From The Athletic:

Is the ACC actually panicking?
The ACC had an AD meeting Friday morning via Zoom that was scheduled in response to Thursday’s realignment news. One AD described the tenor of the meeting as much better than anticipated, given the anxiety surrounding the conference (and several others) in light of the Big Ten’s growing power.

Commissioner Jim Phillips presented a strong, positive front, the AD said, as he reminded all of the strength and stability of the league relative to every other conference outside of the Big Ten and SEC, and as he stressed the stability that the league’s Grant of Rights provides.

No one on the call was naïve, and ADs brought up multiple potential avenues to explore in the imminent future, be that to expand themselves, to align themselves with the the Big 12 or Pac-12, or to stand pat, which seems like the least appealing current option during a period that calls for action.

Swarbrick was described as an active participant on the call, answering questions as they were asked to him. That probably means nothing in the grand scheme of the Irish’s relationship with the ACC, but it certainly contributed to a “business as usual” vibe for the conference. For now.

And about that grant of rights — it stretches to June 30, 2036. That agreement binds the schools’ media rights to the conference, and unless it can be broken, it would make the schools worthless to another conference. The Athletic examined conference grant of rights deals — including the ACC’s original deal agreed upon in 2013 — in an analysis of whether these allegedly irrevocable deals can be broken. Short answer: It would be pretty difficult.

But that doesn’t mean certain ACC schools aren’t examining their options. The league’s members are locked into a deal with ESPN that lasts 14 more years. That’s an awfully long time. Heck, 14 years ago, the Big East was still a football conference. Nebraska and Texas A&M were still in the Big 12. The league that just turned into the Pac-10 on Thursday was … the Pac-10. It’s a tough pill to swallow to realize that Rutgers may soon be receiving more than twice as much from its conference as Clemson or Miami receive from their conference. This becomes especially contentious because some schools seem much more invested in football success than others.

If the grant of rights remains ironclad, expect several ACC schools to push for uneven revenue sharing based upon on-field/court success. Administrators at several schools feel they shouldn’t have to foot the bill to carry the flag for the league while other schools collect the money and don’t try as hard to contribute to the conference’s success. — Matt Fortuna and Andy Staples

https://theathletic.com/3396152/2022/07/...viPdT59Nt4

(07-02-2022 02:49 PM)Maize Wrote:  From The Athletic:

Is the ACC actually panicking?
The ACC had an AD meeting Friday morning via Zoom that was scheduled in response to Thursday’s realignment news. One AD described the tenor of the meeting as much better than anticipated, given the anxiety surrounding the conference (and several others) in light of the Big Ten’s growing power.

Commissioner Jim Phillips presented a strong, positive front, the AD said, as he reminded all of the strength and stability of the league relative to every other conference outside of the Big Ten and SEC, and as he stressed the stability that the league’s Grant of Rights provides.

No one on the call was naïve, and ADs brought up multiple potential avenues to explore in the imminent future, be that to expand themselves, to align themselves with the the Big 12 or Pac-12, or to stand pat, which seems like the least appealing current option during a period that calls for action.

Swarbrick was described as an active participant on the call, answering questions as they were asked to him. That probably means nothing in the grand scheme of the Irish’s relationship with the ACC, but it certainly contributed to a “business as usual” vibe for the conference. For now.

And about that grant of rights — it stretches to June 30, 2036. That agreement binds the schools’ media rights to the conference, and unless it can be broken, it would make the schools worthless to another conference. The Athletic examined conference grant of rights deals — including the ACC’s original deal agreed upon in 2013 — in an analysis of whether these allegedly irrevocable deals can be broken. Short answer: It would be pretty difficult.

But that doesn’t mean certain ACC schools aren’t examining their options. The league’s members are locked into a deal with ESPN that lasts 14 more years. That’s an awfully long time. Heck, 14 years ago, the Big East was still a football conference. Nebraska and Texas A&M were still in the Big 12. The league that just turned into the Pac-10 on Thursday was … the Pac-10. It’s a tough pill to swallow to realize that Rutgers may soon be receiving more than twice as much from its conference as Clemson or Miami receive from their conference. This becomes especially contentious because some schools seem much more invested in football success than others.

