(02-12-2022 10:15 AM)esayem Wrote:  Dude schmolik, literally nobody cares about your schmolik 64 and how embarrassing you are. Just come out of the closet and tell us which ACC team you root for or be honest and tell us you like being obnoxious over here in a down year.

You do realize Wake Forest made an amazing hire and is playing back to their standard? Not to mention their football is strong. Do you even know anything about Wake Forest and where they were before their coach died 15 years ago?

Have you noticed Miami is outpacing FSU and big bad Florida with NIL? Any thoughts there or has the Schmolik news not been covering that? Their basketball team will be in the Dance too.


The Mr. esayem 68 — because that’s how many teams actually make the Dance — has Duke, ND, Wake, Miami, UVa, and Carolina securely in with VT and Syracuse on the bubble.

Despite you, North Carolina... ever since Michael Jordan. Also Syracuse. They're within driving distance to Wilkes Barre and I saw the 1997 and 2000 East Regionals there (North Carolina won in '97). I also cheer for Pittsburgh when they're not playing Penn State. I don't like Duke but respect them. And have you ever heard of Bobby Sura who used to play for Florida State? Went to grade school with him.

(02-11-2022 04:13 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  I hate to step on the narrative but Swofford was not a dictator. He worked for all the ACC universities. They were all notified of exactly what was being negotiated. Have you heard of any of the ADs or university presidents involved pitching a fit at the time, saying these are terrible deals that we should never agree to? You have not. If that had happened, the deals probably wouldn't have gone forward. They all signed on to the deals. No one called for Swofford's head afterwards. He stayed on the job until he was ready to retire. This was because the ADs and university presidents were happy with him. Would it have been better to have waited a bit? Signed only short term deals? In retrospect, probably so, but decisions have to be made in real time.

OK, you can go back to your evil John Swofford fantasies. Better yet, if you have a perfect sense of what the future holds, don't waste your time here. There are billions to be made on Wall Street.

Never thought I'd see the Mark Emmert defense pulled for John Swofford. "His constituents are happy!" "I don't hear any crying in the media!"

1. Increase Dollars from ACC Network being fully distributed with every major satellite, telco and digital provider across the country, and available to nearly 90 million households. Completed we have to wait to see how much it brings in? Also $$ will increase when future carriage deals are re-upped.

2. Contract "Look-Ins": ACC’s contract with ESPN calls for three separate “look-in” periods -- times when executives from both entities will be able to sit down and discuss whether the contract terms needs to be renegotiated. SY 2021/22, SY2026-27, SY 2031-32.

3. Notre Dame joins ACC full time & brings another school which would allows the ACC to discuss Media contract terms outside of "Look-ins"

4. Increase Dollars from new CFP/NY6 & Bowl season deal that currently ends in 2025-26.


Outside of those four options the ACC is stuck.... We already knew this, we are shooting for #3 if in 2036 we have the #3 annual media deal behind Big10/SEC we have won.

(02-12-2022 11:05 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-12-2022 10:15 AM)esayem Wrote:  Dude schmolik, literally nobody cares about your schmolik 64 and how embarrassing you are. Just come out of the closet and tell us which ACC team you root for or be honest and tell us you like being obnoxious over here in a down year.

You do realize Wake Forest made an amazing hire and is playing back to their standard? Not to mention their football is strong. Do you even know anything about Wake Forest and where they were before their coach died 15 years ago?

Have you noticed Miami is outpacing FSU and big bad Florida with NIL? Any thoughts there or has the Schmolik news not been covering that? Their basketball team will be in the Dance too.


The Mr. esayem 68 — because that’s how many teams actually make the Dance — has Duke, ND, Wake, Miami, UVa, and Carolina securely in with VT and Syracuse on the bubble.

Despite you, North Carolina... ever since Michael Jordan. Also Syracuse. They're within driving distance to Wilkes Barre and I saw the 1997 and 2000 East Regionals there (North Carolina won in '97). I also cheer for Pittsburgh when they're not playing Penn State. I don't like Duke but respect them. And have you ever heard of Bobby Sura who used to play for Florida State? Went to grade school with him.

Welcome to the family!

