(07-26-2022 10:15 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  I'd hate to be the XII right now because their news is going to be very similar.

Make no mistake.

Everyone not in the P2 is in a horrible...HORRIBLE position. You are now in a tier 2 conference if you aren't in the P2.

There is a lot of denial about that on this thread and board.

(07-26-2022 02:12 PM)nole Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 10:15 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  I'd hate to be the XII right now because their news is going to be very similar.

Make no mistake.

Everyone not in the P2 is in a horrible...HORRIBLE position. You are now in a tier 2 conference if you aren't in the P2.

There is a lot of denial about that on this thread and board.

Better to be in a tier 2 conference making $40 to $50 million per team than to be in a tier 2 conference making around $24 million per team

(07-26-2022 02:18 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 02:12 PM)nole Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 10:15 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  I'd hate to be the XII right now because their news is going to be very similar.

Make no mistake.

Everyone not in the P2 is in a horrible...HORRIBLE position. You are now in a tier 2 conference if you aren't in the P2.

There is a lot of denial about that on this thread and board.

Better to be in a tier 2 conference making $0 to $50 million per team than to be in a tier 2 conference making a round $24 million per team

That doesn't make any sense to me. Could you explain it?

(07-26-2022 02:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 02:18 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 02:12 PM)nole Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 10:15 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  I'd hate to be the XII right now because their news is going to be very similar.

Make no mistake.

Everyone not in the P2 is in a horrible...HORRIBLE position. You are now in a tier 2 conference if you aren't in the P2.

There is a lot of denial about that on this thread and board.

Better to be in a tier 2 conference making $0 to $50 million per team than to be in a tier 2 conference making a round $24 million per team

That doesn't make any sense to me. Could you explain it?

Sorry Ken, it didnt make any sense until HokieMark pm'd me about it. Its corrected now.

Thanks Mark

That's why you only put 239 beans in an Irish bean stew,
because one more bean would make it too farty...

(07-26-2022 11:57 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 10:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 07:24 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 11:08 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Wilner also said the initial offer from ESPN was low. This makes sense from the ESPN’s pespective.

If Pac accepts the offer, then obviously good for ESPN. If Pac rejcts the offer, ESPN can move some teams to ACC and give even lower new offer to Pac.

Obviously the Pac 12 better accepts this lowball offer but I don’t they will.

According to ACC tax return, ACC teams got $26.5M each from TV in 2020-21, which is bound to increase thanks to (a) normal 4% escalator, and (b) Comcast. So, say, $28.5M in 2021-22, more like $30+ this year.

I believe the combination of Oregon and Washington, possibly with Stanford and one more high value team, would boost ACC payouts another $4 to $5 million/year - so these teams would get an instant pay raise by jumping to the ACC.

If you do the math, that would mean the four added PAC schools would be valued at an average of $48 million each, leaving the remaining six schools worth an average of about $10 million. At that price, even $18 million from the big 12 wouldn't sound so bad.

But if those four schools are worth $48 million, why would they want to go to the ACC for $34 million? Maybe the Big Ten would take them for a 60% share (say, $45 million) of what they expect to make? Or maybe they just take three of them for that price and Notre Dame at 100% and have a five team Pacific division in a 20 team conference.

Why would Big Ten do that? That’s like ACC taking WVU or ECU and give them only 50 percent or 75 percent share. Has any conference done anything like that?

Because they can. I suspect the Big Ten would like to expand with PAC schools, given that they have a decades long relationship with those schools. But in no universe will those schools be able to generate enough revenue to be able to pay for themselves at the Big Ten's level. They can't offer those schools a 100% share, but they can offer them more than anyone else can - a lot more.

Personally, I don't think OU, UW, Cal and Stanford are worth anywhere near $48 million to the ACC. IMO, the best they and the ACC could hope for is that they wouldn't reduce per team payouts if they joined despite the terrible logistics involved - far worse travel than if they joined the Big Ten.

If those four schools are significantly more valuable than the other six schools left in the PAC, then those six (or just the Four Corners bloc) aren't going to help the Big 12 financially. At best they won't be a drain, and in any event they would be lucky to only take a haircut of about a third of what they have enjoyed until now in the PAC.

If you can't get into either the SEC or B1G you are probably looking at a revenue deficit of close to $50 million.

(07-26-2022 11:43 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 10:15 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  I'd hate to be the XII right now because their news is going to be very similar.

Not us. Anything's better than the AAC.

You might be right back in it but under a different name.

(07-26-2022 02:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 11:57 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 10:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 07:24 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 11:08 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Wilner also said the initial offer from ESPN was low. This makes sense from the ESPN’s pespective.

If Pac accepts the offer, then obviously good for ESPN. If Pac rejcts the offer, ESPN can move some teams to ACC and give even lower new offer to Pac.

Obviously the Pac 12 better accepts this lowball offer but I don’t they will.

According to ACC tax return, ACC teams got $26.5M each from TV in 2020-21, which is bound to increase thanks to (a) normal 4% escalator, and (b) Comcast. So, say, $28.5M in 2021-22, more like $30+ this year.