If the grant of rights remains ironclad, expect several ACC schools to push for uneven revenue sharing based upon on-field/court success. Administrators at several schools feel they shouldn’t have to foot the bill to carry the flag for the league while other schools collect the money and don’t try as hard to contribute to the conference’s success. — Matt Fortuna and Andy Staples

https://theathletic.com/3396152/2022/07/...viPdT59Nt4

If the grant of rights remains ironclad, expect several ACC schools to push for uneven revenue sharing based upon on-field/court success. Administrators at several schools feel they shouldn’t have to foot the bill to carry the flag for the league while other schools collect the money and don’t try as hard to contribute to the conference’s success. — Matt Fortuna and Andy Staples

I actually understand this way of thinking and its being brought up as a topic of discussion. It will be interesting to see if the GOR is truly that hard to break and what criteria is developed for an uneven distribution of conference monies.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-02-2022 03:11 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 02:49 PM)Maize Wrote:  From The Athletic:

Is the ACC actually panicking?
The ACC had an AD meeting Friday morning via Zoom that was scheduled in response to Thursday’s realignment news. One AD described the tenor of the meeting as much better than anticipated, given the anxiety surrounding the conference (and several others) in light of the Big Ten’s growing power.

Commissioner Jim Phillips presented a strong, positive front, the AD said, as he reminded all of the strength and stability of the league relative to every other conference outside of the Big Ten and SEC, and as he stressed the stability that the league’s Grant of Rights provides.

No one on the call was naïve, and ADs brought up multiple potential avenues to explore in the imminent future, be that to expand themselves, to align themselves with the the Big 12 or Pac-12, or to stand pat, which seems like the least appealing current option during a period that calls for action.

Swarbrick was described as an active participant on the call, answering questions as they were asked to him. That probably means nothing in the grand scheme of the Irish’s relationship with the ACC, but it certainly contributed to a “business as usual” vibe for the conference. For now.

And about that grant of rights — it stretches to June 30, 2036. That agreement binds the schools’ media rights to the conference, and unless it can be broken, it would make the schools worthless to another conference. The Athletic examined conference grant of rights deals — including the ACC’s original deal agreed upon in 2013 — in an analysis of whether these allegedly irrevocable deals can be broken. Short answer: It would be pretty difficult.

But that doesn’t mean certain ACC schools aren’t examining their options. The league’s members are locked into a deal with ESPN that lasts 14 more years. That’s an awfully long time. Heck, 14 years ago, the Big East was still a football conference. Nebraska and Texas A&M were still in the Big 12. The league that just turned into the Pac-10 on Thursday was … the Pac-10. It’s a tough pill to swallow to realize that Rutgers may soon be receiving more than twice as much from its conference as Clemson or Miami receive from their conference. This becomes especially contentious because some schools seem much more invested in football success than others.

If the grant of rights remains ironclad, expect several ACC schools to push for uneven revenue sharing based upon on-field/court success. Administrators at several schools feel they shouldn’t have to foot the bill to carry the flag for the league while other schools collect the money and don’t try as hard to contribute to the conference’s success. — Matt Fortuna and Andy Staples

https://theathletic.com/3396152/2022/07/...viPdT59Nt4

If the grant of rights remains ironclad, expect several ACC schools to push for uneven revenue sharing based upon on-field/court success. Administrators at several schools feel they shouldn’t have to foot the bill to carry the flag for the league while other schools collect the money and don’t try as hard to contribute to the conference’s success. — Matt Fortuna and Andy Staples

I actually understand this way of thinking and its being brought up as a topic of discussion. It will be interesting to see if the GOR is truly that hard to break and what criteria is developed for an uneven distribution of conference monies.

Cheers,
Neil

Apparently not very easy at all ... from an early article this morning from according to Merger and Acquisition Attorney Mark Wilhelm who went over the ACC GoR ... From The Athletic:

It’s no accident that UCLA and USC will join the Big Ten in 2024. That is exactly when the Pac-12 grant of rights expires.

