(07-30-2022 07:44 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 06:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 06:40 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 08:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I haven't proposed this previously, and am not advocating it, but have been pondering this.

Notre Dame keeps its minor sports in the ACC, retains football independence, and increases its slate of 5 ACC games annually to 10 games with 5 against the SEC as well and keeping 2 slots for USC/Stanford/Navy. They pick up 5/12ths of a football check from the ACC and SEC each.

The ACC adds: Baylor, T.C.U., Kansas State, Iowa State, Cincinnati, and West Virginia to move to 20 schools.

The SEC adds: Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Kansas, and South Florida and does the same.

ESPN pays the new SEC members pro rata to the adjusted new Contract after OU and UT are added. Think 85- 90 million. The SEC adds some value with 2/3 games every 2 years with ND.

ESPN agrees to a new contract with the ACC in the 65-70 million range. The ACC continues to enjoy the same ND boost.

The Irish enjoy 80 million plus minor sports revenue in the ACC, and a share of the ACCN.

The Irish in return can claim an at large bid from either the ACC or SEC based upon which one would have the availability on a given year.

ESPN retains a monopoly over the SE and SW region by up branding the AAC to the Big 12 and adding the best G5's from the Sun Belt and CUSA to it.

These schools then have sufficient votes in a new breakaway to set playoff and hoops tourney guidelines.

Would it be worth it to ESPN to spend another 360 million on SEC adds minus B12 and AAC payouts which equals 250 million. Another 490 million on current ACC product plus 300 million on the 6 B12 schools. (So Total 250 million in the SEC and 790 million in the ACC= 1.04 billion) to retain ad monopolies, a substantial interest in 2 lucrative post seasons conservatively worth over 4 billion, and for some damn stout inventory with Notre Dame which would earn almost an SEC full share?

I think that's a solid question!

This places all former B12 schools and adds a second Florida school to the SEC. If ESPN objects to paying USF so much perhaps they bring in Colorado instead.

I see some potential here without fruit basket turnover.

I like most of it but would prefer Baylor, TCU, Houston, Cincy, WVU, and UCF.

Pay Houston and UCF a lower share for 5 years.

Let the B1G rescue Iowa State.


Neil

You should check the numbers. Most already in the B12 were more valuable than those getting promoted in.

Thanks, but I have checked the numbers that interest me. But I do apologize if I offended any fans of Iowa State and Kansas State.

As for their value, one also needs to factor in the association effect. Other than TCU and West Virginia Big 12 teams have been part of the big boys club for decades now and their value has been enhanced by long term association with Texas or Oklahoma or both.

I'm not dismissing their on-the-field performances but ultimately the ACC needs brands and near-brands and if they are to be denied the only sure two NOT in the Super 2 (or bound for it already) in Oregon (who has stepped up to the plate 5 times already) and Washington (who has done it at least twice).

Now to be fair to Oklahoma State they have already done it at least once in the past 30 years but in your scenario they are off to the SEC, which makes perfect sense for them since they will be re-united with the Sooners.

Two other programs in the B12 or about to join the Big 12 have already "technically" made the list once each (in the recent past) but it was done when both were in different conferences - the MWC and the AAC. We all know how difficult it is to step up in weight class.

And I'm obviously fine with Baylor I just don't see the need for the ACC to take on Iowa State and/or Kansas State. Anymore than if we were next to the West Coast I would want the ACC to take on Washington State - who is superior to both of those institutions, in my estimation. The six I would want are Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Utah, Arizona, and Arizona State.

But we aren't close to the West Coast. So it's not likely to happen. So why skip over Iowa State and Kansas State for UCF and Houston? Because they guarantee the ACC continued exposure in critical recruiting grounds and are a buffer if down the road more realignment occurs. I'm sure you understand my reluctance to put my trust that there won't be further realignment by both the SEC and the B1G.

And as I mentioned in the post you responded too, both UCF and Houston would probably be okay with a reduced payout so we can raise Clemson, FSU, and perhaps even Miami. Dependent of course on what ESPN would actually pay the conference.

Let me end by saying that sometimes good programs get left behind. It's a sad fact of realignment as I know being a Syracuse fan.

