Winning will matter even more going forward:

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/44093338/sources-fsu-clemson-expected-reach-settlement-acc

Thread title is a bit of a tease.

From the article, a settlement isn't final and is expected to be voted on tomorrow (Tuesday, 2025-03-05).

From my quick skim:

• New 60/40 split for TV money with the 60% being split based on average TV ratings over a 5 year period, and the 40 being split equally. Football TV ratings will account for 75% of the formula and basketball the other 25%.
• Penalties for leaving the conference reduce after 2030

I would have preferred the 60% is split equally and the 40% is divided on viewership. This also pretty much means the conference knows its losing schools 2030. 2029 is going to be a crazy year for realignment, we need the right people in place by then.

My questions:
1. How does this impact Cal's agreement with the ACC?
2. Cal doesn't have 5 years of history in the ACC, so I don't know how their TV averages would be accounted for.
3. When does this deal kick in?
4. The ACC Network typically doesn't compile TV ratings, therefore I don't know how their games are accounted for.
5. Is it time to hope for night games? Cal does better in the ratings when their is no competition, and night games mean more money now.

golden sloth said:

---

From my quick skim:

• New 60/40 split for TV money with the 60% being split based on average TV ratings over a 5 year period, and the 40 being split equally. Football TV ratings will account for 75% of the formula and basketball the other 25%.
• Penalties for leaving the conference reduce after 2030

I would have preferred the 60% is split equally and the 40% is divided on viewership. This also pretty much means the conference knows its losing schools 2030. 2029 is going to be a crazy year for realignment, we need the right people in place by then.

My questions:
1. How does this impact Cal's agreement with the ACC?
2. Cal doesn't have 5 years of history in the ACC, so I don't know how their TV averages would be accounted for.
3. When does this deal kick in?
4. The ACC Network typically doesn't compile TV ratings, therefore I don't know how their games are accounted for.
5. Is it time to hope for night games? Cal does better in the ratings when their is no competition, and night games mean more money now.

---

Quick edit:

It seems like this will not impact Cal in the immediate future due to this line:

Quote:

---

The brand initiative will be funded through a split in the league's TV revenue, with 40% distributed evenly among the 14 longstanding members and 60% going toward the brand initiative and distributed based on TV ratings.

---

Since Cal is not a longstanding member, and has a different agreement, Cal will likely not be impacted by the new financial arrangement.

golden sloth said:

---

From my quick skim:

• New 60/40 split for TV money with the 60% being split based on average TV ratings over a 5 year period, and the 40 being split equally. Football TV ratings will account for 75% of the formula and basketball the other 25%.
• Penalties for leaving the conference reduce after 2030

I would have preferred the 60% is split equally and the 40% is divided on viewership. This also pretty much means the conference knows its losing schools 2030. 2029 is going to be a crazy year for realignment, we need the right people in place by then.

My questions:
1. How does this impact Cal's agreement with the ACC?
2. Cal doesn't have 5 years of history in the ACC, so I don't know how their TV averages would be accounted for.
3. When does this deal kick in?
4. The ACC Network typically doesn't compile TV ratings, therefore I don't know how their games are accounted for.
5. Is it time to hope for night games? Cal does better in the ratings when their is no competition, and night games mean more money now.

---

Cal likely is ineligible for the brand initiatives. They along with Stanford and SMU are new members and will not be eligible. Just the 14 long standing memebers.

The program needs the right people in place now. Adding Rivera is a good start. I hope the new staffers make their mark on the program as well. The schedule is manageable. They need to win. Look at how SMU is perceived now due to their initial season in the ACC.

I think the expectation nationally is that when the next round of TV contracts come due there will be attrition in the ACC. Nobody believes that Clemson, FSU, UNC and Miami will be in the ACC long term.

I think Cal has its work cut out to make the grade when the next realignment comes. But they need to start winning now. Improve the attendance both in person and TV. I think brand initiatives and success initiatives are likely to be components of future TV agreements. The big schools are tired of sharing with those that do not really try to win. You better win if you want to be included.

The ACC grant of rights is effectively over in five years.

In about two years, maybe less, the Big Ten and SEC will start negotiating with the ACC members they want.

Quote:

---

Although the settlement will not make substantive changes to the grant of rights, it is expected that there will be declining financial penalties for schools that exit before 2036, with the steepest decreases coming after 2030 -- something that would apply to any ACC school, not just Clemson and Florida State.

The specific financial figures for schools to get released from the grant of rights were not readily available. But the total cost to exit the league after the 2029-30 season is expected to drop below $100 million, sources said.

---

yes. agreed with all posters that basically ACC is going to break apart in 2030.

