ncbears said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

---

That appears to be right; the ACC Network would get a lot of new money from adding the Bay Area and DFW to their list of ACC "home markets".

The money for expansion appears to be there and is not the issue. 11 of the 15 ACC members want to vote Cal and Stanford in. The other 4 are throwing a tantrum because they want to either leave the ACC at little or no cost, or take almost all the TV money for themselves while everyone else gets only pocket change.

BearSD said:

---

ncbears said:

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

---

That appears to be right; the ACC Network would get a lot of new money from adding the Bay Area and DFW to their list of ACC "home markets".

The money for expansion appears to be there and is not the issue. 11 of the 15 ACC members want to vote Cal and Stanford in. The other 4 are throwing a tantrum because they want to either leave the ACC at little or no cost, or take almost all the TV money for themselves while everyone else gets only pocket change.

---

My understanding is that the cable companies are obligated to pay a larger carriage fee for the ACC Network within "home markets." They pay a smaller fee in "non-home markets," such as in California.

If Cal and Stanford join, cable companies offering the ACC network would overnight be contractually obligated to pay the higher rate. There's speculation that these cable companies currently pay $.25 per subscriber in California. The rate would automatically go up to $1.50 per subscriber if Cal and Stanford join.

So, that's where the revenue will likely be coming from. However, the overall cut per school of this revenue is not hugely significant (speculation is about $6 million per school).

My sense is that FSU, Clemson, UNC, and NC State don't feel the added revenue is worth diluting their voting rights -- especially since they want to be able to vote to leave the ACC for conferences with much larger payouts.

Is there any way Cal and Stanfords voting rights could be limited in some agreeable for a specified term to address the dilution issue if that is in fact the issue

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

Where is your market data that shows the Pac market has more value? Sure, teh BA has a larger population but the B12 fans are more passionate. What is the upside when pac games are on at midnight PT and 99% of the country is in bed?

Obviously, the left coast market does not have that value since no one offered to pay us $50m. After we turned down $30, Apple came in with what, $23m?

Market value is what somebody is willing to pay. (Haas Intro class)

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

---

I already receive espn's ACCNetwork on my SoCal Cox cable (which comes with teh Sports package to get Pac12 net). And I'm sure espn quickly figured out that they already have thousands of CA subscribers....

---

If you have a local team then you can negotiate up to be on the basic tier rather than the sports tier and make more money. I think that would be the point of expanding.

---

What I read was that it was an automatic boost in payouts by ESPN - it was not based on "new" subscribers - it would be based on the number of existing (and new) subscribers to ESPN (on basic tier) in California and Texas. I don't know what the rate is. ESPN - reportedly - does not pay the ACC any amount based on the number of people in California who get ESPN. But, again, I don't know the contract terms - this could be false information. But, given where we are, it doesn't really matter, does it?

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

Where is your market data that shows the Pac market has more value? Sure, teh BA has a larger population but the B12 fans are more passionate. What is the upside when pac games are on at midnight PT and 99% of the country is in bed?

Obviously, the left coast market does not have that value since no one offered to pay us $50m. After we turned down $30, Apple came in with what, $23m?

Market value is what somebody is willing to pay. (Haas Intro class)

---

they didn't pay B1G that much because the B1G was worth that much, they paid that much based on promise of including Pac 12 schools that they were poaching. The media corporation wants the #10 media market, as well, but...the schools would prefer that at a huge discount at this point or just walk away from it because they don't want to share in the spoils. There are competing interests. no media corporation would refuse the #10 media market.

and, as to inflated values...when the people negotiating are all friends and colluding that's...capitalism 101.

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

Oregon and Washington having one foot out the door probably hurt the negotiations a lot, just as USC having one foot out the door probably hurt previous efforts. That's an under-discussed element of this.

---

ESPN wasn't going to cough up market value because they for sure knew that USC was negotiating to leave.

ncbears said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

Where is your market data that shows the Pac market has more value? Sure, teh BA has a larger population but the B12 fans are more passionate. What is the upside when pac games are on at midnight PT and 99% of the country is in bed?

Obviously, the left coast market does not have that value since no one offered to pay us $50m. After we turned down $30, Apple came in with what, $23m?

Market value is what somebody is willing to pay. (Haas Intro class)

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

---

I already receive espn's ACCNetwork on my SoCal Cox cable (which comes with teh Sports package to get Pac12 net). And I'm sure espn quickly figured out that they already have thousands of CA subscribers....

---

If you have a local team then you can negotiate up to be on the basic tier rather than the sports tier and make more money. I think that would be the point of expanding.

---

What I read was that it was an automatic boost in payouts by ESPN - it was not based on "new" subscribers - it would be based on the number of existing (and new) subscribers to ESPN (on basic tier) in California and Texas. I don't know what the rate is. ESPN - reportedly - does not pay the ACC any amount based on the number of people in California who get ESPN. But, again, I don't know the contract terms - this could be false information. But, given where we are, it doesn't really matter, does it?

---

Yeah, My understanding is the ACC's contract with ESPN allows for an automatic pro-rata increase in the payout for every school they add much like the B-12 used to add the 4 corners schools.

The benefits of the ACC network getting automatic increases for cable carriage in DFW and Northern California, the benefits of the ACC and ESPN having access to the 4th window are separate, but not necessarily cumulative. ESPN has the additional benefit of mitigating its legal exposure and keeping the second largest metro on the West Coast from going to Fox. I am sure that ESPN also noticed Notre Dame's enthusiasm for the deal and would like to keep Notre Dame away from Fox and the B1G. Clearly ESPN's enthusiasm for this deal shows that Cal and Stanford are worth MORE than full ACC share to them. However, the ACC is going to keep a big cut because we need a conference after ours got blown up.

calumnus said:

---

ncbears said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

Where is your market data that shows the Pac market has more value? Sure, teh BA has a larger population but the B12 fans are more passionate. What is the upside when pac games are on at midnight PT and 99% of the country is in bed?

Obviously, the left coast market does not have that value since no one offered to pay us $50m. After we turned down $30, Apple came in with what, $23m?

Market value is what somebody is willing to pay. (Haas Intro class)

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

---

I already receive espn's ACCNetwork on my SoCal Cox cable (which comes with teh Sports package to get Pac12 net). And I'm sure espn quickly figured out that they already have thousands of CA subscribers....

---

If you have a local team then you can negotiate up to be on the basic tier rather than the sports tier and make more money. I think that would be the point of expanding.

---

What I read was that it was an automatic boost in payouts by ESPN - it was not based on "new" subscribers - it would be based on the number of existing (and new) subscribers to ESPN (on basic tier) in California and Texas. I don't know what the rate is. ESPN - reportedly - does not pay the ACC any amount based on the number of people in California who get ESPN. But, again, I don't know the contract terms - this could be false information. But, given where we are, it doesn't really matter, does it?

---

Yeah, My understanding is the ACC's contract with ESPN allows for an automatic pro-rata increase in the payout for every school they add much like the B-12 used to add the 4 corners schools.

The benefits of the ACC network getting automatic increases for cable carriage in DFW and Northern California, the benefits of the ACC and ESPN having access to the 4th window are separate, but not necessarily cumulative. ESPN has the additional benefit of mitigating its legal exposure and keeping the second largest metro on the West Coast from going to Fox. I am sure that ESPN also noticed Notre Dame's enthusiasm for the deal and would like to keep Notre Dame away from Fox and the B1G. Clearly ESPN's enthusiasm for this deal shows that Cal and Stanford are worth MORE than full ACC share to them. However, the ACC is going to keep a big cut because we need a conference after ours got blown up.

---

You are the only one I've ever seen making this claim.

Not necessarily saying I don't believe you, but I've never heard ANYONE else ANYWHERE saying this.

SMU delivering the Dallas market is like saying Santa Clara University brings the Bay Area. Would ESPN write such a stupid contract? I'm skeptical at least.

nikeykid said:

---

Condoleezza Rice (Stanford) & George W. Bush (SMU) contacting ACC officials to lobby for those schools to get an ACC invite, @ByPatForde 1st reported. No word if Marshawn Lynch is reaching out on Cal's behalf

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) August 16, 2023

where is our notable alumni network???

---

We are so ****ed.

nikeykid said:

---

where is our notable alumni network???

---

Apparently, apathetic and complacent, as usual.

Well will always have Paris! And Swimming.

TexasAgInTheBay said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ncbears said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

---

---

---

---

'

---

---

---

---

.

---

---

---

Yeah, My understanding is the ACC's contract with ESPN allows for an automatic pro-rata increase in the payout for every school they add much like the B-12 used to add the 4 corners schools.

The benefits of the ACC network getting automatic increases for cable carriage in DFW and Northern California, the benefits of the ACC and ESPN having access to the 4th window are separate, but not necessarily cumulative. ESPN has the additional benefit of mitigating its legal exposure and keeping the second largest metro on the West Coast from going to Fox. I am sure that ESPN also noticed Notre Dame's enthusiasm for the deal and would like to keep Notre Dame away from Fox and the B1G. Clearly ESPN's enthusiasm for this deal shows that Cal and Stanford are worth MORE than full ACC share to them. However, the ACC is going to keep a big cut because we need a conference after ours got blown up.

---

You are the only one I've ever seen making this claim.

Not necessarily saying I don't believe you, but I've never heard ANYONE else ANYWHERE saying this.

SMU delivering the Dallas market is like saying Santa Clara University brings the Bay Area. Would ESPN write such a stupid contract? I'm skeptical at least.

---

I have no idea whether that clause exists in the ACC Network contracts with cable/satellite companies. Given that it would make ESPN more money, they would be fine with it. It's the cable co's that might object because they are the ones who would pay a higher rate per subscriber for "in market" subscribers.