Cheers,
Neil

Well ISU averages 59,000 plus in attendance and consistently pulls in more revenue than Houston and Cincinnati. It just dipped below AAU status but the academics are sound. Kansas State is a competitive football program and is 3rd in revenue in the B12 behind Texas and Oklahoma. Attendance average dipped during COVID. Houston is subsidized over 25%. You may have your ideas Neil, and I have mine, but money seems to be the bottom line. And money is perhaps the key issue for the ACC. I attempted to increase footprint. Baylor delivers Houston well enough after A&M and UT. But hey it's your conference. I was just attempting to offer a potentially workable solution to your situation.

(07-30-2022 06:15 PM)GTTiger Wrote:  Phillips said there’s a willingness in Bristol to meet the ACC halfway, and as much as ESPN has put its chips on the SEC, it’s also an equal financial partner in the ACC Network — invested not only in its success but the long-term health of the league.

ESPN always says this.

And here we are, with a Power 2.

(07-30-2022 10:42 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 06:15 PM)GTTiger Wrote:  Phillips said there’s a willingness in Bristol to meet the ACC halfway, and as much as ESPN has put its chips on the SEC, it’s also an equal financial partner in the ACC Network — invested not only in its success but the long-term health of the league.

ESPN always says this.

And here we are, with a Power 2.

i think ESPN may have meant Washington DC. It's about halfway between Bristol and Charlotte. They are happy to meet you in DC. Just stay away from the Capitol.

(07-30-2022 09:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 07:44 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 06:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 06:40 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 08:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I haven't proposed this previously, and am not advocating it, but have been pondering this.

Notre Dame keeps its minor sports in the ACC, retains football independence, and increases its slate of 5 ACC games annually to 10 games with 5 against the SEC as well and keeping 2 slots for USC/Stanford/Navy. They pick up 5/12ths of a football check from the ACC and SEC each.

The ACC adds: Baylor, T.C.U., Kansas State, Iowa State, Cincinnati, and West Virginia to move to 20 schools.

The SEC adds: Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Kansas, and South Florida and does the same.

ESPN pays the new SEC members pro rata to the adjusted new Contract after OU and UT are added. Think 85- 90 million. The SEC adds some value with 2/3 games every 2 years with ND.

ESPN agrees to a new contract with the ACC in the 65-70 million range. The ACC continues to enjoy the same ND boost.

The Irish enjoy 80 million plus minor sports revenue in the ACC, and a share of the ACCN.

The Irish in return can claim an at large bid from either the ACC or SEC based upon which one would have the availability on a given year.

ESPN retains a monopoly over the SE and SW region by up branding the AAC to the Big 12 and adding the best G5's from the Sun Belt and CUSA to it.

These schools then have sufficient votes in a new breakaway to set playoff and hoops tourney guidelines.

Would it be worth it to ESPN to spend another 360 million on SEC adds minus B12 and AAC payouts which equals 250 million. Another 490 million on current ACC product plus 300 million on the 6 B12 schools. (So Total 250 million in the SEC and 790 million in the ACC= 1.04 billion) to retain ad monopolies, a substantial interest in 2 lucrative post seasons conservatively worth over 4 billion, and for some damn stout inventory with Notre Dame which would earn almost an SEC full share?

I think that's a solid question!

This places all former B12 schools and adds a second Florida school to the SEC. If ESPN objects to paying USF so much perhaps they bring in Colorado instead.

I see some potential here without fruit basket turnover.

I like most of it but would prefer Baylor, TCU, Houston, Cincy, WVU, and UCF.

Pay Houston and UCF a lower share for 5 years.

Let the B1G rescue Iowa State.


Neil

You should check the numbers. Most already in the B12 were more valuable than those getting promoted in.

Thanks, but I have checked the numbers that interest me. But I do apologize if I offended any fans of Iowa State and Kansas State.

As for their value, one also needs to factor in the association effect. Other than TCU and West Virginia Big 12 teams have been part of the big boys club for decades now and their value has been enhanced by long term association with Texas or Oklahoma or both.

I'm not dismissing their on-the-field performances but ultimately the ACC needs brands and near-brands and if they are to be denied the only sure two NOT in the Super 2 (or bound for it already) in Oregon (who has stepped up to the plate 5 times already) and Washington (who has done it at least twice).

Now to be fair to Oklahoma State they have already done it at least once in the past 30 years but in your scenario they are off to the SEC, which makes perfect sense for them since they will be re-united with the Sooners.

