gobears49, ur either really clueless or a really funny troll, the big 12 lobbying machine led by berkeley grad karen "acc prisoner" brodkin of la's enpower marketing firm is just making up **** on behalf of their client, the big 12 commish

reality is that there are contracts & a contractually ironclad gor in place, the acc isn't going anywhere just because florida state is tryna negotiate a a buyout that's not gonna happen

maybe u should just root for the big 12's truck stop schools that got no academic admission requirements or something, got it?

southseasbear said:

---

This is depressing.

---

no, the definition of depressing wuz u posting that chris street should "follow his dreams" in throwing away a berkeley degree & future potential generational wealth after almost 3 years of studies in order to now be a back up running back at utah tech

I watched the full video, and Drake C Toll's logic does not make sense to me.

I don't understand how he can say both the Big Twelve is strong and the ACC is weak, or why ESPN is going to kill the ACC to move the biggest schools into other conferences.

First, regarding the Big Twelve's strength, the Big Twelve has a relative small population following, and no big name brands. Who is the biggest brand in the Big Twelve? Utah? BYU? Maybe Colorda with Coach Prime (which is a temporary bump)? He claims Boston College doesn't deliver the Boston market for the ACC and he might be right. Yet, at the same time, we can't say that Texas Tech, TCU, Houston and Baylor deliver the Texas market, Cincinatti delivers the Ohio market or UCF delivers the Florida market. The schools the Big Twelve has are either the Big Dog in a small or medium market or an afterthought in a big market, therefore they have a small population following in spite of having large population footprint. Without a big name brand or a large population following, the Big Twelve will be at a financial disadvantage with the B1G and the SEC, and will see their best coaches and players move to those conferences due to that disadvantage.

Second, he talks of ESPN not opting into the ACC in 2027, claiming instead that they want to move those schools into other conferences. This also does not make sense. All the discussion is about how the ACC's media deal is incredibly beneficial to ESPN at the expense of the schools. Why would ESPN kill the deal when they are the biggest beneficiaries? Further, the speaker references ESPN not making money on ACC games, yet the payout between the ACC and Big Twelve is comprable, and if Wake Forest vrs Duke is not making ESPN money, then Iowa St - Kansas is not making ESPN any money. Further, if ESPN did want to poach the top 4 or 5 schools, they would need to move the schools into either the SEC or the Big Twelve and the not the B1G as they do not have a media deal with the B1G. FSU and Clemson might like the SEC, but North Carolina, Virgnia, and Miami have to be eyeing the B1G, so ESPN would be taking a huge risk in breaking up a good deal without the guarantee of being able to secure all the top schools they want.

The only thing I do agree with is that the conference does not make geographic sense, but I'd counter that Cincinnati, West Virginia, and UCF do not make sense in the Big Twelve.

In conclusion, there is plenty of concern about the long-term future of the ACC, but I am not worried about ESPN not opting into the contract and killing the conference. Further,,I still see three tiers of conferences inevitably forming in 5 - 6 years:

• Tier 1 - B1G & SEC - after they grab Florida State, Clemson, Miami, & North Carolina
• Tier 2 - Big Twelve & leftovers of the ACC (in separate conferences)
• Tier 3 - Everyone else

ESPN has a great deal with the ACC, why would they blow it up?

golden sloth said:

---

I watched the full video, and Drake C Toll's logic does not make sense to me.

I don't understand how he can say both the Big Twelve is strong and the ACC is weak, or why ESPN is going to kill the ACC to move the biggest schools into other conferences.

First, regarding the Big Twelve's strength, the Big Twelve has a relative small population following, and no big name brands. Who is the biggest brand in the Big Twelve? Utah? BYU? Maybe Colorda with Coach Prime (which is a temporary bump)? He claims Boston College doesn't deliver the Boston market for the ACC and he might be right. Yet, at the same time, we can't say that Texas Tech, TCU, Houston and Baylor deliver the Texas market, Cincinatti delivers the Ohio market or UCF delivers the Florida market. The schools the Big Twelve has are either the Big Dog in a small or medium market or an afterthought in a big market, therefore they have a small population following in spite of having large population footprint. Without a big name brand or a large population following, the Big Twelve will be at a financial disadvantage with the B1G and the SEC, and will see their best coaches and players move to those conferences due to that disadvantage.