The ACC agreement Wilhelm had — which is linked below in this story — is the original grant of rights. He obtained it in 2014 through an open records request to the University of North Carolina while writing that journal article. The agreement he received appears to be the copy that then-UNC chancellor Holden Thorp signed and sent back to the conference. The document contained signature pages for each school’s CEO, which would allow the signed pages to be combined into one fully executed document. The agreement was drafted in 2013 just after Louisville announced it would join the league and Notre Dame joined in all sports except football. Members were nervous after the Big Ten poached charter member Maryland, and at the time, their desire to keep the league intact superseded any interest in future flexibility. They were scared of the league being pillaged, and they wanted stability. That original agreement ran through June 30, 2027. It was amended in 2016 when the ACC extended its media rights deal with Disney/ESPN. That most recent deal allowed for the creation of the ACC Network. Multiple sources who have seen both said the language in the agreements is similar.

The first would be for the school to simply leave the conference and leave its rights behind. This is likely a non-starter because without its rights, that school is of considerably less value to another league. The new league wouldn’t be allowed to sell that school’s rights to a network, which likely would put an end to any potential marriage.

The second option is for the school to sue to try to get the rights back. This also would be exceptionally risky. “That’s going to be incredibly expensive,” Wilhelm said, “and there is not a lot of certainty that a school is going to win.”

Hope the league dissolves and the grant of rights dissolves with it. In the ACC, that would require the majority of the members to want to leave. That seems unlikely. But what about the Big 12 and Oklahoma and Texas? The Pac-12 could respond to the loss of USC and UCLA by trying to scoop up Big 12 members. The leagues could merge and form an entirely new entity. If that happened, the Sooners and Longhorns could be free to go.

https://theathletic.com/3396108/2022/07/...4uTEK__QZ0

(07-02-2022 03:18 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 03:11 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 02:49 PM)Maize Wrote:  From The Athletic:

Is the ACC actually panicking?
The ACC had an AD meeting Friday morning via Zoom that was scheduled in response to Thursday’s realignment news. One AD described the tenor of the meeting as much better than anticipated, given the anxiety surrounding the conference (and several others) in light of the Big Ten’s growing power.

Commissioner Jim Phillips presented a strong, positive front, the AD said, as he reminded all of the strength and stability of the league relative to every other conference outside of the Big Ten and SEC, and as he stressed the stability that the league’s Grant of Rights provides.

No one on the call was naïve, and ADs brought up multiple potential avenues to explore in the imminent future, be that to expand themselves, to align themselves with the the Big 12 or Pac-12, or to stand pat, which seems like the least appealing current option during a period that calls for action.

Swarbrick was described as an active participant on the call, answering questions as they were asked to him. That probably means nothing in the grand scheme of the Irish’s relationship with the ACC, but it certainly contributed to a “business as usual” vibe for the conference. For now.

And about that grant of rights — it stretches to June 30, 2036. That agreement binds the schools’ media rights to the conference, and unless it can be broken, it would make the schools worthless to another conference. The Athletic examined conference grant of rights deals — including the ACC’s original deal agreed upon in 2013 — in an analysis of whether these allegedly irrevocable deals can be broken. Short answer: It would be pretty difficult.

But that doesn’t mean certain ACC schools aren’t examining their options. The league’s members are locked into a deal with ESPN that lasts 14 more years. That’s an awfully long time. Heck, 14 years ago, the Big East was still a football conference. Nebraska and Texas A&M were still in the Big 12. The league that just turned into the Pac-10 on Thursday was … the Pac-10. It’s a tough pill to swallow to realize that Rutgers may soon be receiving more than twice as much from its conference as Clemson or Miami receive from their conference. This becomes especially contentious because some schools seem much more invested in football success than others.

If the grant of rights remains ironclad, expect several ACC schools to push for uneven revenue sharing based upon on-field/court success. Administrators at several schools feel they shouldn’t have to foot the bill to carry the flag for the league while other schools collect the money and don’t try as hard to contribute to the conference’s success. — Matt Fortuna and Andy Staples

https://theathletic.com/3396152/2022/07/...viPdT59Nt4

If the grant of rights remains ironclad, expect several ACC schools to push for uneven revenue sharing based upon on-field/court success. Administrators at several schools feel they shouldn’t have to foot the bill to carry the flag for the league while other schools collect the money and don’t try as hard to contribute to the conference’s success. — Matt Fortuna and Andy Staples

I actually understand this way of thinking and its being brought up as a topic of discussion. It will be interesting to see if the GOR is truly that hard to break and what criteria is developed for an uneven distribution of conference monies.

