philly1121 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

And you think a Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC or Virginia won't be able to come up with that kind of cash? I mean, seriously? In 5 years the whole landscape could have yet another earthquake and everything changes again. Do you think any of those schools I listed, let alone any of the other ones, are going to wait until 2036 to renegotiate? The ACC will be dead anyway. There will be nothing to negotiate

---

They don't have that kind of cash on hand.

Florida State recently retained JP Morgan Chase to explore the possibility of selling a portion of FSU's future athletic revenue in exchange for a giant cash infusion that would get FSU the funds needed to buy their way out of the ACC.

In other words: They don't have the money and they are trying to find a creative way of raising it. Maybe they will eventually find a way to get the lump sum needed to buy their way out. But they don't have it now.

And the earlier they leave, the more money they will need. Finding the money to get out two years early is a lot more do-able than finding the money to get out 8 or 10 years early.

Anyway, here's what FSU recently started trying to do:

Quote:

---

Florida State University is working with JPMorgan Chase to explore how the school's athletic department could raise capital from institutional funds, such as private equity, according to multiple people familiar with the plans.

PE giant Sixth Street is in advanced talks to lead a possible investment, said the people, who were granted anonymity because the specifics are private. Institutional money has poured into professional sports in recent years, from the NBA and global soccer to F1 and golf, but this would break new ground by entering the multibillion-dollar world of college athletic departments.

The school is considering a structure similar to many of those pro sports investments, where commercial rights are rolled into a new company, the private equity fund invests in that entity, and then recoups its money via future media/sponsorship revenue. That's how Silver Lake structured its investment into the New Zealand All Blacks rugby team, and how CVC organized its $2.2 billion Spanish soccer deal with LaLiga.

---

https://www.sportico.com/business/finance/2023/florida-state-athletics-jpmorgan-private-equity-funding-acc-1234733152/

---

Yes. I've read that article. And true, they may not have the cash right now. But they're devising ways to get it. But, perhaps in advance of 2029, they won't even need to. If a majority elect to dissolve the conference, then it becomes a moot point. We have FSU, UNC, Virginia, VTech, Clemson, NC State, and Miami all rumored to want out. So they would need one more vote to dismantle the whole thing. I don't think any vote would include us or Stanford.

So, yes, it would be a big hurdle. But its not out of the question. And the closer we get to 2029, the more eager the schools will be to exit. 5 years is a loooong time. 11 years is an eternity.

---

Okay, got it. But the majority includes 3 more teams next year, which makes 18 teams assuming Notre Dame gets a vote, or 10 teams for a majority. (A vote of 9 to 9 is not a majority vote, it is a tie). That means 3 more votes. Notre Dame could be one of those votes if the conference is blowing-up and Calford could leave for a more geographically desirable alternative. So it could happen under the right circumstances. One thing is that NC state doesn't necessary follow lock-step with NC. And I agree, 11 years is an eternity.

---

WIAF, if there was a vote for dissolution of the conference, do we know if we have a vote in that regard?

---

Not a legal expert, but once we become official members then yes I think so. Our deal was only to give up a portion of the media revenue for a set time. Otherwise we'd be full members with voting rights.

I see. So then they would need 9 plus 1 for majority. A much harder road to be sure. But I'm thinking if they want out - nothing is gonna stop them.

philly1121 said:

---

I see. So then they would need 9 plus 1 for majority. A much harder road to be sure. But I'm thinking if they want out - nothing is gonna stop them.

---

All they have to do is pony up a f***ton of money.

True that.

sycasey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

I see. So then they would need 9 plus 1 for majority. A much harder road to be sure. But I'm thinking if they want out - nothing is gonna stop them.

---

All they have to do is pony up a f***ton of money.

---

I really think people are missing the scope of the issue for those that want to leave. There is no set buyout. The price to leave is whatever the other ACC teams want to ask for. People are assuming they just pay the defined buyout and the amount of their media rights. That isn't the case.

The media rights are sold. They do not own them. They cannot buy them back unless the ACC wants to sell.

Neither the Big 10 nor the SEC is going to take them without their media rights. I'd say that is pretty much a poison pill.

The ACC does not have to sell their media rights back to them for $50M a year. In fact, why would they? They should say that the value of those rights has gone up. Obviously you think it has or you wouldn't be trying to get out of this deal.