Which means this promise of "Cal and Stanford come and you will earn your way to equal share" is complete bull. There won't be equal "share", because by then Clemson, Miami, NC and FSU will be gone. The Big 12 will come poaching, and it's a matter of whether the remaining ACC poaches the Big 12 or vice versa. I put my money on the Big 12 because they have the geographically more dominant states in terms of football. And the rejects band together with strength, knowing that SEC and Big10 will never come calling for any of those schools.

So basically, Knowlton F*ed us over in the most critical junture of our athletic program by keeping Wilcox in this position for so long, that the lifeboat/lifeline that we got will basically mean that we will never see the full revenue share and be an equal standing partner in this conference.

What we do have right now is a landing pad. By 2030 it's once again Big 10 or bust. If we don't make it, we will be begging for a B12 invite at...once again, reduce share for X years. In all honesty though, we probably won't get an invite to the Big 12 and it ends big time football here at Cal.


Edit: my only hope, If Sebastabear and Rivera can work their magic, we go on a run, become relevant, sell out Memorial starting in 2027. Make it to CFP a couple times, and go along with Stanford into the Big 10 with pride. It's our only hope.

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

yes. agreed with all posters that basically ACC is going to break apart in 2030.

Which means this promise of "Cal and Stanford come and you will earn your way to equal share" is complete bull. There won't be equal "share", because by then Clemson, Miami, NC and FSU will be gone. The Big 12 will come poaching, and it's a matter of whether the remaining ACC poaches the Big 12 or vice versa. I put my money on the Big 12 because they have the geographically more dominant states in terms of football. And the rejects band together with strength, knowing that SEC and Big10 will never come calling for any of those schools.

So basically, Knowlton F*ed us over in the most critical junture of our athletic program by keeping Wilcox in this position for so long, that the lifeboat/lifeline that we got will basically mean that we will never see the full revenue share and be an equal standing partner in this conference.

What we do have right now is a landing pad. By 2030 it's once again Big 10 or bust. If we don't make it, we will be begging for a B12 invite at...once again, reduce share for X years. In all honesty though, we probably won't get an invite to the Big 12 and it ends big time football here at Cal.


Edit: my only hope, If Sebastabear and Rivera can work their magic, we go on a run, become relevant, sell out Memorial starting in 2027. Make it to CFP a couple times, and go along with Stanford into the Big 10 with pride. It's our only hope.

---

I agree with this. The ACC sees the writing on the wall. College football is changing. The big brands and TV have the power. I do think Cal and Stanford to the B1G is possible. But the program will need to be relevant. We saw during the P12 collapse that the schools are all about the money. TV provides the money. TV wants eyeballs and good games.

Cal needs to win. Now.

Yet we have no change this far. KNOWLTON is still the AD. Rivera is still not officially onboard. Everything takes too long....they stood on the sidelines and now we are done.

The impact will come well before 2030. If you are a recruit, will you want to come play for a team that won't have a home in a relevant conference 2-3 years out. We lose recruits due to realignment forecasting starting in 2027.

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

Which means this promise of "Cal and Stanford come and you will earn your way to equal share" is complete bull.

---

That was never promised. Cal and Stanford were offered only about a 30% share of ACC revenue because (a) the ACC had to lower the offer from 100% to 30% in order to get enough votes to invite Cal and Stanford, and (b) Cal and Stanford had nowhere else to go, and thus had no leverage to demand a full share of ACC revenue.

Cal and Stanford merely bought themselves passage on a ship that is sinking more slowly than the Pac-12 ship sunk.

We should hope that Cal and Stanford get to work on a plan for 2030 and beyond, on the assumption that the Big Ten will never come calling. Would be wonderful if a Big Ten offer does arrive, and there should be a strong effort made on that front. But there needs to be work done to ensure that there is a solid option that doesn't involve hoping for the Big Ten.

I think it is foolish to think of the Big 12 as being in a better spot than the ACC. They aren't. They dont have the schools people care about and a lot of their numbers are inflated due to Deion.

I think there is still room for a second tier conference. Cal should be trying to forge that second tier conference by trying to get the best of the Big 12 and ACC to band together and form a new conference.

golden sloth said:

---

I think it is foolish to think of the Big 12 as being in a better spot than the ACC. They aren't. They dont have the schools people care about and a lot of their numbers are inflated due to Deion.

I think there is still room for a second tier conference. Cal should be trying to forge that second tier conference by trying to get the best of the Big 12 and ACC to band together and form a new conference.

---

yea we can go back and forth and argue over whether Viriginia tech is worth more than texas tech (they are prob close) but the reality though is that the Big12 contract ends first (intentionally by them). That's it, that one factor changes the game.

The Big 12 contract ends in 2030 and 2031, which means that they will more than likely enter into an early negotiation window in 2029. They will then only need to poach IMO 2 to 4 schools from the ACC to completely destabilize the ACC.