FWIW, there is a similar clause in the Big Ten Network's contracts with cable/satellite co's. They get to charge more for Big Ten Network in New Jersey, even though saying that "Rutgers delivers New Jersey" is even less convincing than saying "SMU delivers DFW".

TexasAgInTheBay said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ncbears said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

Where is your market data that shows the Pac market has more value? Sure, teh BA has a larger population but the B12 fans are more passionate. What is the upside when pac games are on at midnight PT and 99% of the country is in bed?

Obviously, the left coast market does not have that value since no one offered to pay us $50m. After we turned down $30, Apple came in with what, $23m?

Market value is what somebody is willing to pay. (Haas Intro class)

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

---

I already receive espn's ACCNetwork on my SoCal Cox cable (which comes with teh Sports package to get Pac12 net). And I'm sure espn quickly figured out that they already have thousands of CA subscribers....

---

If you have a local team then you can negotiate up to be on the basic tier rather than the sports tier and make more money. I think that would be the point of expanding.

---

What I read was that it was an automatic boost in payouts by ESPN - it was not based on "new" subscribers - it would be based on the number of existing (and new) subscribers to ESPN (on basic tier) in California and Texas. I don't know what the rate is. ESPN - reportedly - does not pay the ACC any amount based on the number of people in California who get ESPN. But, again, I don't know the contract terms - this could be false information. But, given where we are, it doesn't really matter, does it?

---

Yeah, My understanding is the ACC's contract with ESPN allows for an automatic pro-rata increase in the payout for every school they add much like the B-12 used to add the 4 corners schools.

The benefits of the ACC network getting automatic increases for cable carriage in DFW and Northern California, the benefits of the ACC and ESPN having access to the 4th window are separate, but not necessarily cumulative. ESPN has the additional benefit of mitigating its legal exposure and keeping the second largest metro on the West Coast from going to Fox. I am sure that ESPN also noticed Notre Dame's enthusiasm for the deal and would like to keep Notre Dame away from Fox and the B1G. Clearly ESPN's enthusiasm for this deal shows that Cal and Stanford are worth MORE than full ACC share to them. However, the ACC is going to keep a big cut because we need a conference after ours got blown up.

---

You are the only one I've ever seen making this claim.

Not necessarily saying I don't believe you, but I've never heard ANYONE else ANYWHERE saying this.

SMU delivering the Dallas market is like saying Santa Clara University brings the Bay Area. Would ESPN write such a stupid contract? I'm skeptical at least.

---

It has been widely reported. See this article for example:
https://sports.yahoo.com/acc-expansion-on-life-support-with-presidents-delaying-vote-what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-020106388.html

"the negotiations with Cal and Stanford, a desperate pair after the demise of the Pac-12, have centered on them only receiving a partial share of the league's TV distribution, potentially in the 60-70% range.

SMU offers even more of a discount. With a serious desire to join a power league and a group of mega boosters at the ready, the Mustangs are offering to forego at least five and as many as seven years of conference distribution.

These two items are not insignificant. For many within the league, the driving force is the financial piece. A clause in the ACC's contract with ESPN requires the network to pay the league an equal share for each new conference member.

If those new members do not take a full share, the remaining shares can be distributed to current league members, both offsetting travel costs and maybe even increasing annual revenue….."

calumnus said:

---

TexasAgInTheBay said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ncbears said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

Where is your market data that shows the Pac market has more value? Sure, teh BA has a larger population but the B12 fans are more passionate. What is the upside when pac games are on at midnight PT and 99% of the country is in bed?

Obviously, the left coast market does not have that value since no one offered to pay us $50m. After we turned down $30, Apple came in with what, $23m?

Market value is what somebody is willing to pay. (Haas Intro class)

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

---

I already receive espn's ACCNetwork on my SoCal Cox cable (which comes with teh Sports package to get Pac12 net). And I'm sure espn quickly figured out that they already have thousands of CA subscribers....

---

If you have a local team then you can negotiate up to be on the basic tier rather than the sports tier and make more money. I think that would be the point of expanding.

---

What I read was that it was an automatic boost in payouts by ESPN - it was not based on "new" subscribers - it would be based on the number of existing (and new) subscribers to ESPN (on basic tier) in California and Texas. I don't know what the rate is. ESPN - reportedly - does not pay the ACC any amount based on the number of people in California who get ESPN. But, again, I don't know the contract terms - this could be false information. But, given where we are, it doesn't really matter, does it?

---

Yeah, My understanding is the ACC's contract with ESPN allows for an automatic pro-rata increase in the payout for every school they add much like the B-12 used to add the 4 corners schools.

The benefits of the ACC network getting automatic increases for cable carriage in DFW and Northern California, the benefits of the ACC and ESPN having access to the 4th window are separate, but not necessarily cumulative. ESPN has the additional benefit of mitigating its legal exposure and keeping the second largest metro on the West Coast from going to Fox. I am sure that ESPN also noticed Notre Dame's enthusiasm for the deal and would like to keep Notre Dame away from Fox and the B1G. Clearly ESPN's enthusiasm for this deal shows that Cal and Stanford are worth MORE than full ACC share to them. However, the ACC is going to keep a big cut because we need a conference after ours got blown up.

---

You are the only one I've ever seen making this claim.

Not necessarily saying I don't believe you, but I've never heard ANYONE else ANYWHERE saying this.

SMU delivering the Dallas market is like saying Santa Clara University brings the Bay Area. Would ESPN write such a stupid contract? I'm skeptical at least.

---

It has been widely reported. See this article for example:
https://sports.yahoo.com/acc-expansion-on-life-support-with-presidents-delaying-vote-what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-020106388.html

"the negotiations with Cal and Stanford, a desperate pair after the demise of the Pac-12, have centered on them only receiving a partial share of the league's TV distribution, potentially in the 60-70% range.

SMU offers even more of a discount. With a serious desire to join a power league and a group of mega boosters at the ready, the Mustangs are offering to forego at least five and as many as seven years of conference distribution.

These two items are not insignificant. For many within the league, the driving force is the financial piece. A clause in the ACC's contract with ESPN requires the network to pay the league an equal share for each new conference member.

If those new members do not take a full share, the remaining shares can be distributed to current league members, both offsetting travel costs and maybe even increasing annual revenue….."

---

SMU is ready give up 5-7 years of revenue? Isn't that like $200M?

They are better off staying where they are and using that $200M on NIL.

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

TexasAgInTheBay said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ncbears said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

Where is your market data that shows the Pac market has more value? Sure, teh BA has a larger population but the B12 fans are more passionate. What is the upside when pac games are on at midnight PT and 99% of the country is in bed?

Obviously, the left coast market does not have that value since no one offered to pay us $50m. After we turned down $30, Apple came in with what, $23m?

Market value is what somebody is willing to pay. (Haas Intro class)

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

---

I already receive espn's ACCNetwork on my SoCal Cox cable (which comes with teh Sports package to get Pac12 net). And I'm sure espn quickly figured out that they already have thousands of CA subscribers....

---

If you have a local team then you can negotiate up to be on the basic tier rather than the sports tier and make more money. I think that would be the point of expanding.

---

What I read was that it was an automatic boost in payouts by ESPN - it was not based on "new" subscribers - it would be based on the number of existing (and new) subscribers to ESPN (on basic tier) in California and Texas. I don't know what the rate is. ESPN - reportedly - does not pay the ACC any amount based on the number of people in California who get ESPN. But, again, I don't know the contract terms - this could be false information. But, given where we are, it doesn't really matter, does it?

---

Yeah, My understanding is the ACC's contract with ESPN allows for an automatic pro-rata increase in the payout for every school they add much like the B-12 used to add the 4 corners schools.

The benefits of the ACC network getting automatic increases for cable carriage in DFW and Northern California, the benefits of the ACC and ESPN having access to the 4th window are separate, but not necessarily cumulative. ESPN has the additional benefit of mitigating its legal exposure and keeping the second largest metro on the West Coast from going to Fox. I am sure that ESPN also noticed Notre Dame's enthusiasm for the deal and would like to keep Notre Dame away from Fox and the B1G. Clearly ESPN's enthusiasm for this deal shows that Cal and Stanford are worth MORE than full ACC share to them. However, the ACC is going to keep a big cut because we need a conference after ours got blown up.

---

You are the only one I've ever seen making this claim.

Not necessarily saying I don't believe you, but I've never heard ANYONE else ANYWHERE saying this.

SMU delivering the Dallas market is like saying Santa Clara University brings the Bay Area. Would ESPN write such a stupid contract? I'm skeptical at least.

---

It has been widely reported. See this article for example:
https://sports.yahoo.com/acc-expansion-on-life-support-with-presidents-delaying-vote-what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-020106388.html

"the negotiations with Cal and Stanford, a desperate pair after the demise of the Pac-12, have centered on them only receiving a partial share of the league's TV distribution, potentially in the 60-70% range.

SMU offers even more of a discount. With a serious desire to join a power league and a group of mega boosters at the ready, the Mustangs are offering to forego at least five and as many as seven years of conference distribution.

These two items are not insignificant. For many within the league, the driving force is the financial piece. A clause in the ACC's contract with ESPN requires the network to pay the league an equal share for each new conference member.

If those new members do not take a full share, the remaining shares can be distributed to current league members, both offsetting travel costs and maybe even increasing annual revenue….."

---

SMU is ready give up 5-7 years of revenue? Isn't that like $200M?

They are better off staying where they are and using that $200M on NIL.

---

No, they would be giving up the $7 million a year from the AAC, though assuming boosters were willing to chip that in to the AD, that is $7 million more they can spend on NIL if they stay.

Here is another article that explains the contract with ESPN.
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/notre-dame-pushing-acc-to-add-stanford-cal-smu-join-without-revenue
" ESPN will provide the ACC pro-rata for any expansion additions, meaning it would pay the ACC $33-35 million for each new member. It's the ACC's decision how the revenue not provided to Stanford, Cal and SMU would be distributed."

