Clemson and FSU have come out and said basically give us unequal revenue sharing or we're bolting the conference. They are currently in a long term GOR with a massive buyout to leave.

Biggest realignment news lately: FSU AD basically draws line in sand telling ACC it has to institute an uneven revenue distribution model or FSU is bolting. Don't ask how, watch. This is fairly straightforward. "We have to do something. We are a brand." https://t.co/OLdm1Qdbkm

— Dennis Dodd (@dennisdoddcbs) February 25, 2023

We may be closer to an ACC-PAC conference than we know lol.

The Pac could get Florida State by offering a greater-than-equal revenue share!

Florida State in the Pac-12 makes just as much sense as USC in the Big Ten.

Get it done, George.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Clemson and FSU have come out and said basically give us unequal revenue sharing or we're bolting the conference. They are currently in a long term GOR with a massive buyout to leave.

Biggest realignment news lately: FSU AD basically draws line in sand telling ACC it has to institute an uneven revenue distribution model or FSU is bolting. Don't ask how, watch. This is fairly straightforward. "We have to do something. We are a brand." https://t.co/OLdm1Qdbkm

— Dennis Dodd (@dennisdoddcbs) February 25, 2023

We may be closer to an ACC-PAC conference than we know lol.

---

If the ACC dominoes start to fall I think the B1G goes to 24 teams including a 6 team west coast pod.

SEC likely takes on another ~4 teams to get to 20.

I wonder what the Big12 would do in this scenario. Does the SEC snipe a few Big12 teams to get to 24 and the Big12 struggles and/or folds, or does the Big12 expand to ~24 teams and emerge as the alternative to SEC/B1G? If the latter that could actually be good for oregon state / washington state (and maybe Cal if it gets left out of the B1G).

A Stuper Bole between the northern and southern twentyish professional football divisions will make millions.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Clemson and FSU have come out and said basically give us unequal revenue sharing or we're bolting the conference. They are currently in a long term GOR with a massive buyout to leave.

Biggest realignment news lately: FSU AD basically draws line in sand telling ACC it has to institute an uneven revenue distribution model or FSU is bolting. Don't ask how, watch. This is fairly straightforward. "We have to do something. We are a brand." https://t.co/OLdm1Qdbkm

— Dennis Dodd (@dennisdoddcbs) February 25, 2023

We may be closer to an ACC-PAC conference than we know lol.

---

How are they planning to get out of the long term grant of rights? Just leave and get sued and lose?

BearSD said:

---

The Pac could get Florida State by offering a greater-than-equal revenue share!

Florida State in the Pac-12 makes just as much sense as USC in the Big Ten.

Get it done, George.

---

The buyout is massive. What needs to happen is a merger between the ACC and the PAC-12 that keeps the ACC GORs intact (including the agreement with Notre Dame) but with a new media deal that has ACC teams playing on the West Coast in the late time slots to generate big money and an unequal allocation. I like the idea of a Disney/ESPN partnership that has bowl like games at Anaheim Stadium on Saturday nights with park packages. They could have a similar deal with Florida State and Disney World.

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

The Pac could get Florida State by offering a greater-than-equal revenue share!

Florida State in the Pac-12 makes just as much sense as USC in the Big Ten.

Get it done, George.

---

The buyout is massive. What needs to happen is a merger between the ACC and the PAC-12 that keeps the ACC GORs intact (including the agreement with Notre Dame) but with a new media deal that has ACC teams playing on the West Coast in the late time slots to generate big money and an unequal allocation. I like the idea of a Disney/ESPN partnership that has bowl like games at Anaheim Stadium on Saturday nights with park packages. They could have a similar deal with Florida State and Disney World.

---

Surely you know that Doak Walker Stadium is 250+ miles from Disney World…Coral Gables is closer

maxer said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Clemson and FSU have come out and said basically give us unequal revenue sharing or we're bolting the conference. They are currently in a long term GOR with a massive buyout to leave.

