JRL.02 said:

---

Something I've wondered is if Stanford and Cal may get a bunch of Friday night football games in the ACC. Or does espn just put them at 10:30ET on Saturday a bunch.

---

I think due to the travel for the ACC team, the later, with the occasional 7:30 ET Saturday game if we are lucky. I am hoping for our three East Coast trips and biannual Texas trip we get slotted into the later kickoffs in an ESPN effort to get West Coast eyeballs.

JRL.02 said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Something I've wondered is if Stanford and Cal may get a bunch of Friday night football games in the ACC. Or does espn just put them at 10:30ET on Saturday a bunch.

---

ESPN will have a large say in this

---

Colorado and Colorado State kicked off in that slot and was the 5th most-watched regular season game ever, so that changes things.

Think you'll see a lot of games from the old Pac-12 schools (the 4 that went to B12 and Calford) in the Friday night and Saturday night time slots.

Yea and I also am interested to see what ESPN does with the non revenue sports. They aired a whole bunch of college volleyball games the last two weeks. Stanford and Cal offer some good stuff in those sports. Stanford vs. Notre Dame WBB on the regular? Likely an espn game tbh. Stanford and Cal swimming paired Virginia and UNC?

philbert said:

---

Think you'll see a lot of games from the old Pac-12 schools (the 4 that went to B12 and Calford) in the Friday night and Saturday night time slots.

---

Especially the Arizona schools.

The 4 that went to the B1G also. All ten of us.

It is arguably the reason Fox and ESPN broke us up: to fill the later time slots with games people east of the Rockies care about.

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

philbert said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

philbert said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Really interesting story here. The Big 12 contemplated adding Stanford and California, but four schools blocked it… Iowa state, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Kansas State. Why? Their media contract is set to 16 members or something. https://t.co/n5mQYRGSxM

---

interesting. would Calfurd have accepted the invite if it was for a full share?

---

I think more interesting is the fact that this confirms Cal and Stanford, despite being in a large media market aren't worth 30mm. We are in fact dilutive in the B12 which is quite sobering.

---

Not sure that's accurate. It's more that the B12 had filled the four slots the networks had allocated them and more add-ons would be dilutive. It's down to Cal and Stanford not being proactive about finding new conferences and other schools jumping at their chances.

Stanford would be valued above the Arizona schools and Colorado (pre-Deion) in a vacuum for sure.

---

That's my interpretation as well.

---

Doesn't "more add-ons would be dilutive" mean that we would be worth less than the 30-whatever million they were willing to pay Colorado and Arizona?

---

No, because the $30 million spots were limited and got filled up before Cal and Stanford bothered trying to get them. The market was not truly open at that point. In a fully open market (say, where conferences could draft all the schools from scratch) I don't think Cal and Stanford go after all four of those others.

---

And in fact ESPN is paying a full $40 million share to the ACC for each of Cal and Stanford (and SMU) and reportedly was so eager to make it happen they offered additional money to cover the additional travel.

---

That's a good point. Effectively Stanford and Cal's "value" was $40 million each, but because of timing and poor planning by the schools they don't get all of that money (for now).

JRL.02 said:

---

Something I've wondered is if Stanford and Cal may get a bunch of Friday night football games in the ACC. Or does espn just put them at 10:30ET on Saturday a bunch.

---

IMO, Cal and Stanford will likely each have a Friday night home game every year, maybe starting at 5 or 6 pm PT.

The ACC is adding three new teams and a lot of new football games without getting any additional time slots on ESPN channels, so Friday games and several ACC Network telecasts are in our future.

What will the ACC give them the first few years?

PAC 12 current amount?

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

philbert said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

philbert said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Really interesting story here. The Big 12 contemplated adding Stanford and California, but four schools blocked it… Iowa state, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Kansas State. Why? Their media contract is set to 16 members or something. https://t.co/n5mQYRGSxM

---

interesting. would Calfurd have accepted the invite if it was for a full share?

---

I think more interesting is the fact that this confirms Cal and Stanford, despite being in a large media market aren't worth 30mm. We are in fact dilutive in the B12 which is quite sobering.

---

Not sure that's accurate. It's more that the B12 had filled the four slots the networks had allocated them and more add-ons would be dilutive. It's down to Cal and Stanford not being proactive about finding new conferences and other schools jumping at their chances.

Stanford would be valued above the Arizona schools and Colorado (pre-Deion) in a vacuum for sure.

---

That's my interpretation as well.

---

Doesn't "more add-ons would be dilutive" mean that we would be worth less than the 30-whatever million they were willing to pay Colorado and Arizona?

---

No, because the $30 million spots were limited and got filled up before Cal and Stanford bothered trying to get them. The market was not truly open at that point. In a fully open market (say, where conferences could draft all the schools from scratch) I don't think Cal and Stanford go after all four of those others.

---

And in fact ESPN is paying a full $40 million share to the ACC for each of Cal and Stanford (and SMU) and reportedly was so eager to make it happen they offered additional money to cover the additional travel.