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

TexasAgInTheBay said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ncbears said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

Where is your market data that shows the Pac market has more value? Sure, teh BA has a larger population but the B12 fans are more passionate. What is the upside when pac games are on at midnight PT and 99% of the country is in bed?

Obviously, the left coast market does not have that value since no one offered to pay us $50m. After we turned down $30, Apple came in with what, $23m?

Market value is what somebody is willing to pay. (Haas Intro class)

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

---

I already receive espn's ACCNetwork on my SoCal Cox cable (which comes with teh Sports package to get Pac12 net). And I'm sure espn quickly figured out that they already have thousands of CA subscribers....

---

If you have a local team then you can negotiate up to be on the basic tier rather than the sports tier and make more money. I think that would be the point of expanding.

---

What I read was that it was an automatic boost in payouts by ESPN - it was not based on "new" subscribers - it would be based on the number of existing (and new) subscribers to ESPN (on basic tier) in California and Texas. I don't know what the rate is. ESPN - reportedly - does not pay the ACC any amount based on the number of people in California who get ESPN. But, again, I don't know the contract terms - this could be false information. But, given where we are, it doesn't really matter, does it?

---

Yeah, My understanding is the ACC's contract with ESPN allows for an automatic pro-rata increase in the payout for every school they add much like the B-12 used to add the 4 corners schools.

The benefits of the ACC network getting automatic increases for cable carriage in DFW and Northern California, the benefits of the ACC and ESPN having access to the 4th window are separate, but not necessarily cumulative. ESPN has the additional benefit of mitigating its legal exposure and keeping the second largest metro on the West Coast from going to Fox. I am sure that ESPN also noticed Notre Dame's enthusiasm for the deal and would like to keep Notre Dame away from Fox and the B1G. Clearly ESPN's enthusiasm for this deal shows that Cal and Stanford are worth MORE than full ACC share to them. However, the ACC is going to keep a big cut because we need a conference after ours got blown up.

---

You are the only one I've ever seen making this claim.

Not necessarily saying I don't believe you, but I've never heard ANYONE else ANYWHERE saying this.

SMU delivering the Dallas market is like saying Santa Clara University brings the Bay Area. Would ESPN write such a stupid contract? I'm skeptical at least.

---

It has been widely reported. See this article for example:
https://sports.yahoo.com/acc-expansion-on-life-support-with-presidents-delaying-vote-what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-020106388.html

"the negotiations with Cal and Stanford, a desperate pair after the demise of the Pac-12, have centered on them only receiving a partial share of the league's TV distribution, potentially in the 60-70% range.

SMU offers even more of a discount. With a serious desire to join a power league and a group of mega boosters at the ready, the Mustangs are offering to forego at least five and as many as seven years of conference distribution.

These two items are not insignificant. For many within the league, the driving force is the financial piece. A clause in the ACC's contract with ESPN requires the network to pay the league an equal share for each new conference member.

If those new members do not take a full share, the remaining shares can be distributed to current league members, both offsetting travel costs and maybe even increasing annual revenue….."

---

SMU is ready give up 5-7 years of revenue? Isn't that like $200M?

They are better off staying where they are and using that $200M on NIL.

---

No, they would be giving up the $7 million a year from the AAC, though assuming boosters were willing to chip that in to the AD, that is $7 million more they can spend on NIL if they stay.

Here is another article that explains the contract with ESPN.
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/notre-dame-pushing-acc-to-add-stanford-cal-smu-join-without-revenue
" ESPN will provide the ACC pro-rata for any expansion additions, meaning it would pay the ACC $33-35 million for each new member. It's the ACC's decision how the revenue not provided to Stanford, Cal and SMU would be distributed."

---

The contract with the ACC is only worth $7M per year to Cal?

Edit:
No, I had it right. From the article:

"The ACC's revenue from TV rights, College Football Playoff, bowl games, NCAA Tournament units and other sources is at least $42 million. So, the Mustangs, even at a reduced amount, would be bypassing potentially $150 million over a five-year span."

SMU would be giving up $150M over 5 years and $200M over 7 years. Wow!

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

TexasAgInTheBay said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ncbears said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

Where is your market data that shows the Pac market has more value? Sure, teh BA has a larger population but the B12 fans are more passionate. What is the upside when pac games are on at midnight PT and 99% of the country is in bed?

Obviously, the left coast market does not have that value since no one offered to pay us $50m. After we turned down $30, Apple came in with what, $23m?

Market value is what somebody is willing to pay. (Haas Intro class)

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

---

I already receive espn's ACCNetwork on my SoCal Cox cable (which comes with teh Sports package to get Pac12 net). And I'm sure espn quickly figured out that they already have thousands of CA subscribers....

---

If you have a local team then you can negotiate up to be on the basic tier rather than the sports tier and make more money. I think that would be the point of expanding.

---

What I read was that it was an automatic boost in payouts by ESPN - it was not based on "new" subscribers - it would be based on the number of existing (and new) subscribers to ESPN (on basic tier) in California and Texas. I don't know what the rate is. ESPN - reportedly - does not pay the ACC any amount based on the number of people in California who get ESPN. But, again, I don't know the contract terms - this could be false information. But, given where we are, it doesn't really matter, does it?

---

Yeah, My understanding is the ACC's contract with ESPN allows for an automatic pro-rata increase in the payout for every school they add much like the B-12 used to add the 4 corners schools.

The benefits of the ACC network getting automatic increases for cable carriage in DFW and Northern California, the benefits of the ACC and ESPN having access to the 4th window are separate, but not necessarily cumulative. ESPN has the additional benefit of mitigating its legal exposure and keeping the second largest metro on the West Coast from going to Fox. I am sure that ESPN also noticed Notre Dame's enthusiasm for the deal and would like to keep Notre Dame away from Fox and the B1G. Clearly ESPN's enthusiasm for this deal shows that Cal and Stanford are worth MORE than full ACC share to them. However, the ACC is going to keep a big cut because we need a conference after ours got blown up.

---

You are the only one I've ever seen making this claim.

Not necessarily saying I don't believe you, but I've never heard ANYONE else ANYWHERE saying this.

SMU delivering the Dallas market is like saying Santa Clara University brings the Bay Area. Would ESPN write such a stupid contract? I'm skeptical at least.

---

It has been widely reported. See this article for example:
https://sports.yahoo.com/acc-expansion-on-life-support-with-presidents-delaying-vote-what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-020106388.html

"the negotiations with Cal and Stanford, a desperate pair after the demise of the Pac-12, have centered on them only receiving a partial share of the league's TV distribution, potentially in the 60-70% range.

SMU offers even more of a discount. With a serious desire to join a power league and a group of mega boosters at the ready, the Mustangs are offering to forego at least five and as many as seven years of conference distribution.

These two items are not insignificant. For many within the league, the driving force is the financial piece. A clause in the ACC's contract with ESPN requires the network to pay the league an equal share for each new conference member.

If those new members do not take a full share, the remaining shares can be distributed to current league members, both offsetting travel costs and maybe even increasing annual revenue….."

---

SMU is ready give up 5-7 years of revenue? Isn't that like $200M?

They are better off staying where they are and using that $200M on NIL.

---

No, they would be giving up the $7 million a year from the AAC, though assuming boosters were willing to chip that in to the AD, that is $7 million more they can spend on NIL if they stay.

Here is another article that explains the contract with ESPN.
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/notre-dame-pushing-acc-to-add-stanford-cal-smu-join-without-revenue
" ESPN will provide the ACC pro-rata for any expansion additions, meaning it would pay the ACC $33-35 million for each new member. It's the ACC's decision how the revenue not provided to Stanford, Cal and SMU would be distributed."

---

The contract with the ACC is only worth $7M per year to Cal?

Edit:
No, I had it right. From the article:

"The ACC's revenue from TV rights, College Football Playoff, bowl games, NCAA Tournament units and other sources is at least $42 million. So, the Mustangs, even at a reduced amount, would be bypassing potentially $150 million over a five-year span."

SMU would be giving up $150M over 5 years and $200M over 7 years. Wow!

---

How is that share + a portion of Cal's and Stanford not enough to solve the value add issue? I thought ESPN was also going to kick in additional dollars for travel for the east cost schools.

Econ141 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

TexasAgInTheBay said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ncbears said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

Where is your market data that shows the Pac market has more value? Sure, teh BA has a larger population but the B12 fans are more passionate. What is the upside when pac games are on at midnight PT and 99% of the country is in bed?

Obviously, the left coast market does not have that value since no one offered to pay us $50m. After we turned down $30, Apple came in with what, $23m?

Market value is what somebody is willing to pay. (Haas Intro class)

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

---

I already receive espn's ACCNetwork on my SoCal Cox cable (which comes with teh Sports package to get Pac12 net). And I'm sure espn quickly figured out that they already have thousands of CA subscribers....

---

If you have a local team then you can negotiate up to be on the basic tier rather than the sports tier and make more money. I think that would be the point of expanding.

---

What I read was that it was an automatic boost in payouts by ESPN - it was not based on "new" subscribers - it would be based on the number of existing (and new) subscribers to ESPN (on basic tier) in California and Texas. I don't know what the rate is. ESPN - reportedly - does not pay the ACC any amount based on the number of people in California who get ESPN. But, again, I don't know the contract terms - this could be false information. But, given where we are, it doesn't really matter, does it?

---

Yeah, My understanding is the ACC's contract with ESPN allows for an automatic pro-rata increase in the payout for every school they add much like the B-12 used to add the 4 corners schools.