Biggest realignment news lately: FSU AD basically draws line in sand telling ACC it has to institute an uneven revenue distribution model or FSU is bolting. Don't ask how, watch. This is fairly straightforward. "We have to do something. We are a brand." https://t.co/OLdm1Qdbkm

— Dennis Dodd (@dennisdoddcbs) February 25, 2023

We may be closer to an ACC-PAC conference than we know lol.

---

How are they planning to get out of the long term grant of rights? Just leave and get sued and lose?

---

It will be interesting. It's either enforceable or not, but will also cost a lot to litigate.

And would ESPN really pay $$$ to the SEC that devalues their ACC deal? If FSU can leave, Clemson and others are gone too.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Clemson and FSU have come out and said basically give us unequal revenue sharing or we're bolting the conference. They are currently in a long term GOR with a massive buyout to leave.

Biggest realignment news lately: FSU AD basically draws line in sand telling ACC it has to institute an uneven revenue distribution model or FSU is bolting. Don't ask how, watch. This is fairly straightforward. "We have to do something. We are a brand." https://t.co/OLdm1Qdbkm

— Dennis Dodd (@dennisdoddcbs) February 25, 2023

We may be closer to an ACC-PAC conference than we know lol.

---

Big words from a Florida State program that has 1 winning season in the last 5 years.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Clemson and FSU have come out and said basically give us unequal revenue sharing or we're bolting the conference. They are currently in a long term GOR with a massive buyout to leave.

Biggest realignment news lately: FSU AD basically draws line in sand telling ACC it has to institute an uneven revenue distribution model or FSU is bolting. Don't ask how, watch. This is fairly straightforward. "We have to do something. We are a brand." https://t.co/OLdm1Qdbkm

— Dennis Dodd (@dennisdoddcbs) February 25, 2023

We may be closer to an ACC-PAC conference than we know lol.

---

Big words from a Florida State program that has 1 winning season in the last 5 years.

---

Brand > recent wins & tv market

tequila4kapp said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Clemson and FSU have come out and said basically give us unequal revenue sharing or we're bolting the conference. They are currently in a long term GOR with a massive buyout to leave.

Biggest realignment news lately: FSU AD basically draws line in sand telling ACC it has to institute an uneven revenue distribution model or FSU is bolting. Don't ask how, watch. This is fairly straightforward. "We have to do something. We are a brand." https://t.co/OLdm1Qdbkm

— Dennis Dodd (@dennisdoddcbs) February 25, 2023

We may be closer to an ACC-PAC conference than we know lol.

---

Big words from a Florida State program that has 1 winning season in the last 5 years.

---

Brand > recent wins & tv market

---

I know, but it's fun to point out their recent failures. Cal has more winning seasons in the last 5 years than they do.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

We may be closer to an ACC-PAC conference than we know lol.

---

Only if the TV guys want to pay for that. And even if they do, there is no possible deal that would pay Florida State as much as the SEC pays its members.

FSU is defining its athletic "peers" as Florida, Alabama, and Auburn -- rather than any of their fellow ACC members -- and saying they won't be happy unless they make as much TV money as those "peers". The only way to satisfy that attitude is for the ACC to let them go to the SEC, and the ACC wouldn't permit that even if the SEC wanted FSU right now.

BearSD said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

We may be closer to an ACC-PAC conference than we know lol.

---

Only if the TV guys want to pay for that. And even if they do, there is no possible deal that would pay Florida State as much as the SEC pays its members.

FSU is defining its athletic "peers" as Florida, Alabama, and Auburn -- rather than any of their fellow ACC members -- and saying they won't be happy unless they make as much TV money as those "peers". The only way to satisfy that attitude is for the ACC to let them go to the SEC, and the ACC wouldn't permit that even if the SEC wanted FSU right now.

---

Yeah, if I am the ACC it is "Pay the buyout and you can go or stay and we can rationally discuss ways we can get you more money than you are getting now."

And yes, it is all about creating compelling content for a national audience especially in time slots with little competition from the B1G and SEC and seeing what you can get for that.