Let's say FSU and UNC goes, Miami and Clemson doesn't get pick up, they will for sure make them a Big 12 offer alongside a Virginia and Virginia Tech. That's it, the ACC is done. There is no way the new contract with the remnants of Calford, Pitt and Wake etc is worth that much. This is the exact same playbook they used on the Pac12. Once Colorado flipped, it opened up the floodgate. And frankly pac12 schools were more loyal to each other than ACC schools are.

Now why can't ACC do the same type of poaching? Because we are locked into an atrocious contract that last until 2036. The payments are well below market rate today, and will lag further behind accounting for inflation. The ACC can only play defense and they are in no position to offer anyone anything attractive.



Whats our solution out of this? We need to get a Big10 invite, that should be Lyon's first priority. If we cannot, there is a sliver of option where we can potentially create a situation to gain leverage, and that would be to start a tier 2 league (ACC-Big12 contingent) where uneven revenue sharing is the goal. We need to be the ones who help drive this forward and be the deciding vote to vote to dissolve the ACC to allow for this to happen (if we dissolve this league nobody has to pay the buyout). In this merit based, uneven revenue sharing model, a Okie State or a Texas Tech can push for $50M a year and not subsidize a Cincinnati or UCF. You have to pit their greed against each other.

Short of some shrewd maneuvering or creative thinking (and let's face it, knowlton is not even thinking about) it's big 10 or bust.

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

---

The Big 12 contract ends in 2030 and 2031, which means that they will more than likely enter into an early negotiation window in 2029. They will then only need to poach IMO 2 to 4 schools from the ACC to completely destabilize the ACC.

---

That assumes the next Big 12 deal is better than their current deal, which is even with the ACC, *and* that ESPN offers to pay the Big 12 to poach ACC members and kill the ACC. But if that is the case -- if ESPN wants to pay the Big 12 to kill the ACC as a major conference -- then no amount of maneuvering can stop it. The lobbying, so to speak, has to be with ESPN to persuade them to not give the Big 12 the money to do that.

Quote:

---

(if we dissolve this league nobody has to pay the buyout)

---

I don't think this will work because dissolving the league will require a supermajority, and there will be teams that don't have a "better" landing spot and will want to collect all the buyout money. If, hypothetically, 10 teams (out of 18) are required to pay a buyout in 2030, that's $750 million to be divided amongst the other 8. I can't think of any good reason for Wake Forest et al to walk away from that money.

I would hope that the TV/Sports world looks a bit different 4-5 years from now than it does today.

I still think the right answer is something like the 72-team, 12 geographically-based conferences that was proposed recently. It wouldn't have equal TV revenue distributions and have some better rules on transfers and NIL.

It would preserve golden goose for the TV networks.

It will take compromise and probably a congressional anti-trust exemption to make it happen. But that seems more likely than assuming the dynamics of the ACC/Big 12 and SEC/BIG10 are the same tomorrow as they are today.

Though totally in agreement that unless Cal starts to put up a few 9-10 win seasons things will uglier, not better.

Interesting question popped to mind.....in this scenario what happens to Duke and is there a basketball centric conference for cal?

socaltownie said:

---

Interesting question popped to mind.....in this scenario what happens to Duke and is there a basketball centric conference for cal?

---

Townie, I know you're a hoops guy, but can you seriously even consider this scenario? To the extent that Cal is dedicated to any sport, it's fundamentally a football school. Except for a couple of brief periods when the football team really sucked and basketball had one or two great players (Newell's teams, Kevin Johnson, Kidd, Abdur-Rahim, Jaylen Brown), Cal has always been a football school.

" Cal has always been a football school."

socaltownie said:

---

Interesting question popped to mind.....in this scenario what happens to Duke and is there a basketball centric conference for cal?

---

My guess? They probably wind up in the second-tier conference (some combo of the Big 12 and ACC remainders), which will still be a formidable basketball conference. If Cal can't get into the superleague that's probably where we wind up too.

Is there any thought that football goes to one conference, basketball to another and the rest to a third conference. It seems that would be the best for tv and the colleges.

Chabbear said:

---

Is there any thought that football goes to one conference, basketball to another and the rest to a third conference. It seems that would be the best for tv and the colleges.

---

Honestly, I think basketball could fit with everything else and it would still mostly work out fine. The issue is that football drives the bus on everything.

sycasey said:

---

Chabbear said:

---

Is there any thought that football goes to one conference, basketball to another and the rest to a third conference. It seems that would be the best for tv and the colleges.

---

Honestly, I think basketball could fit with everything else and it would still mostly work out fine. The issue is that football drives the bus on everything.

---

Agreed, Chip Kelly said it best on his way out the door at UCLA. Let football be football, separate it from the rest of the sports, and have all the other sports be regional based conferences. Let UCLA football play Michigan and have UCLA softball play arizona.