(05-19-2021 07:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-19-2021 05:25 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(05-19-2021 05:13 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

Can this put an end to this "Duke should become a partial ACC member" crap? They bring in more revenue in men's basketball alone than to my count nine of the fourteen ACC football teams. And I'm sick of football, football, football. That might be true in the SEC and Big Ten. The #1 money maker in the ACC is Louisville men's basketball. Football might make 80% of other conferences' revenue but in the ACC it's 64%. If I'm Duke and the ACC tells me they want me to take a partial deal, I'll tell them to go kiss my butt and take my $190M where it will be appreciated.

How can you tell from this data that Duke brings in more revenue from basketball than 9 members do from football? This doesn't appear to be measuring "revenue".

"Value" is subjective and you have to have a little inside knowledge to know that Louisville's basketball number is inflated by it's sweetheart deal with the YUM center where they get almost all revenue from all events and pay almost nothing in return. Teasing out UNC/Duke/NC State is particularly challenging since they share the same metro market. In reality I'm not sure Duke football has any market value other than to be a home away from home when they play UNC or NC State in football.

Another way to look at value is to see each team as it exists in it's home metro market and take into account direct MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, and other P-5 schools in the same footprint. For example there are 2.8 million in the Combined Raleigh/Fayetteville/Durham MSA, but 4 programs, Duke, UNC and NC State and the Carolina Hurricanes. That's 700K people per program.

In this metric, BC has access to 1.64 million
Wake Forest in the Piedmont Triad has access to 1.6 million
Clemson in the Upstate of SC has 1.49 as well as Louisville
Miami has 1.36 M
GT has 1.13 in Atlanta (also with direct UGa competition)
VT has about 840K and UVa about 820K - proximity to DC should help UVa values but it also brings it into competition with the Nationals, Bullets, Redskins, etc.
Duke, UNC, and NC State get 800K despite a market of 2.8 as they compete with each other.
FSU has about 760K
Syracuse has 720K
Pitt has just 575K

Now you might make a case that WF should be cut by half due to the Carolina Panthers and whatever the basketball team is now named, but under this accounting that would mean adding the Charlotte Metro then dividing by 3.

My point is that none of this is exact but it helps to explain the "value" swings. Louisville and Clemson dominate large markets without pro or P-5 competition physically located in that market. There is probably some rough correlation between butts in seats and these populations but let some kid working on his thesis tease that out.

(05-19-2021 07:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-19-2021 05:25 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(05-19-2021 05:13 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

Can this put an end to this "Duke should become a partial ACC member" crap? They bring in more revenue in men's basketball alone than to my count nine of the fourteen ACC football teams. And I'm sick of football, football, football. That might be true in the SEC and Big Ten. The #1 money maker in the ACC is Louisville men's basketball. Football might make 80% of other conferences' revenue but in the ACC it's 64%. If I'm Duke and the ACC tells me they want me to take a partial deal, I'll tell them to go kiss my butt and take my $190M where it will be appreciated.

How can you tell from this data that Duke brings in more revenue from basketball than 9 members do from football? This doesn't appear to be measuring "revenue".

Valuations are estimates of the present value of expected future profits. These are all theoretical estimates, given that college athletics are all non-profit entities. With the recent pandemic, financial valuations of entertainment-based non-profits (such as CFB and CBB) are likely to be dramatically downgraded. Valuations don’t necessarily correlate with “revenue”.

IMO, “revenue” is a much better indicator of the relative financial health of collegiate athletic departments.

I disagree with your definition of value being the present value of expected future profits.

I would go as far to assert that college sports has many attributes of regulated monopoly suffering from free riders and an inability to squeeze out "profit" from what is on its face a non-profit activity.

Absolute or intrinsic values in these cases will be different than relative value but most firms are traded and are weighted relatively and easily comparable likes.