Two other programs in the B12 or about to join the Big 12 have already "technically" made the list once each (in the recent past) but it was done when both were in different conferences - the MWC and the AAC. We all know how difficult it is to step up in weight class.

And I'm obviously fine with Baylor I just don't see the need for the ACC to take on Iowa State and/or Kansas State. Anymore than if we were next to the West Coast I would want the ACC to take on Washington State - who is superior to both of those institutions, in my estimation. The six I would want are Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Utah, Arizona, and Arizona State.

But we aren't close to the West Coast. So it's not likely to happen. So why skip over Iowa State and Kansas State for UCF and Houston? Because they guarantee the ACC continued exposure in critical recruiting grounds and are a buffer if down the road more realignment occurs. I'm sure you understand my reluctance to put my trust that there won't be further realignment by both the SEC and the B1G.

And as I mentioned in the post you responded too, both UCF and Houston would probably be okay with a reduced payout so we can raise Clemson, FSU, and perhaps even Miami. Dependent of course on what ESPN would actually pay the conference.

Let me end by saying that sometimes good programs get left behind. It's a sad fact of realignment as I know being a Syracuse fan.

Cheers,
Neil

Well ISU averages 59,000 plus in attendance and consistently pulls in more revenue than Houston and Cincinnati. It just dipped below AAU status but the academics are sound. Kansas State is a competitive football program and is 3rd in revenue in the B12 behind Texas and Oklahoma. Attendance average dipped during COVID. Houston is subsidized over 25%. You may have your ideas Neil, and I have mine, but money seems to be the bottom line. And money is perhaps the key issue for the ACC. I attempted to increase footprint. Baylor delivers Houston well enough after A&M and UT. But hey it's your conference. I was just attempting to offer a potentially workable solution to your situation.

As I said above *now bolded and enlarged*, I like most of your idea. And in my follow-up I made it clear that I wasn't trying to disparage the football programs of Iowa State and Kansas State (the way I would lets say an Oregon State), even apologizing to their fans if my phrasing came out the wrong way.

But in my opinion neither of those schools are going to take a lower payout since they are used to getting more. And since there are no true brands/near brands the equivalent of an Oregon or a Washington remaining in the B12 than it is simply MORE important to increase $$$ to the likes of a Clemson, FSU, and perhaps even a Miami than it is to have either Iowa State or Kansas State or both. The type of $$$ we are possibly talking about will be a HUGE increase over what UCF and Houston are currently receiving even with some funneling of those funds to help keep Clemson and FSU.

The only two schools remaining in the B12 that even come close to Oregon and Washington are as I also said above are Oklahoma State and Baylor. And they were already correctly positioned in your idea in the SEC and ACC respectively.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-30-2022 08:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I haven't proposed this previously, and am not advocating it, but have been pondering this.

Notre Dame keeps its minor sports in the ACC, retains football independence, and increases its slate of 5 ACC games annually to 10 games with 5 against the SEC as well and keeping 2 slots for USC/Stanford/Navy. They pick up 5/12ths of a football check from the ACC and SEC each.

The ACC adds: Baylor, T.C.U., Kansas State, Iowa State, Cincinnati, and West Virginia to move to 20 schools.

The SEC adds: Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Kansas, and South Florida and does the same.

ESPN pays the new SEC members pro rata to the adjusted new Contract after OU and UT are added. Think 85- 90 million. The SEC adds some value with 2/3 games every 2 years with ND.

ESPN agrees to a new contract with the ACC in the 65-70 million range. The ACC continues to enjoy the same ND boost.

The Irish enjoy 80 million plus minor sports revenue in the ACC, and a share of the ACCN.

The Irish in return can claim an at large bid from either the ACC or SEC based upon which one would have the availability on a given year.

ESPN retains a monopoly over the SE and SW region by up branding the AAC to the Big 12 and adding the best G5's from the Sun Belt and CUSA to it.

These schools then have sufficient votes in a new breakaway to set playoff and hoops tourney guidelines.

Would it be worth it to ESPN to spend another 360 million on SEC adds minus B12 and AAC payouts which equals 250 million. Another 490 million on current ACC product plus 300 million on the 6 B12 schools. (So Total 250 million in the SEC and 790 million in the ACC= 1.04 billion) to retain ad monopolies, a substantial interest in 2 lucrative post seasons conservatively worth over 4 billion, and for some damn stout inventory with Notre Dame which would earn almost an SEC full share?