SMU was G5. If the three of us combined are worth more than $120 million to ESPN, I'm pretty sure Cal and Stanford are worth something north of $40 million each. Now a sizable chunk of our value will be retained by the other ACC schools, but that was the price of admission especially due to 4 schools having leverage and our bad negotiating position.

---

Who is giving you all this incorrect information.?

The entire ACC distribution ia around $39-40 million on average. The ESPN contract is for $30 million.
Cal and Stanford will receive a partial share of ACC Tier 1 media revenue estimated at about $25 million annually. Cal and Stanford will get a 30% share in the first seven years, followed by 70% in year eight and 75% in year nine before getting the full amount. SMU will forgo all ACC media rights distribution for nine years. All three schools will immediately get full revenue shares from the ACC Network, the College Football Playoff, bowl games and NCAA men's basketball tournament units. Cal and Stamford also participate in the incentive plan of some of the media money forego. For example, if they make the football playoffs, the get a decent portion of the tier 1 media rights they forego.

The reason a full share was paid for each team was because that is what the ACC/'ESPN contract provided. They also must have liked the redistribution of money to other teams particularly Clemson and FSU, with the hope they have less incentive to go to the Fox B1G. Cal probably was playing with UCLA money to some significant degree in dropping its media share, I was not aware ESPN chipped in travel money. Do you have a source for that?

Here some sources for you:

https://apnews.com/article/acc-conference-realignment-expansion-stanford-cal-smu-95e7d6f990dd35a638f9bef72fe96ee7https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38278920

What Cal, Stanford, SMU ACC expansion means, what's nextESPNhttps://www.espn.com college-football
story acc-...


The league announces Wednesday it would begin incentivizing wins in the postseason for ACC teams.

Check out this story on tallahassee.com: https://www.tallahassee.com/story/sports/2023/05/24/atlantic-coast-conference/70252946007/

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

philbert said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

philbert said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Really interesting story here. The Big 12 contemplated adding Stanford and California, but four schools blocked it… Iowa state, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Kansas State. Why? Their media contract is set to 16 members or something. https://t.co/n5mQYRGSxM

---

interesting. would Calfurd have accepted the invite if it was for a full share?

---

I think more interesting is the fact that this confirms Cal and Stanford, despite being in a large media market aren't worth 30mm. We are in fact dilutive in the B12 which is quite sobering.

---

Not sure that's accurate. It's more that the B12 had filled the four slots the networks had allocated them and more add-ons would be dilutive. It's down to Cal and Stanford not being proactive about finding new conferences and other schools jumping at their chances.

Stanford would be valued above the Arizona schools and Colorado (pre-Deion) in a vacuum for sure.

---

That's my interpretation as well.

---

Doesn't "more add-ons would be dilutive" mean that we would be worth less than the 30-whatever million they were willing to pay Colorado and Arizona?

---

No, because the $30 million spots were limited and got filled up before Cal and Stanford bothered trying to get them. The market was not truly open at that point. In a fully open market (say, where conferences could draft all the schools from scratch) I don't think Cal and Stanford go after all four of those others.

---

And in fact ESPN is paying a full $40 million share to the ACC for each of Cal and Stanford (and SMU) and reportedly was so eager to make it happen they offered additional money to cover the additional travel.

---

That's a good point. Effectively Stanford and Cal's "value" was $40 million each, but because of timing and poor planning by the schools they don't get all of that money (for now).

---

No it wasn't, because the $40 million number is BS. see my post above.

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

philbert said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

philbert said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Really interesting story here. The Big 12 contemplated adding Stanford and California, but four schools blocked it… Iowa state, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Kansas State. Why? Their media contract is set to 16 members or something. https://t.co/n5mQYRGSxM

---

interesting. would Calfurd have accepted the invite if it was for a full share?

---

I think more interesting is the fact that this confirms Cal and Stanford, despite being in a large media market aren't worth 30mm. We are in fact dilutive in the B12 which is quite sobering.

---

Not sure that's accurate. It's more that the B12 had filled the four slots the networks had allocated them and more add-ons would be dilutive. It's down to Cal and Stanford not being proactive about finding new conferences and other schools jumping at their chances.

Stanford would be valued above the Arizona schools and Colorado (pre-Deion) in a vacuum for sure.

---

That's my interpretation as well.

---

Doesn't "more add-ons would be dilutive" mean that we would be worth less than the 30-whatever million they were willing to pay Colorado and Arizona?

---

No, because the $30 million spots were limited and got filled up before Cal and Stanford bothered trying to get them. The market was not truly open at that point. In a fully open market (say, where conferences could draft all the schools from scratch) I don't think Cal and Stanford go after all four of those others.

---

And in fact ESPN is paying a full $40 million share to the ACC for each of Cal and Stanford (and SMU) and reportedly was so eager to make it happen they offered additional money to cover the additional travel.

SMU was G5. If the three of us combined are worth more than $120 million to ESPN, I'm pretty sure Cal and Stanford are worth something north of $40 million each. Now a sizable chunk of our value will be retained by the other ACC schools, but that was the price of admission especially due to 4 schools having leverage and our bad negotiating position.

---

Who is giving you all this incorrect information.?