The only thing that caps the asking price from the ACC is that they know that in 2036 those teams can leave free of charge. So at some point, it might be worth it to take a pot of money to allow early departure. But that is going to be a long time from now.

It is very possible that the ACC at this time says - there is no amount of money that can make us allow you to walk away with your media rights. We will not give it to you. If you want to leave, we keep the licensing rights.

If they were to come up with a price right now, I don't see why it would be short of $1 billion. That is just $75M a year. Frankly, I think the asking would be higher.

If they can't find a way to have the contract set aside, I don't see them buying their way out until we get pretty close to the end.

I would also look at the confidence of the Wake poster who has been living with this thing a lot longer than we have.

The ACC is a giant loser of a network. Clemson and FSU were given fraudulent projections of future revenue by known sex criminal jim phillips and signed the GOR extension under duress. That fraud is going to be the cornerstone of any litigation.

Oh, and do yourselves a favor and read this.

As Texas and Oklahoma get ready to leave Big 12 for SEC, they face a much lesser financial impact from the move than the $160 million originally expected -- and ESPN is helping to further cushion the blow. Inside the many machinations with @kbohls: https://t.co/1jRpXQixSp

— Steve Berkowitz (@ByBerkowitz) September 22, 2023

Texas and OU paid basically nothing to get of their GOR and espn helped grease the wheels to make it happen.


Clemson and FSU are out.

Thanks.

But I'm on pins and needles like everyone else.

I think Clemson likes the ACC, they just want to compete. Not enough media money is not their problem this year, as it wasn't why they were highly competitive a couple of years and decade ago.

Who knows what fantasies FSU entertains. I will stipulate they would probably rather be in another conference. As long as they leave your money behind good riddance.

Losing UNC would be a gut shot. I know UNC likes the ACC.

Of course, I assume PAC 12 members liked the PAC-12, until it vanished.

I don't think the ACC can vanish because a) there is nowhere for a majority to go, and b) specifically, there are no schools (other than possibly Louisville, but I doubt it) that would choose the Big 12 over the remainder teams in the ACC.

The Big 12 has been playing better football than the ACC the last couple of years. But the ACC fan bases and markets are more valuable than the Big 12s. Even if the more valuable schools leave.

I'm guessing there will be some End Game before 2036, but if there's not, I assume we are together until 2036.

The Big 12, and then having a contract, and the PAC having no contract, and panic killed the PAC.

The ACC has a contract for years, 15-18 schools, and no more than six of our schools are desired by the P2. Perhaps zero. So it's not arrogance, it's just different. Big 12 fans are utterly delusional in their "when the ACC collapses" talk. Pitt doesn't want to go to the Big 12. VT doesn't. Miami doesn't. GT doesn't. NCSU doesn't. Wake sure doesn't!

(Ps I can imagine that if this is not in the contract you guys signed, that the remainder teams would not force you to pay a half billion to get out. As long as you didn't try while we were negotiating to get a half billion from anyone else leaving first. Not just because your media rights are less valuable, but because of empathy.)

accprisoner said:

---

The ACC is a giant loser of a network. Clemson and FSU were given fraudulent projections of future revenue by known sex criminal jim phillips and signed the GOR extension under duress. That fraud is going to be the cornerstone of any litigation.

Oh, and do yourselves a favor and read this.

As Texas and Oklahoma get ready to leave Big 12 for SEC, they face a much lesser financial impact from the move than the $160 million originally expected -- and ESPN is helping to further cushion the blow. Inside the many machinations with @kbohls: https://t.co/1jRpXQixSp

— Steve Berkowitz (@ByBerkowitz) September 22, 2023

Texas and OU paid basically nothing to get of their GOR and espn helped grease the wheels to make it happen.


Clemson and FSU are out.

---

I did myself a favor and if you want to argue that Clemson and FSU will leave in 2034 paying 65% (as Texas and Oklahoma did), I'd agree that is extremely plausible because taking the 65% and letting them leave early with no lawsuits is a better deal than making them wait two years and getting nothing or letting it drag in courts for a few years and paying legal fees. As I pointed out, the closer you get to the end, the more the incentives are going to be to negotiate. We aren't there yet.

You are not going to win a claim of duress. Zero percent chance. Lawyers sanctioned for bringing frivolous lawsuits kind of thing.

No idea what the evidence is of fraudulent projections but that would be really hard to prove. You are going to have to show that they were both wrong and known to be wrong when they were provided. It will take years to prove that.