I'd call FSU's bluff. Their position is not that strong. Clemson on the other hand…

bluehenbear said:

---

I'd call FSU's bluff. Their position is not that strong. Clemson on the other hand…

---

Clemson's position is not even as strong as Florida State's. Clemson isn't going anywhere. Their only viable play here is to try and panic the ACC into giving them a larger share of conference revenue.

Clemson isn't going to the SEC because the SEC already has one team in that relatively small state of 5 million people. The Big Ten would pass on them for that reason if not others.

The state of Florida has 4 times as many people as South Carolina. Florida State is much more valuable for TV even if Clemson has more recent football success -- if recent football success was enough to outweigh such a huge difference in population, Utah would be going to the Big Ten instead of UCLA.

Why should FSU or anyone (including Oregon and Washington) demand that they get unequal revenue share?

I agree with unequal revenue share but do it based on meritocracy (1st place team gets X%, second place Y% so on) not simply because you think you're so great. You could add other factors to the formula, for example a multiplier if you are in the largest media market for the group in question etc but certainly reward for on the field performance.

The Pacific and Atlantic Coast Conference (the PACC)

Bicoastal ACC PAC 12 aka BACCPAC

Coastal Regions of the Atlantic and Pacific

How about PACC?

Econ141 said:

---

Why should FSU or anyone (including Oregon and Washington) demand that they get unequal revenue share?

I agree with unequal revenue share but do it based on meritocracy (1st place team gets X%, second place Y% so on) not simply because you think you're so great. You could add other factors to the formula, for example a multiplier if you are in the largest media market for the group in question etc but certainly reward for on the field performance.

---

Because we had kid ourselves for years that our equal revenue sharing of the P12 was democratic and would benefit all the teams in the conference. USC never saw it that way. They felt, rightfully, that they brought most of the value to the conference - even though they weren't winning. And we all know what happened.

I think FSU's thought process is the same. They may not be winning, but they've built a brand. And the brand adds value. Oregon is a bigger brand because of winning and Nike. Washington is a bigger brand because of their tradition and of recent wins. Utah is building their brand now. Or at least trying to.

The play for FSU is to get a greater share of the pie. To renegotiate the deal. Do they have the money for a buyout? Of course they do. The Seminole Tribe of Florida can simply donate that money to the school. But if the revenue share doesn't work out, the play for FSU isn't the SEC. Its the Big10.

philly1121 said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Why should FSU or anyone (including Oregon and Washington) demand that they get unequal revenue share?

I agree with unequal revenue share but do it based on meritocracy (1st place team gets X%, second place Y% so on) not simply because you think you're so great. You could add other factors to the formula, for example a multiplier if you are in the largest media market for the group in question etc but certainly reward for on the field performance.

---

Because we had kid ourselves for years that our equal revenue sharing of the P12 was democratic and would benefit all the teams in the conference. USC never saw it that way. They felt, rightfully, that they brought most of the value to the conference - even though they weren't winning. And we all know what happened.

I think FSU's thought process is the same. They may not be winning, but they've built a brand. And the brand adds value. Oregon is a bigger brand because of winning and Nike. Washington is a bigger brand because of their tradition and of recent wins. Utah is building their brand now. Or at least trying to.

The play for FSU is to get a greater share of the pie. To renegotiate the deal. Do they have the money for a buyout? Of course they do. The Seminole Tribe of Florida can simply donate that money to the school. But if the revenue share doesn't work out, the play for FSU isn't the SEC. Its the Big10.

---

...but will the SEC want them? That's not clear. If there are B1G teams that don't want Oregon, I'm sure there are teams like Florida, Bama, Georgia, and Auburn that don't want another competitor in FSU, which is a true sleeping giant should they start winning again...with NIL, it's easy to see them start picking off some big Florida high school recruits.

philly1121 said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Why should FSU or anyone (including Oregon and Washington) demand that they get unequal revenue share?

I agree with unequal revenue share but do it based on meritocracy (1st place team gets X%, second place Y% so on) not simply because you think you're so great. You could add other factors to the formula, for example a multiplier if you are in the largest media market for the group in question etc but certainly reward for on the field performance.

