The latest on Conference Realignment and Cal - Saturday the 19th

200,776 Views | 1043 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by annarborbear
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sosheezy said:

ColoradoBear said:

Oski87 said:

ColoradoBear said:

Oski87 said:

If the ESPN reported increased distribution is true - which would mean that the ACC network would be able to take elevated carriage fees in Texas and California, which at this point still helps ESPN quite a bit - I would expect that the total revenue is 120 million, and if Cal and Furd take 25 million, for example, then there is 70 million to go to the other 14 members. That is 5 million each - not nothing. More than pays for travel, etc.

Cal and Furd will split air time for Olympic sports. Maybe we buy a jet together. Blue on one side, Red on the other. Football travel will be separate charters. The bigger issue is sending the gear truck all over the country. Probably have to have an east coast headquarters for that, shared by the two teams. Anyway, hopefully there is a path.


If Cal and Stanford could trigger a $120 Millon revenue increase, the two teams wouldn't be agreeing to a reduced share and would have $$$ invites from other conferences too.

My guess would be a $40-60 million revenue increase. I'm not sure what the current ACC deals pays per schools because there are typically yearly inflation escalators. The original contract was for $20 million per school, but that was before the ACCN. There are also conflicting reports on whether the extra ACCN revenue goes to ESPN with no oigation to pass it on to the ACC. Renegotiating all this could be another sticking point in the deal. And SMU is not a p5 school, so they might not trigger the same pro rated TV share, but would gain ACCN sub fees in Dallas.
My understanding of the revenue increase is the ACC contract with ESPN gives a full share to each new member. And so with SMU - this is about 120 million for the three of them - 40 million each. Cal and Furd take 60 - 70% and move up over time so somewhere around 25 - 30 million.


ESPN is absolutely not paying the ACC $40 million per school. That's the total revenue distribution for the conference which includes NCAA tournament money, playoff money, and bowl money.


The media deal is about $30-31M from what I could see (or was in 2022). My basic math was dividing $444M in TV revenue by 14.5 (giving ND a partial share). Apparently should be an uptick in 2023 due to full year of the Comcast carriage deal for ACCNetwork hitting. https://richmond.com/sports/college/teel-acc-reports-record-revenue-and-distributions-for-2021-22/article_779a5232-f66a-11ed-93b3-0f141c04f72d.html


That's a little better than I expected - in FY2019 (year before the ACCN started), they received $288 million for media (~$20 million/school).

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/29441623/pac-12-revenue-7-acc-slightly-2018-19-fiscal-year

If that 20 million increased at 5% per year, that would have been $24.3 million in 2022, so can the excess attributed to the ACCN sub fees?

$31 Millon for 2021-22 with a 5% yearly escalator until 2036 would be a better deal than the Big 12 will be getting. That's because the big 12 deal averages $30.7 million, but the starting year will be below that. They would get $26.5 million in 2024 if there's a 5% annual raise. And the ACC w/o the potential expansion would be 35.9 million if that 31 million for 2021-22 grows 5% for 3 years. And could be more for certain teams if there is a performance based cut.

If a 70% cut for Cal and Furd is possible, plus 10 million Calimony, Cal could be competitive, though non rev travel could eat up a lot if some solution to that isn't found (sport cuts + regional competitions).
BigDaddy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

It has been known that Notre Dame has been at the forefront of trying to get the ACC to let both of those schools in, despite the Fighting Irish not being a member of the conference in football. Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick was on the Dan Patrick Show today and once again voiced similar frustrations as he previously had about the possibility of Cal and Stanford not having a place to go in the current conference realignment landscape:

Notre Dame AD on Cal and Stanford: "There is still consideration from the ACC as a home for those schools
The ACC is still considering expanding and adding Cal and Stanford

"You can't have two of the great academic institutions in the world not have a place to play. We're working on (a solution). There is still consideration of the ACC as a home for those schools."
Swarbrick also made broader comments on the state of college athletics and what is happening right now:
"A complete disaster" what's happened in college athletics. "Everybody in the industry has to take responsibility here I'm not excluding myself from that. I think the decision-making lost its way in terms on the focus of the student athlete & what's primarily best for them."


https://www.si.com/college/georgiatech/football/notre-dame-ad-on-cal-and-stanford-there-is-still-consideration-from-the-acc-as-a-home-for-those-schools
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
30%. Ugh.

Might be workable if non-rev sports are kept regional, but likely big sports cuts needed too.