Now, if they actually clearly committed fraud, they'll want to make it go away real fast and take a bargain basement price, but you won't know that (if ever) until there is a settlement or until it actually goes to trial. If they had evidence of that it would be stupid to release it publicly since that gives up the value of the bargaining power, and it is a lot easier to throw out accusations on anyone's fan board or at alumni gatherings, etc. than it is to prove in court.

The inability of the parasite schools like wake and duke to understand that the problem isnt the money now, its the money in the future is baffling.

Clemson football will not survive a world where rutgers is can pay double for a coach what they can. Fsu cannot survive a world where their entire operating budget is what Indiana is paying in NIL (because guess what, we are also heading toward a world where schools start paying players directly out of tv earnings).

If the acc survives until 2036, every school in it will be wake forest and the renegotiated acc deal will be 8m a school.

DemonDeke said:

---

Thanks.

But I'm on pins and needles like everyone else.

I think Clemson likes the ACC, they just want to compete. Not enough media money is not their problem this year, as it wasn't why they were highly competitive a couple of years and decade ago.

Who knows what fantasies FSU entertains. I will stipulate they would probably rather be in another conference. As long as they leave your money behind good riddance.

Losing UNC would be a gut shot. I know UNC likes the ACC.

Of course, I assume PAC 12 members liked the PAC-12, until it vanished.

I don't think the ACC can vanish because a) there is nowhere for a majority to go, and b) specifically, there are no schools (other than possibly Louisville, but I doubt it) that would choose the Big 12 over the remainder teams in the ACC.

The Big 12 has been playing better football than the ACC the last couple of years. But the ACC fan bases and markets are more valuable than the Big 12s. Even if the more valuable schools leave.

I'm guessing there will be some End Game before 2036, but if there's not, I assume we are together until 2036.

(Ps I can imagine that if this is not in the contract you guys signed, that the remainder teams would not force you to pay a half billion to get out. As long as you didn't try while we were negotiating to get a half billion from anyone else leaving first. Not just because your media rights are less valuable, but because of empathy.)

---

Let's be honest, our value over replacement is hovering at about 0, as are a lot of the other ACC teams. So, I'm guessing they wouldn't care that much unless our departure was creating a critical situation where the conference would implode.

I do think that college football is creating a couple of Yugoslavias that have no real bond and that they are creating potentially very unstable conferences. One very real possibility is that everyone decides this experiment sucked and goes their separate ways. Like it is very possible that either the Big 10 decides that UCLA, USC, Washington and Oregon didn't bring the value they thought, the teams don't get the value they thought or BOTH actually happens and there is no traditional bond keeping them together.

The most divine irony is that the acc would probably have stayed intact had they just signed a more reasonable term contract and renegotiated for fair market value.

Instead every school in it comitted suicide by agreeing to peanuts for 20 years.

accprisoner said:

---

The inability of the parasite schools like wake and duke to understand that the problem isnt the money now, its the money in the future is baffling.

Clemson football will not survive a world where rutgers is can pay double for a coach what they can. Fsu cannot survive a world where their entire operating budget is what Indiana is paying in NIL (because guess what, we are also heading toward a world where schools start paying players directly out of tv earnings).

If the acc survives until 2036, every school in it will be wake forest and the renegotiated acc deal will be 8m a school.

---

So we're in agreement. "College Football" is dead, and laundry will be playing minor league games in mostly secondary markets, sooner rather than later.

Cool.

accprisoner said:

---

The inability of the parasite schools like wake and duke to understand that the problem isnt the money now, its the money in the future is baffling.

Clemson football will not survive a world where rutgers is can pay double for a coach what they can. Fsu cannot survive a world where their entire operating budget is what Indiana is paying in NIL (because guess what, we are also heading toward a world where schools start paying players directly out of tv earnings).

If the acc survives until 2036, every school in it will be wake forest and the renegotiated acc deal will be 8m a school.

---

I think they did understand that which is why there is a contract with an extremely onerous exit clause and which is why I don't understand why Clemson and FSU signed it. If they had Texas and Oklahoma's deal, they'd be gone by now even if they had to pay 100% of it instead of 65%.

I don't know which school you are from, but you should be mad at your administration for signing the deal, not for Wake and Duke for enforcing it.

accprisoner said:

---

The most divine irony is that the acc would probably have stayed intact had they just signed a more reasonable term contract and renegotiated for fair market value.