(05-19-2021 08:51 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-19-2021 07:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-19-2021 05:25 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(05-19-2021 05:13 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

Can this put an end to this "Duke should become a partial ACC member" crap? They bring in more revenue in men's basketball alone than to my count nine of the fourteen ACC football teams. And I'm sick of football, football, football. That might be true in the SEC and Big Ten. The #1 money maker in the ACC is Louisville men's basketball. Football might make 80% of other conferences' revenue but in the ACC it's 64%. If I'm Duke and the ACC tells me they want me to take a partial deal, I'll tell them to go kiss my butt and take my $190M where it will be appreciated.

How can you tell from this data that Duke brings in more revenue from basketball than 9 members do from football? This doesn't appear to be measuring "revenue".

Valuations are estimates of the present value of expected future profits. These are all theoretical estimates, given that college athletics are all non-profit entities. With the recent pandemic, financial valuations of entertainment-based non-profits (such as CFB and CBB) are likely to be dramatically downgraded. Valuations don’t necessarily correlate with “revenue”.

IMO, “revenue” is a much better indicator of the relative financial health of collegiate athletic departments.

Do you not see the dates on the information. The most recent was for hoops ending in March 2019. None of it is impacted by disease. The correlation to media payouts is rather direct. But, suit yourself the actual revenue works out the same only it is skewed by shared media revenue which simply concretizes the divisions.

See post #37 for the most recent values.

(05-19-2021 10:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-19-2021 05:14 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-18-2021 08:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-18-2021 08:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-18-2021 08:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The Conferences are valued as follows:
SEC: 7.5 billion
B1G: 5.4 billion
B12: 3.5 billion
PAC: 3.0 billion
ACC: 2.4 billion (Notre Dame at 910 million not included)

To do what you suggest Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State to the PAC would raise their total value to 4.65 billion.

Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor and T.C.U. to the ACC would bring your total to 4.03 billion.

Iowa State 8th in value in the Big 12 and WVU is 10th.

What's 5/8's Notre Dame's value?
Add Notre Dame's value. The SEC would need to add two of: WVU, TCU, Iowa State, Texas Tech or Baylor.
Work out the numbers JR, you are good with math.

The SEC wouldn't be adding anyone as they detract and offer nothing we want.

N.D.'s value is 379 million. And Texas isn't coming without buddies and more than 2 at that. In fact there is no incentive for Texas to come at all unless they have their own division.

There is no magic bullet for you here X. It is what it is. Only 1 conference can catch the SEC's current value and that's the Big 10 if they landed both Texas and Oklahoma they would be within 100 million in value. If they added Texas and N.D. they would catch us unless we added Oklahoma.

The Big 12 and PAC could merge and they could catch the Big 10. But for the ACC to close the gap you really need to land Texa-homa and Notre Dame in fully and then that gets you to 5.3 plus another school gets you even with the Big 10 but with more schools.

I'm not looking for a magic bullet. The numbers are what they are. Any school that has a big stadium and can fill it will always have more value than a small stadium school regardless of 'media' income.
What you are looking for JR, is a formula that would allow a "conference" to solidify a collective fan base so that it could be marketed to that fan base for the purpose of playoff sports. The SEC and the B1G have done a much better job of making their fans feel a kinship with one another, and tend to follow other teams in their conferences much more closely than the other three P5 leagues.
If you can construct two other leagues (in addition to the SEC and B1G) such that the schools in those leagues will buy into a conference mantra, then you will have provided a foundation for successful playoff football.
Eventually 'media' income will be regulated by the NCAA or other overseeing group like it is in professional sports to aid the folks in small markets, but the money differential will always be there because Texas A&M will always be able to put 80,000 more fans in their stadium per game than Wake Forest can. That's a lot more chasers and mixers sold, not to mention the ticket revenue.
Of course the money is important and the SEC and B1G will always have the most, but for the sake of the sport and playoff football, marketable identities have to be found for the PAC, ACC and Big 12 with the caveat; only two of the three can survive.

I see what you are saying and I don't know if we can accomplish what you ask without blowing it all up and re-dividing which of course would damage the associations in the Big 10 and SEC and may cure the symptoms but kill the patient.