The entire ACC distribution ia around $39-40 million on average. The ESPN contract is for $30 million.
Cal and Stanford will receive a partial share of ACC Tier 1 media revenue estimated at about $25 million annually. Cal and Stanford will get a 30% share in the first seven years, followed by 70% in year eight and 75% in year nine before getting the full amount. SMU will forgo all ACC media rights distribution for nine years. All three schools will immediately get full revenue shares from the ACC Network, the College Football Playoff, bowl games and NCAA men's basketball tournament units. Cal and Stamford also participate in the incentive plan of some of the media money forego. For example, if they make the football playoffs, the get a decent portion of the tier 1 media rights they forego.

The reason a full share was paid for each team was because that is what the ACC/'ESPN contract provided. They also must have liked the redistribution of money to other teams particularly Clemson and FSU, with the hope they have less incentive to go to the Fox B1G. Cal probably was playing with UCLA money to some significant degree in dropping its media share, I was not aware ESPN chipped in travel money. Do you have a source for that?

Here some sources for you:

https://apnews.com/article/acc-conference-realignment-expansion-stanford-cal-smu-95e7d6f990dd35a638f9bef72fe96ee7https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38278920

What Cal, Stanford, SMU ACC expansion means, what's nextESPNhttps://www.espn.com college-football
story acc-...


The league announces Wednesday it would begin incentivizing wins in the postseason for ACC teams.

Check out this story on tallahassee.com: https://www.tallahassee.com/story/sports/2023/05/24/atlantic-coast-conference/70252946007/

---

I stand corrected. In several articles it had been reported as a $40 million payout per ACC school. However, I do see that $30 million is the ESPN payment. In any case, that refutes the assertion that Cal and Stanford did not get into the B-12 because they are not worth $30 million, which was the main point. Again, the reason we are not getting the $30 million ESPN is paying for us is as I said, our poor negotiating position.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/acc-amends-revenue-distribution-model-incentivizing-postseason-success-for-money-making-sports/amp/

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

philbert said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

philbert said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Really interesting story here. The Big 12 contemplated adding Stanford and California, but four schools blocked it… Iowa state, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Kansas State. Why? Their media contract is set to 16 members or something. https://t.co/n5mQYRGSxM

---

interesting. would Calfurd have accepted the invite if it was for a full share?

---

I think more interesting is the fact that this confirms Cal and Stanford, despite being in a large media market aren't worth 30mm. We are in fact dilutive in the B12 which is quite sobering.

---

Not sure that's accurate. It's more that the B12 had filled the four slots the networks had allocated them and more add-ons would be dilutive. It's down to Cal and Stanford not being proactive about finding new conferences and other schools jumping at their chances.

Stanford would be valued above the Arizona schools and Colorado (pre-Deion) in a vacuum for sure.

---

That's my interpretation as well.

---

Doesn't "more add-ons would be dilutive" mean that we would be worth less than the 30-whatever million they were willing to pay Colorado and Arizona?

---

No, because the $30 million spots were limited and got filled up before Cal and Stanford bothered trying to get them. The market was not truly open at that point. In a fully open market (say, where conferences could draft all the schools from scratch) I don't think Cal and Stanford go after all four of those others.

---

And in fact ESPN is paying a full $40 million share to the ACC for each of Cal and Stanford (and SMU) and reportedly was so eager to make it happen they offered additional money to cover the additional travel.

SMU was G5. If the three of us combined are worth more than $120 million to ESPN, I'm pretty sure Cal and Stanford are worth something north of $40 million each. Now a sizable chunk of our value will be retained by the other ACC schools, but that was the price of admission especially due to 4 schools having leverage and our bad negotiating position.

---

Who is giving you all this incorrect information.?

The entire ACC distribution ia around $39-40 million on average. The ESPN contract is for $30 million.
Cal and Stanford will receive a partial share of ACC Tier 1 media revenue estimated at about $25 million annually. Cal and Stanford will get a 30% share in the first seven years, followed by 70% in year eight and 75% in year nine before getting the full amount. SMU will forgo all ACC media rights distribution for nine years. All three schools will immediately get full revenue shares from the ACC Network, the College Football Playoff, bowl games and NCAA men's basketball tournament units. Cal and Stamford also participate in the incentive plan of some of the media money forego. For example, if they make the football playoffs, the get a decent portion of the tier 1 media rights they forego.

The reason a full share was paid for each team was because that is what the ACC/'ESPN contract provided. They also must have liked the redistribution of money to other teams particularly Clemson and FSU, with the hope they have less incentive to go to the Fox B1G. Cal probably was playing with UCLA money to some significant degree in dropping its media share, I was not aware ESPN chipped in travel money. Do you have a source for that?

Here some sources for you:

https://apnews.com/article/acc-conference-realignment-expansion-stanford-cal-smu-95e7d6f990dd35a638f9bef72fe96ee7https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38278920

What Cal, Stanford, SMU ACC expansion means, what's nextESPNhttps://www.espn.com college-football
story acc-...


The league announces Wednesday it would begin incentivizing wins in the postseason for ACC teams.