Can Cal/Furd/SMU qualify for the performance based TV money pool? That would help too.

If the GOR is until 2036, Cal/Furd at least need some outs for non football sports to be local if that isn't done to start with. That's really a waste of $$$.

Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Geographical incentive for ACC expansion:



SoftwareBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

Geographical incentive for ACC expansion:


I had some heavy nostalgia for the Pac-10 early this morning. What a beautiful conference. A pair of schools for each major region in the west. Imagine in 2010-2011 if we succeeded in adding Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, perhaps we'd still be in the mix for the top conference.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SoftwareBear said:

Cal88 said:

Geographical incentive for ACC expansion:


I had some heavy nostalgia for the Pac-10 early this morning. What a beautiful conference. A pair of schools for each major region in the west.

The conferences used to be geographically beautiful. Now they are monstrosities. Not much we can do about it.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No question, that was the best, perfect balance, round robin, traditions, Rose Bowl...
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear said:

30%. Ugh.

Might be workable if non-rev sports are kept regional, but likely big sports cuts needed too.

Can Cal/Furd/SMU qualify for the performance based TV money pool? That would help too.

If the GOR is until 2036, Cal/Furd at least need some outs for non football sports to be local if that isn't done to start with. That's really a waste of $$$.
Most if not all of the sports that are really individual sports (e.g. golf, tennis, swimming/diving) can be played almost exclusively in the west, with cross-country travel only for conference tournaments or conference championships.

The bulk of the cross-country travel would be in the team sports in which Cal and Stanford would compete against ACC opponents on a home-and-away basis -- e.g. football, basketball, volleyball -- but those are fewer than half of the sports each school currently has.
HKBear97!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigDaddy said:


$8 to 10 million each? Wow, really not worth much, are we?

Wilner ran an article where he worked with an "expert in sports media valuation" that ran scenarios of joining with various Mountain West schools that got to around $10 million per school, without the cross-country travel involved. If it's truly $8 to 10 million, does the ACC make sense?

Here's the article from Wilner - https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/story/2023-08-14/pac-12-hotline-what-might-a-super-mountain-west-or-reconfigured-pac-12-both-with-sdsu-be-worth
westcoast101
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I get that we're desperate, and this is probably the best option we had left, but I do wonder how the finances work. I mean, Wilcox makes $5 million/year (completely undeserved).
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HKBear97! said:

BigDaddy said:


$8 to 10 million each? Wow, really not worth much, are we?

Wilner ran an article where he worked with an "expert in sports media valuation" that ran scenarios of joining with various Mountain West schools that got to around $10 million per school, without the cross-country travel involved. If it's truly $8 to 10 million, does the ACC make sense?

Here's the article from Wilner - https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/story/2023-08-14/pac-12-hotline-what-might-a-super-mountain-west-or-reconfigured-pac-12-both-with-sdsu-be-worth


ESPN would be paying $72 million. Or $24 Millon per team. It's unclear if they have to do that contractually.

The ACC teams are just skimming off the top because they can.

On top of the media money, there will be playoff money and NCAA hoops shares. And the media share will ramp up to a full share, which would not be realized in the MWC/AAC merger deals.
wraptor347
How long do you want to ignore this user?
8-10 would be the starting point. It would gradually increase until reaching a full share which I assume would be in the 25-30 range. I don't see a way the MW comes anywhere close to that.

It also sounds like there's discussion of models that are football+basketball only, which mitigates a huge amount of the travel costs/concerns.
Oski87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Those numbers are for tier 1 rights. Not sure if tier 2 or 3 rights come into play but I expect they would. Basically that is giving Cal and Furd two major market games per year.

If there is no expansion on Tier 2 or 3 rights, which no one is discussion, I think that is a bit shady. The expansion of the ACC network revenue in Ca and Texas would be huge.
juarezbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oski87 said:

Those numbers are for tier 1 rights. Not sure if tier 2 or 3 rights come into play but I expect they would. Basically that is giving Cal and Furd two major market games per year.

If there is no expansion on Tier 2 or 3 rights, which no one is discussion, I think that is a bit shady. The expansion of the ACC network revenue in Ca and Texas would be huge.
Couldn't Apple come in for Tier 2 or Tier 3 rights?
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oski87 said:

Those numbers are for tier 1 rights. Not sure if tier 2 or 3 rights come into play but I expect they would. Basically that is giving Cal and Furd two major market games per year.