As to the NCAA they will never again set media prices (OU/UGa 1983) and will likely soon lose their control over the NCAA tourney (NIL/Stipends).

The PAC 12 / Big 12 merger could help the PAC but the political visions of the two conferences would be opposites and the revenue isn't there for Texas and Oklahoma. The problem for the ACC is that the Big 10 and SEC have sucked the oxygen out of the room and left you with few profitable expansion candidates.

The only upside I see to two large leagues, basically built around the Big 10 and SEC, is that at least within those leagues the equal revenue distributions could legally take place bringing a semblance of leveling the field by leveling the media revenue base. It would also tie larger markets into your brand whether your people culturally followed the other members of the league or not. Essentially your games would borrow the league viewers of the former SEC or Big 10 schools who are habituated and even that raises your value.

The downsides are too much cultural homogenization, unfamiliar scheduling, and the loss of autonomy. I fear, however, that this is where we are headed by force of finances regardless of how we feel about it. And if so, the sooner we get there the less pain for all, and likely the fewer casualties.

I'll just throw this out, as to how the ACC could survive and thrive without having to attain SEC or B1G level money by putting a competitive product on the field and would help galvanize fan support (not at a SEC level but at satisfactory to make the ACC successful).

1-trade Pitt to the B1G for Maryland
Maryland is the bridge from the mid-Atlantic to the northeast that Pitt isn't and could never be
2-add South Carolina to the ACC
the SEC can find a replacement that would add more value to their league without any problem
3-hold our collective noses and invite West Virginia
after all when we actually try to get "regional", the Mountaineers have no place left to go.

These moves return balance to the ACC 5 schools above the NC/Va core and 5 schools below

4-keep Notre Dame as a partial member
the current situation has worked well, and allows Notre Dame to keep most of their mystique.

That's it.

Lance that means forgiving the unforgivable before we alive at the time have died.

That said, maybe it is time for them to come home.

Why in the world would South Carolina want to go to the ACC? They haven't been a member in decades and left the ACC when the league was far better off. The SEC is a perfect fit for them and they are way better off.

Why would Maryland want to leave the Big Ten when they joined up for better finances only a decade ago?

Why would the Big Ten take Pitt in a scenario like this? They don't add value.

I know we're all just spitballing around here, but is there really a point to offering solutions that distant from reality?

This thread is focused on redistribution of programs to put the ACC in a competitive position but I think you could also tackle this from the other direction to create a competitive Big 12:

To Big Ten: Pittsburgh, Notre Dame
To SEC: UNC, Duke
To Big 12: Louisville, VT, UVA, NC St, Clemson, GT, Florida St, Miami

To Big East: Syracuse, BC, WF

12 out of the 15 schools should be enough to vote to disband the ACC and nullify the GOR and 10 of those 12 would conceivably be moving to ESPN properties.

WVU joins the ACC schools to form the Big 18 East.

(05-19-2021 08:51 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-19-2021 07:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-19-2021 05:25 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(05-19-2021 05:13 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

Can this put an end to this "Duke should become a partial ACC member" crap? They bring in more revenue in men's basketball alone than to my count nine of the fourteen ACC football teams. And I'm sick of football, football, football. That might be true in the SEC and Big Ten. The #1 money maker in the ACC is Louisville men's basketball. Football might make 80% of other conferences' revenue but in the ACC it's 64%. If I'm Duke and the ACC tells me they want me to take a partial deal, I'll tell them to go kiss my butt and take my $190M where it will be appreciated.

How can you tell from this data that Duke brings in more revenue from basketball than 9 members do from football? This doesn't appear to be measuring "revenue".

Valuations are estimates of the present value of expected future profits. These are all theoretical estimates, given that college athletics are all non-profit entities. With the recent pandemic, financial valuations of entertainment-based non-profits (such as CFB and CBB) are likely to be dramatically downgraded. Valuations don’t necessarily correlate with “revenue”.

IMO, “revenue” is a much better indicator of the relative financial health of collegiate athletic departments.

