Rather than trying to get ND all in why not do things the ND way.

1) Go to 6 conference games for ND and everyone else.
2) Have schools schedule 6 additional non-conference games with at least 4 ESPN-owned teams.
3) Pay a standard rate for the 6 conference games.
4) ESPN becomes the holder of the rights for all conf, non-conf home games, and non-conf ESPN games.
5) ND and everyone else does a deal with ESPN for their 6 games

For example:

Clemson might have a conf schedule of GT, UVA, UM, BC, and WF. They could then add games with UGA, USC, Auburn, NCST, FSU, and Houston

BC might have a conf schedule of Syracuse, PITT, WF, Clemson, and VT and a non-conf of Temple, Navy, UL, UNC, UCONN, and UMASS

In this model, ESPN would pay a base amount that would be split evenly for the 6 conf games. For the remaining home/ESPN non-conf games teams would be paid based on their brand value and the value of the opponents. FSU and Clemson would be able to earn more both because of their brand value as well as the opponents they play. This portion could be negotiated more frequently.

Finally, by reducing the base payout, the ACC would be able to expand to 18 or more teams without hurting the base payouts.

In addition to ND, add Navy (FB only), WV, Cincinnati.

(08-03-2021 02:14 PM)swardy76 Wrote:  Rather than trying to get ND all in why not do things the ND way.

1) Go to 6 conference games for ND and everyone else.
2) Have schools schedule 6 additional non-conference games with at least 4 ESPN-owned teams.
3) Pay a standard rate for the 6 conference games.
4) ESPN becomes the holder of the rights for all conf, non-conf home games, and non-conf ESPN games.
5) ND and everyone else does a deal with ESPN for their 6 games

For example:

Clemson might have a conf schedule of GT, UVA, UM, BC, and WF. They could then add games with UGA, USC, Auburn, NCST, FSU, and Houston

BC might have a conf schedule of Syracuse, PITT, WF, Clemson, and VT and a non-conf of Temple, Navy, UL, UNC, UCONN, and UMASS

In this model, ESPN would pay a base amount that would be split evenly for the 6 conf games. For the remaining home/ESPN non-conf games teams would be paid based on their brand value and the value of the opponents. FSU and Clemson would be able to earn more both because of their brand value as well as the opponents they play. This portion could be negotiated more frequently.

Finally, by reducing the base payout, the ACC would be able to expand to 18 or more teams without hurting the base payouts.

In addition to ND, add Navy (FB only), WV, Cincinnati.

Honestly think something like this needs to be considered.

(08-03-2021 02:14 PM)swardy76 Wrote:  Rather than trying to get ND all in why not do things the ND way.

1) Go to 6 conference games for ND and everyone else.
2) Have schools schedule 6 additional non-conference games with at least 4 ESPN-owned teams.
3) Pay a standard rate for the 6 conference games.
4) ESPN becomes the holder of the rights for all conf, non-conf home games, and non-conf ESPN games.
5) ND and everyone else does a deal with ESPN for their 6 games

For example:

Clemson might have a conf schedule of GT, UVA, UM, BC, and WF. They could then add games with UGA, USC, Auburn, NCST, FSU, and Houston

BC might have a conf schedule of Syracuse, PITT, WF, Clemson, and VT and a non-conf of Temple, Navy, UL, UNC, UCONN, and UMASS

In this model, ESPN would pay a base amount that would be split evenly for the 6 conf games. For the remaining home/ESPN non-conf games teams would be paid based on their brand value and the value of the opponents. FSU and Clemson would be able to earn more both because of their brand value as well as the opponents they play. This portion could be negotiated more frequently.

Finally, by reducing the base payout, the ACC would be able to expand to 18 or more teams without hurting the base payouts.

In addition to ND, add Navy (FB only), WV, Cincinnati.