Check out this story on tallahassee.com: https://www.tallahassee.com/story/sports/2023/05/24/atlantic-coast-conference/70252946007/

---

I stand corrected. In several articles it had been reported as a $40 million payout per ACC school. However, I do see that $30 million is the ESPN payment. In any case, that refutes the assertion that Cal and Stanford did not get into the B-12 because they are not worth $30 million, which was the main point. Again, the reason we are not getting the $30 million ESPN is paying for us is as I said, our poor negotiating position.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/acc-amends-revenue-distribution-model-incentivizing-postseason-success-for-money-making-sports/amp/

---

I take no exception to the Calford was in a poor negotiation position, and some of it was our fault. This is not exactly a novel argument. And again, it is the $25 million portion of the media contract where Calford takes the haircut.

It just the last couple posts have had some factual inaccuracies that would lead to some incorrect conclusions, mostly by other posters. My bottom line is while I'd sympathetic to the Pad 2, they are up against a lot of impracticalities, and even worse, they are up against the college sports heavyweights, and I don't see them prevailing. Guys like Warren ( who has been replaced), Sankey and Yormark have their agendas and play them well, and even the ACC guy Phillips seems to get his way. The Pac Commissioner clearly is (was?) out is his league and has divided loyalties at this point, and I don't see two college Presidents taking on these big boys and wining.

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

philbert said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

philbert said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Really interesting story here. The Big 12 contemplated adding Stanford and California, but four schools blocked it… Iowa state, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Kansas State. Why? Their media contract is set to 16 members or something. https://t.co/n5mQYRGSxM

---

interesting. would Calfurd have accepted the invite if it was for a full share?

---

I think more interesting is the fact that this confirms Cal and Stanford, despite being in a large media market aren't worth 30mm. We are in fact dilutive in the B12 which is quite sobering.

---

Not sure that's accurate. It's more that the B12 had filled the four slots the networks had allocated them and more add-ons would be dilutive. It's down to Cal and Stanford not being proactive about finding new conferences and other schools jumping at their chances.

Stanford would be valued above the Arizona schools and Colorado (pre-Deion) in a vacuum for sure.

---

That's my interpretation as well.

---

Doesn't "more add-ons would be dilutive" mean that we would be worth less than the 30-whatever million they were willing to pay Colorado and Arizona?

---

No, because the $30 million spots were limited and got filled up before Cal and Stanford bothered trying to get them. The market was not truly open at that point. In a fully open market (say, where conferences could draft all the schools from scratch) I don't think Cal and Stanford go after all four of those others.

---

And in fact ESPN is paying a full $40 million share to the ACC for each of Cal and Stanford (and SMU) and reportedly was so eager to make it happen they offered additional money to cover the additional travel.

SMU was G5. If the three of us combined are worth more than $120 million to ESPN, I'm pretty sure Cal and Stanford are worth something north of $40 million each. Now a sizable chunk of our value will be retained by the other ACC schools, but that was the price of admission especially due to 4 schools having leverage and our bad negotiating position.

---

Who is giving you all this incorrect information.?

The entire ACC distribution ia around $39-40 million on average. The ESPN contract is for $30 million.
Cal and Stanford will receive a partial share of ACC Tier 1 media revenue estimated at about $25 million annually. Cal and Stanford will get a 30% share in the first seven years, followed by 70% in year eight and 75% in year nine before getting the full amount. SMU will forgo all ACC media rights distribution for nine years. All three schools will immediately get full revenue shares from the ACC Network, the College Football Playoff, bowl games and NCAA men's basketball tournament units. Cal and Stamford also participate in the incentive plan of some of the media money forego. For example, if they make the football playoffs, the get a decent portion of the tier 1 media rights they forego.

The reason a full share was paid for each team was because that is what the ACC/'ESPN contract provided. They also must have liked the redistribution of money to other teams particularly Clemson and FSU, with the hope they have less incentive to go to the Fox B1G. Cal probably was playing with UCLA money to some significant degree in dropping its media share, I was not aware ESPN chipped in travel money. Do you have a source for that?

Here some sources for you:

https://apnews.com/article/acc-conference-realignment-expansion-stanford-cal-smu-95e7d6f990dd35a638f9bef72fe96ee7https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38278920

What Cal, Stanford, SMU ACC expansion means, what's nextESPNhttps://www.espn.com college-football
story acc-...


The league announces Wednesday it would begin incentivizing wins in the postseason for ACC teams.

Check out this story on tallahassee.com: https://www.tallahassee.com/story/sports/2023/05/24/atlantic-coast-conference/70252946007/

---

I stand corrected. In several articles it had been reported as a $40 million payout per ACC school. However, I do see that $30 million is the ESPN payment. In any case, that refutes the assertion that Cal and Stanford did not get into the B-12 because they are not worth $30 million, which was the main point. Again, the reason we are not getting the $30 million ESPN is paying for us is as I said, our poor negotiating position.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/acc-amends-revenue-distribution-model-incentivizing-postseason-success-for-money-making-sports/amp/

---

Yeah, I suppose the remainder of the conference payout is for bowls/tournament stuff. Still means Cal and Stanford effectively got the same as the schools that went to the Big 12, but we won't see that money right away because we put ourselves in a bad position.