The benefits of the ACC network getting automatic increases for cable carriage in DFW and Northern California, the benefits of the ACC and ESPN having access to the 4th window are separate, but not necessarily cumulative. ESPN has the additional benefit of mitigating its legal exposure and keeping the second largest metro on the West Coast from going to Fox. I am sure that ESPN also noticed Notre Dame's enthusiasm for the deal and would like to keep Notre Dame away from Fox and the B1G. Clearly ESPN's enthusiasm for this deal shows that Cal and Stanford are worth MORE than full ACC share to them. However, the ACC is going to keep a big cut because we need a conference after ours got blown up.

---

You are the only one I've ever seen making this claim.

Not necessarily saying I don't believe you, but I've never heard ANYONE else ANYWHERE saying this.

SMU delivering the Dallas market is like saying Santa Clara University brings the Bay Area. Would ESPN write such a stupid contract? I'm skeptical at least.

---

It has been widely reported. See this article for example:
https://sports.yahoo.com/acc-expansion-on-life-support-with-presidents-delaying-vote-what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-020106388.html

"the negotiations with Cal and Stanford, a desperate pair after the demise of the Pac-12, have centered on them only receiving a partial share of the league's TV distribution, potentially in the 60-70% range.

SMU offers even more of a discount. With a serious desire to join a power league and a group of mega boosters at the ready, the Mustangs are offering to forego at least five and as many as seven years of conference distribution.

These two items are not insignificant. For many within the league, the driving force is the financial piece. A clause in the ACC's contract with ESPN requires the network to pay the league an equal share for each new conference member.

If those new members do not take a full share, the remaining shares can be distributed to current league members, both offsetting travel costs and maybe even increasing annual revenue….."

---

SMU is ready give up 5-7 years of revenue? Isn't that like $200M?

They are better off staying where they are and using that $200M on NIL.

---

No, they would be giving up the $7 million a year from the AAC, though assuming boosters were willing to chip that in to the AD, that is $7 million more they can spend on NIL if they stay.

Here is another article that explains the contract with ESPN.
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/notre-dame-pushing-acc-to-add-stanford-cal-smu-join-without-revenue
" ESPN will provide the ACC pro-rata for any expansion additions, meaning it would pay the ACC $33-35 million for each new member. It's the ACC's decision how the revenue not provided to Stanford, Cal and SMU would be distributed."

---

The contract with the ACC is only worth $7M per year to Cal?

Edit:
No, I had it right. From the article:

"The ACC's revenue from TV rights, College Football Playoff, bowl games, NCAA Tournament units and other sources is at least $42 million. So, the Mustangs, even at a reduced amount, would be bypassing potentially $150 million over a five-year span."

SMU would be giving up $150M over 5 years and $200M over 7 years. Wow!

---

How is that share + a portion of Cal's and Stanford not enough to solve the value add issue? I thought ESPN was also going to kick in additional dollars for travel for the east cost schools.

---

Dunno but $30M a year is a lot of NIL money. Or is it?

dimitrig said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

TexasAgInTheBay said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ncbears said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

Where is your market data that shows the Pac market has more value? Sure, teh BA has a larger population but the B12 fans are more passionate. What is the upside when pac games are on at midnight PT and 99% of the country is in bed?

Obviously, the left coast market does not have that value since no one offered to pay us $50m. After we turned down $30, Apple came in with what, $23m?

Market value is what somebody is willing to pay. (Haas Intro class)

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

---

I already receive espn's ACCNetwork on my SoCal Cox cable (which comes with teh Sports package to get Pac12 net). And I'm sure espn quickly figured out that they already have thousands of CA subscribers....

---

If you have a local team then you can negotiate up to be on the basic tier rather than the sports tier and make more money. I think that would be the point of expanding.

---

What I read was that it was an automatic boost in payouts by ESPN - it was not based on "new" subscribers - it would be based on the number of existing (and new) subscribers to ESPN (on basic tier) in California and Texas. I don't know what the rate is. ESPN - reportedly - does not pay the ACC any amount based on the number of people in California who get ESPN. But, again, I don't know the contract terms - this could be false information. But, given where we are, it doesn't really matter, does it?

---

Yeah, My understanding is the ACC's contract with ESPN allows for an automatic pro-rata increase in the payout for every school they add much like the B-12 used to add the 4 corners schools.

The benefits of the ACC network getting automatic increases for cable carriage in DFW and Northern California, the benefits of the ACC and ESPN having access to the 4th window are separate, but not necessarily cumulative. ESPN has the additional benefit of mitigating its legal exposure and keeping the second largest metro on the West Coast from going to Fox. I am sure that ESPN also noticed Notre Dame's enthusiasm for the deal and would like to keep Notre Dame away from Fox and the B1G. Clearly ESPN's enthusiasm for this deal shows that Cal and Stanford are worth MORE than full ACC share to them. However, the ACC is going to keep a big cut because we need a conference after ours got blown up.

---

You are the only one I've ever seen making this claim.

Not necessarily saying I don't believe you, but I've never heard ANYONE else ANYWHERE saying this.

SMU delivering the Dallas market is like saying Santa Clara University brings the Bay Area. Would ESPN write such a stupid contract? I'm skeptical at least.

---

It has been widely reported. See this article for example:
https://sports.yahoo.com/acc-expansion-on-life-support-with-presidents-delaying-vote-what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-020106388.html

"the negotiations with Cal and Stanford, a desperate pair after the demise of the Pac-12, have centered on them only receiving a partial share of the league's TV distribution, potentially in the 60-70% range.

SMU offers even more of a discount. With a serious desire to join a power league and a group of mega boosters at the ready, the Mustangs are offering to forego at least five and as many as seven years of conference distribution.

These two items are not insignificant. For many within the league, the driving force is the financial piece. A clause in the ACC's contract with ESPN requires the network to pay the league an equal share for each new conference member.

If those new members do not take a full share, the remaining shares can be distributed to current league members, both offsetting travel costs and maybe even increasing annual revenue….."

---

SMU is ready give up 5-7 years of revenue? Isn't that like $200M?

They are better off staying where they are and using that $200M on NIL.

---

No, they would be giving up the $7 million a year from the AAC, though assuming boosters were willing to chip that in to the AD, that is $7 million more they can spend on NIL if they stay.

Here is another article that explains the contract with ESPN.
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/notre-dame-pushing-acc-to-add-stanford-cal-smu-join-without-revenue
" ESPN will provide the ACC pro-rata for any expansion additions, meaning it would pay the ACC $33-35 million for each new member. It's the ACC's decision how the revenue not provided to Stanford, Cal and SMU would be distributed."

---

The contract with the ACC is only worth $7M per year to Cal?

Edit:
No, I had it right. From the article:

"The ACC's revenue from TV rights, College Football Playoff, bowl games, NCAA Tournament units and other sources is at least $42 million. So, the Mustangs, even at a reduced amount, would be bypassing potentially $150 million over a five-year span."

SMU would be giving up $150M over 5 years and $200M over 7 years. Wow!

---

How is that share + a portion of Cal's and Stanford not enough to solve the value add issue? I thought ESPN was also going to kick in additional dollars for travel for the east cost schools.

---

Dunno but $30M a year is a lot of NIL money. Or is it?

---

Sorry - what does NIL have to do with this?

Econ141 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

TexasAgInTheBay said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ncbears said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

Where is your market data that shows the Pac market has more value? Sure, teh BA has a larger population but the B12 fans are more passionate. What is the upside when pac games are on at midnight PT and 99% of the country is in bed?

Obviously, the left coast market does not have that value since no one offered to pay us $50m. After we turned down $30, Apple came in with what, $23m?

Market value is what somebody is willing to pay. (Haas Intro class)

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

---

I already receive espn's ACCNetwork on my SoCal Cox cable (which comes with teh Sports package to get Pac12 net). And I'm sure espn quickly figured out that they already have thousands of CA subscribers....

---

If you have a local team then you can negotiate up to be on the basic tier rather than the sports tier and make more money. I think that would be the point of expanding.

---

What I read was that it was an automatic boost in payouts by ESPN - it was not based on "new" subscribers - it would be based on the number of existing (and new) subscribers to ESPN (on basic tier) in California and Texas. I don't know what the rate is. ESPN - reportedly - does not pay the ACC any amount based on the number of people in California who get ESPN. But, again, I don't know the contract terms - this could be false information. But, given where we are, it doesn't really matter, does it?

---

Yeah, My understanding is the ACC's contract with ESPN allows for an automatic pro-rata increase in the payout for every school they add much like the B-12 used to add the 4 corners schools.

The benefits of the ACC network getting automatic increases for cable carriage in DFW and Northern California, the benefits of the ACC and ESPN having access to the 4th window are separate, but not necessarily cumulative. ESPN has the additional benefit of mitigating its legal exposure and keeping the second largest metro on the West Coast from going to Fox. I am sure that ESPN also noticed Notre Dame's enthusiasm for the deal and would like to keep Notre Dame away from Fox and the B1G. Clearly ESPN's enthusiasm for this deal shows that Cal and Stanford are worth MORE than full ACC share to them. However, the ACC is going to keep a big cut because we need a conference after ours got blown up.

---

You are the only one I've ever seen making this claim.

Not necessarily saying I don't believe you, but I've never heard ANYONE else ANYWHERE saying this.

SMU delivering the Dallas market is like saying Santa Clara University brings the Bay Area. Would ESPN write such a stupid contract? I'm skeptical at least.

---

It has been widely reported. See this article for example:
https://sports.yahoo.com/acc-expansion-on-life-support-with-presidents-delaying-vote-what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-020106388.html

"the negotiations with Cal and Stanford, a desperate pair after the demise of the Pac-12, have centered on them only receiving a partial share of the league's TV distribution, potentially in the 60-70% range.

SMU offers even more of a discount. With a serious desire to join a power league and a group of mega boosters at the ready, the Mustangs are offering to forego at least five and as many as seven years of conference distribution.