Instead every school in it comitted suicide by agreeing to peanuts for 20 years.

---

Between the three of us newcomers, we will try to compete with less than two thirds of a peanut total, for thirteen years. Fail. Epic fail.

Fsu clemson and unc will be getting out of it anyway. Miami, and uva to folllow. No future in the acc.

65% of $600 million, plus the $120 million exit fee?

Yes, that is probably a reasonable over/under for breakage payment.

Wake is a charter member of the ACC, has been to seven straight bowls games, our ACC record since Clawson arrived I think is third or fourth best in the league, and we've beaten FSU three games in a row. Ask anybody in the league who has seen or used our facilities about their quality.

If your school didn't want to sign the deal, they shouldn't have. And if it wants to leave, have at it. Just live up to your bargain - like men, regretfully or angrily, I don't care. The ACC will survive without you. Weakened or not.

If you want to use the excuse that you can't compete because of future money differences, fine. Though that is no real excuse. Nothing is preventing your school, whatever it is, from being a top 10 perennial program except excellence.

(I'm going to invent a rule to force myself to comment no more than once per thread to any poster not a Cal fan. I appreciate we can join your board!)

accprisoner said:

---

The inability of the parasite schools like wake and duke to understand that the problem isnt the money now, its the money in the future is baffling.

Clemson football will not survive a world where rutgers is can pay double for a coach what they can. Fsu cannot survive a world where their entire operating budget is what Indiana is paying in NIL (because guess what, we are also heading toward a world where schools start paying players directly out of tv earnings).

If the acc survives until 2036, every school in it will be wake forest and the renegotiated acc deal will be 8m a school.

---

Oh I think everyone understands how Clemson and FSU are thinking about this. What I don't understand and have yet to hear a valid theory for is how they get out of the ACC media deal they signed, at least within the next 7 years or so. After that the Big Ten contract will be up and I can see a scenario where there is a lot of reshuffling. Up until then, what can they do?

Don't just answer that so-and-so schools WANT to leave and make more money. I'm sure they do. By what mechanism will that happen?

DemonDeke said:

---

Wake is a charter member of the ACC, has been to seven straight bowls games, our ACC record since Clawson arrived I think is third or fourth best in the league, and we've beaten FSU three games in a row. Ask anybody in the league who has seen or used our facilities about their quality.

If your school didn't want to sign the deal, they shouldn't have. And if it wants to leave, have at it. Just live up to your bargain - like men, regretfully or angrily, I don't care. The ACC will survive without you. Weakened or not.

If you want to use the excuse that you can't compete because of future money differences, fine. Though that is no real excuse. Nothing is preventing your school, whatever it is, from being a top 10 perennial program except excellence.

(I'm going to invent a rule to force myself to comment no more than once per thread to any poster not a Cal fan. I appreciate we can join your board!)

---

Good for you, parasite. Now get some actual fans to watch your games and maybe the acc wont be so ****ing broke.

Wake, duke, bc, etc should be down their knees thanking clemson and fsu every day for rescuing them from oblivion. Instead, ungrateful rambling

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

I did myself a favor and if you want to argue that Clemson and FSU will leave in 2034 paying 65% (as Texas and Oklahoma did), I'd agree that is extremely plausible because taking the 65% and letting them leave early with no lawsuits is a better deal than making them wait two years and getting nothing or letting it drag in courts for a few years and paying legal fees. As I pointed out, the closer you get to the end, the more the incentives are going to be to negotiate. We aren't there yet.

---

Yeah, there were two things that stand out in that article: (1) Texas and Oklahoma are getting no media rights money next year from either the Big 12 or the SEC. ESPN gave them a few extra bucks to make that more palatable to them, but the bottom line is that, to leave one year early, they had to agree to take no media rights money for that year from either their old conference or their new conference. (2) ESPN got the Big 12 to play nicer than they had to, and the Big 12 got a new TV contract that paid them as much as they were getting with UT and OU in the league, despite the fact that the Big 12 (even with its new additions) is worth far less to TV without UT and OU.