Bobby Sura was great.

(02-11-2022 07:32 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(02-11-2022 04:13 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  I hate to step on the narrative but Swofford was not a dictator. He worked for all the ACC universities. They were all notified of exactly what was being negotiated. Have you heard of any of the ADs or university presidents involved pitching a fit at the time, saying these are terrible deals that we should never agree to? You have not. If that had happened, the deals probably wouldn't have gone forward. They all signed on to the deals. No one called for Swofford's head afterwards. He stayed on the job until he was ready to retire. This was because the ADs and university presidents were happy with him. Would it have been better to have waited a bit? Signed only short term deals? In retrospect, probably so, but decisions have to be made in real time.

OK, you can go back to your evil John Swofford fantasies. Better yet, if you have a perfect sense of what the future holds, don't waste your time here. There are billions to be made on Wall Street.

No, he worked for you, UVa, and UNC.

And yes we finally got his head. Remember before he retired how he was tossed off the new steering committee? That happened first, then he announced retirement. We don't ***** in public about such things between between Macon Ga, and Winchester Va.

Duke has been ACC poison since 1962.

Swofford stunk. The end.

(02-12-2022 11:45 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  1. Increase Dollars from ACC Network being fully distributed with every major satellite, telco and digital provider across the country, and available to nearly 90 million households. Completed we have to wait to see how much it brings in? Also $$ will increase when future carriage deals are re-upped.

2. Contract "Look-Ins": ACC’s contract with ESPN calls for three separate “look-in” periods -- times when executives from both entities will be able to sit down and discuss whether the contract terms needs to be renegotiated. SY 2021/22, SY2026-27, SY 2031-32.

3. Notre Dame joins ACC full time & brings another school which would allows the ACC to discuss Media contract terms outside of "Look-ins"

4. Increase Dollars from new CFP/NY6 & Bowl season deal that currently ends in 2025-26.


Outside of those four options the ACC is stuck.... We already knew this, we are shooting for #3 if in 2036 we have the #3 annual media deal behind Big10/SEC we have won.

There’s also:
Put better teams on the field and court.

Put compelling content on ACCN so that it gets more viewers.

Find some way to provide TV content in the now dead summer months. Think outside the box — six man football, three man basketball, box lacrosse. We got nothing now for most of June, July, August. Anything would be a step up.

Insist on better non-conference scheduling.

View the ACC as an organic whole rather than a collection of competitors — as in staffing the conference office with experts who can consult with conference athletic departments on working together to improve their teams’ performance and marketability.

I actually enjoy Schmoliks posts as he usually has an inciteful and interesting take on things. I dont always agree with him but I think he brings mostly a positive perspective. As far as Im concerned, he's welcomed to continue posting here as often as he likes.

Also Esayem,
you can erase SU from your list of possible tourney teams. The center who took over for the starting center last year has a broken wrist. He was just starting to really catch on and he was either #1 or #2 in blocked shots in the ACC. He was also the first SU center that could score in 7 or 8 years. The team was just starting to gel. They are not likely to win another game this season.

Sorry to hear that about Cuse. They have a ton of potential and I think it will be realized next season.

I honestly felt bad seeing a Hamilton team get beat down like that today. Although, Coach K would have put the boot heel on FSU and beat them by 45 so I don’t feel that bad.

The ESPN is not going to reopen the very favorable contract unless there is a really compelling reason such as ND football joining the ACCN.

Still, the ACC should try to maximize the revenue from the ACCN by providng more interesting matchups and increasing the viewership.

(02-13-2022 12:53 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  The ESPN is not going to reopen the very favorable contract unless there is a really compelling reason such as ND football joining the ACCN.

Still, the ACC should try to maximize the revenue from the ACCN by providng more interesting matchups and increasing the viewership.

But do you sacrifice potential viewership on the main networks to do so?