---

Because we had kid ourselves for years that our equal revenue sharing of the P12 was democratic and would benefit all the teams in the conference. USC never saw it that way. They felt, rightfully, that they brought most of the value to the conference - even though they weren't winning. And we all know what happened.

I think FSU's thought process is the same. They may not be winning, but they've built a brand. And the brand adds value. Oregon is a bigger brand because of winning and Nike. Washington is a bigger brand because of their tradition and of recent wins. Utah is building their brand now. Or at least trying to.

The play for FSU is to get a greater share of the pie. To renegotiate the deal. Do they have the money for a buyout? Of course they do. The Seminole Tribe of Florida can simply donate that money to the school. But if the revenue share doesn't work out, the play for FSU isn't the SEC. Its the Big10.

---

Equal revenue sharing of media rights is the standard of the last 15-20 years. The only exceptions were in the Big 12 after the Pac 12's attempts to poach UT and OU and they left for greener pastures anyway. Why do we think USC wouldn't have done the same. It fosters discontent. How long should a brand be valued past its highwater mark? Should market be calculated? Should UCLA have been paid more purely because they were in LA vs their success or brand?

Now unequal share of post-season revenue based on participation for football and basketball, that makes a ton of sense and I would expect that is a part of any deal the Pac 12 would sign to keep schools together.

The USC band alone is worth $millions in repetitive droning, loud, but repetitive.

juarezbear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Why should FSU or anyone (including Oregon and Washington) demand that they get unequal revenue share?

I agree with unequal revenue share but do it based on meritocracy (1st place team gets X%, second place Y% so on) not simply because you think you're so great. You could add other factors to the formula, for example a multiplier if you are in the largest media market for the group in question etc but certainly reward for on the field performance.

---

Because we had kid ourselves for years that our equal revenue sharing of the P12 was democratic and would benefit all the teams in the conference. USC never saw it that way. They felt, rightfully, that they brought most of the value to the conference - even though they weren't winning. And we all know what happened.

I think FSU's thought process is the same. They may not be winning, but they've built a brand. And the brand adds value. Oregon is a bigger brand because of winning and Nike. Washington is a bigger brand because of their tradition and of recent wins. Utah is building their brand now. Or at least trying to.

The play for FSU is to get a greater share of the pie. To renegotiate the deal. Do they have the money for a buyout? Of course they do. The Seminole Tribe of Florida can simply donate that money to the school. But if the revenue share doesn't work out, the play for FSU isn't the SEC. Its the Big10.

---

...but will the SEC want them? That's not clear. If there are B1G teams that don't want Oregon, I'm sure there are teams like Florida, Bama, Georgia, and Auburn that don't want another competitor in FSU, which is a true sleeping giant should they start winning again...with NIL, it's easy to see them start picking off some big Florida high school recruits.

---

I think the SEC wants FSU to protect it's geographical footprint. The SEC cannot afford to let the B1G gain a strong foothold in their own backyard because the B1G would have a national reach while the SEC would be limited to a regional one.

SEC will take both FSU and Clemson. Both in SEC country

berserkeley said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Why should FSU or anyone (including Oregon and Washington) demand that they get unequal revenue share?

I agree with unequal revenue share but do it based on meritocracy (1st place team gets X%, second place Y% so on) not simply because you think you're so great. You could add other factors to the formula, for example a multiplier if you are in the largest media market for the group in question etc but certainly reward for on the field performance.

---

Because we had kid ourselves for years that our equal revenue sharing of the P12 was democratic and would benefit all the teams in the conference. USC never saw it that way. They felt, rightfully, that they brought most of the value to the conference - even though they weren't winning. And we all know what happened.

I think FSU's thought process is the same. They may not be winning, but they've built a brand. And the brand adds value. Oregon is a bigger brand because of winning and Nike. Washington is a bigger brand because of their tradition and of recent wins. Utah is building their brand now. Or at least trying to.

The play for FSU is to get a greater share of the pie. To renegotiate the deal. Do they have the money for a buyout? Of course they do. The Seminole Tribe of Florida can simply donate that money to the school. But if the revenue share doesn't work out, the play for FSU isn't the SEC. Its the Big10.