While Duke's revenues are an indicator of their financial strength, they aren't necessarily a good measure of their value to a media partner, and by extension to the conference as a whole. A large portion of their revenues don't come as much from the number of eyeballs they attract as from the size of the wallets those eyeballs are attached to. That's good for Duke, not so much for the ACC or ESPN.

(05-20-2021 08:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-19-2021 08:51 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-19-2021 07:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-19-2021 05:25 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(05-19-2021 05:13 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

Can this put an end to this "Duke should become a partial ACC member" crap? They bring in more revenue in men's basketball alone than to my count nine of the fourteen ACC football teams. And I'm sick of football, football, football. That might be true in the SEC and Big Ten. The #1 money maker in the ACC is Louisville men's basketball. Football might make 80% of other conferences' revenue but in the ACC it's 64%. If I'm Duke and the ACC tells me they want me to take a partial deal, I'll tell them to go kiss my butt and take my $190M where it will be appreciated.

How can you tell from this data that Duke brings in more revenue from basketball than 9 members do from football? This doesn't appear to be measuring "revenue".

Valuations are estimates of the present value of expected future profits. These are all theoretical estimates, given that college athletics are all non-profit entities. With the recent pandemic, financial valuations of entertainment-based non-profits (such as CFB and CBB) are likely to be dramatically downgraded. Valuations don’t necessarily correlate with “revenue”.

IMO, “revenue” is a much better indicator of the relative financial health of collegiate athletic departments.

While Duke's revenues are an indicator of their financial strength, they aren't necessarily a good measure of their value to a media partner, and by extension to the conference as a whole. A large portion of their revenues don't come as much from the number of eyeballs they attract as from the size of the wallets those eyeballs are attached to. That's good for Duke, not so much for the ACC or ESPN.

Agree that Duke athletics generally targets (caters to) a wealthier and narrower customer base. Never the less, Duke basketball does have an impressive social media outreach that successfully broadens its appeal to basketball "t-shirt" fans. In terms of value to a media partner, Duke basketball has a lot of value.

In football, Duke is a media free rider. They take-in their allotment of ACC media payouts, without necessarily re-investing their "earnings" in football. IMO, the challenge for the ACC is how to hold Duke (and other Tobacco Road schools) more accountable to football.

Wahoowa—and to me, that is part of the dysfunction of the ACC. The conference is ran by basketball schools who use all the football money earned by the labors of their conference mates to prop up and bankroll their basketball empires.

Duke is the kind of school that really should be playing Big East basketball and Patriot League or CAA football. The same for WF and BC. They just can’t compete in the football arms race.

(05-19-2021 08:58 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I disagree with your definition of value being the present value of expected future profits.

I would go as far to assert that college sports has many attributes of regulated monopoly suffering from free riders and an inability to squeeze out "profit" from what is on its face a non-profit activity.

Absolute or intrinsic values in these cases will be different than relative value but most firms are traded and are weighted relatively and easily comparable likes.

You are conflating two different words: valuations and value.

The WSJ publishes (the analysis is performed by IU academics) financial valuations of collegiate athletic departments. Valuation estimates are based on the present value of expected future earnings (generally "profits" or discretionary/free cash flow). Given uncertainty in future events, whether or not these valuation estimates are reasonable is always in dispute and fluctuating. My statements dealt with financial valuations.

The word "value" has a very different meaning. Financial value could include revenue, expenses, profits, assets, liabilities, etc. "Value" can also be measured in countless other variables: football (attendance or competitive success), fit (geographic distance or rivalries), profile (academic rankings or school size) and other sports (basketball or non-revenue). A school like Duke may provide negligible football value...while still providing conference value in terms of fit, profile and excellence in other sports.

Valuation is a defined financial term; while value is a more subjective and holistic concept.

(05-20-2021 09:51 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Wahoowa—and to me, that is part of the dysfunction of the ACC. The conference is ran by basketball schools who use all the football money earned by the labors of their conference mates to prop up and bankroll their basketball empires.