Cheers,
Neil

Apparently not very easy at all ... from an early article this morning from according to Merger and Acquisition Attorney Mark Wilhelm who went over the ACC GoR ... From The Athletic:

It’s no accident that UCLA and USC will join the Big Ten in 2024. That is exactly when the Pac-12 grant of rights expires.

The ACC agreement Wilhelm had — which is linked below in this story — is the original grant of rights. He obtained it in 2014 through an open records request to the University of North Carolina while writing that journal article. The agreement he received appears to be the copy that then-UNC chancellor Holden Thorp signed and sent back to the conference. The document contained signature pages for each school’s CEO, which would allow the signed pages to be combined into one fully executed document. The agreement was drafted in 2013 just after Louisville announced it would join the league and Notre Dame joined in all sports except football. Members were nervous after the Big Ten poached charter member Maryland, and at the time, their desire to keep the league intact superseded any interest in future flexibility. They were scared of the league being pillaged, and they wanted stability. That original agreement ran through June 30, 2027. It was amended in 2016 when the ACC extended its media rights deal with Disney/ESPN. That most recent deal allowed for the creation of the ACC Network. Multiple sources who have seen both said the language in the agreements is similar.

The first would be for the school to simply leave the conference and leave its rights behind. This is likely a non-starter because without its rights, that school is of considerably less value to another league. The new league wouldn’t be allowed to sell that school’s rights to a network, which likely would put an end to any potential marriage.

The second option is for the school to sue to try to get the rights back. This also would be exceptionally risky. “That’s going to be incredibly expensive,” Wilhelm said, “and there is not a lot of certainty that a school is going to win.”

Hope the league dissolves and the grant of rights dissolves with it. In the ACC, that would require the majority of the members to want to leave. That seems unlikely. But what about the Big 12 and Oklahoma and Texas? The Pac-12 could respond to the loss of USC and UCLA by trying to scoop up Big 12 members. The leagues could merge and form an entirely new entity. If that happened, the Sooners and Longhorns could be free to go.

https://theathletic.com/3396108/2022/07/...4uTEK__QZ0

Assuming the above is correct...

Simple majority? Or super majority?

Would need 8 members for a simple majority to vote to dissolve the league and thus dissolve the GOR; would need at minimum 10 members if the criteria is a super majority (assuming the super majority isn't defined in the contract).

How many of the ACC's 15 members are absolutely certain they will get a spot in either the B1G or the SEC?

I think 5 are probably certain they will get in one of the Power 2. A minimum of 5 would probably correctly decide they are not. The other 5 are very hopeful but not necessarily certain. So at least 3 of those 5 have to be reassured they will get an invite if only a simple majority is needed to dissolve the conference or all 5 are sure if it requires a super majority. And that is using the bare minimum of super majority.

Interesting to see if that "majority" was specifically defined in the contract or not.

Cheers,
Neil

Wouldn’t dissolution be listed in the ACC bylaws instead of the GOR?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(07-02-2022 04:38 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Wouldn’t dissolution be listed in the ACC bylaws instead of the GOR?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most likely. Since only the GOR was apparently reviewed to determine it's strength it is why we don't have certainty about what constitutes the requirement for dissolving and the term "majority" was undefined. I suspect it is a super majority in the bylaws. But even super majority is flexible to mean anywhere from 2 thirds (.667%) up to as high as 90%.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-02-2022 04:38 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Wouldn’t dissolution be listed in the ACC bylaws instead of the GOR?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no way the ACC is going to vote to disband. Absolutely no way.

(07-02-2022 04:50 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 04:38 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Wouldn’t dissolution be listed in the ACC bylaws instead of the GOR?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no way the ACC is going to vote to disband. Absolutely no way.