These two items are not insignificant. For many within the league, the driving force is the financial piece. A clause in the ACC's contract with ESPN requires the network to pay the league an equal share for each new conference member.

If those new members do not take a full share, the remaining shares can be distributed to current league members, both offsetting travel costs and maybe even increasing annual revenue….."

---

SMU is ready give up 5-7 years of revenue? Isn't that like $200M?

They are better off staying where they are and using that $200M on NIL.

---

No, they would be giving up the $7 million a year from the AAC, though assuming boosters were willing to chip that in to the AD, that is $7 million more they can spend on NIL if they stay.

Here is another article that explains the contract with ESPN.
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/notre-dame-pushing-acc-to-add-stanford-cal-smu-join-without-revenue
" ESPN will provide the ACC pro-rata for any expansion additions, meaning it would pay the ACC $33-35 million for each new member. It's the ACC's decision how the revenue not provided to Stanford, Cal and SMU would be distributed."

---

The contract with the ACC is only worth $7M per year to Cal?

Edit:
No, I had it right. From the article:

"The ACC's revenue from TV rights, College Football Playoff, bowl games, NCAA Tournament units and other sources is at least $42 million. So, the Mustangs, even at a reduced amount, would be bypassing potentially $150 million over a five-year span."

SMU would be giving up $150M over 5 years and $200M over 7 years. Wow!

---

How is that share + a portion of Cal's and Stanford not enough to solve the value add issue? I thought ESPN was also going to kick in additional dollars for travel for the east cost schools.

---

Dunno but $30M a year is a lot of NIL money. Or is it?

---

Sorry - what does NIL have to do with this?

---

If I am SMU I take that $200M they are willing to spend to get into a P5 conference and spend it all on NIL.

With their results on the field a P5 conference will come to them.

Unless $30M per year on NIL doesn't even move the needle these days…

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

TexasAgInTheBay said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ncbears said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

Where is your market data that shows the Pac market has more value? Sure, teh BA has a larger population but the B12 fans are more passionate. What is the upside when pac games are on at midnight PT and 99% of the country is in bed?

Obviously, the left coast market does not have that value since no one offered to pay us $50m. After we turned down $30, Apple came in with what, $23m?

Market value is what somebody is willing to pay. (Haas Intro class)

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

---

I already receive espn's ACCNetwork on my SoCal Cox cable (which comes with teh Sports package to get Pac12 net). And I'm sure espn quickly figured out that they already have thousands of CA subscribers....

---

If you have a local team then you can negotiate up to be on the basic tier rather than the sports tier and make more money. I think that would be the point of expanding.

---

What I read was that it was an automatic boost in payouts by ESPN - it was not based on "new" subscribers - it would be based on the number of existing (and new) subscribers to ESPN (on basic tier) in California and Texas. I don't know what the rate is. ESPN - reportedly - does not pay the ACC any amount based on the number of people in California who get ESPN. But, again, I don't know the contract terms - this could be false information. But, given where we are, it doesn't really matter, does it?

---

Yeah, My understanding is the ACC's contract with ESPN allows for an automatic pro-rata increase in the payout for every school they add much like the B-12 used to add the 4 corners schools.

The benefits of the ACC network getting automatic increases for cable carriage in DFW and Northern California, the benefits of the ACC and ESPN having access to the 4th window are separate, but not necessarily cumulative. ESPN has the additional benefit of mitigating its legal exposure and keeping the second largest metro on the West Coast from going to Fox. I am sure that ESPN also noticed Notre Dame's enthusiasm for the deal and would like to keep Notre Dame away from Fox and the B1G. Clearly ESPN's enthusiasm for this deal shows that Cal and Stanford are worth MORE than full ACC share to them. However, the ACC is going to keep a big cut because we need a conference after ours got blown up.

---

You are the only one I've ever seen making this claim.

Not necessarily saying I don't believe you, but I've never heard ANYONE else ANYWHERE saying this.

SMU delivering the Dallas market is like saying Santa Clara University brings the Bay Area. Would ESPN write such a stupid contract? I'm skeptical at least.

---

It has been widely reported. See this article for example:
https://sports.yahoo.com/acc-expansion-on-life-support-with-presidents-delaying-vote-what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-020106388.html

"the negotiations with Cal and Stanford, a desperate pair after the demise of the Pac-12, have centered on them only receiving a partial share of the league's TV distribution, potentially in the 60-70% range.

SMU offers even more of a discount. With a serious desire to join a power league and a group of mega boosters at the ready, the Mustangs are offering to forego at least five and as many as seven years of conference distribution.

These two items are not insignificant. For many within the league, the driving force is the financial piece. A clause in the ACC's contract with ESPN requires the network to pay the league an equal share for each new conference member.

If those new members do not take a full share, the remaining shares can be distributed to current league members, both offsetting travel costs and maybe even increasing annual revenue….."

---

SMU is ready give up 5-7 years of revenue? Isn't that like $200M?

They are better off staying where they are and using that $200M on NIL.

---

No, they would be giving up the $7 million a year from the AAC, though assuming boosters were willing to chip that in to the AD, that is $7 million more they can spend on NIL if they stay.

Here is another article that explains the contract with ESPN.
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/notre-dame-pushing-acc-to-add-stanford-cal-smu-join-without-revenue
" ESPN will provide the ACC pro-rata for any expansion additions, meaning it would pay the ACC $33-35 million for each new member. It's the ACC's decision how the revenue not provided to Stanford, Cal and SMU would be distributed."

---

The contract with the ACC is only worth $7M per year to Cal?

Edit:
No, I had it right. From the article:

"The ACC's revenue from TV rights, College Football Playoff, bowl games, NCAA Tournament units and other sources is at least $42 million. So, the Mustangs, even at a reduced amount, would be bypassing potentially $150 million over a five-year span."

SMU would be giving up $150M over 5 years and $200M over 7 years. Wow!

---

That is the additional money the ACC would get from ESPN if SMU joins. SMU is willing to forego any share of that and let the current ACC members keep that money for 5-7 years to convince them to let them in. If SMU stays in the AAC and does not join the ACC, ESPN does not pay the ACC that money and certainly does not pay SMU that money, so SMU could not use that money for NIL (which schools cannot do anyway).

dimitrig said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

TexasAgInTheBay said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ncbears said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

Where is your market data that shows the Pac market has more value? Sure, teh BA has a larger population but the B12 fans are more passionate. What is the upside when pac games are on at midnight PT and 99% of the country is in bed?

Obviously, the left coast market does not have that value since no one offered to pay us $50m. After we turned down $30, Apple came in with what, $23m?

Market value is what somebody is willing to pay. (Haas Intro class)

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

---

I already receive espn's ACCNetwork on my SoCal Cox cable (which comes with teh Sports package to get Pac12 net). And I'm sure espn quickly figured out that they already have thousands of CA subscribers....

---

If you have a local team then you can negotiate up to be on the basic tier rather than the sports tier and make more money. I think that would be the point of expanding.

---

What I read was that it was an automatic boost in payouts by ESPN - it was not based on "new" subscribers - it would be based on the number of existing (and new) subscribers to ESPN (on basic tier) in California and Texas. I don't know what the rate is. ESPN - reportedly - does not pay the ACC any amount based on the number of people in California who get ESPN. But, again, I don't know the contract terms - this could be false information. But, given where we are, it doesn't really matter, does it?

---

Yeah, My understanding is the ACC's contract with ESPN allows for an automatic pro-rata increase in the payout for every school they add much like the B-12 used to add the 4 corners schools.

The benefits of the ACC network getting automatic increases for cable carriage in DFW and Northern California, the benefits of the ACC and ESPN having access to the 4th window are separate, but not necessarily cumulative. ESPN has the additional benefit of mitigating its legal exposure and keeping the second largest metro on the West Coast from going to Fox. I am sure that ESPN also noticed Notre Dame's enthusiasm for the deal and would like to keep Notre Dame away from Fox and the B1G. Clearly ESPN's enthusiasm for this deal shows that Cal and Stanford are worth MORE than full ACC share to them. However, the ACC is going to keep a big cut because we need a conference after ours got blown up.

---

You are the only one I've ever seen making this claim.

Not necessarily saying I don't believe you, but I've never heard ANYONE else ANYWHERE saying this.

SMU delivering the Dallas market is like saying Santa Clara University brings the Bay Area. Would ESPN write such a stupid contract? I'm skeptical at least.

---

It has been widely reported. See this article for example:
https://sports.yahoo.com/acc-expansion-on-life-support-with-presidents-delaying-vote-what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-020106388.html

"the negotiations with Cal and Stanford, a desperate pair after the demise of the Pac-12, have centered on them only receiving a partial share of the league's TV distribution, potentially in the 60-70% range.

SMU offers even more of a discount. With a serious desire to join a power league and a group of mega boosters at the ready, the Mustangs are offering to forego at least five and as many as seven years of conference distribution.

These two items are not insignificant. For many within the league, the driving force is the financial piece. A clause in the ACC's contract with ESPN requires the network to pay the league an equal share for each new conference member.

If those new members do not take a full share, the remaining shares can be distributed to current league members, both offsetting travel costs and maybe even increasing annual revenue….."

---

SMU is ready give up 5-7 years of revenue? Isn't that like $200M?

They are better off staying where they are and using that $200M on NIL.

---

No, they would be giving up the $7 million a year from the AAC, though assuming boosters were willing to chip that in to the AD, that is $7 million more they can spend on NIL if they stay.

Here is another article that explains the contract with ESPN.
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/notre-dame-pushing-acc-to-add-stanford-cal-smu-join-without-revenue
" ESPN will provide the ACC pro-rata for any expansion additions, meaning it would pay the ACC $33-35 million for each new member. It's the ACC's decision how the revenue not provided to Stanford, Cal and SMU would be distributed."