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

philbert said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

philbert said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Really interesting story here. The Big 12 contemplated adding Stanford and California, but four schools blocked it… Iowa state, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Kansas State. Why? Their media contract is set to 16 members or something. https://t.co/n5mQYRGSxM

---

interesting. would Calfurd have accepted the invite if it was for a full share?

---

I think more interesting is the fact that this confirms Cal and Stanford, despite being in a large media market aren't worth 30mm. We are in fact dilutive in the B12 which is quite sobering.

---

Not sure that's accurate. It's more that the B12 had filled the four slots the networks had allocated them and more add-ons would be dilutive. It's down to Cal and Stanford not being proactive about finding new conferences and other schools jumping at their chances.

Stanford would be valued above the Arizona schools and Colorado (pre-Deion) in a vacuum for sure.

---

That's my interpretation as well.

---

Doesn't "more add-ons would be dilutive" mean that we would be worth less than the 30-whatever million they were willing to pay Colorado and Arizona?

---

No, because the $30 million spots were limited and got filled up before Cal and Stanford bothered trying to get them. The market was not truly open at that point. In a fully open market (say, where conferences could draft all the schools from scratch) I don't think Cal and Stanford go after all four of those others.

---

And in fact ESPN is paying a full $40 million share to the ACC for each of Cal and Stanford (and SMU) and reportedly was so eager to make it happen they offered additional money to cover the additional travel.

SMU was G5. If the three of us combined are worth more than $120 million to ESPN, I'm pretty sure Cal and Stanford are worth something north of $40 million each. Now a sizable chunk of our value will be retained by the other ACC schools, but that was the price of admission especially due to 4 schools having leverage and our bad negotiating position.

---

Who is giving you all this incorrect information.?

The entire ACC distribution ia around $39-40 million on average. The ESPN contract is for $30 million.
Cal and Stanford will receive a partial share of ACC Tier 1 media revenue estimated at about $25 million annually. Cal and Stanford will get a 30% share in the first seven years, followed by 70% in year eight and 75% in year nine before getting the full amount. SMU will forgo all ACC media rights distribution for nine years. All three schools will immediately get full revenue shares from the ACC Network, the College Football Playoff, bowl games and NCAA men's basketball tournament units. Cal and Stamford also participate in the incentive plan of some of the media money forego. For example, if they make the football playoffs, the get a decent portion of the tier 1 media rights they forego.

The reason a full share was paid for each team was because that is what the ACC/'ESPN contract provided. They also must have liked the redistribution of money to other teams particularly Clemson and FSU, with the hope they have less incentive to go to the Fox B1G. Cal probably was playing with UCLA money to some significant degree in dropping its media share, I was not aware ESPN chipped in travel money. Do you have a source for that?

Here some sources for you:

https://apnews.com/article/acc-conference-realignment-expansion-stanford-cal-smu-95e7d6f990dd35a638f9bef72fe96ee7https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38278920

What Cal, Stanford, SMU ACC expansion means, what's nextESPNhttps://www.espn.com college-football
story acc-...


The league announces Wednesday it would begin incentivizing wins in the postseason for ACC teams.

Check out this story on tallahassee.com: https://www.tallahassee.com/story/sports/2023/05/24/atlantic-coast-conference/70252946007/

---

I stand corrected. In several articles it had been reported as a $40 million payout per ACC school. However, I do see that $30 million is the ESPN payment. In any case, that refutes the assertion that Cal and Stanford did not get into the B-12 because they are not worth $30 million, which was the main point. Again, the reason we are not getting the $30 million ESPN is paying for us is as I said, our poor negotiating position.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/acc-amends-revenue-distribution-model-incentivizing-postseason-success-for-money-making-sports/amp/

---

Yeah, I suppose the remainder of the conference payout is for bowls/tournament stuff. Still means Cal and Stanford effectively got the same as the schools that went to the Big 12, but we won't see that money right away because we put ourselves in a bad position.

---

Agreed. Cal also has Calimony to fall back on. The other thing is that the ACC and Big 12 are less stable. The clear winners in all this are Oregon, Washington, UCLA and SC.

Oski87 said:

---

Strykur said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Something I've wondered is if Stanford and Cal may get a bunch of Friday night football games in the ACC. Or does espn just put them at 10:30ET on Saturday a bunch.

---

ESPN will have a large say in this

---

Colorado and Colorado State kicked off in that slot and was the 5th most-watched regular season game ever, so that changes things.

---

Cal got 2.3 million with Auburn at that time - with competing games. Last year our biggest game was 3.2 million with ND. So being on ESPN at night will definitely raise our profile and give our team a boost to stay in the upper division of college football. Being on the PAC 12 network almost killed us.

---

Also, the potential TV audience size increases for games against most ACC opponents, and will help for basketball as well as football.

