it’s already headed toward breaking apart, anyway.

The unequal revenue sharing doesn't go far enough in my opinion.

All this fuss over $2-4M for bowl eligibility, $2-4M for Top 25 finish, $2-4M per CFP game played. They reported a max payout of $25M but realistically, its about $12M for ACC Champion.

Also, why the range? Do they need to vote on it at the end of the year or is it $2M for bowl eligibility and $3M for Top 25 finish and $4M per CFP appearance?

But overall, ACC has this very public destabilizing mechanism in their conference distribution that is only $10-$15M a year difference in reality.

It didn't appease FSU and Clemson. So it all kind of seems pointless in hindsight. Would have been better off rejecting it. You would still be in the same place you are currently.

It would be hilarious if FSU/Clemson had losing season and the success initiative works against them. Syracuse winning the ACC and going to the CFP would be about the funniest potential scenario.

You’re right that the payouts for the success initiative would be better if the high performing brands had a more reliable chance at $20M bonuses…hence why the early look-in with ESPN has taken greater attention. The ACC has established a foundation, and additional funding is needed. Also, it’s even more important that the ACC and its fans will be thrilled if a surprise team (e.g., Syracuse) makes and advances in the CFP. FSU and Clemson are now mercenaries, who will undoubtedly jump-ship early if an opportunity arises, and who create additional value when they achieve exceptional results. That’s their reimbursem*nt terms.

Finally, it’s essential that the base amounts to all members keep increasing. The full membership has to approve the financial distribution. The ACC doesn’t want members (Louisville ??) to potentially be lured into the B12…having base payouts higher than the B12 is a constraint that the ACC must maintain.

I would have skewed the CFP payout to something like $30m for the conference champ, an extra $10m for the CCG runner-up and then everyone gets a base of $10.5m.

IMO that isn't unequal revenue, that is earning it on the field.

(This post was last modified: 06-04-2024 09:36 AM by esayem.)

Post: #40

(06-04-2024 09:36 AM)esayem Wrote:

(06-04-2024 08:13 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:

(06-04-2024 07:43 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:

(06-04-2024 06:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:

(06-03-2024 07:01 PM)random asian guy Wrote: I was about to say that.

Unequal revenue sharing is the symptom, not the cause.

I don’t disagree. As I’ve noted, if you have to go to unequal revenue sharing to save your league, then it’s already headed toward breaking apart, anyway.

The unequal revenue sharing doesn't go far enough in my opinion.

All this fuss over $2-4M for bowl eligibility, $2-4M for Top 25 finish, $2-4M per CFP game played. They reported a max payout of $25M but realistically, its about $12M for ACC Champion.

Also, why the range? Do they need to vote on it at the end of the year or is it $2M for bowl eligibility and $3M for Top 25 finish and $4M per CFP appearance?

But overall, ACC has this very public destabilizing mechanism in their conference distribution that is only $10-$15M a year difference in reality.

It didn't appease FSU and Clemson. So it all kind of seems pointless in hindsight. Would have been better off rejecting it. You would still be in the same place you are currently.

It would be hilarious if FSU/Clemson had losing season and the success initiative works against them. Syracuse winning the ACC and going to the CFP would be about the funniest potential scenario.

You’re right that the payouts for the success initiative would be better if the high performing brands had a more reliable chance at $20M bonuses…hence why the early look-in with ESPN has taken greater attention. The ACC has established a foundation, and additional funding is needed. Also, it’s even more important that the ACC and its fans will be thrilled if a surprise team (e.g., Syracuse) makes and advances in the CFP. FSU and Clemson are now mercenaries, who will undoubtedly jump-ship early if an opportunity arises, and who create additional value when they achieve exceptional results. That’s their reimbursem*nt terms.

Finally, it’s essential that the base amounts to all members keep increasing. The full membership has to approve the financial distribution. The ACC doesn’t want members (Louisville ??) to potentially be lured into the B12…having base payouts higher than the B12 is a constraint that the ACC must maintain.

I would have skewed the CFP payout to something like $30m for the conference champ, an extra $10m for the CCG runner-up and then everyone gets a base of $10.5m.

IMO that isn't unequal revenue, that is earning it on the field.

How dare you imply someone should earn their keep? This is 2024 and we must all be paid equally!

Yours truly,
Those bottom feeders of the P4.

I guess they all contribute in some form? Nah, I'm not so sure of that.