---

The contract with the ACC is only worth $7M per year to Cal?

Edit:
No, I had it right. From the article:

"The ACC's revenue from TV rights, College Football Playoff, bowl games, NCAA Tournament units and other sources is at least $42 million. So, the Mustangs, even at a reduced amount, would be bypassing potentially $150 million over a five-year span."

SMU would be giving up $150M over 5 years and $200M over 7 years. Wow!

---

How is that share + a portion of Cal's and Stanford not enough to solve the value add issue? I thought ESPN was also going to kick in additional dollars for travel for the east cost schools.

---

Dunno but $30M a year is a lot of NIL money. Or is it?

---

Sorry - what does NIL have to do with this?

---

If I am SMU I take that $200M they are willing to spend to get into a P5 conference and spend it all on NIL.

With their results on the field a P5 conference will come to them.

Unless $30M per year on NIL doesn't even move the needle these days…

---

SMU's attempt to buy their way into the ACC is smart, given that they have the donor money to do it.

They don't have a Big Ten or SEC level of media value.

The Big 12 will never add them. They are 30 miles from TCU and 90 miles from Baylor.

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

TexasAgInTheBay said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ncbears said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

Where is your market data that shows the Pac market has more value? Sure, teh BA has a larger population but the B12 fans are more passionate. What is the upside when pac games are on at midnight PT and 99% of the country is in bed?

Obviously, the left coast market does not have that value since no one offered to pay us $50m. After we turned down $30, Apple came in with what, $23m?

Market value is what somebody is willing to pay. (Haas Intro class)

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

---

I already receive espn's ACCNetwork on my SoCal Cox cable (which comes with teh Sports package to get Pac12 net). And I'm sure espn quickly figured out that they already have thousands of CA subscribers....

---

If you have a local team then you can negotiate up to be on the basic tier rather than the sports tier and make more money. I think that would be the point of expanding.

---

What I read was that it was an automatic boost in payouts by ESPN - it was not based on "new" subscribers - it would be based on the number of existing (and new) subscribers to ESPN (on basic tier) in California and Texas. I don't know what the rate is. ESPN - reportedly - does not pay the ACC any amount based on the number of people in California who get ESPN. But, again, I don't know the contract terms - this could be false information. But, given where we are, it doesn't really matter, does it?

---

Yeah, My understanding is the ACC's contract with ESPN allows for an automatic pro-rata increase in the payout for every school they add much like the B-12 used to add the 4 corners schools.

The benefits of the ACC network getting automatic increases for cable carriage in DFW and Northern California, the benefits of the ACC and ESPN having access to the 4th window are separate, but not necessarily cumulative. ESPN has the additional benefit of mitigating its legal exposure and keeping the second largest metro on the West Coast from going to Fox. I am sure that ESPN also noticed Notre Dame's enthusiasm for the deal and would like to keep Notre Dame away from Fox and the B1G. Clearly ESPN's enthusiasm for this deal shows that Cal and Stanford are worth MORE than full ACC share to them. However, the ACC is going to keep a big cut because we need a conference after ours got blown up.

---

You are the only one I've ever seen making this claim.

Not necessarily saying I don't believe you, but I've never heard ANYONE else ANYWHERE saying this.

SMU delivering the Dallas market is like saying Santa Clara University brings the Bay Area. Would ESPN write such a stupid contract? I'm skeptical at least.

---

It has been widely reported. See this article for example:
https://sports.yahoo.com/acc-expansion-on-life-support-with-presidents-delaying-vote-what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-020106388.html

"the negotiations with Cal and Stanford, a desperate pair after the demise of the Pac-12, have centered on them only receiving a partial share of the league's TV distribution, potentially in the 60-70% range.

SMU offers even more of a discount. With a serious desire to join a power league and a group of mega boosters at the ready, the Mustangs are offering to forego at least five and as many as seven years of conference distribution.

These two items are not insignificant. For many within the league, the driving force is the financial piece. A clause in the ACC's contract with ESPN requires the network to pay the league an equal share for each new conference member.

If those new members do not take a full share, the remaining shares can be distributed to current league members, both offsetting travel costs and maybe even increasing annual revenue….."

---

SMU is ready give up 5-7 years of revenue? Isn't that like $200M?

They are better off staying where they are and using that $200M on NIL.

---

No, they would be giving up the $7 million a year from the AAC, though assuming boosters were willing to chip that in to the AD, that is $7 million more they can spend on NIL if they stay.

Here is another article that explains the contract with ESPN.
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/notre-dame-pushing-acc-to-add-stanford-cal-smu-join-without-revenue
" ESPN will provide the ACC pro-rata for any expansion additions, meaning it would pay the ACC $33-35 million for each new member. It's the ACC's decision how the revenue not provided to Stanford, Cal and SMU would be distributed."

---

The contract with the ACC is only worth $7M per year to Cal?

Edit:
No, I had it right. From the article:

"The ACC's revenue from TV rights, College Football Playoff, bowl games, NCAA Tournament units and other sources is at least $42 million. So, the Mustangs, even at a reduced amount, would be bypassing potentially $150 million over a five-year span."

SMU would be giving up $150M over 5 years and $200M over 7 years. Wow!

---

That is the additional money the ACC would get from ESPN if SMU joins. SMU is willing to forego any share of that and let the current ACC members keep that money for 5-7 years to convince them to let them in. If SMU stays in the AAC and does not join the ACC, ESPN does not pay the ACC that money and certainly does not pay SMU that money, so SMU could not use that money for NIL (which schools cannot do anyway).

---

Read again from the article:

"So, the Mustangs would be bypassing potentially $150 million over a five-year span."

So how are they planning on funding their football team if they join the ACC and get no revenue share? With donations! The article talks about deep pocketed donors.

They should use that money on NIL instead. Maybe it won't be $200M in donations but whatever it is if they put it toward NIL they would likely be better off than with no revenue in the ACC.

As for what is allowed… we are talking about football in Texas. Let's be real.

BearSD said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

TexasAgInTheBay said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ncbears said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

Where is your market data that shows the Pac market has more value? Sure, teh BA has a larger population but the B12 fans are more passionate. What is the upside when pac games are on at midnight PT and 99% of the country is in bed?

Obviously, the left coast market does not have that value since no one offered to pay us $50m. After we turned down $30, Apple came in with what, $23m?

Market value is what somebody is willing to pay. (Haas Intro class)

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

---

I already receive espn's ACCNetwork on my SoCal Cox cable (which comes with teh Sports package to get Pac12 net). And I'm sure espn quickly figured out that they already have thousands of CA subscribers....

---

If you have a local team then you can negotiate up to be on the basic tier rather than the sports tier and make more money. I think that would be the point of expanding.

---

What I read was that it was an automatic boost in payouts by ESPN - it was not based on "new" subscribers - it would be based on the number of existing (and new) subscribers to ESPN (on basic tier) in California and Texas. I don't know what the rate is. ESPN - reportedly - does not pay the ACC any amount based on the number of people in California who get ESPN. But, again, I don't know the contract terms - this could be false information. But, given where we are, it doesn't really matter, does it?

---

Yeah, My understanding is the ACC's contract with ESPN allows for an automatic pro-rata increase in the payout for every school they add much like the B-12 used to add the 4 corners schools.

The benefits of the ACC network getting automatic increases for cable carriage in DFW and Northern California, the benefits of the ACC and ESPN having access to the 4th window are separate, but not necessarily cumulative. ESPN has the additional benefit of mitigating its legal exposure and keeping the second largest metro on the West Coast from going to Fox. I am sure that ESPN also noticed Notre Dame's enthusiasm for the deal and would like to keep Notre Dame away from Fox and the B1G. Clearly ESPN's enthusiasm for this deal shows that Cal and Stanford are worth MORE than full ACC share to them. However, the ACC is going to keep a big cut because we need a conference after ours got blown up.

---

You are the only one I've ever seen making this claim.

Not necessarily saying I don't believe you, but I've never heard ANYONE else ANYWHERE saying this.

SMU delivering the Dallas market is like saying Santa Clara University brings the Bay Area. Would ESPN write such a stupid contract? I'm skeptical at least.

---

It has been widely reported. See this article for example:
https://sports.yahoo.com/acc-expansion-on-life-support-with-presidents-delaying-vote-what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-020106388.html

"the negotiations with Cal and Stanford, a desperate pair after the demise of the Pac-12, have centered on them only receiving a partial share of the league's TV distribution, potentially in the 60-70% range.

SMU offers even more of a discount. With a serious desire to join a power league and a group of mega boosters at the ready, the Mustangs are offering to forego at least five and as many as seven years of conference distribution.

These two items are not insignificant. For many within the league, the driving force is the financial piece. A clause in the ACC's contract with ESPN requires the network to pay the league an equal share for each new conference member.

If those new members do not take a full share, the remaining shares can be distributed to current league members, both offsetting travel costs and maybe even increasing annual revenue….."

---

SMU is ready give up 5-7 years of revenue? Isn't that like $200M?

They are better off staying where they are and using that $200M on NIL.

---

No, they would be giving up the $7 million a year from the AAC, though assuming boosters were willing to chip that in to the AD, that is $7 million more they can spend on NIL if they stay.

Here is another article that explains the contract with ESPN.
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/notre-dame-pushing-acc-to-add-stanford-cal-smu-join-without-revenue
" ESPN will provide the ACC pro-rata for any expansion additions, meaning it would pay the ACC $33-35 million for each new member. It's the ACC's decision how the revenue not provided to Stanford, Cal and SMU would be distributed."

---

The contract with the ACC is only worth $7M per year to Cal?

Edit:
No, I had it right. From the article:

"The ACC's revenue from TV rights, College Football Playoff, bowl games, NCAA Tournament units and other sources is at least $42 million. So, the Mustangs, even at a reduced amount, would be bypassing potentially $150 million over a five-year span."