I believe the combination of Oregon and Washington, possibly with Stanford and one more high value team, would boost ACC payouts another $4 to $5 million/year - so these teams would get an instant pay raise by jumping to the ACC.

If you do the math, that would mean the four added PAC schools would be valued at an average of $48 million each, leaving the remaining six schools worth an average of about $10 million. At that price, even $18 million from the big 12 wouldn't sound so bad.

But if those four schools are worth $48 million, why would they want to go to the ACC for $34 million? Maybe the Big Ten would take them for a 60% share (say, $45 million) of what they expect to make? Or maybe they just take three of them for that price and Notre Dame at 100% and have a five team Pacific division in a 20 team conference.

Why would Big Ten do that? That’s like ACC taking WVU or ECU and give them only 50 percent or 75 percent share. Has any conference done anything like that?

Because they can. I suspect the Big Ten would like to expand with PAC schools, given that they have a decades long relationship with those schools. But in no universe will those schools be able to generate enough revenue to be able to pay for themselves at the Big Ten's level. They can't offer those schools a 100% share, but they can offer them more than anyone else can - a lot more.

Personally, I don't think OU, UW, Cal and Stanford are worth anywhere near $48 million to the ACC. IMO, the best they and the ACC could hope for is that they wouldn't reduce per team payouts if they joined despite the terrible logistics involved - far worse travel than if they joined the Big Ten.

If those four schools are significantly more valuable than the other six schools left in the PAC, then those six (or just the Four Corners bloc) aren't going to help the Big 12 financially. At best they won't be a drain, and in any event they would be lucky to only take a haircut of about a third of what they have enjoyed until now in the PAC.

If you can't get into either the SEC or B1G you are probably looking at a revenue deficit of close to $50 million.

Well, Big Ten won’t.

With respect to the revenue gap, adding Pac schools won’t significantly reduce the gap, but it will solidify ACC’s position as a (distant) #3.

(07-26-2022 03:07 PM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 11:43 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 10:15 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  I'd hate to be the XII right now because their news is going to be very similar.

Not us. Anything's better than the AAC.

You might be right back in it but under a different name.

Yeah, instead of AAC it'll be ACC.

(07-26-2022 05:23 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 02:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 11:57 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 10:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 07:24 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  According to ACC tax return, ACC teams got $26.5M each from TV in 2020-21, which is bound to increase thanks to (a) normal 4% escalator, and (b) Comcast. So, say, $28.5M in 2021-22, more like $30+ this year.

I believe the combination of Oregon and Washington, possibly with Stanford and one more high value team, would boost ACC payouts another $4 to $5 million/year - so these teams would get an instant pay raise by jumping to the ACC.

If you do the math, that would mean the four added PAC schools would be valued at an average of $48 million each, leaving the remaining six schools worth an average of about $10 million. At that price, even $18 million from the big 12 wouldn't sound so bad.

But if those four schools are worth $48 million, why would they want to go to the ACC for $34 million? Maybe the Big Ten would take them for a 60% share (say, $45 million) of what they expect to make? Or maybe they just take three of them for that price and Notre Dame at 100% and have a five team Pacific division in a 20 team conference.

Why would Big Ten do that? That’s like ACC taking WVU or ECU and give them only 50 percent or 75 percent share. Has any conference done anything like that?

Because they can. I suspect the Big Ten would like to expand with PAC schools, given that they have a decades long relationship with those schools. But in no universe will those schools be able to generate enough revenue to be able to pay for themselves at the Big Ten's level. They can't offer those schools a 100% share, but they can offer them more than anyone else can - a lot more.

Personally, I don't think OU, UW, Cal and Stanford are worth anywhere near $48 million to the ACC. IMO, the best they and the ACC could hope for is that they wouldn't reduce per team payouts if they joined despite the terrible logistics involved - far worse travel than if they joined the Big Ten.

If those four schools are significantly more valuable than the other six schools left in the PAC, then those six (or just the Four Corners bloc) aren't going to help the Big 12 financially. At best they won't be a drain, and in any event they would be lucky to only take a haircut of about a third of what they have enjoyed until now in the PAC.

If you can't get into either the SEC or B1G you are probably looking at a revenue deficit of close to $50 million.

Well, Big Ten won’t.

With respect to the revenue gap, adding Pac schools won’t significantly reduce the gap, but it will solidify ACC’s position as a (distant) #3.

If your goal is to be #3, you may as well take every PAC school except OSU and WSU, then pick up WVU and Cinci from the Big 12 and have three 8 team divisions.

(07-27-2022 08:04 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 05:23 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 02:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 11:57 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 10:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  If you do the math, that would mean the four added PAC schools would be valued at an average of $48 million each, leaving the remaining six schools worth an average of about $10 million. At that price, even $18 million from the big 12 wouldn't sound so bad.