Duke is the kind of school that really should be playing Big East basketball and Patriot League or CAA football. The same for WF and BC. They just can’t compete in the football arms race.

Agree with the first paragraph. Unfortunately, my school is part of this dysfunction. It's a country club mindset that doesn't recognize the evolution of college athletics.

I don't agree with your conclusion about Duke. They absolutely have the resources and could compete in the football arms race. IMO, Duke is choosing in which sports to invest. Football is not Duke's biggest priority.

(05-20-2021 10:25 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-19-2021 08:58 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I disagree with your definition of value being the present value of expected future profits.

I would go as far to assert that college sports has many attributes of regulated monopoly suffering from free riders and an inability to squeeze out "profit" from what is on its face a non-profit activity.

Absolute or intrinsic values in these cases will be different than relative value but most firms are traded and are weighted relatively and easily comparable likes.

You are conflating two different words: valuations and value.

The WSJ publishes (the analysis is performed by IU academics) financial valuations of collegiate athletic departments. Valuation estimates are based on the present value of expected future earnings (generally "profits" or discretionary/free cash flow). Given uncertainty in future events, whether or not these valuation estimates are reasonable is always in dispute and fluctuating. My statements dealt with financial valuations.

The word "value" has a very different meaning. Financial value could include revenue, expenses, profits, assets, liabilities, etc. "Value" can also be measured in countless other variables: football (attendance or competitive success), fit (geographic distance or rivalries), profile (academic rankings or school size) and other sports (basketball or non-revenue). A school like Duke may provide negligible football value...while still providing conference value in terms of fit, profile and excellence in other sports.

Valuation is a defined financial term; while value is a more subjective and holistic concept.

All words have various usages and those who parse them are usually engaged in dissembling, propaganda, or pure sophistry. In this case it's an attempt to dissemble inasmuch as the gist of the discussion is abundantly clear. Pursue this tactic at your own peril as it is abhorrent behavior in a chat room. This isn't a UVa debate team for the puriant jollies of verbal jousting, nor or our purposes obfuscation.

Okay I said it politely. Now I'll be blunt, you know damn well what we are discussing and it's not the different usages of value. You can pick any data set from gross total revenue to media revenue, to WSJ valuations which carefully explains how it is assessed, to attendance, to television ratings and they all consistently place the ACC 4th or 5th in each. All of them indicate why you are paid what you are paid.

Plainly the only way the ACC catches up will be with football revenue enhancements and to make up the difference that limits you to targets that are top 10 in revenue generation, which translates to valuations of between 800 million to a billion plus, which have top 15 attendance, and are consider national brands which means they draw significant viewer numbers from all over and not just one region. Care to guess which schools can do that and are not already securely in the Big 10 or SEC?

Texas, Notre Dame, Oklahoma

If you want to catch the Big 10 and close the gap on the SEC the only damned way you will do it is with landing all three of those.

Therefore the question of this OP is how to accomplish that feat? What must the ACC concede in order to obtain them? Because if you don't seek to find what it takes to do so you will never make up the gap, which because of the ACC's contractual arrangement and timeline will be outpaced by all 4 of the other conferences getting pay boosts before you can.

This isn't multiple choice! This is the only option you have other than dissolution or simply taking severe lumps for the next 14 to 15 years. This isn't about parsing words, but rather strategizing what it would take to survive what is coming.

At least Notre Dame is a partial and at least the Big 12 is open minded about their options. If these were not preconditions the exercise would be moot. But the option has some degree of possibility. Notre Dame would be cajoled by a move to a champs only format in a breakaway upper tier (which NIL and stipends will likely create) which contains but 4 conferences. So it's doable. What would it take for Texas and Oklahoma to agree? Likely a division of their own and the lure of greater revenue which their inclusion provides anyway. True they could earn more in the Big 10 or SEC, but they like a measure of autonomy and control, as does Notre Dame as does North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia.

So in this hypothetical exercise quit parsing words and try to come up with a plan in which all of those valuable parties can find a peaceful coexistence in the ACC.