The Big Ten has IMO figured it out and at least in football limited the number of games that "should" be on FOX/ABC/ESPN and put on BTN. I would say the season opener this past year between Iowa and Indiana when Indiana was coming off a one loss season and the Black Friday game between Iowa and Nebraska probably could have been picked up by FOX/ABC/ESPN. Does the ACC want to give up too many ESPN slots in hopes to get more ACCN subscribers? The Big Ten's BTN policy is two games per team with one conference game required. In 2021, Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State played only two games (one conference game) each on Big Ten Network. They didn't try to put more games of the Big Three on BTN, they'd rather keep FOX and ESPN happy and make sure more viewers watch. Should Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State play games on BTN? Absolutely. But they should also be the priority for maximizing viewership on bigger platforms. The SEC cares about SECN and ESPN+ but their priorities are CBS and ESPN. I don't know if the ACC has any minimum games per team on ACCN but that wouldn't be a bad idea. But I don't think it does the ACC a favor to keep ABC/ESPN quality games on ACCN, especially if the ACC then loses those slots to the Pac 12, Big 12, and AAC, and those networks gain in popularity over the ACC.

New poster, but I have been following this forum for a while, and this subject has interested me to a large extent.

Unfortunately, the ACC has very limited agency to increase revenue. Disney's appears to be motivated to create its own sports league beginning with football starting with an SEC core and only picking up seasoned brand names (OU, UTx, rumors of tOSU, UMich). I suspect that ESPN will be directed to provide only specifically stated contract minimum amounts no matter which schools could be added (even ND or mythical PSU). Unless the ACC can find another network buyer, we are not getting any more money. Disney has incentive to keep the contract small to force an implosion near end of GOR so they can pickup select pieces for cheaper without unnecessary baggage.

This leaves only getting more people to buy the ACC network. I do not know the status of Comcast in the dc-northeast, but all the ACC can do there is engage in letter writing campaigns in an area of the country with some of our less populated schools. This runs into the wall of alternative cable providers (Hulu, YouTube, etc). And everyone who wants the ACCN has probably already got it.

The next item is to generate more interest in the ACC to sell commercials, or entice another network buyer. We know ESPN will move big games in the major sports to it's main networks, so ACC schools need to figure out how to improve all schools to improve overall league play and generate more interest. This can be done by convincing all ACC to go all in on the 5 major sports; football, basketball, baseball, soccer, and hockey. Golf and Olympic sports can still be carried as network filler. Revise event and and network scheduling such that there is always an active event on the channel. Prime events in major sports that will get the most interest at prime times, but other live events can be used as network filler instead of the same old Duke and Carolina basketball from the 90's replays and other theACC recap shows. Get the schools to spend money to showcase the sports. This will be a hard sell for certain schools which are tight fisted or are happy with the status quo and don't want any change.

The next part is improving league competitive play. This the hard part. The league has had poor timing in reduction of league quality at this sensitive time. Changes in the student athlete model need to be reconciled and league members will need a frank discussion about the future. Quite simply it boils down to you either pay the students the money to remain in big time college sports or you abandon the money to go Ivy league. The big pac ACC alliance suggests a potential desire toward the ivy league. It is most likely a conservative I don't like the future response, but with no real desire to change it, or argument against it.

Another option is to adapt the model to generate competition at ACC schools. This requires creativity and removing egos surrounding schools. Adopt a completely shared (NFL-like) model. Go ahead and form an athlete unions, professional ACC refs, shared student athlete matriculation model among the schools, and share resources through a draft. This might mean using the schools to simply recruit as many athletes into the league and increase overall recruiting cost efficiency, set up an academic setting that let's them do what they want, possibly getting a degree from any institution in the league. Within the league, and engage in a league draft. Transfers will simply re enter the draft or exit the league.

Are school and league administrators willing to set aside their own singular visions to create a greater whole? To be honest I expect the ACC to fall apart at end of GOR

Once we get rid of divisions, the TV schedule will drastically improve and I wouldn’t be surprised if that warrants a look-in.

NIL is just starting and we’re already seeing a program like Miami take off. They’re going to climb back to their former glory, so get your licks in while you can. Miami is a national brand and if we get what we were promised, that’ll get a look-in.

Notre Dame is not joining so that idea needs to be forgotten. Not happening, and we don’t need it to happen. Miami is our national football brand. Florida State could be as well, but I don’t see it until they bring in Coach Prime.