SMU would be giving up $150M over 5 years and $200M over 7 years. Wow!

---

How is that share + a portion of Cal's and Stanford not enough to solve the value add issue? I thought ESPN was also going to kick in additional dollars for travel for the east cost schools.

---

Dunno but $30M a year is a lot of NIL money. Or is it?

---

Sorry - what does NIL have to do with this?

---

If I am SMU I take that $200M they are willing to spend to get into a P5 conference and spend it all on NIL.

With their results on the field a P5 conference will come to them.

Unless $30M per year on NIL doesn't even move the needle these days…

---

SMU's attempt to buy their way into the ACC is smart, given that they have the donor money to do it.

They don't have a Big Ten or SEC level of media value.

The Big 12 will never add them. They are 30 miles from TCU and 90 miles from Baylor.

---

Why does Baylor have more value than SMU?

How far is Cal from Stanford?

dimitrig said:

---

BearSD said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

TexasAgInTheBay said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ncbears said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

Where is your market data that shows the Pac market has more value? Sure, teh BA has a larger population but the B12 fans are more passionate. What is the upside when pac games are on at midnight PT and 99% of the country is in bed?

Obviously, the left coast market does not have that value since no one offered to pay us $50m. After we turned down $30, Apple came in with what, $23m?

Market value is what somebody is willing to pay. (Haas Intro class)

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

---

I already receive espn's ACCNetwork on my SoCal Cox cable (which comes with teh Sports package to get Pac12 net). And I'm sure espn quickly figured out that they already have thousands of CA subscribers....

---

If you have a local team then you can negotiate up to be on the basic tier rather than the sports tier and make more money. I think that would be the point of expanding.

---

What I read was that it was an automatic boost in payouts by ESPN - it was not based on "new" subscribers - it would be based on the number of existing (and new) subscribers to ESPN (on basic tier) in California and Texas. I don't know what the rate is. ESPN - reportedly - does not pay the ACC any amount based on the number of people in California who get ESPN. But, again, I don't know the contract terms - this could be false information. But, given where we are, it doesn't really matter, does it?

---

Yeah, My understanding is the ACC's contract with ESPN allows for an automatic pro-rata increase in the payout for every school they add much like the B-12 used to add the 4 corners schools.

The benefits of the ACC network getting automatic increases for cable carriage in DFW and Northern California, the benefits of the ACC and ESPN having access to the 4th window are separate, but not necessarily cumulative. ESPN has the additional benefit of mitigating its legal exposure and keeping the second largest metro on the West Coast from going to Fox. I am sure that ESPN also noticed Notre Dame's enthusiasm for the deal and would like to keep Notre Dame away from Fox and the B1G. Clearly ESPN's enthusiasm for this deal shows that Cal and Stanford are worth MORE than full ACC share to them. However, the ACC is going to keep a big cut because we need a conference after ours got blown up.

---

You are the only one I've ever seen making this claim.

Not necessarily saying I don't believe you, but I've never heard ANYONE else ANYWHERE saying this.

SMU delivering the Dallas market is like saying Santa Clara University brings the Bay Area. Would ESPN write such a stupid contract? I'm skeptical at least.

---

It has been widely reported. See this article for example:
https://sports.yahoo.com/acc-expansion-on-life-support-with-presidents-delaying-vote-what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-020106388.html

"the negotiations with Cal and Stanford, a desperate pair after the demise of the Pac-12, have centered on them only receiving a partial share of the league's TV distribution, potentially in the 60-70% range.

SMU offers even more of a discount. With a serious desire to join a power league and a group of mega boosters at the ready, the Mustangs are offering to forego at least five and as many as seven years of conference distribution.

These two items are not insignificant. For many within the league, the driving force is the financial piece. A clause in the ACC's contract with ESPN requires the network to pay the league an equal share for each new conference member.

If those new members do not take a full share, the remaining shares can be distributed to current league members, both offsetting travel costs and maybe even increasing annual revenue%85.."

---

SMU is ready give up 5-7 years of revenue? Isn't that like $200M?

They are better off staying where they are and using that $200M on NIL.

---

No, they would be giving up the $7 million a year from the AAC, though assuming boosters were willing to chip that in to the AD, that is $7 million more they can spend on NIL if they stay.

Here is another article that explains the contract with ESPN.
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/notre-dame-pushing-acc-to-add-stanford-cal-smu-join-without-revenue
" ESPN will provide the ACC pro-rata for any expansion additions, meaning it would pay the ACC $33-35 million for each new member. It's the ACC's decision how the revenue not provided to Stanford, Cal and SMU would be distributed."

---

The contract with the ACC is only worth $7M per year to Cal?

Edit:
No, I had it right. From the article:

"The ACC's revenue from TV rights, College Football Playoff, bowl games, NCAA Tournament units and other sources is at least $42 million. So, the Mustangs, even at a reduced amount, would be bypassing potentially $150 million over a five-year span."

SMU would be giving up $150M over 5 years and $200M over 7 years. Wow!

---

How is that share + a portion of Cal's and Stanford not enough to solve the value add issue? I thought ESPN was also going to kick in additional dollars for travel for the east cost schools.

---

Dunno but $30M a year is a lot of NIL money. Or is it?

---

Sorry - what does NIL have to do with this?

---

If I am SMU I take that $200M they are willing to spend to get into a P5 conference and spend it all on NIL.

With their results on the field a P5 conference will come to them.

Unless $30M per year on NIL doesn't even move the needle these days%85

---

SMU's attempt to buy their way into the ACC is smart, given that they have the donor money to do it.

They don't have a Big Ten or SEC level of media value.

The Big 12 will never add them. They are 30 miles from TCU and 90 miles from Baylor.

---

Why does Baylor have more value than SMU?

How far is Cal from Stanford?

---

berserkeley said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

TexasAgInTheBay said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ncbears said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

Where is your market data that shows the Pac market has more value? Sure, teh BA has a larger population but the B12 fans are more passionate. What is the upside when pac games are on at midnight PT and 99% of the country is in bed?

Obviously, the left coast market does not have that value since no one offered to pay us $50m. After we turned down $30, Apple came in with what, $23m?

Market value is what somebody is willing to pay. (Haas Intro class)

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

---

I already receive espn's ACCNetwork on my SoCal Cox cable (which comes with teh Sports package to get Pac12 net). And I'm sure espn quickly figured out that they already have thousands of CA subscribers....

---

If you have a local team then you can negotiate up to be on the basic tier rather than the sports tier and make more money. I think that would be the point of expanding.

---

What I read was that it was an automatic boost in payouts by ESPN - it was not based on "new" subscribers - it would be based on the number of existing (and new) subscribers to ESPN (on basic tier) in California and Texas. I don't know what the rate is. ESPN - reportedly - does not pay the ACC any amount based on the number of people in California who get ESPN. But, again, I don't know the contract terms - this could be false information. But, given where we are, it doesn't really matter, does it?

---

Yeah, My understanding is the ACC's contract with ESPN allows for an automatic pro-rata increase in the payout for every school they add much like the B-12 used to add the 4 corners schools.

The benefits of the ACC network getting automatic increases for cable carriage in DFW and Northern California, the benefits of the ACC and ESPN having access to the 4th window are separate, but not necessarily cumulative. ESPN has the additional benefit of mitigating its legal exposure and keeping the second largest metro on the West Coast from going to Fox. I am sure that ESPN also noticed Notre Dame's enthusiasm for the deal and would like to keep Notre Dame away from Fox and the B1G. Clearly ESPN's enthusiasm for this deal shows that Cal and Stanford are worth MORE than full ACC share to them. However, the ACC is going to keep a big cut because we need a conference after ours got blown up.

---

You are the only one I've ever seen making this claim.

Not necessarily saying I don't believe you, but I've never heard ANYONE else ANYWHERE saying this.

SMU delivering the Dallas market is like saying Santa Clara University brings the Bay Area. Would ESPN write such a stupid contract? I'm skeptical at least.

---

It has been widely reported. See this article for example:
https://sports.yahoo.com/acc-expansion-on-life-support-with-presidents-delaying-vote-what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-020106388.html

"the negotiations with Cal and Stanford, a desperate pair after the demise of the Pac-12, have centered on them only receiving a partial share of the league's TV distribution, potentially in the 60-70% range.

SMU offers even more of a discount. With a serious desire to join a power league and a group of mega boosters at the ready, the Mustangs are offering to forego at least five and as many as seven years of conference distribution.

These two items are not insignificant. For many within the league, the driving force is the financial piece. A clause in the ACC's contract with ESPN requires the network to pay the league an equal share for each new conference member.

If those new members do not take a full share, the remaining shares can be distributed to current league members, both offsetting travel costs and maybe even increasing annual revenue….."

---

SMU is ready give up 5-7 years of revenue? Isn't that like $200M?

They are better off staying where they are and using that $200M on NIL.

---

No, they would be giving up the $7 million a year from the AAC, though assuming boosters were willing to chip that in to the AD, that is $7 million more they can spend on NIL if they stay.

Here is another article that explains the contract with ESPN.
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/notre-dame-pushing-acc-to-add-stanford-cal-smu-join-without-revenue
" ESPN will provide the ACC pro-rata for any expansion additions, meaning it would pay the ACC $33-35 million for each new member. It's the ACC's decision how the revenue not provided to Stanford, Cal and SMU would be distributed."

---

The contract with the ACC is only worth $7M per year to Cal?

Edit:
No, I had it right. From the article:

"The ACC's revenue from TV rights, College Football Playoff, bowl games, NCAA Tournament units and other sources is at least $42 million. So, the Mustangs, even at a reduced amount, would be bypassing potentially $150 million over a five-year span."