Exactly .... if the C-USA to the Big XII didn’t disband I don’t see the ACC in whatever shape it is in disband either IMO.

(07-02-2022 04:50 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  There is no way the ACC is going to vote to disband. Absolutely no way.

Southern Cal and UCLA were founding members of the PAC nearly a century ago.

(07-02-2022 04:59 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 04:50 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 04:38 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Wouldn’t dissolution be listed in the ACC bylaws instead of the GOR?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no way the ACC is going to vote to disband. Absolutely no way.

Exactly .... if the C-USA to the Big XII didn’t disband I don’t see the ACC in whatever shape it is in disband either IMO.

If enough spots are offered by the B1G & SEC then they would be stupid not to. Those offers may not come later. If the B1G & SEC want to wait 10-14 years then only a small fraction will get an offer. Even if all of those offers are still there in the 2030’s, those schools would be leaving a ton of money on the table by not going now.

(07-02-2022 05:11 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 04:59 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 04:50 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 04:38 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Wouldn’t dissolution be listed in the ACC bylaws instead of the GOR?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no way the ACC is going to vote to disband. Absolutely no way.

Exactly .... if the C-USA to the Big XII didn’t disband I don’t see the ACC in whatever shape it is in disband either IMO.

If enough spots are offered by the B1G & SEC then they would be stupid not to. Those offers may not come later. If the B1G & SEC want to wait 10-14 years then only a small fraction will get an offer. Even if all of those offers are still there in the 2030’s, those schools would be leaving a ton of money on the table by not going now.

The problem for the ACC Schools, Big XII and Pac 12 schools is this ... only 1 school moves the needle and that school is Notre Dame. Will there be 10 schools or even 8 schools in the ACC getting spots from some of the Pac 12/Big XII Schools like Oregon, Colorado, Utah, Cal-Berkeley, Stanford, Washington, Oklahoma State and Kansas ...

(07-02-2022 05:16 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 05:11 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 04:59 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 04:50 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 04:38 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Wouldn’t dissolution be listed in the ACC bylaws instead of the GOR?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no way the ACC is going to vote to disband. Absolutely no way.

Exactly .... if the C-USA to the Big XII didn’t disband I don’t see the ACC in whatever shape it is in disband either IMO.

If enough spots are offered by the B1G & SEC then they would be stupid not to. Those offers may not come later. If the B1G & SEC want to wait 10-14 years then only a small fraction will get an offer. Even if all of those offers are still there in the 2030’s, those schools would be leaving a ton of money on the table by not going now.

The problem for the ACC Schools, Big XII and Pac 12 schools is this ... only 1 school moves the needle and that school is Notre Dame. Will there be 10 schools or even 8 schools in the ACC getting spots from some of the Pac 12/Big XII Schools like Oregon, Colorado, Utah, Cal-Berkeley, Stanford, Washington, Oklahoma State and Kansas ...

It would depend on how big they want to go, I think. If they are willing to go to 24 then absolutely. If only 20 then it’s much harder. How many does it take to dissolve. Say if ND, FSU, Clemson, NC & 1 other leave, can ESPN cancel the TV contract with it being severely downgraded from what they agreed to? I think the ACC will have to stay intact, excluding ND, and expand west to remain #3. That creates more problems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(07-02-2022 05:27 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 05:16 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 05:11 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 04:59 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 04:50 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  There is no way the ACC is going to vote to disband. Absolutely no way.

Exactly .... if the C-USA to the Big XII didn’t disband I don’t see the ACC in whatever shape it is in disband either IMO.

If enough spots are offered by the B1G & SEC then they would be stupid not to. Those offers may not come later. If the B1G & SEC want to wait 10-14 years then only a small fraction will get an offer. Even if all of those offers are still there in the 2030’s, those schools would be leaving a ton of money on the table by not going now.

The problem for the ACC Schools, Big XII and Pac 12 schools is this ... only 1 school moves the needle and that school is Notre Dame. Will there be 10 schools or even 8 schools in the ACC getting spots from some of the Pac 12/Big XII Schools like Oregon, Colorado, Utah, Cal-Berkeley, Stanford, Washington, Oklahoma State and Kansas ...