If there is no expansion on Tier 2 or 3 rights, which no one is discussion, I think that is a bit shady. The expansion of the ACC network revenue in Ca and Texas would be huge.


It's strange that they mention tier 1 - I believe that ESPN owns all rights for the ACC and I can't see them relinquishing those rights due to tier 3 being on ACCN/ESPN+.

In terms of the ACCN, there are 5-6 million TV households in the Bay Area + Dallas, maybe 50% would subscribe to basic tv package that includes ACCN/ESPN... at a rate of $1.50/mo that's 45-54 million/yr in revenue extra for ESPN. There will also be games on ESPN+, so there is the potential this drives more ESPN+ subscription sales.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If Calford really is gone to ACC, congrats to Apple for low-baling the guarantee and losing all ability to break into college football for the foreseeable future.
juarezbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

If Calford really is gone to ACC, congrats to Apple for low-baling the guarantee and losing all ability to break into college football for the foreseeable future.
I agree. There are so many villains in the demise of the Pac including Larry Scott, Kliavkoff, USC, the ASU Prez who lobbied to turn down $30M from ESPN, and incredible mismanagement from almost all of the presidents and ADs for everybody other than SC who couldn't see the forest for the trees (pardon the pun)...but mainly, this is on Fox and ESPN who are determined to carve the country into two mega conferences to split between them and destroyed countless athletic careers in the process. **** all of them. They should rot in hell....and WILL rot in hell when streaming destroys their buggy whip economic models in a few years just as the streamers have done to the TV and Film businesses. Big tech will eat them for appetizers. I can only hope that once the streamers finally kill off the streamers, there will be a measure of democratization of the business that will allow everybody a shot. Just imagine if Men's Basketball was run the same way rather than 64 teams having a shot. You wouldn't have Gonzaga, St John's, Georgetown, or Villanova able to compete. I'm sick to my stomach that a sport that I love so much and look forward to year-round has been destroyed in a heartbeat.
sosheezy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If these low starting figures are now out in the wild, do we think there is any chance the Big Ten comes back around to try to beat the $$?

That said, I get there are still reasons why the ACC might be more appealing (less arsehole schools that screwed us, better on field chance for football success, the money gap is less and will get closed over time with conference peers).
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hmm, 30% seems closer to zero than 100!
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear said:

HKBear97! said:

BigDaddy said:


$8 to 10 million each? Wow, really not worth much, are we?

Wilner ran an article where he worked with an "expert in sports media valuation" that ran scenarios of joining with various Mountain West schools that got to around $10 million per school, without the cross-country travel involved. If it's truly $8 to 10 million, does the ACC make sense?

Here's the article from Wilner - https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/story/2023-08-14/pac-12-hotline-what-might-a-super-mountain-west-or-reconfigured-pac-12-both-with-sdsu-be-worth


ESPN would be paying $72 million. Or $24 Millon per team. It's unclear if they have to do that contractually.

The ACC teams are just skimming off the top because they can.

On top of the media money, there will be playoff money and NCAA hoops shares. And the media share will ramp up to a full share, which would not be realized in the MWC/AAC merger deals.


The 24 million ... I think our market value is 8 million and adding our school is just a backhanded way of getting Clemson and FSU more money to get closer to their actual market value.

I'm not sure how much the escalation clause is worth of ACC doesn't stay together.... But at least we still exist past this year!!!

At 8 mm, still don't understand why B1G doesn't swoop in here.
JeepCSC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Heel fan, been following the thread the last week trying to make sense of all this just like everyone else. Cautiously optimistic today. This is a strange ride whatever else, but I love Cali so welcome if this is happening.

Also I was trying to figure out the $24m number from that tweet. The ACC received around $440m in tv rights last year, so around $31m per school (give or take a Notre Dame; the $39m number is tv rights + NCAA credit + bowl payout). So if $24 m was the base ESPN contract, that would mean $7m came from the ACCN. If only the $24 million was up for finagling, that would likely mean you'd get the $8-10m of that PLUS the full ACCN portion (presumably California and Texas would bump that a couple million). Would be interested to see what the final terms were.
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear said:

Oski87 said:

Those numbers are for tier 1 rights. Not sure if tier 2 or 3 rights come into play but I expect they would. Basically that is giving Cal and Furd two major market games per year.

If there is no expansion on Tier 2 or 3 rights, which no one is discussion, I think that is a bit shady. The expansion of the ACC network revenue in Ca and Texas would be huge.