I think that's a solid question!

This places all former B12 schools and adds a second Florida school to the SEC. If ESPN objects to paying USF so much perhaps they bring in Colorado instead.

I see some potential here without fruit basket turnover.

I'm surprised you haven't suggested this before, JR.

I would suggest a few tweaks:
1-at this point I think that 5 SEC games for Notre Dame is not realistic, even though the money aspect would work in their favor. I would suggest 3 per year to start and at some point in the future that number could be increased. That would give the Irish the flexibility to play USC, Stanford, Navy and one other team of their choosing along with their ACC and SEC schedules.
2-Your adds to the ACC.

The ACC adds: Baylor, T.C.U., Kansas State UCF, Iowa State SMU/Tulane, Cincinnati, and West Virginia to move to 20 schools.

Yes I realize that this gives the ACC and SEC, 5 teams in Florida (since you are moving USF to the SEC). However, more that 200,000 people have relocated to Florida from other states within the last year. Texas is also experiencing record immigration from other states (many from California).

(07-30-2022 10:42 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 06:15 PM)GTTiger Wrote:  Phillips said there’s a willingness in Bristol to meet the ACC halfway, and as much as ESPN has put its chips on the SEC, it’s also an equal financial partner in the ACC Network — invested not only in its success but the long-term health of the league.

ESPN always says this.

And here we are, with a Power 2.

ESPN did restructure a previous ACC deal to get the ACCN which has been a roaring success, adding well over $5 Million per school and in upward estimates of $15 Million especially after COMCAST - making it the 2nd most successful network launch in history and a major money maker for ESPN. ESPN is now more invested in the ACC than ever before second only to the SEC.

Now is the base TV deal a mess? It has become that, and I think you will see a restructured deal.

But should get the ACC get what the SEC and Big 10 get? Hard for anyone to say that given the state of ACC football the last 4 years.

With just a little bone from ESPN, the ACC is set to firmly be in the 3rd position here, and there are plenty of reasons for them to do it.

(07-31-2022 11:10 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 09:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 07:44 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 06:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 06:40 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  I like most of it but would prefer Baylor, TCU, Houston, Cincy, WVU, and UCF.

Pay Houston and UCF a lower share for 5 years.

Let the B1G rescue Iowa State.


Neil

You should check the numbers. Most already in the B12 were more valuable than those getting promoted in.

Thanks, but I have checked the numbers that interest me. But I do apologize if I offended any fans of Iowa State and Kansas State.

As for their value, one also needs to factor in the association effect. Other than TCU and West Virginia Big 12 teams have been part of the big boys club for decades now and their value has been enhanced by long term association with Texas or Oklahoma or both.

I'm not dismissing their on-the-field performances but ultimately the ACC needs brands and near-brands and if they are to be denied the only sure two NOT in the Super 2 (or bound for it already) in Oregon (who has stepped up to the plate 5 times already) and Washington (who has done it at least twice).

Now to be fair to Oklahoma State they have already done it at least once in the past 30 years but in your scenario they are off to the SEC, which makes perfect sense for them since they will be re-united with the Sooners.

Two other programs in the B12 or about to join the Big 12 have already "technically" made the list once each (in the recent past) but it was done when both were in different conferences - the MWC and the AAC. We all know how difficult it is to step up in weight class.

And I'm obviously fine with Baylor I just don't see the need for the ACC to take on Iowa State and/or Kansas State. Anymore than if we were next to the West Coast I would want the ACC to take on Washington State - who is superior to both of those institutions, in my estimation. The six I would want are Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Utah, Arizona, and Arizona State.

But we aren't close to the West Coast. So it's not likely to happen. So why skip over Iowa State and Kansas State for UCF and Houston? Because they guarantee the ACC continued exposure in critical recruiting grounds and are a buffer if down the road more realignment occurs. I'm sure you understand my reluctance to put my trust that there won't be further realignment by both the SEC and the B1G.

And as I mentioned in the post you responded too, both UCF and Houston would probably be okay with a reduced payout so we can raise Clemson, FSU, and perhaps even Miami. Dependent of course on what ESPN would actually pay the conference.

Let me end by saying that sometimes good programs get left behind. It's a sad fact of realignment as I know being a Syracuse fan.