Do people have a problem with the Navy's baseball team? Do they hate their wrestlers or lacrosse players? How about Navy as a non basketball school the same way that Syracuse is a non baseball school? No one joins the ACC just for one sport. That just not how we roll.

IIUC, the TV money and the bowl money are channelled through conferences.

What you sound like you are suggesting is the ACC drop down to a six game conference game schedule and allow teams to schedule more non conference games in hope that the non conference home games will be more desirable than ACC conference games. This would require the other marquee teams like the Alabama's, Ohio State's, etc. from other conference games to play non conference games at ACC schools to build up the ACC package's value. In reality, by making this statement you are implying that non conference games are more valuable to the ACC than conference games. No conference I can think of would ever consider dropping to six conference games, not even the Sun Belt and Conference USA. If ACC teams really only care to play six conference games, they're practically not a conference and might as well just disband now and let the Big Ten and SEC divide them.

(08-05-2021 11:09 AM)schmolik Wrote:  What you sound like you are suggesting is the ACC drop down to a six game conference game schedule and allow teams to schedule more non conference games in hope that the non conference home games will be more desirable than ACC conference games. This would require the other marquee teams like the Alabama's, Ohio State's, etc. from other conference games to play non conference games at ACC schools to build up the ACC package's value. In reality, by making this statement you are implying that non conference games are more valuable to the ACC than conference games. No conference I can think of would ever consider dropping to six conference games, not even the Sun Belt and Conference USA. If ACC teams really only care to play six conference games, they're practically not a conference and might as well just disband now and let the Big Ten and SEC divide them.

In reality, I think there are 8 good ACC conference games to be had - I just don't think the current divisions give us those 8 games (maybe no more than 6 good ones?)

What we need is to blow up the divisions.

(08-05-2021 11:13 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 11:09 AM)schmolik Wrote:  What you sound like you are suggesting is the ACC drop down to a six-game conference game schedule and allow teams to schedule more non-conference games in hope that the non-conference home games will be more desirable than ACC conference games. This would require the other marquee teams like the Alabama's, Ohio State's, etc. from other conference games to play non conference games at ACC schools to build up the ACC package's value. In reality, by making this statement you are implying that non conference games are more valuable to the ACC than conference games. No conference I can think of would ever consider dropping to six conference games, not even the Sun Belt and Conference USA. If ACC teams really only care to play six conference games, they're practically not a conference and might as well just disband now and let the Big Ten and SEC divide them.

In reality, I think there are 8 good ACC conference games to be had - I just don't think the current divisions give us those 8 games (maybe no more than 6 good ones?)

What we need is to blow up the divisions.

Good points by both of you.

My thought was how do we fairly support the conference teams while still providing an upside that gets our top teams close to SEC levels. If we reduce the conference package to 6 games that opens up more slots for games that fans want to see. With ESPN "owning" SEC, ACC, AAC, 1/2 Big 12, and 1/2 Big 10, would we be able to get enhanced revenue by playing more interesting opponents? And if so could we develop formulas that would pay those teams more for those games?

In other words, reduce the base conf pay to all schools by 25% then use that pool plus any premiums to reward the schools that play the games people want to watch. Would Clemson schedule Auburn instead of Furman if they were paid more to do so? Does this create a more competitive market that incentivizes better matchups?

In addition, if we reduce to 6 games and add Navy, we can now consider ND a conference member. Eliminate NBC when the ND contract is up and roll those 6 remaining ND games into the same pool.

I also don't think that all ACC teams should only play 6 ACC opponents. Teams within the ACC that don't command national interest could still schedule ACC teams out of conf. With only 6 conf games we should see more games that the fans want to see.

Crazy thoughts I know, but trying to think out of the box. I don't consider BC dead weight but I do recognize that their market and financial contributions are not the same as FSU or Clemson. Ideally, teams are fairly compensated and there is some sort of mechanism that grows the pie so that teams like Clemson can be competitive but not make teams like BC feel like second-class citizens.