So, IF this was actually some kind of precedent for FSU and a friend to exit the ACC at some point, then the precedent would be: (1) FSU and friend get no media money from either the ACC or their new conference for each year remaining on the ACC GOR, which is do-able if they leave a year or two before the end of the GOR, but very unlikely if they leave 8 or 10 years early. (2) ESPN gets the ACC to let them go quietly by giving the ACC a contract extension of several years for the same money per-school that the ACC was getting before the departures.

sycasey said:

---

accprisoner said:

---

The inability of the parasite schools like wake and duke to understand that the problem isnt the money now, its the money in the future is baffling.

Clemson football will not survive a world where rutgers is can pay double for a coach what they can. Fsu cannot survive a world where their entire operating budget is what Indiana is paying in NIL (because guess what, we are also heading toward a world where schools start paying players directly out of tv earnings).

If the acc survives until 2036, every school in it will be wake forest and the renegotiated acc deal will be 8m a school.

---

Oh I think everyone understands how Clemson and FSU are thinking about this. What I don't understand and have yet to hear a valid theory for is how they get out of the ACC media deal they signed, at least within the next 7 years or so. After that the Big Ten contract will be up and I can see a scenario where there is a lot of reshuffling. Up until then, what can they do?

Don't just answer that so-and-so schools WANT to leave and make more money. I'm sure they do. By what mechanism will that happen?

---

I think the theory was they were defrauded by sex criminals.

The TV networks are 100% doing all this. They killed the Pac-12 with a plan years ago. USC had killed the Texas/OU to pac-12 deal in secret before any of us knew about their lil plan a year or more later. It had nothing to do with who was leading the pac-12. USC and the TV networks had this planned out years in advance. If I were you, I might look into phone records of some of the clemson ADs and see who they've been talking to. See how USC did it, because the execs think they're smart. They'll use the same thing and same way of doing it.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

sycasey said:

---

accprisoner said:

---

The inability of the parasite schools like wake and duke to understand that the problem isnt the money now, its the money in the future is baffling.

Clemson football will not survive a world where rutgers is can pay double for a coach what they can. Fsu cannot survive a world where their entire operating budget is what Indiana is paying in NIL (because guess what, we are also heading toward a world where schools start paying players directly out of tv earnings).

If the acc survives until 2036, every school in it will be wake forest and the renegotiated acc deal will be 8m a school.

---

Oh I think everyone understands how Clemson and FSU are thinking about this. What I don't understand and have yet to hear a valid theory for is how they get out of the ACC media deal they signed, at least within the next 7 years or so. After that the Big Ten contract will be up and I can see a scenario where there is a lot of reshuffling. Up until then, what can they do?

Don't just answer that so-and-so schools WANT to leave and make more money. I'm sure they do. By what mechanism will that happen?

---

I think the theory was they were defrauded by sex criminals.

---

I said I wanted a VALID theory.

sycasey said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

sycasey said:

---

accprisoner said:

---

The inability of the parasite schools like wake and duke to understand that the problem isnt the money now, its the money in the future is baffling.

Clemson football will not survive a world where rutgers is can pay double for a coach what they can. Fsu cannot survive a world where their entire operating budget is what Indiana is paying in NIL (because guess what, we are also heading toward a world where schools start paying players directly out of tv earnings).

If the acc survives until 2036, every school in it will be wake forest and the renegotiated acc deal will be 8m a school.

---

Oh I think everyone understands how Clemson and FSU are thinking about this. What I don't understand and have yet to hear a valid theory for is how they get out of the ACC media deal they signed, at least within the next 7 years or so. After that the Big Ten contract will be up and I can see a scenario where there is a lot of reshuffling. Up until then, what can they do?

Don't just answer that so-and-so schools WANT to leave and make more money. I'm sure they do. By what mechanism will that happen?

---

I think the theory was they were defrauded by sex criminals.

---

I said I wanted a VALID theory.

---

How about a pizza parlor being involved? Location, location, location.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

accprisoner said:

---

The most divine irony is that the acc would probably have stayed intact had they just signed a more reasonable term contract and renegotiated for fair market value.

Instead every school in it comitted suicide by agreeing to peanuts for 20 years.

---

Between the three of us newcomers, we will try to compete with less than two thirds of a peanut total, for thirteen years. Fail. Epic fail.

---

Yeah, that's the saddest part. We get less than two-thirds share for 13 years. I mean - yeah. Cal would sign a contract like that.