Cheers,
Neil

Well ISU averages 59,000 plus in attendance and consistently pulls in more revenue than Houston and Cincinnati. It just dipped below AAU status but the academics are sound. Kansas State is a competitive football program and is 3rd in revenue in the B12 behind Texas and Oklahoma. Attendance average dipped during COVID. Houston is subsidized over 25%. You may have your ideas Neil, and I have mine, but money seems to be the bottom line. And money is perhaps the key issue for the ACC. I attempted to increase footprint. Baylor delivers Houston well enough after A&M and UT. But hey it's your conference. I was just attempting to offer a potentially workable solution to your situation.

As I said above *now bolded and enlarged*, I like most of your idea. And in my follow-up I made it clear that I wasn't trying to disparage the football programs of Iowa State and Kansas State (the way I would lets say an Oregon State), even apologizing to their fans if my phrasing came out the wrong way.

But in my opinion neither of those schools are going to take a lower payout since they are used to getting more. And since there are no true brands/near brands the equivalent of an Oregon or a Washington remaining in the B12 than it is simply MORE important to increase $$$ to the likes of a Clemson, FSU, and perhaps even a Miami than it is to have either Iowa State or Kansas State or both. The type of $$$ we are possibly talking about will be a HUGE increase over what UCF and Houston are currently receiving even with some funneling of those funds to help keep Clemson and FSU.

The only two schools remaining in the B12 that even come close to Oregon and Washington are as I also said above are Oklahoma State and Baylor. And they were already correctly positioned in your idea in the SEC and ACC respectively.

Cheers,
Neil

https://twitter.com/MichaelRyanRuiz/stat...5623773186

there you go again ...
diss track ...
as prominent voices have noted ...
Dan Patrick ...
Dennis Dodd ...
Brett McMurphy ...
the guy who broke usc story ...
chief among them ...
we got options ...
and significant ties to publicly traded companies ...
locally based ...
Royal Caribbean Cruise Line ...
Lennar homes ...
Ryder ...
Watsco ...
MSP Recovery ...
Mas-tec ...
Camping World ...
rattle off ...

FROM MEMORY

(07-31-2022 01:32 PM)green Wrote:  

(07-31-2022 11:10 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 09:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 07:44 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 06:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You should check the numbers. Most already in the B12 were more valuable than those getting promoted in.

Thanks, but I have checked the numbers that interest me. But I do apologize if I offended any fans of Iowa State and Kansas State.

As for their value, one also needs to factor in the association effect. Other than TCU and West Virginia Big 12 teams have been part of the big boys club for decades now and their value has been enhanced by long term association with Texas or Oklahoma or both.

I'm not dismissing their on-the-field performances but ultimately the ACC needs brands and near-brands and if they are to be denied the only sure two NOT in the Super 2 (or bound for it already) in Oregon (who has stepped up to the plate 5 times already) and Washington (who has done it at least twice).

Now to be fair to Oklahoma State they have already done it at least once in the past 30 years but in your scenario they are off to the SEC, which makes perfect sense for them since they will be re-united with the Sooners.

Two other programs in the B12 or about to join the Big 12 have already "technically" made the list once each (in the recent past) but it was done when both were in different conferences - the MWC and the AAC. We all know how difficult it is to step up in weight class.

And I'm obviously fine with Baylor I just don't see the need for the ACC to take on Iowa State and/or Kansas State. Anymore than if we were next to the West Coast I would want the ACC to take on Washington State - who is superior to both of those institutions, in my estimation. The six I would want are Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Utah, Arizona, and Arizona State.

But we aren't close to the West Coast. So it's not likely to happen. So why skip over Iowa State and Kansas State for UCF and Houston? Because they guarantee the ACC continued exposure in critical recruiting grounds and are a buffer if down the road more realignment occurs. I'm sure you understand my reluctance to put my trust that there won't be further realignment by both the SEC and the B1G.

And as I mentioned in the post you responded too, both UCF and Houston would probably be okay with a reduced payout so we can raise Clemson, FSU, and perhaps even Miami. Dependent of course on what ESPN would actually pay the conference.

Let me end by saying that sometimes good programs get left behind. It's a sad fact of realignment as I know being a Syracuse fan.