---

...but will the SEC want them? That's not clear. If there are B1G teams that don't want Oregon, I'm sure there are teams like Florida, Bama, Georgia, and Auburn that don't want another competitor in FSU, which is a true sleeping giant should they start winning again...with NIL, it's easy to see them start picking off some big Florida high school recruits.

---

I think the SEC wants FSU to protect it's geographical footprint. The SEC cannot afford to let the B1G gain a strong foothold in their own backyard because the B1G would have a national reach while the SEC would be limited to a regional one.

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Clemson and FSU have come out and said basically give us unequal revenue sharing or we're bolting the conference. They are currently in a long term GOR with a massive buyout to leave.

Biggest realignment news lately: FSU AD basically draws line in sand telling ACC it has to institute an uneven revenue distribution model or FSU is bolting. Don't ask how, watch. This is fairly straightforward. "We have to do something. We are a brand." https://t.co/OLdm1Qdbkm

— Dennis Dodd (@dennisdoddcbs) February 25, 2023

We may be closer to an ACC-PAC conference than we know lol.

---

Big words from a Florida State program that has 1 winning season in the last 5 years.

---

Brand > recent wins & tv market.

---

Actually, from the perspective of Alabama or Georgia, you probably want new members who are ok but not great - just good enough to have a fan base that reliably watches on TV but not so good that you can't consistently chalk up a win when you play them. In the B1G, that's generally Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Minnesota, Northwestern, etc.

sosheezy said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Why should FSU or anyone (including Oregon and Washington) demand that they get unequal revenue share?

I agree with unequal revenue share but do it based on meritocracy (1st place team gets X%, second place Y% so on) not simply because you think you're so great. You could add other factors to the formula, for example a multiplier if you are in the largest media market for the group in question etc but certainly reward for on the field performance.

---

Because we had kid ourselves for years that our equal revenue sharing of the P12 was democratic and would benefit all the teams in the conference. USC never saw it that way. They felt, rightfully, that they brought most of the value to the conference - even though they weren't winning. And we all know what happened.

I think FSU's thought process is the same. They may not be winning, but they've built a brand. And the brand adds value. Oregon is a bigger brand because of winning and Nike. Washington is a bigger brand because of their tradition and of recent wins. Utah is building their brand now. Or at least trying to.

The play for FSU is to get a greater share of the pie. To renegotiate the deal. Do they have the money for a buyout? Of course they do. The Seminole Tribe of Florida can simply donate that money to the school. But if the revenue share doesn't work out, the play for FSU isn't the SEC. Its the Big10.

---

Equal revenue sharing of media rights is the standard of the last 15-20 years. The only exceptions were in the Big 12 after the Pac 12's attempts to poach UT and OU and they left for greener pastures anyway. Why do we think USC wouldn't have done the same. It fosters discontent. How long should a brand be valued past its highwater mark? Should market be calculated? Should UCLA have been paid more purely because they were in LA vs their success or brand?

Now unequal share of post-season revenue based on participation for football and basketball, that makes a ton of sense and I would expect that is a part of any deal the Pac 12 would sign to keep schools together.

---

Exactly. Sooners and Longhorns laugh at the idea that USC would have stayed if we had just given them their 'fair share'...that is an absurdity.

tequila4kapp said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Why should FSU or anyone (including Oregon and Washington) demand that they get unequal revenue share?

I agree with unequal revenue share but do it based on meritocracy (1st place team gets X%, second place Y% so on) not simply because you think you're so great. You could add other factors to the formula, for example a multiplier if you are in the largest media market for the group in question etc but certainly reward for on the field performance.

---

Because we had kid ourselves for years that our equal revenue sharing of the P12 was democratic and would benefit all the teams in the conference. USC never saw it that way. They felt, rightfully, that they brought most of the value to the conference - even though they weren't winning. And we all know what happened.

I think FSU's thought process is the same. They may not be winning, but they've built a brand. And the brand adds value. Oregon is a bigger brand because of winning and Nike. Washington is a bigger brand because of their tradition and of recent wins. Utah is building their brand now. Or at least trying to.