Second, he talks of ESPN not opting into the ACC in 2027, claiming instead that they want to move those schools into other conferences. This also does not make sense. All the discussion is about how the ACC's media deal is incredibly beneficial to ESPN at the expense of the schools. Why would ESPN kill the deal when they are the biggest beneficiaries? Further, the speaker references ESPN not making money on ACC games, yet the payout between the ACC and Big Twelve is comprable, and if Wake Forest vrs Duke is not making ESPN money, then Iowa St - Kansas is not making ESPN any money. Further, if ESPN did want to poach the top 4 or 5 schools, they would need to move the schools into either the SEC or the Big Twelve and the not the B1G as they do not have a media deal with the B1G. FSU and Clemson might like the SEC, but North Carolina, Virgnia, and Miami have to be eyeing the B1G, so ESPN would be taking a huge risk in breaking up a good deal without the guarantee of being able to secure all the top schools they want.

The only thing I do agree with is that the conference does not make geographic sense, but I'd counter that Cincinnati, West Virginia, and UCF do not make sense in the Big Twelve.

In conclusion, there is plenty of concern about the long-term future of the ACC, but I am not worried about ESPN not opting into the contract and killing the conference. Further,,I still see three tiers of conferences inevitably forming in 5 - 6 years:

• Tier 1 - B1G & SEC - after they grab Florida State, Clemson, Miami, & North Carolina
• Tier 2 - Big Twelve & leftovers of the ACC (in separate conferences)
• Tier 3 - Everyone else

---

As was pointed out on the Bear Insider board, Drake Toll is a senior at Baylor University and does high school football play by play. He's also a vice president in Baylor's student government. I think we should give his opinion all the weight he's earned during the entire course of his sports journalism career.

This Drake guy consistently trashes California.
When he's not busy trashing California or going to maga rallies and chasing coloreds off of the Baylor campus with a tiki torch he's usually spending his time living vicariously through large black men from California recruited to the home of cults and treeless landscapes to win sports games for a school dolling out meaningless degrees.
His opinion means about as much to me as wilner fud's opinion.
Which is to say it doesn't mean anything.
Dude is just trying to make a living to pay for all the citronella for those tiki torches and Rufalin doses with clickbait.

bencgilmore said:

---

we gotta win. if we keep winning 6 or 7 a year, he's right, we're a money loser for anyone

---

Wilcox has not won 7 or more games since 2019.

southseasbear said:

---

bencgilmore said:

---

we gotta win. if we keep winning 6 or 7 a year, he's right, we're a money loser for anyone

---

Wilcox has not won 7 or more games since 2019.

---

the point is that none of what we've done in a long time will prove our Baylor streamer friend wrong

On the other hand, if we can start winning 9ish, and playing entertaining football, I think the ACC will have gotten a pretty sweet deal.

accprisoner said:

---

Because the acc's deal is only good because FSU is a mammoth tv draw. If FSU leaves, the acc goes from being a golden goose to an albatross overnight

---

ESPN wanted, and is paying the ACC $120 million a year, to add Cal, Stanford and SMU. If FSU was the only value they wouldn't air the other games. If ESPN wanted Florida State in the SEC, Florida State would already be in the SEC.

philly1121 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

accprisoner said:

---

Because the acc's deal is only good because FSU is a mammoth tv draw. If FSU leaves, the acc goes from being a golden goose to an albatross overnight

---

Clemson, Miami and North Carolina all just coughed.

Also, FSU cant leave without paying a huge price. They willfully signed on to this contract, there was no duress or deviance.

---

Put it this way goldensloth - FSU ranks first in viewership per game for the ACC. In 2023, they ranked 9th in total viewership across all conferences. And in games most watched in 2023, they had the 9th most watched game - excluding CFP games.

In either of those metrics above - there is no other ACC team. Now, you're correct - Clemson, UNC and Miami bring value. But none of their games even cracked the top 10 in per team viewership or matchups.

You're right. the contract seems ironclad. But the sheer weight of realignment and the movement of money to the SEC and B1G will certainly bring change sooner than 2036.

---

Using a one year sample size to determine TV value is not a good idea. Florida State was better than they typically are, went undefeated and their ratings benefitted because of that, but I would consider this last season an outlier, not the rule.

Yes, Florida State is a good draw, but to say they alone carry the conference, is wrong. Clemson had higher ratings than them for a good 4 or 5 year run within the last decade.

There is a delayed and exponential relationship to how good the team is to the ratings they provide.