But if those four schools are worth $48 million, why would they want to go to the ACC for $34 million? Maybe the Big Ten would take them for a 60% share (say, $45 million) of what they expect to make? Or maybe they just take three of them for that price and Notre Dame at 100% and have a five team Pacific division in a 20 team conference.

Why would Big Ten do that? That’s like ACC taking WVU or ECU and give them only 50 percent or 75 percent share. Has any conference done anything like that?

Because they can. I suspect the Big Ten would like to expand with PAC schools, given that they have a decades long relationship with those schools. But in no universe will those schools be able to generate enough revenue to be able to pay for themselves at the Big Ten's level. They can't offer those schools a 100% share, but they can offer them more than anyone else can - a lot more.

Personally, I don't think OU, UW, Cal and Stanford are worth anywhere near $48 million to the ACC. IMO, the best they and the ACC could hope for is that they wouldn't reduce per team payouts if they joined despite the terrible logistics involved - far worse travel than if they joined the Big Ten.

If those four schools are significantly more valuable than the other six schools left in the PAC, then those six (or just the Four Corners bloc) aren't going to help the Big 12 financially. At best they won't be a drain, and in any event they would be lucky to only take a haircut of about a third of what they have enjoyed until now in the PAC.

If you can't get into either the SEC or B1G you are probably looking at a revenue deficit of close to $50 million.

Well, Big Ten won’t.

With respect to the revenue gap, adding Pac schools won’t significantly reduce the gap, but it will solidify ACC’s position as a (distant) #3.

If your goal is to be #3, you may as well take every PAC school except OSU and WSU, then pick up WVU and Cinci from the Big 12 and have three 8 team divisions.

CORRECT. Maybe add Oklahoma State and Baylor for good measure (and a bridge to the West Coast). That pretty much wipes out the other 2 "P" conferences.

(07-26-2022 02:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 11:57 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 10:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-26-2022 07:24 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 11:08 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Wilner also said the initial offer from ESPN was low. This makes sense from the ESPN’s pespective.

If Pac accepts the offer, then obviously good for ESPN. If Pac rejcts the offer, ESPN can move some teams to ACC and give even lower new offer to Pac.

Obviously the Pac 12 better accepts this lowball offer but I don’t they will.

According to ACC tax return, ACC teams got $26.5M each from TV in 2020-21, which is bound to increase thanks to (a) normal 4% escalator, and (b) Comcast. So, say, $28.5M in 2021-22, more like $30+ this year.

I believe the combination of Oregon and Washington, possibly with Stanford and one more high value team, would boost ACC payouts another $4 to $5 million/year - so these teams would get an instant pay raise by jumping to the ACC.

If you do the math, that would mean the four added PAC schools would be valued at an average of $48 million each, leaving the remaining six schools worth an average of about $10 million. At that price, even $18 million from the big 12 wouldn't sound so bad.

But if those four schools are worth $48 million, why would they want to go to the ACC for $34 million? Maybe the Big Ten would take them for a 60% share (say, $45 million) of what they expect to make? Or maybe they just take three of them for that price and Notre Dame at 100% and have a five team Pacific division in a 20 team conference.

Why would Big Ten do that? That’s like ACC taking WVU or ECU and give them only 50 percent or 75 percent share. Has any conference done anything like that?

Because they can. I suspect the Big Ten would like to expand with PAC schools, given that they have a decades long relationship with those schools. But in no universe will those schools be able to generate enough revenue to be able to pay for themselves at the Big Ten's level. They can't offer those schools a 100% share, but they can offer them more than anyone else can - a lot more.

Personally, I don't think OU, UW, Cal and Stanford are worth anywhere near $48 million to the ACC. IMO, the best they and the ACC could hope for is that they wouldn't reduce per team payouts if they joined despite the terrible logistics involved - far worse travel than if they joined the Big Ten.

If those four schools are significantly more valuable than the other six schools left in the PAC, then those six (or just the Four Corners bloc) aren't going to help the Big 12 financially. At best they won't be a drain, and in any event they would be lucky to only take a haircut of about a third of what they have enjoyed until now in the PAC.

If you can't get into either the SEC or B1G you are probably looking at a revenue deficit of close to $50 million.

The Big Ten is currently focused on matching the SEC. They won’t dilute their per team payouts in this round of TV negotiations with more PAC additions. If you impose buy-in provisions (a la Nebraska, Maryland & Rutgers), you’re gambling that those markets and teams will eventually have equal long-term value…it’s not currently worth the risk for the Big Ten. Maybe when collegiate athletics has further transformed it will make sense for the Big Ten to expand further with Pacific Coast teams.

In the meantime, the PAC’s value is now clearly with the 4 schools in the Pacific Northwest. ESPN doesn’t know whether they want to go after all 10 PAC programs (hence the initial low bid until they hear whether they have a slice of the Big Ten media sweepstakes). Yet ESPN knows that they need strengthen the ACC and the 4 programs in the Pacific Northwest will be accretive. So long as the 4 schools are willing (are they willing to sign at least a 5 year GOR addendum?), this will not be a hard decision for ESPN and the ACC.