The play for FSU is to get a greater share of the pie. To renegotiate the deal. Do they have the money for a buyout? Of course they do. The Seminole Tribe of Florida can simply donate that money to the school. But if the revenue share doesn't work out, the play for FSU isn't the SEC. Its the Big10.

---

Equal revenue sharing of media rights is the standard of the last 15-20 years. The only exceptions were in the Big 12 after the Pac 12's attempts to poach UT and OU and they left for greener pastures anyway. Why do we think USC wouldn't have done the same. It fosters discontent. How long should a brand be valued past its highwater mark? Should market be calculated? Should UCLA have been paid more purely because they were in LA vs their success or brand?

Now unequal share of post-season revenue based on participation for football and basketball, that makes a ton of sense and I would expect that is a part of any deal the Pac 12 would sign to keep schools together.

---

Exactly. Sooners and Longhorns laugh at the idea that USC would have stayed if we had just given them their 'fair share'...that is an absurdity.

---

And we trust the Sooner and Longhorn position...when? why?

There must have been something that led them to leave. Perhaps they asked for more and were told no? They're getting the last laugh now because they seem to have been worth something. Our value as a conference seems to be cratering.

sosheezy said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

---

Equal revenue sharing of media rights is the standard of the last 15-20 years. The only exceptions were in the Big 12 after the Pac 12's attempts to poach UT and OU and they left for greener pastures anyway. Why do we think USC wouldn't have done the same. It fosters discontent. How long should a brand be valued past its highwater mark? Should market be calculated? Should UCLA have been paid more purely because they were in LA vs their success or brand?

---

The new Big Ten and SEC media deals are so large that giving one ACC team a greater-than-equal share isn't enough to match the equal shares paid out to members of the Big Ten and SEC.

If, hypothetically, an annual ACC equal share is $30 million and the SEC equal share is $75 million, then giving FSU $50 or 60 million won't stop them from taking an SEC offer if they get one. Further, if the long-term value of SEC membership is 2x, 3x, or 4x greater, then any ACC team who gets such an offer should take it, no matter how large the ACC's offer for the current media deal.

Same concept applies to any increased payout the Pac-12 might have offered to USC. Taking the Big Ten's offer was the right decision for them, in any scenario.

Quote:

---

Now unequal share of post-season revenue based on participation for football and basketball, that makes a ton of sense and I would expect that is a part of any deal the Pac 12 would sign to keep schools together.

---

Agreed. Give a team that earns football or basketball postseason revenue 50% of the payout earned by their team, and let the other teams in the league divide the other 50%.

philly1121 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Why should FSU or anyone (including Oregon and Washington) demand that they get unequal revenue share?

I agree with unequal revenue share but do it based on meritocracy (1st place team gets X%, second place Y% so on) not simply because you think you're so great. You could add other factors to the formula, for example a multiplier if you are in the largest media market for the group in question etc but certainly reward for on the field performance.

---

Because we had kid ourselves for years that our equal revenue sharing of the P12 was democratic and would benefit all the teams in the conference. USC never saw it that way. They felt, rightfully, that they brought most of the value to the conference - even though they weren't winning. And we all know what happened.

I think FSU's thought process is the same. They may not be winning, but they've built a brand. And the brand adds value. Oregon is a bigger brand because of winning and Nike. Washington is a bigger brand because of their tradition and of recent wins. Utah is building their brand now. Or at least trying to.

The play for FSU is to get a greater share of the pie. To renegotiate the deal. Do they have the money for a buyout? Of course they do. The Seminole Tribe of Florida can simply donate that money to the school. But if the revenue share doesn't work out, the play for FSU isn't the SEC. Its the Big10.

---

Equal revenue sharing of media rights is the standard of the last 15-20 years. The only exceptions were in the Big 12 after the Pac 12's attempts to poach UT and OU and they left for greener pastures anyway. Why do we think USC wouldn't have done the same. It fosters discontent. How long should a brand be valued past its highwater mark? Should market be calculated? Should UCLA have been paid more purely because they were in LA vs their success or brand?