It would depend on how big they want to go, I think. If they are willing to go to 24 then absolutely. If only 20 then it’s much harder. How many does it take to dissolve. Say if ND, FSU, Clemson, NC & 1 other leave, can ESPN cancel the TV contract with it being severely downgraded from what they agreed to? I think the ACC will have to stay intact, excluding ND, and expand west to remain #3. That creates more problems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ESPN IMO controls the fate of the current ACC ...

(07-02-2022 05:57 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 05:27 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 05:16 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 05:11 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 04:59 PM)Maize Wrote:  Exactly .... if the C-USA to the Big XII didn’t disband I don’t see the ACC in whatever shape it is in disband either IMO.

If enough spots are offered by the B1G & SEC then they would be stupid not to. Those offers may not come later. If the B1G & SEC want to wait 10-14 years then only a small fraction will get an offer. Even if all of those offers are still there in the 2030’s, those schools would be leaving a ton of money on the table by not going now.

The problem for the ACC Schools, Big XII and Pac 12 schools is this ... only 1 school moves the needle and that school is Notre Dame. Will there be 10 schools or even 8 schools in the ACC getting spots from some of the Pac 12/Big XII Schools like Oregon, Colorado, Utah, Cal-Berkeley, Stanford, Washington, Oklahoma State and Kansas ...

It would depend on how big they want to go, I think. If they are willing to go to 24 then absolutely. If only 20 then it’s much harder. How many does it take to dissolve. Say if ND, FSU, Clemson, NC & 1 other leave, can ESPN cancel the TV contract with it being severely downgraded from what they agreed to? I think the ACC will have to stay intact, excluding ND, and expand west to remain #3. That creates more problems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ESPN IMO controls the fate of the current ACC ...

Agreed. The ACC will be whatever ESPN wants it to be, including dissolved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t think many ACC schools will get invited. Maybe three or four at max?

Some schools may want to void the GoR but the ACC collectively will NEVER drop the GOR. This is the best thing going for the ACC as a conference. Yes the P2 era will soon beginnas early as 2025 but at the ACC is in a good position to solidify its status as the number 3 conference.

That’s why the article said the atomosphere at the ACC meeting was better than expected and there was a discussion about expansion.

(07-02-2022 06:14 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 05:57 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 05:27 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 05:16 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 05:11 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  If enough spots are offered by the B1G & SEC then they would be stupid not to. Those offers may not come later. If the B1G & SEC want to wait 10-14 years then only a small fraction will get an offer. Even if all of those offers are still there in the 2030’s, those schools would be leaving a ton of money on the table by not going now.

The problem for the ACC Schools, Big XII and Pac 12 schools is this ... only 1 school moves the needle and that school is Notre Dame. Will there be 10 schools or even 8 schools in the ACC getting spots from some of the Pac 12/Big XII Schools like Oregon, Colorado, Utah, Cal-Berkeley, Stanford, Washington, Oklahoma State and Kansas ...

It would depend on how big they want to go, I think. If they are willing to go to 24 then absolutely. If only 20 then it’s much harder. How many does it take to dissolve. Say if ND, FSU, Clemson, NC & 1 other leave, can ESPN cancel the TV contract with it being severely downgraded from what they agreed to? I think the ACC will have to stay intact, excluding ND, and expand west to remain #3. That creates more problems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ESPN IMO controls the fate of the current ACC ...

Agreed. The ACC will be whatever ESPN wants it to be, including dissolved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And right now ESPN at bargain basement prices has ACC Football and for ESPN purposes for winter inventory ACC College Basketball and the marquee names associated with ACC Basketball again on the cheap ....

(07-02-2022 02:49 PM)Maize Wrote:  From The Athletic:

Is the ACC actually panicking?
The ACC had an AD meeting Friday morning via Zoom that was scheduled in response to Thursday’s realignment news. One AD described the tenor of the meeting as much better than anticipated, given the anxiety surrounding the conference (and several others) in light of the Big Ten’s growing power.

Commissioner Jim Phillips presented a strong, positive front, the AD said, as he reminded all of the strength and stability of the league relative to every other conference outside of the Big Ten and SEC, and as he stressed the stability that the league’s Grant of Rights provides.