(02-13-2022 09:08 AM)AeroWolf Wrote:  New poster, but I have been following this forum for a while, and this subject has interested me to a large extent.

Unfortunately, the ACC has very limited agency to increase revenue. Disney's appears to be motivated to create its own sports league beginning with football starting with an SEC core and only picking up seasoned brand names (OU, UTx, rumors of tOSU, UMich). I suspect that ESPN will be directed to provide only specifically stated contract minimum amounts no matter which schools could be added (even ND or mythical PSU). Unless the ACC can find another network buyer, we are not getting any more money. Disney has incentive to keep the contract small to force an implosion near end of GOR so they can pickup select pieces for cheaper without unnecessary baggage.

This leaves only getting more people to buy the ACC network.

I was following right along right up until you said "That only leaves enriching Disney." If the GoR is really an albatross, blow it up. Working harder so that half the profit is consumed by Disney only strengthens the current paradigm.

(02-13-2022 10:57 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-13-2022 09:08 AM)AeroWolf Wrote:  New poster, but I have been following this forum for a while, and this subject has interested me to a large extent.

Unfortunately, the ACC has very limited agency to increase revenue. Disney's appears to be motivated to create its own sports league beginning with football starting with an SEC core and only picking up seasoned brand names (OU, UTx, rumors of tOSU, UMich). I suspect that ESPN will be directed to provide only specifically stated contract minimum amounts no matter which schools could be added (even ND or mythical PSU). Unless the ACC can find another network buyer, we are not getting any more money. Disney has incentive to keep the contract small to force an implosion near end of GOR so they can pickup select pieces for cheaper without unnecessary baggage.

This leaves only getting more people to buy the ACC network.

I was following right along right up until you said "That only leaves enriching Disney." If the GoR is really an albatross, blow it up. Working harder so that half the profit is consumed by Disney only strengthens the current paradigm.

The GOR is not so much an albatross as much as the ACC has only one buyer (ESPN) at this time. No matter what we do will enrich Disney at this point in time. However increasing the buzz around the ACC network can help increase perceived value of the conference in the form Of sports viewers, commercial marketing, and potential network bidders for the league. Improving these elements are what will keep the league together and force more money at the look in periods. Basically we have to entice an equivalent buyer (Cbs, NBC, fox, apple, Amazon, etc).

In the end the GOR end date is simply the timer for conference implosion.

(02-11-2022 12:29 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-11-2022 11:03 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-11-2022 10:59 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Any way you slice it, the ACC signed a bunch of HORRIBLE contracts during the Swofford years.

Unless you worked at ESPN or The Orange Bowl or most importantly Raycom. If you worked there Swofford was the gift that kept on giving. Thank goodness Swofford made sure to take care of his son at Raycom when the B1G and SEC were focusing on a network.

You're forgetting UNC alum, drug addict, and former ESPN President John Skipper!

https://twitter.com/alexweprin/status/14...0429380608

SAVING GRACE

(02-13-2022 09:08 AM)AeroWolf Wrote:  New poster, but I have been following this forum for a while, and this subject has interested me to a large extent.

Unfortunately, the ACC has very limited agency to increase revenue. Disney's appears to be motivated to create its own sports league beginning with football starting with an SEC core and only picking up seasoned brand names (OU, UTx, rumors of tOSU, UMich). I suspect that ESPN will be directed to provide only specifically stated contract minimum amounts no matter which schools could be added (even ND or mythical PSU). Unless the ACC can find another network buyer, we are not getting any more money. Disney has incentive to keep the contract small to force an implosion near end of GOR so they can pickup select pieces for cheaper without unnecessary baggage.

This leaves only getting more people to buy the ACC network. I do not know the status of Comcast in the dc-northeast, but all the ACC can do there is engage in letter writing campaigns in an area of the country with some of our less populated schools. This runs into the wall of alternative cable providers (Hulu, YouTube, etc). And everyone who wants the ACCN has probably already got it.