Now unequal share of post-season revenue based on participation for football and basketball, that makes a ton of sense and I would expect that is a part of any deal the Pac 12 would sign to keep schools together.

---

Exactly. Sooners and Longhorns laugh at the idea that USC would have stayed if we had just given them their 'fair share'...that is an absurdity.

---

And we trust the Sooner and Longhorn position...when? why?

There must have been something that led them to leave. Perhaps they asked for more and were told no? They're getting the last laugh now because they seem to have been worth something. Our value as a conference seems to be cratering.

---

The point is this: some entities don't settle for equal and fair. That's a fantasy amongst those entities who do settle. SC was going to do what it considered in its best interest all along. It was just a matter of When, not If

tequila4kapp said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Why should FSU or anyone (including Oregon and Washington) demand that they get unequal revenue share?

I agree with unequal revenue share but do it based on meritocracy (1st place team gets X%, second place Y% so on) not simply because you think you're so great. You could add other factors to the formula, for example a multiplier if you are in the largest media market for the group in question etc but certainly reward for on the field performance.

---

Because we had kid ourselves for years that our equal revenue sharing of the P12 was democratic and would benefit all the teams in the conference. USC never saw it that way. They felt, rightfully, that they brought most of the value to the conference - even though they weren't winning. And we all know what happened.

I think FSU's thought process is the same. They may not be winning, but they've built a brand. And the brand adds value. Oregon is a bigger brand because of winning and Nike. Washington is a bigger brand because of their tradition and of recent wins. Utah is building their brand now. Or at least trying to.

The play for FSU is to get a greater share of the pie. To renegotiate the deal. Do they have the money for a buyout? Of course they do. The Seminole Tribe of Florida can simply donate that money to the school. But if the revenue share doesn't work out, the play for FSU isn't the SEC. Its the Big10.

---

Equal revenue sharing of media rights is the standard of the last 15-20 years. The only exceptions were in the Big 12 after the Pac 12's attempts to poach UT and OU and they left for greener pastures anyway. Why do we think USC wouldn't have done the same. It fosters discontent. How long should a brand be valued past its highwater mark? Should market be calculated? Should UCLA have been paid more purely because they were in LA vs their success or brand?

Now unequal share of post-season revenue based on participation for football and basketball, that makes a ton of sense and I would expect that is a part of any deal the Pac 12 would sign to keep schools together.

---

Exactly. Sooners and Longhorns laugh at the idea that USC would have stayed if we had just given them their 'fair share'...that is an absurdity.

---

And we trust the Sooner and Longhorn position...when? why?

There must have been something that led them to leave. Perhaps they asked for more and were told no? They're getting the last laugh now because they seem to have been worth something. Our value as a conference seems to be cratering.

---

The point is this: some entities don't settle for equal and fair. That's a fantasy amongst those entities who do settle. SC was going to do what it considered in its best interest all along. It was just a matter of When, not If

---

I'm not sure you can put "equal and fair" in the same sentence as it relates to media rights and conference value. By most estimates, USC brought around 30% of the value of the current media deal. UCLA much less. But they were paid the same as us or Oregon State or ASU. If I'm SC, there is something completely inequitable and unfair about that. But I digress. No one in the Pac12 would have agreed to give SC a higher share anyway, so its a moot point.

And I agree. SC was looking out for its best interests. We should have seen it. Earlier. And now look where we're at.

tequila4kapp said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Why should FSU or anyone (including Oregon and Washington) demand that they get unequal revenue share?

I agree with unequal revenue share but do it based on meritocracy (1st place team gets X%, second place Y% so on) not simply because you think you're so great. You could add other factors to the formula, for example a multiplier if you are in the largest media market for the group in question etc but certainly reward for on the field performance.

---

Because we had kid ourselves for years that our equal revenue sharing of the P12 was democratic and would benefit all the teams in the conference. USC never saw it that way. They felt, rightfully, that they brought most of the value to the conference - even though they weren't winning. And we all know what happened.