Population of states (other than California) with ACC members
Texas 30 MM (DFW metro area 7.9 MM)
Florida 22 MM
New York 20 MM
Pennsylvania 13 MM
Georgia 11 MM
North Carolina 11 MM
Virginia 8.7 MM
Massachusetts 7.0 MM
South Carolina 5.3 MM
Kentucky 4.5 MM

Population of states (other than California) with Pac-12 members
Washington 7.8 MM
Arizona 7.4 MM
Colorado 5.8 MM
Oregon 4.2 MM
Utah 3.4 MM

BearSD said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

Strykur said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Something I've wondered is if Stanford and Cal may get a bunch of Friday night football games in the ACC. Or does espn just put them at 10:30ET on Saturday a bunch.

---

ESPN will have a large say in this

---

Colorado and Colorado State kicked off in that slot and was the 5th most-watched regular season game ever, so that changes things.

---

Cal got 2.3 million with Auburn at that time - with competing games. Last year our biggest game was 3.2 million with ND. So being on ESPN at night will definitely raise our profile and give our team a boost to stay in the upper division of college football. Being on the PAC 12 network almost killed us.

---

Also, the potential TV audience size increases for games against most ACC opponents, and will help for basketball as well as football.

Population of states (other than California) with ACC members
Texas 30 MM (DFW metro area 7.9 MM)
Florida 22 MM
New York 20 MM
Pennsylvania 13 MM
Georgia 11 MM
North Carolina 11 MM
Virginia 8.7 MM
Massachusetts 7.0 MM
South Carolina 5.3 MM
Kentucky 4.5 MM

Population of states (other than California) with Pac-12 members
Washington 7.8 MM
Arizona 7.4 MM
Colorado 5.8 MM
Oregon 4.2 MM
Utah 3.4 MM

---

This is why the TV networks are probably pretty happy with the Pac-12 breaking up: their members playing games against schools from other Eastern states will get more viewers than playing games against each other.

Oski87 said:

---

Strykur said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Something I've wondered is if Stanford and Cal may get a bunch of Friday night football games in the ACC. Or does espn just put them at 10:30ET on Saturday a bunch.

---

ESPN will have a large say in this

---

Colorado and Colorado State kicked off in that slot and was the 5th most-watched regular season game ever, so that changes things.

---

Cal got 2.3 million with Auburn at that time - with competing games. Last year our biggest game was 3.2 million with ND. So being on ESPN at night will definitely raise our profile and give our team a boost to stay in the upper division of college football. Being on the PAC 12 network almost killed us.

---

I can't stress enough how being in the ACC will improve Cal's profile. People on two coasts will be following Cal.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

Strykur said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Something I've wondered is if Stanford and Cal may get a bunch of Friday night football games in the ACC. Or does espn just put them at 10:30ET on Saturday a bunch.

---

ESPN will have a large say in this

---

Colorado and Colorado State kicked off in that slot and was the 5th most-watched regular season game ever, so that changes things.

---

Cal got 2.3 million with Auburn at that time - with competing games. Last year our biggest game was 3.2 million with ND. So being on ESPN at night will definitely raise our profile and give our team a boost to stay in the upper division of college football. Being on the PAC 12 network almost killed us.

---

I can't stress enough how being in the ACC will improve Cal's profile. People on two coasts will be following Cal.

---

Let me fix that for you:

I can't stress enough how being in the ACC will improve Cal's Berkeley's profile. People on two coasts will be following Cal Berkeley.

/s

Big Dog said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

Strykur said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Something I've wondered is if Stanford and Cal may get a bunch of Friday night football games in the ACC. Or does espn just put them at 10:30ET on Saturday a bunch.

---

ESPN will have a large say in this

---

Colorado and Colorado State kicked off in that slot and was the 5th most-watched regular season game ever, so that changes things.

---

Cal got 2.3 million with Auburn at that time - with competing games. Last year our biggest game was 3.2 million with ND. So being on ESPN at night will definitely raise our profile and give our team a boost to stay in the upper division of college football. Being on the PAC 12 network almost killed us.

---

I can't stress enough how being in the ACC will improve Cal's profile. People on two coasts will be following Cal.

---

Let me fix that for you:

I can't stress enough how being in the ACC will improve Cal's Berkeley's profile. People on two coasts will be following Cal Berkeley.

/s

---

I'm staying out of that quagmire - good grief.

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

Strykur said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Something I've wondered is if Stanford and Cal may get a bunch of Friday night football games in the ACC. Or does espn just put them at 10:30ET on Saturday a bunch.

---

ESPN will have a large say in this

---

Colorado and Colorado State kicked off in that slot and was the 5th most-watched regular season game ever, so that changes things.

---

Cal got 2.3 million with Auburn at that time - with competing games. Last year our biggest game was 3.2 million with ND. So being on ESPN at night will definitely raise our profile and give our team a boost to stay in the upper division of college football. Being on the PAC 12 network almost killed us.

---

Also, the potential TV audience size increases for games against most ACC opponents, and will help for basketball as well as football.