The next item is to generate more interest in the ACC to sell commercials, or entice another network buyer. We know ESPN will move big games in the major sports to it's main networks, so ACC schools need to figure out how to improve all schools to improve overall league play and generate more interest. This can be done by convincing all ACC to go all in on the 5 major sports; football, basketball, baseball, soccer, and hockey. Golf and Olympic sports can still be carried as network filler. Revise event and and network scheduling such that there is always an active event on the channel. Prime events in major sports that will get the most interest at prime times, but other live events can be used as network filler instead of the same old Duke and Carolina basketball from the 90's replays and other theACC recap shows. Get the schools to spend money to showcase the sports. This will be a hard sell for certain schools which are tight fisted or are happy with the status quo and don't want any change.

The next part is improving league competitive play. This the hard part. The league has had poor timing in reduction of league quality at this sensitive time. Changes in the student athlete model need to be reconciled and league members will need a frank discussion about the future. Quite simply it boils down to you either pay the students the money to remain in big time college sports or you abandon the money to go Ivy league. The big pac ACC alliance suggests a potential desire toward the ivy league. It is most likely a conservative I don't like the future response, but with no real desire to change it, or argument against it.

Another option is to adapt the model to generate competition at ACC schools. This requires creativity and removing egos surrounding schools. Adopt a completely shared (NFL-like) model. Go ahead and form an athlete unions, professional ACC refs, shared student athlete matriculation model among the schools, and share resources through a draft. This might mean using the schools to simply recruit as many athletes into the league and increase overall recruiting cost efficiency, set up an academic setting that let's them do what they want, possibly getting a degree from any institution in the league. Within the league, and engage in a league draft. Transfers will simply re enter the draft or exit the league.

Are school and league administrators willing to set aside their own singular visions to create a greater whole? To be honest I expect the ACC to fall apart at end of GOR

Welcome to the board Aerowolf. I enjoyed reading your take on this subject.

The ACC is committed to ESPN through 2036, so any changes have to be made within the context of the existing arrangement.

The first and most obvious opportunity is in connection with the revised College Football Playoff. The conference needs to get the most out of these negotiations. Some folks have suggested renegotiating the Orange Bowl, but with a 12 team playoff, this relationship is likely to become irrelevant.

Second - improving payouts from second tier bowls.

Third - increase the number of conference football games to 9 or increase the commitment to play games against P5 opponents to 2 per season, and reduce or eliminate games against FCS opponents.

Fourth - work with ESPN to move a number of football and basketball games to be shifted to ESPN+, perhaps by shifting games from the current Bally Sports package.

Fifth - switch to a non divisional format in football and grant ESPN input in setting matchups.

(02-14-2022 10:49 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The ACC is committed to ESPN through 2036, so any changes have to be made within the context of the existing arrangement.

The first and most obvious opportunity is in connection with the revised College Football Playoff. The conference needs to get the most out of these negotiations. Some folks have suggested renegotiating the Orange Bowl, but with a 12 team playoff, this relationship is likely to become irrelevant.

Second - improving payouts from second tier bowls.

Third - increase the number of conference football games to 9 or increase the commitment to play games against P5 opponents to 2 per season, and reduce or eliminating games against FCS opponents.

Fourth - work with ESPN to move a number of football and basketball games to be shifted to ESPN+, perhaps by shifting games from the current Bally Sports package.

Fifth - switch to a non divisional format in football and grant ESPN input in setting matchups.

3, 4, and 5 are things which need to be done during a "Look-In". They should've all been on the table last Summer (maybe they were). Obviously, ESPN must agree to actually pay for them! 3 and 5 have the potential to increase ticket revenue - but the OP question was about tv revenue.

There is one other thing ACC teams could do to increase tv revenue, but it requires cooperation from Notre Dame: agree to play additional games against the Irish - all under the NBC contract - with Notre Dame splitting the additional tv money. It would need to result in the Irish getting more than 7 "home" games, and NBC would have to agree to pay more for the extra game(s) - so there's a lot to work out. But an extra "Shamrock" type game selected by Notre Dame (not the ACC) and sold to NBC (or another broadcaster?) could bring in a few extra millions... not a game-changer, though.

(02-14-2022 11:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 10:49 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The ACC is committed to ESPN through 2036, so any changes have to be made within the context of the existing arrangement.