It's strange that they mention tier 1 - I believe that ESPN owns all rights for the ACC and I can't see them relinquishing those rights due to tier 3 being on ACCN/ESPN+.

In terms of the ACCN, there are 5-6 million TV households in the Bay Area + Dallas, maybe 50% would subscribe to basic tv package that includes ACCN/ESPN... at a rate of $1.50/mo that's 45-54 million/yr in revenue extra for ESPN. There will also be games on ESPN+, so there is the potential this drives more ESPN+ subscription sales.
According to this article, full ACC members received an average distribution from the conference of $39.4 million last year.

If the 2024-25 distribution was the same amount, and if Cal and Stanford would be starting at 30% of the first $24 million plus a full share of the rest, that would be $8 million plus $15.4 million, for $23.4 million in the first year.

Or, if the first year share is 30% of an entire full share, that would be about $11.8 million.
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearSD said:

ColoradoBear said:

Oski87 said:

Those numbers are for tier 1 rights. Not sure if tier 2 or 3 rights come into play but I expect they would. Basically that is giving Cal and Furd two major market games per year.

If there is no expansion on Tier 2 or 3 rights, which no one is discussion, I think that is a bit shady. The expansion of the ACC network revenue in Ca and Texas would be huge.

It's strange that they mention tier 1 - I believe that ESPN owns all rights for the ACC and I can't see them relinquishing those rights due to tier 3 being on ACCN/ESPN+.

In terms of the ACCN, there are 5-6 million TV households in the Bay Area + Dallas, maybe 50% would subscribe to basic tv package that includes ACCN/ESPN... at a rate of $1.50/mo that's 45-54 million/yr in revenue extra for ESPN. There will also be games on ESPN+, so there is the potential this drives more ESPN+ subscription sales.
According to this article, full ACC members received an average distribution from the conference of $39.4 million last year.

If the 2024-25 distribution was the same amount, and if Cal and Stanford would be starting at 30% of the first $24 million plus a full share of the rest, that would be $8 million plus $15.4 million, for $23.4 million in the first year.

Or, if the first year share is 30% of an entire full share, that would be about $11.8 million.


Additionally, the 12 team playoff will provide more revenue than the 4 team playoff. But I haven't seen how much, or how the performance incentives are going to be handled - ie multiple teams as at large, winning games, what happens the the p12 share, and how much G5 conferences get vs P5 for an invite, and without invites.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HKBear97! said:

BigDaddy said:


$8 to 10 million each? Wow, really not worth much, are we?

Wilner ran an article where he worked with an "expert in sports media valuation" that ran scenarios of joining with various Mountain West schools that got to around $10 million per school, without the cross-country travel involved. If it's truly $8 to 10 million, does the ACC make sense?

Here's the article from Wilner - https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/story/2023-08-14/pac-12-hotline-what-might-a-super-mountain-west-or-reconfigured-pac-12-both-with-sdsu-be-worth


Well it would escalate to full share "by the end of the contract" (2036).

Hard to imagine the B1G wouldn't offer at least $10 million.
DoubtfulBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

HKBear97! said:

BigDaddy said:


$8 to 10 million each? Wow, really not worth much, are we?

Wilner ran an article where he worked with an "expert in sports media valuation" that ran scenarios of joining with various Mountain West schools that got to around $10 million per school, without the cross-country travel involved. If it's truly $8 to 10 million, does the ACC make sense?

Here's the article from Wilner - https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/story/2023-08-14/pac-12-hotline-what-might-a-super-mountain-west-or-reconfigured-pac-12-both-with-sdsu-be-worth


Well it would escalate to full share "by the end of the contract" (2036).

Hard to imagine the B1G wouldn't offer at least $10 million.
Main reason Fox/B1G don't want to take us is because we will be a full share member in the next media cycle. It would only work if we were willing to be partial share members for the next decade or longer.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DoubtfulBear said:

calumnus said:

HKBear97! said:

BigDaddy said:


$8 to 10 million each? Wow, really not worth much, are we?

Wilner ran an article where he worked with an "expert in sports media valuation" that ran scenarios of joining with various Mountain West schools that got to around $10 million per school, without the cross-country travel involved. If it's truly $8 to 10 million, does the ACC make sense?

Here's the article from Wilner - https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/story/2023-08-14/pac-12-hotline-what-might-a-super-mountain-west-or-reconfigured-pac-12-both-with-sdsu-be-worth


Well it would escalate to full share "by the end of the contract" (2036).