Population of states (other than California) with ACC members
Texas 30 MM (DFW metro area 7.9 MM)
Florida 22 MM
New York 20 MM
Pennsylvania 13 MM
Georgia 11 MM
North Carolina 11 MM
Virginia 8.7 MM
Massachusetts 7.0 MM
South Carolina 5.3 MM
Kentucky 4.5 MM

Population of states (other than California) with Pac-12 members
Washington 7.8 MM
Arizona 7.4 MM
Colorado 5.8 MM
Oregon 4.2 MM
Utah 3.4 MM

---

This is why the TV networks are probably pretty happy with the Pac-12 breaking up: their members playing games against schools from other Eastern states will get more viewers than playing games against each other.

---

Yup, and it keeps the entire nation engaged in the late night time slot.

Before, there was only the Pac-12 after dark featuring multiple pac-12 teams playing each other. If you weren't in the Pac-12 you could tune out unless there was a game with CFB implications.

Now three conferences will have games in the after dark time slot, meaning everyone in the B1G, the Big-12 and the ACC has a reason to watch the late night game.

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

Strykur said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Something I've wondered is if Stanford and Cal may get a bunch of Friday night football games in the ACC. Or does espn just put them at 10:30ET on Saturday a bunch.

---

ESPN will have a large say in this

---

Colorado and Colorado State kicked off in that slot and was the 5th most-watched regular season game ever, so that changes things.

---

Cal got 2.3 million with Auburn at that time - with competing games. Last year our biggest game was 3.2 million with ND. So being on ESPN at night will definitely raise our profile and give our team a boost to stay in the upper division of college football. Being on the PAC 12 network almost killed us.

---

Also, the potential TV audience size increases for games against most ACC opponents, and will help for basketball as well as football.

Population of states (other than California) with ACC members
Texas 30 MM (DFW metro area 7.9 MM)
Florida 22 MM
New York 20 MM
Pennsylvania 13 MM
Georgia 11 MM
North Carolina 11 MM
Virginia 8.7 MM
Massachusetts 7.0 MM
South Carolina 5.3 MM
Kentucky 4.5 MM

Population of states (other than California) with Pac-12 members
Washington 7.8 MM
Arizona 7.4 MM
Colorado 5.8 MM
Oregon 4.2 MM
Utah 3.4 MM

---

This is why the TV networks are probably pretty happy with the Pac-12 breaking up: their members playing games against schools from other Eastern states will get more viewers than playing games against each other.

---

Now three conferences will have games in the after dark time slot, meaning everyone in the B1G, the Big-12 and the ACC has a reason to watch the late night game.

---

Basically creating a national audience for prime time games, which will get us more eyeballs.

Big Dog said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

Strykur said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Something I've wondered is if Stanford and Cal may get a bunch of Friday night football games in the ACC. Or does espn just put them at 10:30ET on Saturday a bunch.

---

ESPN will have a large say in this

---

Colorado and Colorado State kicked off in that slot and was the 5th most-watched regular season game ever, so that changes things.

---

Cal got 2.3 million with Auburn at that time - with competing games. Last year our biggest game was 3.2 million with ND. So being on ESPN at night will definitely raise our profile and give our team a boost to stay in the upper division of college football. Being on the PAC 12 network almost killed us.

---

I can't stress enough how being in the ACC will improve Cal's profile. People on two coasts will be following Cal.

---

Let me fix that for you:

I can't stress enough how being in the ACC will improve Cal's Berkeley's profile. People on two coasts will be following Cal Berkeley.

/s

---

UC Berkeley.

Oski being a "he" should probably be rebranded, too. Ophilia? Oskay and *double snap*?

UC Berkeley will not be in the ACC long enough to see a full share…

ESPN could have killed Stanford Cal and SMU to the ACC if they wanted to. The networks run this stuff.

Oski87 said:

---

Strykur said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Something I've wondered is if Stanford and Cal may get a bunch of Friday night football games in the ACC. Or does espn just put them at 10:30ET on Saturday a bunch.

---

ESPN will have a large say in this

---

Colorado and Colorado State kicked off in that slot and was the 5th most-watched regular season game ever, so that changes things.

---

Cal got 2.3 million with Auburn at that time - with competing games. Last year our biggest game was 3.2 million with ND. So being on ESPN at night will definitely raise our profile and give our team a boost to stay in the upper division of college football. Being on the PAC 12 network almost killed us.

---

JRL.02 said:

---

ESPN could have killed Stanford Cal and SMU to the ACC if they wanted to. The networks run this stuff.

Oski87 said:

---

Strykur said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Something I've wondered is if Stanford and Cal may get a bunch of Friday night football games in the ACC. Or does espn just put them at 10:30ET on Saturday a bunch.

---

ESPN will have a large say in this

---

Colorado and Colorado State kicked off in that slot and was the 5th most-watched regular season game ever, so that changes things.

---

Cal got 2.3 million with Auburn at that time - with competing games. Last year our biggest game was 3.2 million with ND. So being on ESPN at night will definitely raise our profile and give our team a boost to stay in the upper division of college football. Being on the PAC 12 network almost killed us.

---

---

Just a cheap way to silence mounting blowback about the completely corrupt state of "college football". A few more years of easy money.