No one on the call was naïve, and ADs brought up multiple potential avenues to explore in the imminent future, be that to expand themselves, to align themselves with the the Big 12 or Pac-12, or to stand pat, which seems like the least appealing current option during a period that calls for action.

Swarbrick was described as an active participant on the call, answering questions as they were asked to him. That probably means nothing in the grand scheme of the Irish’s relationship with the ACC, but it certainly contributed to a “business as usual” vibe for the conference. For now.

And about that grant of rights — it stretches to June 30, 2036. That agreement binds the schools’ media rights to the conference, and unless it can be broken, it would make the schools worthless to another conference. The Athletic examined conference grant of rights deals — including the ACC’s original deal agreed upon in 2013 — in an analysis of whether these allegedly irrevocable deals can be broken. Short answer: It would be pretty difficult.

But that doesn’t mean certain ACC schools aren’t examining their options. The league’s members are locked into a deal with ESPN that lasts 14 more years. That’s an awfully long time. Heck, 14 years ago, the Big East was still a football conference. Nebraska and Texas A&M were still in the Big 12. The league that just turned into the Pac-10 on Thursday was … the Pac-10. It’s a tough pill to swallow to realize that Rutgers may soon be receiving more than twice as much from its conference as Clemson or Miami receive from their conference. This becomes especially contentious because some schools seem much more invested in football success than others.

If the grant of rights remains ironclad, expect several ACC schools to push for uneven revenue sharing based upon on-field/court success. Administrators at several schools feel they shouldn’t have to foot the bill to carry the flag for the league while other schools collect the money and don’t try as hard to contribute to the conference’s success. — Matt Fortuna and Andy Staples

https://theathletic.com/3396152/2022/07/...viPdT59Nt4

The last paragraph is the most telling and my biggest complaint: too many schools kick back and cash the same check while putting forth little or no effort on the sport that pays the bills.

Through some luck, the ACC has a grant of rights until 2036 which means it will likely have time to figure out what to do, in order to survive. I think the ACC has a chance at survival in that the game is changing and college football may not be the number one revenue maker by 2036. We are still in the cable TV era and have not transitioned to the streaming on IP networks for college sports. Will this happen by 2036, I think it is likely to happen in the next 5 years because it will be profitable to sell your content in other countries. Basketball is really popular in other countries while American football is not popular at all (soccer is) so maybe the ACC might be able to parlay that strength into selling more monthly subscriptions in China or Spain or France or Germany. Who knows but would it not be ironic that the Jim Swofford grant of rights that everyone complained about, was actually the one thing that saves the ACC. I think ultimately the Power 2 (or 3) will break off from the NCAA and create their own streaming network and sell to the world. SEC and B1G will most likely deal with another conference or two if it means more money for them. Cutting out Fox and ESPN might be a possibility but probably more likely they will be in partnership with them because announcers and production facilities will still be needed.

(07-02-2022 09:10 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 02:49 PM)Maize Wrote:  From The Athletic:

Is the ACC actually panicking?
The ACC had an AD meeting Friday morning via Zoom that was scheduled in response to Thursday’s realignment news. One AD described the tenor of the meeting as much better than anticipated, given the anxiety surrounding the conference (and several others) in light of the Big Ten’s growing power.

Commissioner Jim Phillips presented a strong, positive front, the AD said, as he reminded all of the strength and stability of the league relative to every other conference outside of the Big Ten and SEC, and as he stressed the stability that the league’s Grant of Rights provides.

No one on the call was naïve, and ADs brought up multiple potential avenues to explore in the imminent future, be that to expand themselves, to align themselves with the the Big 12 or Pac-12, or to stand pat, which seems like the least appealing current option during a period that calls for action.

Swarbrick was described as an active participant on the call, answering questions as they were asked to him. That probably means nothing in the grand scheme of the Irish’s relationship with the ACC, but it certainly contributed to a “business as usual” vibe for the conference. For now.