Hard to imagine the B1G wouldn't offer at least $10 million.
Main reason Fox/B1G don't want to take us is because we will be a full share member in the next media cycle. It would only work if we were willing to be partial share members for the next decade or longer.


That is essentially what we are agreeing to with the ACC. These things are negotiable. However, I could see how agreeing to take a lower share in this cycle AND the next cycle could be the slippery slope to a conference of haves and have nots with schools like Iowa getting a lesser share in the next cycle too.
HateRed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why don't we worry about all this crap once something actually happens.
Sactowndog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
juarezbear said:

wifeisafurd said:

If Calford really is gone to ACC, congrats to Apple for low-baling the guarantee and losing all ability to break into college football for the foreseeable future.
I agree. There are so many villains in the demise of the Pac including Larry Scott, Kliavkoff, USC, the ASU Prez who lobbied to turn down $30M from ESPN, and incredible mismanagement from almost all of the presidents and ADs for everybody other than SC who couldn't see the forest for the trees (pardon the pun)...but mainly, this is on Fox and ESPN who are determined to carve the country into two mega conferences to split between them and destroyed countless athletic careers in the process. **** all of them. They should rot in hell....and WILL rot in hell when streaming destroys their buggy whip economic models in a few years just as the streamers have done to the TV and Film businesses. Big tech will eat them for appetizers. I can only hope that once the streamers finally kill off the streamers, there will be a measure of democratization of the business that will allow everybody a shot. Just imagine if Men's Basketball was run the same way rather than 64 teams having a shot. You wouldn't have Gonzaga, St John's, Georgetown, or Villanova able to compete. I'm sick to my stomach that a sport that I love so much and look forward to year-round has been destroyed in a heartbeat.


Just for the record it was far more likely the Stanford Pres than the ASU Pres who led turning down the 30M

The Stanford Pres was on the Executive Committee and the ASU President was not.

The Stanford President had ties to the UC Regents which was part of the 50M plan

Roger Noll at Stanford was considered an expert on sports and the media. ASU has no such expert

Bob Thompson at Fox Sports liked a tweet detailing these facts and stating it was almost certainly Stanford.



Cabin14
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Hmm, 30% seems closer to zero than 100!
It does. And if you're not going to make a concerted, institutional effort to improve on-field performance in the revenue sports, this does not make much sense at all.

And if this ties us to the ACC through 2036, it's idiotic.
Shocky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Quote:

the monster gameplan for the cal athletic department:

there's gonna be significantly less revenues for the athletic department in the forseeable future & that's why knowlton's decision in fiscal year 2022 to borrow $11,000,000 (which he directed his staff to try to keep secret which necessitated multiple public records requests by me) wuz malpractice...apologists will argue that borrowing money from the central campus is a standard operating mechanism, these are not ordinary times & the "good ol' days" of collegiate athletics (for schools not already in the sec or big 10) are firmly in the rearview mirror

the financial reality for the cal athletic department is significantly less revenues in the future primarily from reduced acc media rights revenues & non football specific donations to the athletic department due to the growth of nil fundraising & the aging berkeley donor community which is not gaining any traction (building a pipeline) with younger future megadonors...the fake "light a hole in ur wallet" berkeley fundraising numbers are not dollars that are actually collected, got it?

so whether it be the con artist & his evil as **** confidante jennifer simon-o'neil (both of them got their days numbered in berkeley) continuing their bureaucratic wayward lack of vision or new leadership such as andrew mcgraw as the next (perhaps interim until adela de la torre hopefully comes on board in july of 2024) athletic director, cal will no longer be able to field 30+ teams (many of them underperforming for years) & will need to cut teams/reduce expenses

the next athletic director will need to quickly work within title ix constraints in revamping the currently bloated athletic department bureaucracy with the following teams in a new much more streamlined operation that focuses resources on football thereby facilitating the competition for championships in all remaining sports that will be competing in the west coast conference:

1. football
2. men's basketball
3. men's swimming & diving
4. men's water polo
5. men's golf
6. men's tennis
7. women's basketball
8. softball
9. women's soccer
10. women's swimming & diving
11. women's water polo
12. women's volleyball
13. women's golf
14. women's tennis
15. women's rowing
16. women's gymnastics

notes: baseball & both track and field/cross country programs would be terminated with current schollys honored thru graduation & the valuable land upon which evans field & edwards stadium r situated would be repurposed...men's soccer, women's lacrosse & women's field hockey would be shuttered...women's beach volleyball players would be offered roster spots with the failing women's volleyball program thru graduation...men's rugby, men's rowing & men's gymnastics would become club sports, fully expect jack clark to go nuclear on this necessary decision in his predictable myopic rage to defend his turf

a new dawn in berkeley with financial accountability#
monster gameplan:

the latest version of the donor mandated (in exchange for direct football funding) cost cutting of the knowlton/lowry financially undisciplined debt riddled spending is to the reduce the number of sport teams in berkeley from 28 to 22 & not the 16 monster endorsed number of teams as outlined above...furthermore, despite 53 counters (which is the key metric for title ix compliance) for rugby & 78 counters for men's rowing they would not become club sports at this time due to internal politics/pushback

the remaining 22 teams would send 4 teams (men's & women's swimming/diving & water polo) to the mountain pacific sports federation...of the other 18 teams football would charter flights for the 4-5 acc road games every season & the other 17 programs would compete in the acc & co charter flights with stanford for east coat travel

the wcc will likely not be a home for the non rev teams at this time but fully expect this still to happen as ncca conference rules are adjusted to the new financial realities for schools outside of the p2 (sec & big 10)

got it?

https://instagr.am/p/CEdiU-3AzZk


acc update: the reality is that if cal is fortunate enough to receive an acc invitation (the other alternative is the end of football as we know it) it's gonna take a major financial hit, the other reports that calford wuz gonna receive near full shares wuz just wishful best scenario thinking

cal has minimal bargaining power in these negotiations & continued concessions have been necessary to get the flip vote(s)

that's why reducing expenses now needs to happen, knowlton's failure to take action is moving the department's finances into a deeper hole...that's why the last update here of 22 sports is not realistic, it needs to be trimmed to 16 as outlined in the 1st post here

and the plan to share charter planes with stanford wuz a dumb as **** plan for anybody who got access to a map, got it?...unlike the pac 12 the acc schools are generally speaking not closely situated to one another...miami is not a 20 minute bus ride away from tallahassee, jim

lastly it's also not financially feasible for cal's non revenue sports teams (other than the one's joining the mountain pacific sports federation) to travel to the east coast...at the end of the day only football and both men's & women's basketball programs should be joining the acc

knowlton & his confidante in crime jennifer simon-o'neil need to be terminated as quickly as possible, his continued financial irresponsibility makes him the wrong person to navigate the department thru the upcoming tumultuous times, the con artist's solution to this mess would be to just borrow more money...appoint andrew mcgraw as the interim athletic director & beth tafolla-voetsch in charge of women's sports until such time that frontrunner adela de la torre is announced as the next chancellor of berkeley in june of 2024

my 1st post in this thread continues to stand as the most accurate & likely outcome re: conference alignment courses of action...football and men's & women's basketball invitations to the acc, the majority of the other teams to the west coast conference & cal sport teams reduced from the current 28 to 16
LessMilesMoreTedford
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

If Calford really is gone to ACC, congrats to Apple for low-baling the guarantee and losing all ability to break into college football for the foreseeable future.
That's because Apple is a smart company not run by dinosaurs. They're not going to overpay for media rights in such an unstable environment like college athletics when there are much safer bets like the MLB, MLS and (what they're likely eyeing next) the NBA.

At some point Fox and ESPN are going to run out of money to bid for media rights (which is why the Pac-12 died) and that's when they can swoop in and grab premium rights at a bargain.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cabin14 said:

sycasey said:

Hmm, 30% seems closer to zero than 100!
It does. And if you're not going to make a concerted, institutional effort to improve on-field performance in the revenue sports, this does not make much sense at all.

And if this ties us to the ACC through 2036, it's idiotic.

Well, it will ramp up over time. And it says 30% of the Tier 1 rights. Unclear about the Tier 2/3. If those payouts are more like 100% it could look much better.
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LessMilesMoreTedford said:

wifeisafurd said:

If Calford really is gone to ACC, congrats to Apple for low-baling the guarantee and losing all ability to break into college football for the foreseeable future.
That's because Apple is a smart company not run by dinosaurs. They're not going to overpay for media rights in such an unstable environment like college athletics when there are much safer bets like the MLB, MLS and (what they're likely eyeing next) the NBA.


Very likely. The head of the company that owns TNT sneered recently, "We don't have to have the NBA," and since the NBA is looking for an increase in $$$ for their next TV deal, maybe TNT only makes a modest bid and Apple could get a big chunk of NBA rights.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.