SMU would be giving up $150M over 5 years and $200M over 7 years. Wow!

---

That is the additional money the ACC would get from ESPN if SMU joins. SMU is willing to forego any share of that and let the current ACC members keep that money for 5-7 years to convince them to let them in. If SMU stays in the AAC and does not join the ACC, ESPN does not pay the ACC that money and certainly does not pay SMU that money, so SMU could not use that money for NIL (which schools cannot do anyway).

---

Read again from the article:

"So, the Mustangs would be bypassing potentially $150 million over a five-year span."

So how are they planning on funding their football team if they join the ACC and get no revenue share? With donations! The article talks about deep pocketed donors.

They should use that money on NIL instead. Maybe it won't be $200M in donations but whatever it is if they put it toward NIL they would likely be better off than with no revenue in the ACC.

As for what is allowed… we are talking about football in Texas. Let's be real.

---

.

SMU is giving up the momey they make from the AAC ($7M per year) to play in the ACC for free. SMU is out only the $7M per year from the AAC. SMU. The ACC will never let SMU in and pay them $30M per year. So, if SMU decides to not join the ACC, they will make what the AAC pays. $7M. By joing the AAC, they have $7M fewer dollars than they would have had by staying in the AAC. Money that could have gone to NIL.

They are not out the $30M they never had and will never have no matter what choice they make.

---

Let's call it $7M per year for sake of argument then. Donors would need to pony up $7M per year to make SMU whole if they joined the ACC. I would argue the amount is larger than $7M because there is no way they could compete against schools earning $20-30M on only $7M but for sake of argument let us say they were willing to try.

I would argue they would be STILL be better off staying put and using that extra $7M per year for NIL and then waiting for the next conference realignment.

Maybe not if you think that Baylor and TCU would make it in ahead of them, but that is true whether SMU moved to the ACC or not because the ACC is not long for the world. That is probably their calculus actually, which is that there won't even be an ACC in 5-7 years so the opportunity cost is not much but it maybe gets them some games against Clemson and FSU.

berserkeley said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

TexasAgInTheBay said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ncbears said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Hearing ACC meeting was very short. No change. No vote. Looking like Calford to ACC is dying on the vine. Holding pattern for B12. No Calford to ACC means ESPN needs more after dark inventory.

— MHver3 (@MHver3) August 12, 2023

not great depending if you believe this poster

---

At least there is an admission from ESPN that they need late night content. They should up our value.

---

This is important.
ESPN screwed up. All they had to do is match the B-12 contract for the PAC-10.

Now Fox will have B1G playing the LA, Schools, Oregon and UW, maybe Cal and Stanford, maybe the whole PAC-8.

ESPN should sweeten the deal for Cal and Stanford to the ACC.

If that fails, ESPN should back a scheduling alliance between the PAC-4 and the ACC for the next two seasons.

If we end up needing to rebuild the PAC-8 (or more) we should focus on owning the "after dark" slots on ESPN. SDSU, UNLV, SMU and Hawaii actually become strategic for hosting night games while Cal, Stanford, WSU and OSU host late afternoon games.

---

No. Espn did offer to nearly match of the B12 contract of $31.4m. Per Wilner, last fall espn offered the the P10 $30m per. That was their opening bid, and I assume all was subject to negotiation. Instead, 3 of the Pac Presidents told them to pound sand; we want $50m per school, or get outta here. That was on us.

(And for the conspiracy theorists, it's possible Oregon and Washington purposely tanked those negotiations by asking for the moon since they were heavily involved in discussion with the BiG.)

---

When Pac 10 countered at 50 million, what was ESPN's counteroffer that would reinforce your assumption that this was all subject to negotiation?

---

Willner didn't say, but if I was espn, I'd walk at that point. 'Sorry, we have our own financial issues, and are never gonna be in that ballpark. If you have a reasonsble counter, we're open to it, but if your number even starts with a 4, why waste both of our times? '

---

50 is a reasonable counter, considering Big10 got 65. They could counter at 35, considering markets have more value than big12 who they gave 32.

---

Where is your market data that shows the Pac market has more value? Sure, teh BA has a larger population but the B12 fans are more passionate. What is the upside when pac games are on at midnight PT and 99% of the country is in bed?

Obviously, the left coast market does not have that value since no one offered to pay us $50m. After we turned down $30, Apple came in with what, $23m?

Market value is what somebody is willing to pay. (Haas Intro class)

---

True BUT supposedly ACC gets paid based on number of subscribers in a member school's state. So adding California (and Texas with SMU) would be millions of viewers - whether any watch is not part of the equation. I dont know what exactly the ESPN/ACC contract says - but that is what I read on the unreliable internets.

---

I already receive espn's ACCNetwork on my SoCal Cox cable (which comes with teh Sports package to get Pac12 net). And I'm sure espn quickly figured out that they already have thousands of CA subscribers....

---

If you have a local team then you can negotiate up to be on the basic tier rather than the sports tier and make more money. I think that would be the point of expanding.

---

What I read was that it was an automatic boost in payouts by ESPN - it was not based on "new" subscribers - it would be based on the number of existing (and new) subscribers to ESPN (on basic tier) in California and Texas. I don't know what the rate is. ESPN - reportedly - does not pay the ACC any amount based on the number of people in California who get ESPN. But, again, I don't know the contract terms - this could be false information. But, given where we are, it doesn't really matter, does it?

---

Yeah, My understanding is the ACC's contract with ESPN allows for an automatic pro-rata increase in the payout for every school they add much like the B-12 used to add the 4 corners schools.

The benefits of the ACC network getting automatic increases for cable carriage in DFW and Northern California, the benefits of the ACC and ESPN having access to the 4th window are separate, but not necessarily cumulative. ESPN has the additional benefit of mitigating its legal exposure and keeping the second largest metro on the West Coast from going to Fox. I am sure that ESPN also noticed Notre Dame's enthusiasm for the deal and would like to keep Notre Dame away from Fox and the B1G. Clearly ESPN's enthusiasm for this deal shows that Cal and Stanford are worth MORE than full ACC share to them. However, the ACC is going to keep a big cut because we need a conference after ours got blown up.

---

You are the only one I've ever seen making this claim.

Not necessarily saying I don't believe you, but I've never heard ANYONE else ANYWHERE saying this.

SMU delivering the Dallas market is like saying Santa Clara University brings the Bay Area. Would ESPN write such a stupid contract? I'm skeptical at least.

---

It has been widely reported. See this article for example:
https://sports.yahoo.com/acc-expansion-on-life-support-with-presidents-delaying-vote-what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-020106388.html

"the negotiations with Cal and Stanford, a desperate pair after the demise of the Pac-12, have centered on them only receiving a partial share of the league's TV distribution, potentially in the 60-70% range.

SMU offers even more of a discount. With a serious desire to join a power league and a group of mega boosters at the ready, the Mustangs are offering to forego at least five and as many as seven years of conference distribution.

These two items are not insignificant. For many within the league, the driving force is the financial piece. A clause in the ACC's contract with ESPN requires the network to pay the league an equal share for each new conference member.

If those new members do not take a full share, the remaining shares can be distributed to current league members, both offsetting travel costs and maybe even increasing annual revenue….."

---

SMU is ready give up 5-7 years of revenue? Isn't that like $200M?

They are better off staying where they are and using that $200M on NIL.

---

No, they would be giving up the $7 million a year from the AAC, though assuming boosters were willing to chip that in to the AD, that is $7 million more they can spend on NIL if they stay.

Here is another article that explains the contract with ESPN.
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/notre-dame-pushing-acc-to-add-stanford-cal-smu-join-without-revenue
" ESPN will provide the ACC pro-rata for any expansion additions, meaning it would pay the ACC $33-35 million for each new member. It's the ACC's decision how the revenue not provided to Stanford, Cal and SMU would be distributed."

---

The contract with the ACC is only worth $7M per year to Cal?

Edit:
No, I had it right. From the article:

"The ACC's revenue from TV rights, College Football Playoff, bowl games, NCAA Tournament units and other sources is at least $42 million. So, the Mustangs, even at a reduced amount, would be bypassing potentially $150 million over a five-year span."

SMU would be giving up $150M over 5 years and $200M over 7 years. Wow!

---

That is the additional money the ACC would get from ESPN if SMU joins. SMU is willing to forego any share of that and let the current ACC members keep that money for 5-7 years to convince them to let them in. If SMU stays in the AAC and does not join the ACC, ESPN does not pay the ACC that money and certainly does not pay SMU that money, so SMU could not use that money for NIL (which schools cannot do anyway).

---

Read again from the article:

"So, the Mustangs would be bypassing potentially $150 million over a five-year span."

So how are they planning on funding their football team if they join the ACC and get no revenue share? With donations! The article talks about deep pocketed donors.

They should use that money on NIL instead. Maybe it won't be $200M in donations but whatever it is if they put it toward NIL they would likely be better off than with no revenue in the ACC.

As for what is allowed… we are talking about football in Texas. Let's be real.

---

.

SMU is giving up the momey they make from the AAC ($7M per year) to play in the ACC for free. SMU is out only the $7M per year from the AAC. SMU. The ACC will never let SMU in and pay them $30M per year. So, if SMU decides to not join the ACC, they will make what the AAC pays. $7M. By joing the AAC, they have $7M fewer dollars than they would have had by staying in the AAC. Money that could have gone to NIL.

They are not out the $30M they never had and will never have no matter what choice they make.

---

Moreover, they would presumably be paid some amount after the 5 years are up. If Cal and Stanford are looking at receiving $20 million of the $30 million ESPN pays, say it is that. 5 years of zero and 7 years of $20 million until 2036, then full share. Even in the interim they would make $140 million vs. $84 million in the AAC.

SMU already has guarantees over 200m for 5 years if they get into the ACC.