I get that any exit would require alot of cash. And the GoR seems ironclad. But what I struggle with is - by 2036 - the ACC will be so far behind other conferences in terms of payout that the GoR would be a noose around each teams neck. They wouldn't survive anyway. So I would wonder why they would even enforce the GoR - if the conference lasts past 2029/30. It seems like the worst deal ever made. At least looking at it today.

And ESPN knows this. But they did a good job of handcuffing the ACC into this deal. I suppose they could make life really difficult for an FSU or a Clemson if they chose to go to the Big10. But again - is it worth the fight after 2029? I think this is why 5-6 teams want to just leave now. They can see how much money they're gonna lose. Which is what I've been writing. They're looking at $100's of millions lost if they stay. Which, is probably accurate given trajectory of this whole thing.

We appreciate your contributions here, DemonDeke.

philly1121 said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

accprisoner said:

---

The most divine irony is that the acc would probably have stayed intact had they just signed a more reasonable term contract and renegotiated for fair market value.

Instead every school in it comitted suicide by agreeing to peanuts for 20 years.

---

Between the three of us newcomers, we will try to compete with less than two thirds of a peanut total, for thirteen years. Fail. Epic fail.

---

Yeah, that's the saddest part. We get less than two-thirds share for 13 years. I mean - yeah. Cal would sign a contract like that.

I get that any exit would require alot of cash. And the GoR seems ironclad. But what I struggle with is - by 2036 - the ACC will be so far behind other conferences in terms of payout that the GoR would be a noose around each teams neck. They wouldn't survive anyway. So I would wonder why they would even enforce the GoR - if the conference lasts past 2029/30. It seems like the worst deal ever made. At least looking at it today.

And ESPN knows this. But they did a good job of handcuffing the ACC into this deal. I suppose they could make life really difficult for an FSU or a Clemson if they chose to go to the Big10. But again - is it worth the fight after 2029? I think this is why 5-6 teams want to just leave now. They can see how much money they're gonna lose. Which is what I've been writing. They're looking at $100's of millions lost if they stay. Which, is probably accurate given trajectory of this whole thing.

---

The biggest unknown out there is the value of college football media rights in another 5 years. I think the Pac-12 contract issues are the canary in the coalmine. Cord cutting is impacting the cable subscription market, which is impacting the bottom line for espn and fox. In the nba, a lot of teams are not getting local tv deals as the regional sports networks are going under. The market is shrinking, and the money is drying up, assuming media rights are going to continue to rise is a dubious assumption.

In the 2030's the giant conference tv contracts may not be there.

golden sloth said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

accprisoner said:

---

The most divine irony is that the acc would probably have stayed intact had they just signed a more reasonable term contract and renegotiated for fair market value.

Instead every school in it comitted suicide by agreeing to peanuts for 20 years.

---

Between the three of us newcomers, we will try to compete with less than two thirds of a peanut total, for thirteen years. Fail. Epic fail.

---

Yeah, that's the saddest part. We get less than two-thirds share for 13 years. I mean - yeah. Cal would sign a contract like that.

I get that any exit would require alot of cash. And the GoR seems ironclad. But what I struggle with is - by 2036 - the ACC will be so far behind other conferences in terms of payout that the GoR would be a noose around each teams neck. They wouldn't survive anyway. So I would wonder why they would even enforce the GoR - if the conference lasts past 2029/30. It seems like the worst deal ever made. At least looking at it today.

And ESPN knows this. But they did a good job of handcuffing the ACC into this deal. I suppose they could make life really difficult for an FSU or a Clemson if they chose to go to the Big10. But again - is it worth the fight after 2029? I think this is why 5-6 teams want to just leave now. They can see how much money they're gonna lose. Which is what I've been writing. They're looking at $100's of millions lost if they stay. Which, is probably accurate given trajectory of this whole thing.

---

The biggest unknown out there is the value of college football media rights in another 5 years. I think the Pac-12 contract issues are the canary in the coalmine. Cord cutting is impacting the cable subscription market, which is impacting the bottom line for espn and fox. In the nba, a lot of teams are not getting local tv deals as the regional sports networks are going under. The market is shrinking, and the money is drying up, assuming media rights are going to continue to rise is a dubious assumption.

In the 2030's the giant conference tv contracts may not be there.

---

I think there's a lot of things going on right now. From the economy struggling to politics in sports becoming mainstream being a turnoff for a lot. (Yes I know many here like that). Many issues including cord cutting effecting viewership and not only that but attendance and prices to sporting events. (Like US Soccer seems to price out its fans). Issues in pro-sports like teams packing up and leaving cities they've been part of for multi-decades that turn off its fans. Cal seems to not reach out at all very much to its local market.