The first and most obvious opportunity is in connection with the revised College Football Playoff. The conference needs to get the most out of these negotiations. Some folks have suggested renegotiating the Orange Bowl, but with a 12 team playoff, this relationship is likely to become irrelevant.

Second - improving payouts from second tier bowls.

Third - increase the number of conference football games to 9 or increase the commitment to play games against P5 opponents to 2 per season, and reduce or eliminating games against FCS opponents.

Fourth - work with ESPN to move a number of football and basketball games to be shifted to ESPN+, perhaps by shifting games from the current Bally Sports package.

Fifth - switch to a non divisional format in football and grant ESPN input in setting matchups.

3, 4, and 5 are things which need to be done during a "Look-In". They should've all been on the table last Summer (maybe they were). Obviously, ESPN must agree to actually pay for them! 3 and 5 have the potential to increase ticket revenue - but the OP question was about tv revenue.

There is one other thing ACC teams could do to increase tv revenue, but it requires cooperation from Notre Dame: agree to play additional games against the Irish - all under the NBC contract - with Notre Dame splitting the additional tv money. It would need to result in the Irish getting more than 7 "home" games, and NBC would have to agree to pay more for the extra game(s) - so there's a lot to work out. But an extra "Shamrock" type game selected by Notre Dame (not the ACC) and sold to NBC (or another broadcaster?) could bring in a few extra millions... not a game-changer, though.

Are you suggesting a neutral site, 6th game per year against ND? Maybe similar to the Kick-off Classics in Atlanta or Charlotte. Allowing ND to monetize the game in their media rights would be the financial sweetener to get the Irish more interested…but then distribute the proceeds via an internal ND-ACC arrangement.

The media always publishes how the Kick-off Classics generate lots of payouts directly to schools…it’s fairly common practice to have the Southern schools doing these neutral site games. Just not sure whether it makes financial sense. This seems like an alternative to what Kliavkoff is proposing in the Alliance’s cross-conference games.

(02-14-2022 11:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 10:49 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The ACC is committed to ESPN through 2036, so any changes have to be made within the context of the existing arrangement.

The first and most obvious opportunity is in connection with the revised College Football Playoff. The conference needs to get the most out of these negotiations. Some folks have suggested renegotiating the Orange Bowl, but with a 12 team playoff, this relationship is likely to become irrelevant.

Second - improving payouts from second tier bowls.

Third - increase the number of conference football games to 9 or increase the commitment to play games against P5 opponents to 2 per season, and reduce or eliminating games against FCS opponents.

Fourth - work with ESPN to move a number of football and basketball games to be shifted to ESPN+, perhaps by shifting games from the current Bally Sports package.

Fifth - switch to a non divisional format in football and grant ESPN input in setting matchups.

3, 4, and 5 are things which need to be done during a "Look-In". They should've all been on the table last Summer (maybe they were). Obviously, ESPN must agree to actually pay for them! 3 and 5 have the potential to increase ticket revenue - but the OP question was about tv revenue.

There is one other thing ACC teams could do to increase tv revenue, but it requires cooperation from Notre Dame: agree to play additional games against the Irish - all under the NBC contract - with Notre Dame splitting the additional tv money. It would need to result in the Irish getting more than 7 "home" games, and NBC would have to agree to pay more for the extra game(s) - so there's a lot to work out. But an extra "Shamrock" type game selected by Notre Dame (not the ACC) and sold to NBC (or another broadcaster?) could bring in a few extra millions... not a game-changer, though.

This year's Shamrock Series game is an ND "home game" shifted to Las Vegas. ND is playing BYU, a team to whom ND owed a game under their previous contract.

2020's Shamrock Series game was supposed to be against Wisconsin, with ND's "home game" shifted to Lambeau Field.

I suppose that ND might play an ACC team in a Shamrock Series game in places like San Antonio, San Diego or Orlando once in a while, but not as any type of regular thing.

I don't think that the ACC would have any interest in playing "one and done" away games against ND in South Bend in lieu of teams like Toledo and Cal, but who knows?

(ND and NBC used to announce that such teams were paid a portion of the NBC money for those games)

I hate to be Negative Nelly here, but I don't think that ND has much interest in regularly playing ACC teams more than the five game per year average required by contract.