And about that grant of rights — it stretches to June 30, 2036. That agreement binds the schools’ media rights to the conference, and unless it can be broken, it would make the schools worthless to another conference. The Athletic examined conference grant of rights deals — including the ACC’s original deal agreed upon in 2013 — in an analysis of whether these allegedly irrevocable deals can be broken. Short answer: It would be pretty difficult.

But that doesn’t mean certain ACC schools aren’t examining their options. The league’s members are locked into a deal with ESPN that lasts 14 more years. That’s an awfully long time. Heck, 14 years ago, the Big East was still a football conference. Nebraska and Texas A&M were still in the Big 12. The league that just turned into the Pac-10 on Thursday was … the Pac-10. It’s a tough pill to swallow to realize that Rutgers may soon be receiving more than twice as much from its conference as Clemson or Miami receive from their conference. This becomes especially contentious because some schools seem much more invested in football success than others.

If the grant of rights remains ironclad, expect several ACC schools to push for uneven revenue sharing based upon on-field/court success. Administrators at several schools feel they shouldn’t have to foot the bill to carry the flag for the league while other schools collect the money and don’t try as hard to contribute to the conference’s success. — Matt Fortuna and Andy Staples

https://theathletic.com/3396152/2022/07/...viPdT59Nt4

The last paragraph is the most telling and my biggest complaint: too many schools kick back and cash the same check while putting forth little or no effort on the sport that pays the bills.

I'm not sure how giving Wake Forest more money and FSU less money is going to improve the situation.

(07-04-2022 04:31 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 09:10 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(07-02-2022 02:49 PM)Maize Wrote:  From The Athletic:

Is the ACC actually panicking?
The ACC had an AD meeting Friday morning via Zoom that was scheduled in response to Thursday’s realignment news. One AD described the tenor of the meeting as much better than anticipated, given the anxiety surrounding the conference (and several others) in light of the Big Ten’s growing power.

Commissioner Jim Phillips presented a strong, positive front, the AD said, as he reminded all of the strength and stability of the league relative to every other conference outside of the Big Ten and SEC, and as he stressed the stability that the league’s Grant of Rights provides.

No one on the call was naïve, and ADs brought up multiple potential avenues to explore in the imminent future, be that to expand themselves, to align themselves with the the Big 12 or Pac-12, or to stand pat, which seems like the least appealing current option during a period that calls for action.

Swarbrick was described as an active participant on the call, answering questions as they were asked to him. That probably means nothing in the grand scheme of the Irish’s relationship with the ACC, but it certainly contributed to a “business as usual” vibe for the conference. For now.

And about that grant of rights — it stretches to June 30, 2036. That agreement binds the schools’ media rights to the conference, and unless it can be broken, it would make the schools worthless to another conference. The Athletic examined conference grant of rights deals — including the ACC’s original deal agreed upon in 2013 — in an analysis of whether these allegedly irrevocable deals can be broken. Short answer: It would be pretty difficult.

But that doesn’t mean certain ACC schools aren’t examining their options. The league’s members are locked into a deal with ESPN that lasts 14 more years. That’s an awfully long time. Heck, 14 years ago, the Big East was still a football conference. Nebraska and Texas A&M were still in the Big 12. The league that just turned into the Pac-10 on Thursday was … the Pac-10. It’s a tough pill to swallow to realize that Rutgers may soon be receiving more than twice as much from its conference as Clemson or Miami receive from their conference. This becomes especially contentious because some schools seem much more invested in football success than others.

If the grant of rights remains ironclad, expect several ACC schools to push for uneven revenue sharing based upon on-field/court success. Administrators at several schools feel they shouldn’t have to foot the bill to carry the flag for the league while other schools collect the money and don’t try as hard to contribute to the conference’s success. — Matt Fortuna and Andy Staples

https://theathletic.com/3396152/2022/07/...viPdT59Nt4

The last paragraph is the most telling and my biggest complaint: too many schools kick back and cash the same check while putting forth little or no effort on the sport that pays the bills.

I'm not sure how giving Wake Forest more money and FSU less money is going to improve the situation.

I think you meant that as a joke, but it brings up a good point - some schools spend lots of money on football and simply don't get a good return on their investment for whatever reason (often a bad coach hire, either current staff or recent past).