This is the first I'm hearing about the PAC-12 being in some sort of trouble. Is this a new and breaking development? Keep me updated as it unfolds. I'll check back in next year and see how the PAC-12 is doing

wifeisafurd said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

Strykur said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Something I've wondered is if Stanford and Cal may get a bunch of Friday night football games in the ACC. Or does espn just put them at 10:30ET on Saturday a bunch.

---

ESPN will have a large say in this

---

Colorado and Colorado State kicked off in that slot and was the 5th most-watched regular season game ever, so that changes things.

---

Cal got 2.3 million with Auburn at that time - with competing games. Last year our biggest game was 3.2 million with ND. So being on ESPN at night will definitely raise our profile and give our team a boost to stay in the upper division of college football. Being on the PAC 12 network almost killed us.

---

I can't stress enough how being in the ACC will improve Cal's profile. People on two coasts will be following Cal.

---

Agree 100% The ACC is a great landing spot for us. Annual game against SMU is good too. All things being equal (they are not) I prefer the ACC to even the B1G or SEC. This coming PAC-12 basketball schedule is boring in comparison. I'm excited to see this team but already looking forward to next year's matchups.

It is one of the reasons it is as great time to reassert our claim to "California" as our sports name.

Bearly Clad said:

---

This is the first I'm hearing about the PAC-12 being in some sort of trouble. Is this a new and breaking development? Keep me updated as it unfolds. I'll check back in next year and see how the PAC-12 is doing

---

Buy some stock in AOL.

Bearly Clad said:

---

This is the first I'm hearing about the PAC-12 being in some sort of trouble. Is this a new and breaking development? Keep me updated as it unfolds. I'll check back in next year and see how the PAC-12 is doing

---

No need to worry. George Kliavkoff says that a huge TV contract will be presented to the conference CEOs very soon. George didn't want to do it today because he didn't want to distract from all the big games being played today.

Strykur said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

Strykur said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

JRL.02 said:

---

Something I've wondered is if Stanford and Cal may get a bunch of Friday night football games in the ACC. Or does espn just put them at 10:30ET on Saturday a bunch.

---

ESPN will have a large say in this

---

Colorado and Colorado State kicked off in that slot and was the 5th most-watched regular season game ever, so that changes things.

---

Cal got 2.3 million with Auburn at that time - with competing games. Last year our biggest game was 3.2 million with ND. So being on ESPN at night will definitely raise our profile and give our team a boost to stay in the upper division of college football. Being on the PAC 12 network almost killed us.

---

Also, the potential TV audience size increases for games against most ACC opponents, and will help for basketball as well as football.

Population of states (other than California) with ACC members
Texas 30 MM (DFW metro area 7.9 MM)
Florida 22 MM
New York 20 MM
Pennsylvania 13 MM
Georgia 11 MM
North Carolina 11 MM
Virginia 8.7 MM
Massachusetts 7.0 MM
South Carolina 5.3 MM
Kentucky 4.5 MM

Population of states (other than California) with Pac-12 members
Washington 7.8 MM
Arizona 7.4 MM
Colorado 5.8 MM
Oregon 4.2 MM
Utah 3.4 MM

---

This is why the TV networks are probably pretty happy with the Pac-12 breaking up: their members playing games against schools from other Eastern states will get more viewers than playing games against each other.

---

Now three conferences will have games in the after dark time slot, meaning everyone in the B1G, the Big-12 and the ACC has a reason to watch the late night game.

---

Basically creating a national audience for prime time games, which will get us more eyeballs.

---

Instead of being an embarrassment only on the after dark timeslot, we will start being an embarrassment on prime time TV

Today and tomorrow's CFP meetings should be interesting for George Kliavkoff lol. Will they even let him vote on the future format rules for 2024 and 2025 playoffs? How much say does he have? Does he only represent the interests of Wash State and Oregon State?

JRL.02 said:

---

Today and tomorrow's CFP meetings should be interesting for George Kliavkoff lol. Will they even let him vote on the future format rules for 2024 and 2025 playoffs? How much say does he have? Does he only represent the interests of Wash State and Oregon State?

---

Contractually, unless dissolved, the p12 has a vote at the CFB playoff meetings and most changes require a unanimous vote of all 11 members (g5+p5+nd).

What has not been discussed anywhere in the media is how the expanded 2024-25 CFB playoff revenues are going to be split - which will affect how much a reconstituted pac would get those next two years.

Since the 10 departing schools (along with their future conferences) would get a larger share if the p12 dissolves, that might be one more incentive to do so (if legally allowed).

If there was only the foresight to drastically reduce the tv revenue shares of the lower level teams in the PAC12 in order to more than double the incomes of USC, Washington and Oregon, we would live in the same world we are now.

If only…

JRL.02 said:

---

Today and tomorrow's CFP meetings should be interesting for George Kliavkoff lol. Will they even let him vote on the future format rules for 2024 and 2025 playoffs? How much say does he have? Does he only represent the interests of Wash State and Oregon State?

---

The AD's do show up and vote for stuff, but the ultimate votes is the Governing Board, comprised of Uni Presidents.