With the new TV contracts, the amount of commercial time seems to be a real issue for fans both attending and watching. That seems to be the devil in the details on these huge contracts college conferences are signing, they aren't protecting their viewership at all, like the NFL even managed to do.

golden sloth said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

accprisoner said:

---

The most divine irony is that the acc would probably have stayed intact had they just signed a more reasonable term contract and renegotiated for fair market value.

Instead every school in it comitted suicide by agreeing to peanuts for 20 years.

---

Between the three of us newcomers, we will try to compete with less than two thirds of a peanut total, for thirteen years. Fail. Epic fail.

---

Yeah, that's the saddest part. We get less than two-thirds share for 13 years. I mean - yeah. Cal would sign a contract like that.

I get that any exit would require alot of cash. And the GoR seems ironclad. But what I struggle with is - by 2036 - the ACC will be so far behind other conferences in terms of payout that the GoR would be a noose around each teams neck. They wouldn't survive anyway. So I would wonder why they would even enforce the GoR - if the conference lasts past 2029/30. It seems like the worst deal ever made. At least looking at it today.

And ESPN knows this. But they did a good job of handcuffing the ACC into this deal. I suppose they could make life really difficult for an FSU or a Clemson if they chose to go to the Big10. But again - is it worth the fight after 2029? I think this is why 5-6 teams want to just leave now. They can see how much money they're gonna lose. Which is what I've been writing. They're looking at $100's of millions lost if they stay. Which, is probably accurate given trajectory of this whole thing.

---

The biggest unknown out there is the value of college football media rights in another 5 years. I think the Pac-12 contract issues are the canary in the coalmine. Cord cutting is impacting the cable subscription market, which is impacting the bottom line for espn and fox. In the nba, a lot of teams are not getting local tv deals as the regional sports networks are going under. The market is shrinking, and the money is drying up, assuming media rights are going to continue to rise is a dubious assumption.

In the 2030's the giant conference tv contracts may not be there.

---

More than a few people think the current B1G and SEC contracts are basically the high point and the payouts will be smaller next time. Those deals were overpays because the networks were desperate for live content.

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

accprisoner said:

---

The most divine irony is that the acc would probably have stayed intact had they just signed a more reasonable term contract and renegotiated for fair market value.

Instead every school in it comitted suicide by agreeing to peanuts for 20 years.

---

Between the three of us newcomers, we will try to compete with less than two thirds of a peanut total, for thirteen years. Fail. Epic fail.

---

Yeah, that's the saddest part. We get less than two-thirds share for 13 years. I mean - yeah. Cal would sign a contract like that.

I get that any exit would require alot of cash. And the GoR seems ironclad. But what I struggle with is - by 2036 - the ACC will be so far behind other conferences in terms of payout that the GoR would be a noose around each teams neck. They wouldn't survive anyway. So I would wonder why they would even enforce the GoR - if the conference lasts past 2029/30. It seems like the worst deal ever made. At least looking at it today.

And ESPN knows this. But they did a good job of handcuffing the ACC into this deal. I suppose they could make life really difficult for an FSU or a Clemson if they chose to go to the Big10. But again - is it worth the fight after 2029? I think this is why 5-6 teams want to just leave now. They can see how much money they're gonna lose. Which is what I've been writing. They're looking at $100's of millions lost if they stay. Which, is probably accurate given trajectory of this whole thing.

---

The biggest unknown out there is the value of college football media rights in another 5 years. I think the Pac-12 contract issues are the canary in the coalmine. Cord cutting is impacting the cable subscription market, which is impacting the bottom line for espn and fox. In the nba, a lot of teams are not getting local tv deals as the regional sports networks are going under. The market is shrinking, and the money is drying up, assuming media rights are going to continue to rise is a dubious assumption.

In the 2030's the giant conference tv contracts may not be there.

---

More than a few people think the current B1G and SEC contracts are basically the high point and the payouts will be smaller next time. Those deals were overpays because the networks were desperate for live content.