I think FSU's thought process is the same. They may not be winning, but they've built a brand. And the brand adds value. Oregon is a bigger brand because of winning and Nike. Washington is a bigger brand because of their tradition and of recent wins. Utah is building their brand now. Or at least trying to.

The play for FSU is to get a greater share of the pie. To renegotiate the deal. Do they have the money for a buyout? Of course they do. The Seminole Tribe of Florida can simply donate that money to the school. But if the revenue share doesn't work out, the play for FSU isn't the SEC. Its the Big10.

---

Equal revenue sharing of media rights is the standard of the last 15-20 years. The only exceptions were in the Big 12 after the Pac 12's attempts to poach UT and OU and they left for greener pastures anyway. Why do we think USC wouldn't have done the same. It fosters discontent. How long should a brand be valued past its highwater mark? Should market be calculated? Should UCLA have been paid more purely because they were in LA vs their success or brand?

Now unequal share of post-season revenue based on participation for football and basketball, that makes a ton of sense and I would expect that is a part of any deal the Pac 12 would sign to keep schools together.

---

Exactly. Sooners and Longhorns laugh at the idea that USC would have stayed if we had just given them their 'fair share'...that is an absurdity.

---

And we trust the Sooner and Longhorn position...when? why?

There must have been something that led them to leave. Perhaps they asked for more and were told no? They're getting the last laugh now because they seem to have been worth something. Our value as a conference seems to be cratering.

---

The point is this: some entities don't settle for equal and fair. That's a fantasy amongst those entities who do settle. SC was going to do what it considered in its best interest all along. It was just a matter of When, not If

---

Agreed, USC knew they had more value in the market than they were receiving and was willing to do "something" to better realize that value. I don't think it <had> to be jumping to the B1G, but the long term mismanagement of the conference by Scott and the conference's insistence on equal sharing of revenue made leaving the conference the obvious choice.

I do think that it ultimately makes more sense for USC and UCLA to be in a West Coast conference or a West Coast pod of a larger conference, but a lot can happen before that ever comes about.

berserkeley said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Why should FSU or anyone (including Oregon and Washington) demand that they get unequal revenue share?

I agree with unequal revenue share but do it based on meritocracy (1st place team gets X%, second place Y% so on) not simply because you think you're so great. You could add other factors to the formula, for example a multiplier if you are in the largest media market for the group in question etc but certainly reward for on the field performance.

---

Because we had kid ourselves for years that our equal revenue sharing of the P12 was democratic and would benefit all the teams in the conference. USC never saw it that way. They felt, rightfully, that they brought most of the value to the conference - even though they weren't winning. And we all know what happened.

I think FSU's thought process is the same. They may not be winning, but they've built a brand. And the brand adds value. Oregon is a bigger brand because of winning and Nike. Washington is a bigger brand because of their tradition and of recent wins. Utah is building their brand now. Or at least trying to.

The play for FSU is to get a greater share of the pie. To renegotiate the deal. Do they have the money for a buyout? Of course they do. The Seminole Tribe of Florida can simply donate that money to the school. But if the revenue share doesn't work out, the play for FSU isn't the SEC. It's the Big10.

---

...but will the SEC want them? That's not clear. If there are B1G teams that don't want Oregon, I'm sure there are teams like Florida, Bama, Georgia, and Auburn that don't want another competitor in FSU, which is a true sleeping giant should they start winning again...with NIL, it's easy to see them start picking off some big Florida high school recruits.

---

I think the SEC wants FSU to protect it's geographical footprint. The SEC cannot afford to let the B1G gain a strong foothold in their own backyard because the B1G would have a national reach while the SEC would be limited to a regional one.

---

Agree. IMO SEC wouldn't want B1G poaching in their backyard.
IMO with my Cal bias, B1G should lock up the West Coast with Cal, Stanford, UO and UW

why don't they just continue to build the two mega conferences (two 20-24 team conferences) into the north/west (B1G) conference and the south/east (SEC) conference.

4 team conference playoffs, with the two conference champions to the college super bowl

isn't that where this all goes anyway?