(05-20-2021 08:17 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  This thread is focused on redistribution of programs to put the ACC in a competitive position but I think you could also tackle this from the other direction to create a competitive Big 12:

To Big Ten: Pittsburgh, Notre Dame
To SEC: UNC, Duke
To Big 12: Louisville, VT, UVA, NC St, Clemson, GT, Florida St, Miami

To Big East: Syracuse, BC, WF

12 out of the 15 schools should be enough to vote to disband the ACC and nullify the GOR and 10 of those 12 would conceivably be moving to ESPN properties.

WVU joins the ACC schools to form the Big 18 East.

It's a foregone conclusion: The Big 12 will cease to exist....soon.

(05-20-2021 10:41 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 09:51 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Wahoowa—and to me, that is part of the dysfunction of the ACC. The conference is ran by basketball schools who use all the football money earned by the labors of their conference mates to prop up and bankroll their basketball empires.

Duke is the kind of school that really should be playing Big East basketball and Patriot League or CAA football. The same for WF and BC. They just can’t compete in the football arms race.

Agree with the first paragraph. Unfortunately, my school is part of this dysfunction. It's a country club mindset that doesn't recognize the evolution of college athletics.

I don't agree with your conclusion about Duke. They absolutely have the resources and could compete in the football arms race. IMO, Duke is choosing in which sports to invest. Football is not Duke's biggest priority.

And again, what's wrong with that? Football's not Kentucky's biggest priority. Their value is over $600 million, barely below Wisconsin and otherwise trailing only Ohio State and Michigan in the Big Ten. Kentucky's football program is more valuable than Virginia's football and men's basketball programs combined. Kentucky's men's basketball program is more valuable than Virginia's football and men's basketball programs combined. Virginia's problem isn't they don't prioritize football, they don't have enough value, period. Ask Virginia if they would rather spend more money to win another basketball national championship or win another Duke's Mayo Bowl and only an idiot would rather win another Duke's Mayo Bowl.

First time posting here. What would a per school revenue for the ACC if it where to split between the football first schools and the basketball first schools.The ACC is divided between two wings, the “football first wing” of Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, Miami, Louisville, and Pitt and the “basketball first wing” of North Carolina schools, Virginia, Syracuse, and Boston College. The “football first wing” motivated in part by the desire to be competitive in with their in-state SEC rivalries come to conclusion that their fates are better tied together as a group than with the “basketball first wing”.

Believing the media rights of “football first wing” will yield a better per school revenue payout than the ACC, a more amicable divorce is arranged than the Big East AAC Split. The ACC branding and conference infrastructure will stay with the [basketball-first teams], while the Orange Bowl Tie in, and Conference Championship game contracts will leave with the “football first wing”. The “football first wing” will then take on a new conference name and branding - for discussion purposes, titled the “Metro Conference”

The Metro Conference would likely invite WVU or Cincinnati to bring the Conference to 8 teams. Both would be willing to accept as the new conference would be appealing to fanbases, and potentially upgrade revenue:

The Result:
ACC: UNC, Duke, Wake Forest, NC State, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia

Metro: Georgia Tech, Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Virginia Tech, Miami, WVU/Cincinnati, and Pitt

With the pie being split less ways so per team revenue would be higher for the new TV deal. Potentially Warner Media/Discovery might be the target to pick up metro rights since amazon and netflix haven't been interested. Potentially BC and NCState may tag along to create an even more valuable Metro. Less overlap in markets.

Thoughts?

(05-17-2021 08:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2021 07:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Is the SEC going to cooperate and add members to accommodate ESPN’s Big 12/ACC mega conference though?

I’m not seeing the incentive.

It addresses the SEC's academic profile in a major way with 4 AAU schools, it jumps the SEC's basketball profile with 4 historic programs and it adds 3 new states to the footprint bringing the entire South into the SEC's profile, and it does not damage our football profile. As long as pro rata is observed our Presidents would be quite happy and our football win / loss percentage in conference would improve. More importantly however is we would not lose any ground by seeing either OU or UT heading to the Big 10.