Cheers,
Neil

Well ISU averages 59,000 plus in attendance and consistently pulls in more revenue than Houston and Cincinnati. It just dipped below AAU status but the academics are sound. Kansas State is a competitive football program and is 3rd in revenue in the B12 behind Texas and Oklahoma. Attendance average dipped during COVID. Houston is subsidized over 25%. You may have your ideas Neil, and I have mine, but money seems to be the bottom line. And money is perhaps the key issue for the ACC. I attempted to increase footprint. Baylor delivers Houston well enough after A&M and UT. But hey it's your conference. I was just attempting to offer a potentially workable solution to your situation.

As I said above *now bolded and enlarged*, I like most of your idea. And in my follow-up I made it clear that I wasn't trying to disparage the football programs of Iowa State and Kansas State (the way I would lets say an Oregon State), even apologizing to their fans if my phrasing came out the wrong way.

But in my opinion neither of those schools are going to take a lower payout since they are used to getting more. And since there are no true brands/near brands the equivalent of an Oregon or a Washington remaining in the B12 than it is simply MORE important to increase $$$ to the likes of a Clemson, FSU, and perhaps even a Miami than it is to have either Iowa State or Kansas State or both. The type of $$$ we are possibly talking about will be a HUGE increase over what UCF and Houston are currently receiving even with some funneling of those funds to help keep Clemson and FSU.

The only two schools remaining in the B12 that even come close to Oregon and Washington are as I also said above are Oklahoma State and Baylor. And they were already correctly positioned in your idea in the SEC and ACC respectively.

Cheers,
Neil

https://twitter.com/MichaelRyanRuiz/stat...5623773186

there you go again ...
diss track ...
as prominent voices have noted ...
Dan Patrick ...
Dennis Dodd ...
Brett McMurphy ...
the guy who broke usc story ...
chief among them ...
we got options ...
and significant ties to publicly traded companies ...
locally based ...
Royal Caribbean Cruise Line ...
Lennar homes ...
Ryder ...
Watsco ...
MSP Recovery ...
Mas-tec ...
Camping World ...
rattle off ...

FROM MEMORY

I love the Hurricanes from before even our Big East days together. But we are fast approaching two decades of Miami not finishing in the AP Top 10 poll. And only two Top 15 finishes since 2004. So "perhaps" is fine, in my mind. Not to mention this is all hypothetical anyway.

Just saying (or actually typing).

Cheers,
Neil

Quote:Mario Cristobal remains very good for business, just the way Hurricanes administrators envisioned it when they decided to implement a new financial strategy for Canes athletics.

After selling nearly 30,000 season tickets last year, UM already has surpassed that number more than a month before the Sept. 3 opener against Bethune-Cookman. As of last week, UM had sold 5,000 more season tickets than it did for the entire 2021 season.

UM decided to commit $80 million to Cristobal and millions more to a coaching and support staff based on this business model: Spend money to make money.

“If we get the stadium to 90 percent, 100 percent capacity, [more revenue will result],” UM chief of staff Rudy Fernandez explained to me and The Palm Beach Post in December. “Football has been making money. And it’s going to make a lot more money. We believe the football program will generate the revenue to pay for these expenses.” ...

One Canes basketball official said the fact that recruits know that John Ruiz is ready to step up to give lucrative NIL deals allows the Canes to more consistently compete for top-30 players. “It’s a game-changer,” the official said.

Ruiz gave Kansas State transfer guard Nijel Pack a two-year, $800,000 deal to promote Life Wallet and Cigarette Racing.

https://miamiherald.com/sports/spt-colum...51667.html

PAST PERFORMANCE NOT INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULT

(07-31-2022 12:21 PM)GTTiger Wrote:  But should get the ACC get what the SEC and Big 10 get? Hard for anyone to say that given the state of ACC football the last 4 years.

Run a comparison of ACC and Big Ten national titles in the last decade and it gets a lot easier.

(07-31-2022 12:21 PM)GTTiger Wrote:  ESPN did restructure a previous ACC deal to get the ACCN which has been a roaring success, adding well over $5 Million per school and in upward estimates of $15 Million especially after COMCAST - making it the 2nd most successful network launch in history and a major money maker for ESPN. ESPN is now more invested in the ACC than ever before second only to the SEC.

Now is the base TV deal a mess? It has become that, and I think you will see a restructured deal.

....

With just a little bone from ESPN, the ACC is set to firmly be in the 3rd position here, and there are plenty of reasons for them to do it.