---

1. Young people don't like sports as much

2. Young people value experiences more.

3. Young people value watching people have experiences more.

4. It is the YouTube generation and there is tons of great content on YouTube. While old timers and worse old line content providers think YouTube is just filled with people in there basement pointing a phone and doing hijinx, there are many content providers with full production companies who produce compelling content at a fraction of the cost. None of the sports leagues understand how to take advantage of the new medium. Jomboy is a tiny example of the type of thing they need a lot more of, but they also need content providers creating content at games that are more around the experience of being there. They need commentary and breakdowns like you see with things like Marvel or Star Wars productions. They need Mr, Beast like content. They have nothing.

Do a contest where college students compete for a trip to the Super Bowl, then follow the winners from take off to the game to after party first class all the way. Or better, sponsor big name streamers and vloggers to make content and comp them tickets and things to do so.

They are failing to understand new media and how young people consume it. They are basically the equivalent of Johnny Carson reruns.

Note, this doesn't necessarily change the old media, but adds to it.

If ESPN would kick in, that plan would make a lot of sense.

Then ACC could become All Coasts Conference? America's Coastal Conference?

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

accprisoner said:

---

The most divine irony is that the acc would probably have stayed intact had they just signed a more reasonable term contract and renegotiated for fair market value.

Instead every school in it comitted suicide by agreeing to peanuts for 20 years.

---

Between the three of us newcomers, we will try to compete with less than two thirds of a peanut total, for thirteen years. Fail. Epic fail.

---

Yeah, that's the saddest part. We get less than two-thirds share for 13 years. I mean - yeah. Cal would sign a contract like that.

I get that any exit would require alot of cash. And the GoR seems ironclad. But what I struggle with is - by 2036 - the ACC will be so far behind other conferences in terms of payout that the GoR would be a noose around each teams neck. They wouldn't survive anyway. So I would wonder why they would even enforce the GoR - if the conference lasts past 2029/30. It seems like the worst deal ever made. At least looking at it today.

And ESPN knows this. But they did a good job of handcuffing the ACC into this deal. I suppose they could make life really difficult for an FSU or a Clemson if they chose to go to the Big10. But again - is it worth the fight after 2029? I think this is why 5-6 teams want to just leave now. They can see how much money they're gonna lose. Which is what I've been writing. They're looking at $100's of millions lost if they stay. Which, is probably accurate given trajectory of this whole thing.

---

The biggest unknown out there is the value of college football media rights in another 5 years. I think the Pac-12 contract issues are the canary in the coalmine. Cord cutting is impacting the cable subscription market, which is impacting the bottom line for espn and fox. In the nba, a lot of teams are not getting local tv deals as the regional sports networks are going under. The market is shrinking, and the money is drying up, assuming media rights are going to continue to rise is a dubious assumption.

In the 2030's the giant conference tv contracts may not be there.

---

More than a few people think the current B1G and SEC contracts are basically the high point and the payouts will be smaller next time. Those deals were overpays because the networks were desperate for live content.

---

Agree. I would also look the next post about new media and the way young consumers watch sports. This is going to flip on the linear programs at some point, and David Shaw may be right, there is less money, and perhaps a move back to regional conferences.

DoubtfulBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

KPG said:

---

Gene Sapakoff of Charlston, SC's Post & Courier, who covers Clemson & University of South Carolina, has an interesting piece today on Clemson.

"School administrators indicate an announcement about a Clemson bolt from its growing financial disadvantage in the ACC relative to the SEC and Big Ten schools is coming soon, probably along with Florida State and North Carolina and perhaps another ACC school or more - even as University of South Carolina officials try to block Clemson from the SEC.

How soon?

"Sooner than later," a Clemson senior administrator said last week when asked about a timetable.

Sometime in 2023?

"Stay very tuned," the administrator said.

Sapakoff then goes on to speculate about various permutations of North Carolina, Florida State, Clemson, Miami, and Georgia Tech looking to the SEC, Big Ten, or Big 12.

See for yourself here. I'm sure 12-foot-ladder or other paywall sites would help intrepid fans access the full article.

We may need to accelerate whatever contingency plans are in place for the 2036 ACC collapse, as the ACC may not be a viable option sooner than we think.

Would Cal still be interested in an ACC consisting of: Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, Virginia, Va Tech, Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse, Louiville, Cal, stanford, and SMU? Would anyone?

---

This may be a financial windfall to Cal if the four teams leaven pay the huge exit fee.

---

No chance the existing ACC members vote to share the exit fee with Calford and SMU

---

Calford and SMU were added to the ACC conference to save it for this very reason.