For college football that gives the nation 3 balanced conferences where viewing is the strongest. The PAC can grow its conference more naturally or ally itself with the Big 10 less formally than with a merger.

I really like this idea. Essentially, the trade could be summed up this way:
ACC improves by leaps & bound in football and in revenue.
SEC stays just as good in football, still #1 in revenue, while also becoming #1 in basketball.
ESPN gets top quality football and basketball every week from two 100%-contracted conferences.

Those 3 sentences explain everyone's motivation, and are all plausible, IMO.

(05-20-2021 12:06 PM)LeeNobody Wrote:  First time posting here. What would a per school revenue for the ACC if it where to split between the football first schools and the basketball first schools.The ACC is divided between two wings, the “football first wing” of Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, Miami, Louisville, and Pitt and the “basketball first wing” of North Carolina schools, Virginia, Syracuse, and Boston College. The “football first wing” motivated in part by the desire to be competitive in with their in-state SEC rivalries come to conclusion that their fates are better tied together as a group than with the “basketball first wing”.

Believing the media rights of “football first wing” will yield a better per school revenue payout than the ACC, a more amicable divorce is arranged than the Big East AAC Split. The ACC branding and conference infrastructure will stay with the [basketball-first teams], while the Orange Bowl Tie in, and Conference Championship game contracts will leave with the “football first wing”. The “football first wing” will then take on a new conference name and branding - for discussion purposes, titled the “Metro Conference”

The Metro Conference would likely invite WVU or Cincinnati to bring the Conference to 8 teams. Both would be willing to accept as the new conference would be appealing to fanbases, and potentially upgrade revenue:

The Result:
ACC: UNC, Duke, Wake Forest, NC State, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia

Metro: Georgia Tech, Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Virginia Tech, Miami, WVU/Cincinnati, and Pitt

With the pie being split less ways so per team revenue would be higher for the new TV deal. Potentially Warner Media/Discovery might be the target to pick up metro rights since amazon and netflix haven't been interested. Potentially BC and NCState may tag along to create an even more valuable Metro. Less overlap in markets.

Thoughts?

Assuming this was possible - and the "Metro" conference keeps the existing ESPN contract for football, which I further assume would not be diminished since you've got pretty much all of the value in that sport - the payout to the football-1st schools would be around $44 million per year.

To make this work, ESPN would probably have to agree to leave the basketball-1st schools at least where they are now.

So, while it would cost ESPN more, they also get better match-ups.

All of that is without adding any team(s) from the Big XII or Notre Dame - simply splitting the ACC into two leagues along football/basketball lines. Adding pieces from the Big XII could boost the payouts even higher.

I think the following would work in the ACC:

UVa/VT/UNC/NC State/Clemson/SC (Patrician Snob Divsion)
Georgia/GT/Auburn/FSU/Florida/Miami (Cracker Division)

A total of 12

Then the SEC would morph to:

Kentucky/TN/Bama/Ole Miss/MSU/LSU (Appalachian Rednecks/Hillbilly Division)
Kansas/OU/Mizzou/Arkansas/Texas/TAMU (Arrogant Oil Bastards Division)

A total of 12.

Then if the Big 10 wants to expand let them add BC/Syracuse/Pitt/Duke/Vandy/ND/Iowa State for a total of 21:

BC/Syracuse/Rutgers/Pitt/PSU/MD/Duke (Yankee Division)
OSU/Michigan/Indiana/Purdue/Ill/MW/ND (Catholic Haters Division)
Michigan State/Wisky/Minn/ISU/Iowa/Nebraska/Vandy (Beer Gut Division)

The pejoratives are jokes for those of you who are easily triggered, but they are also a slight indication of the cultural milieu of the division. While culture is not everything, it helps cohesiveness when it is shared.

The P-12 is unchanged but you could title them the Pothead Division and the Wacky Environmentalist Division or some such.

All though it will never happen, in some sense it would help to start over with cultural cores and build outward based on shared values and sensibilities.